What would help germany more in ww2?

Of the options, I would say it would have to be nicer to the conquered people.  Like Octosphere states, millions of Ukranians might have made a difference on the eastern front.  Also, less resistance in the conquered territories would have made troop and supply transport easier.  Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and many other cities/battles were won by the Russians by only the slimest of margins.  Had Moscow fell, for example, the soviet structure might have collapsed (or at the very least split Russia up into two areas as IIRC the last north-south railroads for Russi went through Moscow) giving Germany a win.

@221B:

Of the options, I would say it would have to be nicer to the conquered people.  Like Octosphere states, millions of Ukranians might have made a difference on the eastern front.  Also, less resistance in the conquered territories would have made troop and supply transport easier.  Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and many other cities/battles were won by the Russians by only the slimest of margins.  Had Moscow fell, for example, the soviet structure might have collapsed (or at the very least split Russia up into two areas as IIRC the last north-south railroads for Russi went through Moscow) giving Germany a win.

As Kurt said in the post above, since Germany had a food shortage, if it were nicer to the conquered, it would have to starve others. Anyway, capturing Moscow means they would keep fighting like they did when Napoleon took Moscow.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@221B:

Of the options, I would say it would have to be nicer to the conquered people.  Like Octosphere states, millions of Ukranians might have made a difference on the eastern front.  Also, less resistance in the conquered territories would have made troop and supply transport easier.  Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and many other cities/battles were won by the Russians by only the slimest of margins.  Had Moscow fell, for example, the soviet structure might have collapsed (or at the very least split Russia up into two areas as IIRC the last north-south railroads for Russi went through Moscow) giving Germany a win.

As Kurt said in the post above, since Germany had a food shortage, if it were nicer to the conquered, it would have to starve others. Anyway, capturing Moscow means they would keep fighting like they did when Napoleon took Moscow.

Can we get some numbers on the food shortages in the sphere of influence of Nazi Germany? I’ve read about the food shortages in WW1 but never for WW2.
Anyways, even with a food shortage that i’m really not sure how severe it was, rationing amongst the new occupied territories wouldnt of been the end of the world, most of the world was dealing with rationing at the time, even in my home nation of Australia thousands of miles from the nearest battle front (not including a few minor japanese bombings of our northern most harbours). If the Nazi’s did enlist the aid millions of Ukrainian soldiers as well as Belorussians etc into the Nazi cause and the battle for Moscow would of been over before the food shortage really became a problem. According to my figures the Nazi’s committed 13.6 Million soldiers to its army, another 4 or 5 million Ukrainians even if only used as cannon fodder or for diversionary tactics may very well of helped the Nazi’s take Moscow or may even of resulted in a similar coup against Stalin like the communists institued against the Tsar in 1917 and result in a surrender for the USSR.

@Octospire:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@221B:

Of the options, I would say it would have to be nicer to the conquered people.  Like Octosphere states, millions of Ukranians might have made a difference on the eastern front.  Also, less resistance in the conquered territories would have made troop and supply transport easier.  Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and many other cities/battles were won by the Russians by only the slimest of margins.  Had Moscow fell, for example, the soviet structure might have collapsed (or at the very least split Russia up into two areas as IIRC the last north-south railroads for Russi went through Moscow) giving Germany a win.

As Kurt said in the post above, since Germany had a food shortage, if it were nicer to the conquered, it would have to starve others. Anyway, capturing Moscow means they would keep fighting like they did when Napoleon took Moscow.

Can we get some numbers on the food shortages in the sphere of influence of Nazi Germany? I’ve read about the food shortages in WW1 but never for WW2.
Anyways, even with a food shortage that i’m really not sure how severe it was, rationing amongst the new occupied territories wouldnt of been the end of the world, most of the world was dealing with rationing at the time, even in my home nation of Australia thousands of miles from the nearest battle front (not including a few minor japanese bombings of our northern most harbours). If the Nazi’s did enlist the aid millions of Ukrainian soldiers as well as Belorussians etc into the Nazi cause and the battle for Moscow would of been over before the food shortage really became a problem. According to my figures the Nazi’s committed 13.6 Million soldiers to its army, another 4 or 5 million Ukrainians even if only used as cannon fodder or for diversionary tactics may very well of helped the Nazi’s take Moscow or may even of resulted in a similar coup against Stalin like the communists institued against the Tsar in 1917 and result in a surrender for the USSR.

