If the Germans had conquered Britain would he have ethnic cleansed?

[repoman]

I have had this question in my mind for a while, thought I would ask it here. Also what about Ireland?

What was Hitler's opinion on the racial character of Britons?


ETA, meant to have thread title be "they" not "he", or replace Germans with Hitler. Oh well.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's an interesting question. Britain did have a National Socialist element before the war. Whether these were the people who would be put in charge is not clear.

It would really depend on what was left after the fighting stopped and this assumes the fighting would stop. Churchill made it quite clear from the day he was made Prime minister, that if the British Isles were invaded and captured, the fight would continue from British Empire bases.

The best for which Hitler could hoped would be a French style capitulation which would leave the occupied areas under Military rule and the rest under a Vichy(Torquy?) government. The idea of Auschwitz style death camps on English soils seems unworkable because it would require the cooperation of too many British civilians. Taking Jews, Gypsies, and Communists to the continent and shipping them to Eastern Europe would have been quite a use of resources, especially naval transport. This is something Germany always lacked.

If there was any kind of "ethnic cleansing" following a successful invasion, it would have to be in the form of mass executions. This would be carried out by SS units and would create all kinds of logistical problems for the real German Army.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I have had this question in my mind for a while, thought I would ask it here. Also what about Ireland?

What was Hitler's opinion on the racial character of Britons?


ETA, meant to have thread title be "they" not "he", or replace Germans with Hitler. Oh well.

Hitler admired the British and considered the Empire an important factor in world civilization.

There are some who feel he allowed to the BEF to escape from Dunkirk. German panzer forces were only a few miles away, stopped by orders, days before the British reached the sea. Without access to a port, the BEF would've had to surrender or face annihilation. The argument is that Hitler thought the British would be more amenable to a deal if the repeat were not too severe.

Based on that, I would guess that Hitler would've more generous than he was with the French.

 

[Sarpedon]

At one point, I believe he described England as being 'Racially sound but ideologically faulty,' while by contrast Italy was, 'Ideologically sound but racially faulty.'

It is really hard to determine what Hitler's long term racial plans were. He wasn't expecting to be as successful as he (initially) was. Beyond destruction of Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs, he didn't have much in the way of stated goals.

 

[Bronzeage]

I have had this question in my mind for a while, thought I would ask it here. Also what about Ireland?

What was Hitler's opinion on the racial character of Britons?


ETA, meant to have thread title be "they" not "he", or replace Germans with Hitler. Oh well.

Hitler admired the British and considered the Empire an important factor in world civilization.

There are some who feel he allowed to the BEF to escape from Dunkirk. German panzer forces were only a few miles away, stopped by orders, days before the British reached the sea. Without access to a port, the BEF would've had to surrender or face annihilation. The argument is that Hitler thought the British would be more amenable to a deal if the repeat were not too severe.

Based on that, I would guess that Hitler would've more generous than he was with the French.

I think this is thinking too much. It's much more likely the German High Command thought they had plenty of time to mop up the BEF. The German supply lines were stretched to the limit and an intensive assault would have used a lot of men and materials just to achieve what should have been an inevitable victory an little sooner. The Dunkirk evacuation was organized on the spur of the moment and would not have been possible anywhere else in the world. If the BEF were cornered on the Mediterranean Coast, it would have been a much different outcome.

It's possible a total loss of the BEF may have forced Great Britain into a truce and cessation of hostilities, but they still had Armies in the middle east and India. What would they have done with them, in the event of a truce? A truce which affected only the British Isles would be unworkable.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Hitler admired the British and considered the Empire an important factor in world civilization.

There are some who feel he allowed to the BEF to escape from Dunkirk. German panzer forces were only a few miles away, stopped by orders, days before the British reached the sea. Without access to a port, the BEF would've had to surrender or face annihilation. The argument is that Hitler thought the British would be more amenable to a deal if the repeat were not too severe.

Based on that, I would guess that Hitler would've more generous than he was with the French.

I think this is thinking too much. It's much more likely the German High Command thought they had plenty of time to mop up the BEF. The German supply lines were stretched to the limit and an intensive assault would have used a lot of men and materials just to achieve what should have been an inevitable victory an little sooner. The Dunkirk evacuation was organized on the spur of the moment and would not have been possible anywhere else in the world. If the BEF were cornered on the Mediterranean Coast, it would have been a much different outcome.

It's possible a total loss of the BEF may have forced Great Britain into a truce and cessation of hostilities, but they still had Armies in the middle east and India. What would they have done with them, in the event of a truce? A truce which affected only the British Isles would be unworkable.

No. Evacuation was only possible with a port and Dunkirk was the only option available. The Germans could easily have taken Dunkirk before the BEF arrived. That this was intentional is indisputable. The reasons are unknown. Some say the swampy Flanders region was considered unsuitable for armor. Another opinion is that Goering wanted the opportunity to showcase the Luftwaffe.

