Did the holocaust seriously impact the Axis's chances of winning WWII? It looks like a serious waste of time and resources compared to the war effort. Was it executed because WWII was a distraction? Was it just for seizing jewish assets to fund the war effort? Why do this during the war at all?
>>1232367
>Did the holocaust seriously impact the Axis's chances of winning WWII?
No because they would never have won
>>1232367
It's impossible to know for sure, but the Holocaust and the persecution of the jews certainly cemented:
>that signing a separate peace with the western powers remained a pipe dream
>that a lot of resources and infrastructure was spent on executing the final solution
>that incessant partisan activity bloomed and thrived in all corners of the third reich
Even Alfred Rosenberg, the CREME DÉ LA CREME of the crackpots realized that the harsh treatment of jews, poles and other slavs seriously endangered the stability of the eastern provinces. A lot of russians felt liberated when the first german forces rolled around but quickly changed their minds when the SS followed suit and started fucking everyone up for no good reason at all.
>>1232367
it is interesting to think about, none of the belligerents got into the war to save the Jews, and they did provide a prisoner force of slave labor for awhile, but it probably strained resources
"Seriously"? No. But seized assets helped in the short term. Forced labor to a degree. Whereas the sheer scope of it took some toll on transportation - again, nothing overly hurtful. And atrocities in the east made any potential collaboration much more difficult. Though obviously the question remains whether the locals would have been helpful otherwise.
>>1232392
>>that signing a separate peace with the western powers remained a pipe dream
That would not have been affected by the holocaust to any noticeable degree. Germany constantly breaking treaties and waging a massive war of aggression was their political suicide.
>>1232367
>Did the holocaust seriously impact the Axis's chances of winning WWII?
No, only because they had zero chances at that point.
>Why do this during the war at all?
Because they drank the koolaid, including the army (who never complained about wasted resources). They honestly believed that Jews were the driving force behind communism and political instability, and so the source of partisan resistance, rather than brutality in an unprovoked invasion, was because there was a lot of Jews in the East.
>>1232430
>That would not have been affected by the holocaust to any noticeable degree. Germany constantly breaking treaties and waging a massive war of aggression was their political suicide.
True to a point, I'm just saying the holocaust made it an absolute impossibility.
>>1232367
The nazis were fighting a racially based ideological war. To destroy untermenschen was the whole focus of their expansionism. Those with impure blood were to serve the master race, or be killed.
This shackled their war effort, since utilitarian concerns were suborned to the ideological.
>>1232517
...Except the Germans spent the whole war raping and murdering.
>>1232525
yeah, but they would rape Jewish women and then kill them when they were done
>>1232542
And Russians, and Ukrainians, and Poles, etc. etc. etc.
>>1232367
Rounding up the jews and other undesirables and running the camps was a net positive to the Nazi war effort, as it provided slave labor while alleviating their food shortages. Not to mention all the personal goods they confiscated. Some camps like Auschwitz were built together with industrial projects precisely to take advantage of slave labor.
>>1232430
>Whereas the sheer scope of it took some toll on transportation
Juice transport took like less than 1% of RB's traffic.