Not sure about surrender. Napoleon took Moscow but lost since his supply line was too long. German’s supply line was long too. This is why amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics. Keep in mind that the Western Allies, even having Air and land superiority, weren’t able to invade Western Germany in late 1944 since their lines were stretched

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Octospire:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@221B:

Of the options, I would say it would have to be nicer to the conquered people.  Like Octosphere states, millions of Ukranians might have made a difference on the eastern front.  Also, less resistance in the conquered territories would have made troop and supply transport easier.  Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and many other cities/battles were won by the Russians by only the slimest of margins.  Had Moscow fell, for example, the soviet structure might have collapsed (or at the very least split Russia up into two areas as IIRC the last north-south railroads for Russi went through Moscow) giving Germany a win.

As Kurt said in the post above, since Germany had a food shortage, if it were nicer to the conquered, it would have to starve others. Anyway, capturing Moscow means they would keep fighting like they did when Napoleon took Moscow.

Can we get some numbers on the food shortages in the sphere of influence of Nazi Germany? I’ve read about the food shortages in WW1 but never for WW2.
Anyways, even with a food shortage that i’m really not sure how severe it was, rationing amongst the new occupied territories wouldnt of been the end of the world, most of the world was dealing with rationing at the time, even in my home nation of Australia thousands of miles from the nearest battle front (not including a few minor japanese bombings of our northern most harbours). If the Nazi’s did enlist the aid millions of Ukrainian soldiers as well as Belorussians etc into the Nazi cause and the battle for Moscow would of been over before the food shortage really became a problem. According to my figures the Nazi’s committed 13.6 Million soldiers to its army, another 4 or 5 million Ukrainians even if only used as cannon fodder or for diversionary tactics may very well of helped the Nazi’s take Moscow or may even of resulted in a similar coup against Stalin like the communists institued against the Tsar in 1917 and result in a surrender for the USSR.

Not sure about surrender. Napoleon took Moscow but lost since his supply line was too long. German’s supply line was long too. This is why amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics. Keep in mind that the Western Allies, even having Air and land superiority, weren’t able to invade Western Germany in late 1944 since their lines were stretched

I’m not only talking logistics, i’m talking politics. German logistics got them to the gates of Moscow only dogged defence, bad weather and unsuitable equipment for winter warfare robbed them of their victory. That is hardly a failure of logistics but a failure of policy, Hitler thought the war with USSR would be over by the time winter came around, he was very wrong. My father had a friend who took part in the siege of Moscow and they took to stealing the clothing off of dead Russian soldiers just to keep warm, needless to say they werent to pleased with the German high command and Hitler himself, that drop in morale and the freezing temperatures that claimed thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of German lives could of been the factor that inevitably cost them Moscow and maybe even the entire war. He was a funny old fella he had this joke/probably coping mechanism “I rode all the way to the Moscow on a Panzer tank and I ran all the home” :-P

If the Germans had of been nice to the conquered people’s their would of mostly likely would of been a coup against Stalin to aleiveate any greater loss of life because with Ukrainian and Russian manpower in German hands a German victory would of been all but a certainty.

Its all well and good to talk about logistics and even tactics, but politics trump both, the people of the USSR hated Stalin before WW2 he wiped out 20 million+ citizens of the USSR and had the Germans acted like liberators not conquerors those people so traumatised by Stalin’s “purges” they would of been more than willing to pick up a gun and fight for not only their freedom but by association a Nazi victory.

If Hitler had of ordered the troops to be civil and obey all provisions of the Geneva convention the Nazi’s could of won the war long before they even reached the gates of Moscow, Stalin would of been deposed by even those in the communist party who wanted to rule fairly and with compassion and rule with the love of the people not by using fear. Millions of Russians would of rose up to fight for their freedom, how long that freedom could of lasted is open to debate, but considering more or less every family lost someone to Stalin’s purges they would of viewed Hitler as a much better alternative in this hypothetical situation.

Just reading about the senior German generals in 1939-1940 some of whom were looked upon as only being soldiers fighting for their country, if the likes of Guderian or Von Manstein had of come to power following the assasination of Hilter the war would of been very different most likely involving a German victory and perhaps more favourable relations with the British and Americans. Also even if Von Manstein was given complete control of the war against the Soviets his tactics of of an elastic defence line may very well of won the Axis the war in the East.