To my mind, a Britain with the BEF destroyed would be more willing to negotiate than a Britain with the BEAf surviving. But that's what is recounted in BH Liddell-Hart's book "The other side of the hill".

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

HItler had in fact a preliminary order that had he conqurtrf Britain, he would have arrested every man aged 16 - 60. He actually considered the British as officially "Nordics", excepting the few Jews and Gypsies of course. But they were also to be disarmed, and known anti-Nazis, and Marxists etc were to be purged. Not so much as ethnic cleansing as political culling.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Read Hitler's "Table Talk" The East was to become a vast slave territory. Culled and purged of untermenchen, a vast land to supply Germany with "rivers of wheat" and raw supplies. Germany as Sparta, much of the East as helots, Messians. Greater Germany would grow at expense of her neighbors. Conquered nations such as France, England et al would be junior members of the German empire. Hitler stated it would take a century to fully execute this plan. The far East would be ceded to the Japanese. As the things were achieved Hitler mused, "Maybe Africa". See also Hitler's "Second Book"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have had this question in my mind for a while, thought I would ask it here. Also what about Ireland?

What was Hitler's opinion on the racial character of Britons?


ETA, meant to have thread title be "they" not "he", or replace Germans with Hitler. Oh well.

I heard Downton Abbey is going to tackle this exact scenario in an altered history Season Five.

- - - Updated - - -

At one point, I believe he described England as being 'Racially sound but ideologically faulty,' while by contrast Italy was, 'Ideologically sound but racially faulty.'

It is really hard to determine what Hitler's long term racial plans were. He wasn't expecting to be as successful as he (initially) was. Beyond destruction of Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs, he didn't have much in the way of stated goals.

I believe he stated a few times he hoped he'd be the death nail comparison in future Internet discussions.

 

[Sarpedon]

A good guide would probably be what they did to 'germanic' countries they occupied, like Denmark or the Netherlands.

I wonder what they would have done to the Welsh?

 

[Keith&Co.]

ETA, meant to have thread title be "they" not "he", or replace Germans with Hitler. Oh well.

I think that's probably more important in the long run.
If the camps were successful, then one might expect those in power to use the camps to stay in power. Questions of race aside, if local government could determine the need for and identify the demographics sent to death camps, then they could justify anything.
Union organizers, pagans, The Welsch, footballers that beat German teams, juries that came to the wrong conclusions, paper editors pubishing 'with ill intent' or 'fell designs.'
You could even woo one group by putting their rivals in the camps...

 

[Duke Leto]

If there was any kind of "ethnic cleansing" following a successful invasion, it would have to be in the form of mass executions. This would be carried out by SS units and would create all kinds of logistical problems for the real German Army.

Point of order: These were mostly the same logistical problems that made an invasion of Britain unfeasible.

Just by positing that Germany successfully invaded means that some solution must have been found to the Naval Transport issue.

 

[Bronzeage]

If there was any kind of "ethnic cleansing" following a successful invasion, it would have to be in the form of mass executions. This would be carried out by SS units and would create all kinds of logistical problems for the real German Army.

Point of order: These were mostly the same logistical problems that made an invasion of Britain unfeasible.

Just by positing that Germany successfully invaded means that some solution must have been found to the Naval Transport issue.

It is true that Germany would have to have greater Naval resources if an invasion were to succeed, but there is no reason to think those resources would still be intact at the conclusion of the invasion.

I have a friend who loves to play alternative history and one if his favorites is a cross channel invasion following Dunkirk. He wants to find some scenario where a different command decision changes the outcome. I beat him every time because using available resources, the Luftwaffe simply cannot eliminate the RAF, and a German invasion is not possible without air superiority. While naval resources were always a problem, fighter and bomber resources were the critical element in invasion plans.

 

[Duke Leto]

Point of order: These were mostly the same logistical problems that made an invasion of Britain unfeasible.

Just by positing that Germany successfully invaded means that some solution must have been found to the Naval Transport issue.

It is true that Germany would have to have greater Naval resources if an invasion were to succeed, but there is no reason to think those resources would still be intact at the conclusion of the invasion.

I have a friend who loves to play alternative history and one if his favorites is a cross channel invasion following Dunkirk. He wants to find some scenario where a different command decision changes the outcome. I beat him every time because using available resources, the Luftwaffe simply cannot eliminate the RAF, and a German invasion is not possible without air superiority. While naval resources were always a problem, fighter and bomber resources were the critical element in invasion plans.

That doesn't really alter my point.

In a universe where Britain was successfully invaded in 1940 or later, Germany would have had vastly superior logistics and might therefore have been better able to make mass deportation. Particularly if it did not invade the Soviet Union or invaded and won...

 

[Duke Leto]

Put that another way, a world in which Britain can be successfully invaded is so different from the historical one that pleading to historical constraints on the Germans freedom of action is probably invalid.

