Weird Brain Fart I just had...

[Mishakal]

What if Nazi Germany had launched WWII but instead of launching the Holocaust had simply followed the European "tradition" of leaving the Jews in the Ghetto but didn't launch the Holocaust.

Would it have affected the overall outcome?

My thoughts on it would be that Germany would of still of lost but the Allies would of been more willing to leave the basic government structure intact (at least for the mid-level guys), the Nazi Party would still of not survived in areas not controlled by the USSR but the party itself might still exist in the modern era. Granted at a minority party for kooks, like the BNP or supporters of Sarah Palin.

Any thoughts?

[angrychimp]

What if Nazi Germany had launched WWII but instead of launching the Holocaust had simply followed the European "tradition" of leaving the Jews in the Ghetto but didn't launch the Holocaust.

Considering hate was the nazi's currency, I can't imagine this 'what if'.

Would it have affected the overall outcome?

No. Messing with the USSR was the deciding factor in the war itself.

My thoughts on it would be that Germany would of still of lost but the Allies would of been more willing to leave the basic government structure intact (at least for the mid-level guys), the Nazi Party would still of not survived in areas not controlled by the USSR but the party itself might still exist in the modern era. Granted at a minority party for kooks, like the BNP or supporters of Sarah Palin.

I doubt the Russians would have agreed to splitting Germany if they knew the Allies would allow any nazis to remain.

[Rum]

I agree with Chimp. The Nazis had the 'final solution' at the core of their ideology and they would not have been 'Nazis' as such without it. There are a number of cusp moments in WW2, including diversionary tactics at the time of D Day leaving Hitler thinking the invasion was going to happen much further north on the French coast, the generals' attempt at assassination, Hitler holding back on invading the UK at a time when he probably would have win, but this isn't one of them in my book.

[Elessarina]

No. Messing with the USSR was the deciding factor in the war itself.

Indeed.. he didn't read his Clauswitz!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Concur that the Soviets would have dealt much the same hand to Germany in either case.

We were aware of death camps, but the decision was made that the best thing we could do for the inmates was to win the war expeditiously. Proposals to shuttle bomb the camps met with Stalin's refusal to let the bombers refuel in Russian territory so they could return to base.

Moving to the History forum.

[lofuji]

What if Nazi Germany had launched WWII but instead of launching the Holocaust had simply followed the European "tradition" of leaving the Jews in the Ghetto but didn't launch the Holocaust.

Would it have affected the overall outcome?

This is fantasy. The final solution had already been outlined in Mein Kampf.

[kraut]

The Nazis had the 'final solution' at the core of their ideology

That is not true. The goal of the Nazis was to remove the european jews - those from germany and the occupied countries - by forced emigration, settlement in madagascar, emmigration to palestine.
The 'final solution' was decided upon at the Wannsee conference in 1942:

. This decision to systematically kill the Jews of Europe was made either by the time of or at the Wannsee conference, which took place in Berlin, in the Wannsee Villa on January 20, 1942. The conference was chaired by Reinhard Heydrich. He was acting under the authority given to him by Reichsmarshall Göring in a letter dated July 31, 1941. Göring instructed Heydrich to devise "...the solution of the Jewish problem..." During the conference, there was a discussion held by the group of German Nazi officials how best to handle the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution

The core of the Nazi ideology was the creation of "Lebensraum", the expansion towards the east with the elimination or enslavement of the "Untermenschen" of slavic "race".
Of course, control over most of western europe, including england, was necessary to achieve that goal in light of the treaty obligations by england etc.

I don't think that the holocaust had much to do with any decision of the allies to defeat germany and split it up.
At the time of the conference of Yalta the extend of the extermination camps was not yet known.
The main point was the unconditional surrender of germany, the destruction of the Nazi party and to split up germany, to insure it never would be a threat to european peace again, and Stalin for sure wanted a part of the industrial potential of germany.

Major points
A more casual picture of the Big Three at Yalta.
Military situation at the end of the conference.