It’s a myth that the German army was fully mechanized.  A former British colony with less than 1/6 of the German population produced more trucks than Germany+Italy+Japan+USSR combined during the war years.  The lack of full mechanization of German units and supply lines was not evident in France or Poland as they are tiny nations compared to the USSR and supply lines were short.  During the invasion of the USSR most germany artillery was horse drawn.  The German army relied on huge numbers of horses for logistics.  The horses required food and didn’t take to being exposed to soviet winters and died by the 100s of 1000s.

Germany was fairly industrialized but was lacking in key areas.  It’s farms were less efficient and required several times the manhours per unit of food produced.  While they produced some great cars, they were out of reach for most german workers so there was a lack of mass production and related skills (read industrial logistics) whereas north america had a huge auto industry that could be tapped for mass production.  Allied tanks sucked (save the soviet tanks), I forget which model was called the ronson (as in lighter) but it was dark humour as the tank like the lighter ‘lit up with the first stike’.  However, quantity has a certain quality which the allies proved.

The Germany economy didn’t go on a war footing until late.  While the allies were vigorously rationing, Germany was not.  Why?  We like to think of Hitler like say Stalin or Saddam, you desent, you die.  However, Hitler treated the germans masses as if they were a democracy and he could be voted out of office.  Again, why?  Simple, he was part of the German military machine in WWI.  The army felt betrayed by the ‘home front’, the german people gave up because they were unhappy by fall 1918.  Starving to death has a funny way of making you sue for peace.  So Hitler felt it important to keep the home front happy by keeping luxury good available for as long as possible.

While the Ukrainians and other conqoured soviet peoples truly hated Stalin, this hatred was not nearly as strong for average ethnic russians.  After attacked, people have a funny way of pulling together.  Do you think most Iranians love their political leaders?  I bet if you did a poll today then say attack their nuclear infastructure then take a poll you would find a sudden love for the mullahs umongst most Iranians.  I would not limit the poll to say kurdish regions inside Iran then extrapolate that poll across all of Iran.  That being said, having Ukraine on your side is significant and would have done much to help the food situation in the nazi empire.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

The Germany economy didn’t go on a war footing until late.  While the allies were vigorously rationing, Germany was not.  Why?  We like to think of Hitler like say Stalin or Saddam, you desent, you die.  However, Hitler treated the germans masses as if they were a democracy and he could be voted out of office.  Again, why?  Simple, he was part of the German military machine in WWI.  The army felt betrayed by the ‘home front’, the german people gave up because they were unhappy by fall 1918.  Starving to death has a funny way of making you sue for peace.  So Hitler felt it important to keep the home front happy by keeping luxury good available for as long as possible.

While the Ukrainians and other conqoured soviet peoples truly hated Stalin, this hatred was not nearly as strong for average ethnic russians.  After attacked, people have a funny way of pulling together.  Do you think most Iranians love their political leaders?  I bet if you did a poll today then say attack their nuclear infastructure then take a poll you would find a sudden love for the mullahs umongst most Iranians.  I would not limit the poll to say kurdish regions inside Iran then extrapolate that poll across all of Iran.  That being said, having Ukraine on your side is significant and would have done much to help the food situation in the nazi empire.

The Sherman was called the Ronson and the Germans also quite famously called it “The tommy cooker” because one shell from a Panther would either blow it to pieces or light it on fire and the soldiers in the tank had an estimated 13 seconds to get away from the tank before it exploded. Had the German economy gone into rationing mode and full war production it would of been a very different war and a German victory would of been much more likely, where the Germans truly lacked was in the skies whether it be North Africa, France or the Ukraine they never seemed to have enough aircraft to acheive any sort of air superiority had the factories been mobilised for aircraft production the war would of been very different.

I dont know how much the average Russian would “rally around the flag”, perhaps Iranians would rally around the flag but the Iranian government hasnt really done that much harm to the average Iranian. While on the other hand Stalin had murdered 20 million people so literally everyone knew someone who had just been taken away by the secret police never to be seen again.

Needless to say I complete agree about the Ukrainians they could of done much to alievate the Nazi’s woes in both man power and food production. If the Nazi’s had of started rationing even from the start of Barbarossa, put German industry in war mode in 1939 and been nice to the conquered peoples they would of won the war on the Eastern front, the cost would of been staggering but a hell of a lot less staggering than there eventual defeat.