 

[Warpoet]

I seem to recall seeing or hearing somewhere that Hitler thought much more highly of the British than he did of most peoples, and that he actually would have preferred to have them as allies as opposed to the Russians. He particularly admired their subjugation of India with relatively limited manpower, which is ironic given that the war he started directly or indirectly ended not just British India but most of the British Empire in general.

 

[Sarpedon]

I have a friend who loves to play alternative history and one if his favorites is a cross channel invasion following Dunkirk. He wants to find some scenario where a different command decision changes the outcome. I beat him every time because using available resources, the Luftwaffe simply cannot eliminate the RAF, and a German invasion is not possible without air superiority. While naval resources were always a problem, fighter and bomber resources were the critical element in invasion plans.

That seems at odds with the professional opinion of the time and after: If the Luftwaffe had continued to focus on destroying fighter and radar capability, instead of turning prematurely towards London, many felt that they COULD have destroyed the RAF. Has there been new analyses that contradict the old view?

 

[arkirk]

Regarding the rule of unpopular regimes of any kind....they always exist at the sufferance and with the support of a significant portion of the population. Every society has a sector that could properly be called the "I'll stick with what we have" segment, respecting the authority even if not accepting the morality of the regime in question. There always is a kind of democracy at work. It is the kind of democracy practiced by those who don't necessarily believe it needs to be fair so long as they are treated well. This should be clearly evident in Britain where huge crowds turn out to watch the royalty traipse around in their regalia.

I think Britain would have accepted Nazism quite well...so long as they didn't depose their royalty. Despite a lot of socialization of things like medicine, most of Europe seems to feel comfortable with unelected royalty as long as they are not "troublesome" to too many constituencies. In a funny way, Hitler's thinking was very similar to aristocratic thinking only adapted to certain supermen (he the chief among them) being given the ultimate say. Hitler in the end never stood a chance of surviving because he was engaged in industrialized murder on too large a scale to survive the scrutiny of even his own people. He did not appear to have an actual plan and agenda for governance he could use if he ever attained his short term goals (extermination of inferior races).

 

[Bronzeage]

I have a friend who loves to play alternative history and one if his favorites is a cross channel invasion following Dunkirk. He wants to find some scenario where a different command decision changes the outcome. I beat him every time because using available resources, the Luftwaffe simply cannot eliminate the RAF, and a German invasion is not possible without air superiority. While naval resources were always a problem, fighter and bomber resources were the critical element in invasion plans.

That seems at odds with the professional opinion of the time and after: If the Luftwaffe had continued to focus on destroying fighter and radar capability, instead of turning prematurely towards London, many felt that they COULD have destroyed the RAF. Has there been new analyses that contradict the old view?

There's nothing new about this view. What is portrayed in movies for dramatic effect is not always accurate. The switch to bombing cities did give the RAF a rest, but their destruction was not inevitable if Hitler had not changed tactics. One thing the professional staffs of both air forces had come to realize was bombing specific military targets was simply not a good use of men and material. It yielded too little, at a great cost. The Luftwaffe was more than happy to begin bombing cities, if for no other reason than if showed real results. The Allies applied the same logic, later in the war.
The RAF had fighter capability in western Britain, which the Luftwaffe could not touch. Remember, a Luftwaffe fighter had a very limited time in British airspace. This was a crippling factor from the beginning of the war. As long as the air war was over Britain, the RAF had an advantage the Luftwaffe could not match.

 

[Bronzeage]

Regarding the rule of unpopular regimes of any kind....they always exist at the sufferance and with the support of a significant portion of the population. Every society has a sector that could properly be called the "I'll stick with what we have" segment, respecting the authority even if not accepting the morality of the regime in question. There always is a kind of democracy at work. It is the kind of democracy practiced by those who don't necessarily believe it needs to be fair so long as they are treated well. This should be clearly evident in Britain where huge crowds turn out to watch the royalty traipse around in their regalia.

I think Britain would have accepted Nazism quite well...so long as they didn't depose their royalty. Despite a lot of socialization of things like medicine, most of Europe seems to feel comfortable with unelected royalty as long as they are not "troublesome" to too many constituencies. In a funny way, Hitler's thinking was very similar to aristocratic thinking only adapted to certain supermen (he the chief among them) being given the ultimate say. Hitler in the end never stood a chance of surviving because he was engaged in industrialized murder on too large a scale to survive the scrutiny of even his own people. He did not appear to have an actual plan and agenda for governance he could use if he ever attained his short term goals (extermination of inferior races).

Hitler's long range goal in western Europe, if it can be considered a goal, was to eliminate Britain and France's ability to aid the Soviet Union. Hitler intended to invade Russia, eliminate the native population, and then annex the territories. Germany was in need of productive farmland, what he called "lebensraum", or living space. This could never happen as long as he faced a military threat from the west. There never was a plan to rule Britain, only to reduce it to impotence.