Key points of the meeting are as follows:

* There was an agreement that the priority would be the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany. After the war, Germany would be split into four occupied zones.
* Stalin agreed that France might have a fourth occupation zone in Germany and Austria but it would have to be formed out of the American and British zones.
* Germany would undergo demilitarization and denazification.
* German reparations were partly to be in the form of forced labor. (see also Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union). The forced labor was to be used to repair damage Germany inflicted on its victims.[citation needed]
* Creation of a reparation council which would be located in Russia.
* The status of Poland was discussed. It was agreed to reorganize the communist Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland that had been installed by the Soviet Union "on a broader democratic basis."
* The Polish eastern border would follow the Curzon Line, and Poland would receive territorial compensation in the West from Germany.
* Churchill alone pushed for free elections in Poland.[7] The British leader pointed out that UK "could never be content with any solution that did not leave Poland a free and independent state". Stalin pledged to permit free elections in Poland, but eventually never honored his promise.
* Citizens of the Soviet Union and of Yugoslavia were to be handed over to their respective countries, regardless of their consent.
* Roosevelt obtained a commitment by Stalin to participate in the United Nations.
* Stalin requested that all of the 16 Soviet Socialist Republics would be granted United Nations membership. This was taken into consideration, but 14 republics were denied.
* Stalin agreed to enter the fight against the Empire of Japan within 90 days after the defeat of Germany.
* Nazi war criminals were to be hunted down and brought to justice.
* A "Committee on Dismemberment of Germany" was to be set up. Its purpose was to decide whether Germany was to be divided into six nations. Some examples of partition plans are shown below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference

[NineBerry]

My thoughts on it would be that Germany would of still of lost but the Allies would of been more willing to leave the basic government structure intact (at least for the mid-level guys),

This happened. Many minor nazis took over politics after the war. There was hardly anyone else left. That was one of the main aims of the 68 movement in Germany: To get the old nazis out of the governments and offices.

[Pombolo]

Gawdzilla beat me to it, but it's worth saying again - Britain (and I think the U.S.) were aware of the death camps long before we publicly admitted we were. We knew what they were being used for too - reconnaissance photographs taken from the air were studied over an over, with the definite conclusion that they portrayed extermination camps. Still, our nations held back until we felt we were ready to move in on them.

Hitler holding back on invading the UK at a time when he probably would have win,

This is a particular piece of received wisom that I think is seriously contested. Let's say that Hitler has wiped out the RAF (or damaged it enough to the point that it is as good as wiped out): how do you imagine, with everything else happening in Europe, that the Nazis could have successfully taken Britain? I know that there were inherent weaknesses in our geography and political situation (Ireland), but I thought the consensus among historians these days is that not invading was the best move?

[kraut]

with everything else happening in Europe, that the Nazis could have successfully taken Britain?

Remember Mosley? There was quite a movement in Britain that would have welcomed a Nazi occupation. Even some of the ruling class - the ex king at the time - was quite sympathetic to Nazi ideas.
The Nazis also had a compilation of all those in industry and government who were to be used as ministers, public servants. The plan was to use in the main British human resources.

After Dunkirk - what was left to fight for Britain? At that time, before the Russian invasion, Germanies resources were far superior to anything Great Britain had to throw against an invading German army. look what happened in the first months of the Russian invasion and the progress that was made during that time.

The problem the Nazis were aware of was the simple fact that without taking over Britain, the US had a beachhead they could launch attacks from against the European mainland. Which exactly happened in the end.

As to termination camps - there were hints, but I doubt the quality of surveillance was such that an unambiguous determination could have been made as to the real extent of the killings.

[Thinking Aloud]

[pedant alert]"have" not "of"[/pedant alert]

[MissingNo.]

The Nazis' treatment of the Jews wasn't really a deciding factor in the war. It would likely have had an identical outcome.

[Pombolo]

Remember Mosley? There was quite a movement in Britain that would have welcomed a Nazi occupation. Even some of the ruling class - the ex king at the time - was quite sympathetic to Nazi ideas. The Nazis also had a compilation of all those in industry and government who were to be used as ministers, public servants. The plan was to use in the main British human resources.

Oh I was aware of the facts mentioned above, indeed it was what I had been raised with in my history classes: I was just under the impression that a new consensus had formed among historians, that Germany had too many problems with manpower and transportation to actually get their troops onto British soil and into defendable location - regardless if Mosely created a welcome environment for them or not. Perhaps I'm misinformed.

As to termination camps - there were hints, but I doubt the quality of surveillance was such that an unambiguous determination could have been made as to the real extent of the killings.

This is where I am frustrated with myself, because I cannot provide the source I'm relying on. There was however a documentary on British TV (it may have been BBC) several years ago featuring interviews with the actual men whose job it was to study aerial photograohy of the site, and infer as much as they could. They certainly started off being open-minded about what they were looking at, but as more prints came in they became increasingly certain that they were looking at extermination camps. They reported this to their superiors, and this went straight to Churchill.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The Nazis' treatment of the Jews wasn't really a deciding factor in the war. It would likely have had an identical outcome.

Apart from an extra 6 million people being alive, of course.

[MissingNo.]

The Nazis' treatment of the Jews wasn't really a deciding factor in the war. It would likely have had an identical outcome.

Apart from an extra 6 million people being alive, of course.

That's true.