I think most of those 20 million killed were Ukrainians?  I think if you look at the stories of average russians during the war there is a great deal of patriatism and in many places you would not think such as tank factories.  Mind you, an arguable amount is due to the fear of what nazis would do to the 'average prolitariot (sp?).

I’m amazed the german GDP was as great as it was considering that even during the battle of britain german factories were working at 1 shift!  Women were reveared as ‘mothers’ so they ought not to do the dirty work of working in factories……

While logisitics are not glamours, they do win wars.  Getting my degree in comp sci required a great deal of math, much of it to do with algorithms and optimizations’ of such.  I was amazed at how many algorithms were develped in the wars years that relate to routing and scheduling.  These same algorithms that were ‘run by hand’ to help move things around to improve ‘workflow’ are used to help route internet traffic!

An interesting paper I found on the net as it relates to math and war.  It’s a pdf file just a heads up.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.143.2142&rep=rep1&type=pdf

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I think most of those 20 million killed were Ukrainians?  I think if you look at the stories of average russians during the war there is a great deal of patriatism and in many places you would not think such as tank factories.  Mind you, an arguable amount is due to the fear of what nazis would do to the 'average prolitariot (sp?).

I’m amazed the german GDP was as great as it was considering that even during the battle of britain german factories were working at 1 shift!  Women were reveared as ‘mothers’ so they ought not to do the dirty work of working in factories……

While logisitics are not glamours, they do win wars.  Getting my degree in comp sci required a great deal of math, much of it to do with algorithms and optimizations’ of such.  I was amazed at how many algorithms were develped in the wars years that relate to routing and scheduling.  These same algorithms that were ‘run by hand’ to help move things around to improve ‘workflow’ are used to help route internet traffic!

An interesting paper I found on the net as it relates to math and war.  It’s a pdf file just a heads up.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.143.2142&rep=rep1&type=pdf

It is truly remarkable that the German women werent working in the factories like the women on the side of the allies. Ironically feminists rarely cite World War 2 as a major cause of womens liberation but there was no greater liberator for women than the ability to work. You could even argue (in my opinion successfully) that not mobilising the women of Germany cost them the war, more factory workers = more production and more men to go off and join the armed forces. Unfourtunetly for the Nazi’s they were too busy getting mothers medals for providing another child for the third reich (this isnt a joke this is actual fact). I agree that logistics matter a great deal and Nazi logistics let the Nazi’s down many times in all theatres they fought in.

I am just suggesting that politics and the opinions of the day matter an equal amount if not more. Its all well and good for us the people of today to look back with hindsight and say Hitler was evil but in the politics of the day he was considered a hero of the German people that saved from the depression and from being the pawns of the European powers. My fathers friends mother revered Hitler all her life and while she did not agree with his policy of racial hatred she did agree with his policies of German rearmament and Germany once again being a great power. Logistics are irrelevant unless the people at home are willing to fight the war to begin with, its all about like the US State department so eloquently puts it “Winning hearts and minds”, whether they be the hearts and minds of a conquered people or convincing your own people to fight a war for you, a war you start.

I have heard a great deal about the patriotism of the Russian people, I once read a story of workers in a Tank factory at Stalingrad completing a T-34 and then taking it into battle themselves. Its amazing stuff, I just cant help but feel that if I were in their shoes and the Germans had of been compassionate liberators as opposed to brutal conquerors that more Russians would of collaborated with them. I think having the secret police watching your every move and hauling away anyone who didnt think along the same lines as the communist party would make all of us seem pretty loyal even if only in order to survive. If I was in the shoes of the average Russian (and the Germans were nice) and say for instance Stalin’s death squads killed my brother or my father I would of welcomed the Germans with open arms, asked for rifle, jumped on the front of the nearest Panzer tank and marched with them to Moscow.

The greatest myth of the 20th Century is that Hitler was greater evil, Stalin was by far the worst, comitting atrocites on an entirely different scale to Hitler. Of course the western powers wouldnt want to publicise that we picked the greater of two evils to ally with. Nor would the Russians even today want to publicise what a brutal regime communism was under Stalin, they are still today trying to change Russian school books to portray Stalin as the great liberator of Eastern Europe not as the murderer he actually was. I’m in no means saying Hitler didnt have to be stopped they both did unfourtunetly the Germans werent brought into the fold of the Alliance of France and Britian before a man such as Hitler came to power.

I’m not sure it’s a myth. I haven’t seen anyone who think Hitler was worse than Stalin.

