[tom h]

That's the fascinating point. Had Hitler secured Europe, first and foremost, there might have been NO D-Day. He might have had to retreat hundreds of miles in Russia in an effort at reconciliation, keeping only the Baltic States and part of the Ukraine. But he would not have bled his troops dry on the Russian front.

But he didn't. As he said in Mein Kampf, international Jewry and Bolshevism were his mortal enemies, not the Anglo Saxons. So he continued prosecuting the war on Russia to the demise of his nation.

[dfwgator]

I wonder if Hitler took Moscow, if Stalin would have survived, or would he have been deposed, perhaps by Khrushchev, who even then harbored ill-feelings towards Stalin.

Then let’s assume the Soviets eventually turned the tide, you would have had no Hitler, and at least perhaps a much more benign Soviet leadership.

[dfwgator]

Although to Hitler, France had to become a German colony, in the early days, Hitler imagined an alliance with England, in which England would retain her Empire, while Germany had her colonies in the East.

But Von Ribbentrop felt rejected while Ambassador to England and developed a hatred for the British, which he eventually passed onto Hitler.

[Rockingham]

In both WW I and WW II, Germany proved to be good at winning battles but poor at overall strategy. Russia loomed as a compelling consideration in Germany's war planning, and with the army the dominant branch of service, a massive ground conflict with Russia was seen as inevitablle.

Moreover, in WW II, Germany seemed to assume that Russia could be beaten again as it had been in the First World War. Rader's more wide ranging proposal must have seemed more a distraction than a credible alternative.

[driftless2]

You are correct. As even other arch-Nazis said, Hitler was the most fanatical Nazi of them all. He couldn’t help but do what he did.