By the way, keep in mind that sometimes the US acts badly as well. As my history teacher put it, during the cold war, we would overthrow democratically elected socialists(not necessarily communists) or pro-soviet, and install pro-US dictators. A good example is Iran, which may be why they took the hostages in 1979

Most americans don’t know the history of the phillipines that well.  I dated a filipino gal for a few years, got to meet her older brothers.  Yes, during WW II, there was a great deal of help by the filipinos, my gals dad was a guerilla fighter during WW II, no doubt why he ended up an alcoholic.  In any event, the phillipines had also been fairly loyal to spain and when their land was ceded to the US a long war against US occupation began and was brutally supressed.  The war between the phillipines and the United states started in 1898, the population was about 9 million in 1895 by 1908 the population was about 8 million.  In any event, it was much out of the norms for the time sadly.

Stalin probably was responsible for more non-combat deaths during his tenure then Hitler was during his.  Is that the pure measure of evil?  Given a free hand, how many would they have killed?  Had Stalin had total control of all europe I doubt he would have continued to kill.  His initial killings were purges designed to control the population so to were Hitlers initially against the brown shirts and communists.  But, had Hitler gained total control of Europe we might have seen vast execution camps to get rid of the dirty slavs, jews. gypsies etc etc….  I am sure there are some sick little @#$!&*s out there that are even more evil than either of Hitler or Stalin but luckily they might only manage to kill and eat a few 100 children…

Out of the offered choices I’d say being nicer to the conquered peoples… but really, the Nazis conducting a successful Hearts & Minds campaign with untermensch?

Might as well as ask for jetpacks and phasers.

#590

Why is 1934 the best year to sac Hitler?

@calvinhobbesliker:

I’m not sure it’s a myth. I haven’t seen anyone who think Hitler was worse than Stalin.

By the way, keep in mind that sometimes the US acts badly as well. As my history teacher put it, during the cold war, we would overthrow democratically elected socialists(not necessarily communists) or pro-soviet, and install pro-US dictators. A good example is Iran, which may be why they took the hostages in 1979

Its all about the media whether it be books, documentarys etc, how many people even know the basic story of WW2 let alone what occured under Stalin? Stalin is responsible for more deaths than Hitler by a factor of at least 2 and god only knows how many would of died if he had of controlled all of Europe like MalachiCrunch suggested. Stalin is by far the greater evil. So in my opinion and with the numbers to back it up Stalin was by far the greater menance to the world. As if our schools would have us being taught that we picked the wrong side in WW2?

Our victory in WW2 was as Niall Ferguson put it was “A tainted victory if it could be called a victory at all”. The western powers collaborated with the one of historys greatest monsters who sent over 20+ million to their deaths (and that is based on pre 1941 numbers) that doesnt even include collaborators in the Soviet Union like the Cossacks who ended up in British custody after the war and then turned over to Stalin in return for promises of free elections in eastern Europe which never happend. Hitler ruled because the people allowed him to rule (he was even democratically elected), and the people even wanted him to rule. Stalin ruled because people feared him and people were to afraid to move against him. In siding with Stalin we created the cold war, we created communist China (because there was no counter balance post WW2 to all of the military aid flowing in from the USSR to aid Mao, Chiang Kai Shek didnt have that luxury and was relatively promptly defeated), Vietnam and Korean wars and thats just a few things that happend directly following the alliance of the “big 3” post WW2. Hitler was a monster there is no doubt about that, but Stalin was a monster on entirely different scale. Hingsight seems to agree with the opinion of both Winston Churchill and George Patton in late 1945,“give the Germans back their guns and lets take the fight to the real enemy the Soviets”. If that had of happend there would of been a bloody continuation of WW2 but we wouldnt have unreasonable communist China to deal with today and the cold war never would of happend (which cost 10s of millions of lives by proxy wars and deposing or installing dictators, ethnic cleansing etc)

Malachichrch suggested that Hitler was more evil but didn’t have the chance to kill as many people.

Actually, Hitler wasn’t really democratically elected. Hindenberg just gave him the position of Chancellor, and it went downhill from there

@calvinhobbesliker:

Why is 1934 the best year to sac Hitler?

Just because to make him feel special for a year, then make him cry.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Malachichrch suggested that Hitler was more evil but didn’t have the chance to kill as many people.

Well I think his point was that Hitler was for flat out extermination whilst Stalin was no-holds-barred domestic security and imposition of communism.  Uncle Joe wouldn’t take it from anybody, or put up with anybody who might even be thinking about speaking out and he’d kick you when you’re down to make sure nobody ever got any wise ideas but he wouldn’t say the “only good X is a dead X”.

And then that raises the question as to what is more evil.

Well, US public opinion was not against Germany until mid 1941….  I cannot help but think if the Nazi’s had at least hide their ultimate motives until the war was won that things could have been much different.  Capitalism was much more pure in those days and truly lacked nationalism, no doubt western corporations would influence politics to ensure profit.

Imagine this.  Japan played much nicer in their war of conquest with China and used some PR to convince the US public that they were indeed ‘inferior’ to the ‘white man’ but did need some natural resources so lets do business.  US does not embargo oil exports to Japan, no Japanese attack required to secure the pacific because they can continue to grow in the east while trading with the west.  The Japanese perhaps go after western colonial powers to ‘liberate’ places like the dutch east indies to secure oil and other resources.

Because Japan does not attack the US, Germany does not declare war on the US after pearl harbor.  Pearl Harbor was a mistake for the Japanese as it motivated the US public in a rabidly strong way.  By Germany declaring war, it lumped them in with the now HATED Japs empire.

The Germans crank up their PR machine buying ads in US newspapers decrying how the european colonial powers were so unfair in the treaty of versailles.  How Germany was a democracy (remember, Hitler was elected by the people!) and treated their citizen workers really well, something an american worker surviving the great depresion would be envious of!  A plea to US coroporate interests to remind them that Germany was also a capitalist society that shared the american fears of communism.  I wonder how many Americans today would care if Germany invaded France as unlikely as that is never mind France’s nukes…just saying.  I would imagine with a good PR campaign it would be next to impossible for the US to declare war or spend much tax money helping out european colonial powers against a nice democratic, capitalist Germany who is just trying to get back what is theirs and paciify its neighbours to make it safe for all capitalist companies to do business with.

You get to about August of 1939 and you wonder if maybe you wait 1 more year before attacking Poland.  When you (then the soviets) attack the Fench and English declare war on you.  You advertise to all nations in the world that it is the Anglo/French colonial alliance declaring war on non-colonial, democratic and capitalist Germany.  You have been preparing for a war footing economy but can’t fully sell it to your German people but now you can!  You take out France, concentrate on England before the USSR.  How would rommel have done with 25 of those 100 divisions sent to Russia?  You ‘liberate’ the former territories of the ottoman empire that were to be freed by the British but really were not.  You control the middle-east and make real nice with the Persians to prevent a soviet invasion.  England sues for peace and you don’t have to try to carpet bomb London as this didn’t help militarily and hurt relations with the US.  Maybe you hope a desperate Winston Churchill uses gas on Germany, now maybe the US takes the German side against England maybe not.

Even with a neutral US, Germany now has puppet regimes in many european countries.  With England pacified but not invaded you really don’t need to invade Norway and a few other countries.  Now with all the oil you need, trading freely with England/commonwealth nations and the US you put your PR campaign to work against communism.  With tacit approval from western industrialists Germany and Japan combine to impliment regime change in the USSR.  Then if you are truly evil you have all the time in the world to develop nuclear bombs for total world control.

As for Hitler being democratically elected….  I think you need to understand how parlimentary systems work and the difference between the position of president and prime-minister (Chancellor) and how the ‘first past the poll’ in multi-party elections can influence things.

First the argument that Hitler never got 50%+1 votes.  Well neither did Bush in a certain election and this in a two-party system.  I am not saying Canada is awesome but I am most familiar with its political system.  In many cases, each seat in parliment has 4-5 parties vying for it so the votes in that particular riding are split, the seat can be taken with 25% of the votes cast because the other 75% are split 4 or more ways.  Getting 24% when the other guy gets 25% means you get nothing.  you could get 20 % of the popluar vote and get NO seats in a parliment of over 300, no proportional representation.  You could get 35% of the popular vote yet get 65% of the seats in parliment and run the country like a dictator by ramming through bill after bill as long as the senate rubber stamps it.  Since you appoint your buddies to empty seats in senate you just wait a few years before doing anything really drastic.

In parliments, after an election, the party with the most seats often has first crack to form a majority, if you have a majority simple, if not you have to form a colition.  ugh, screen jump