NationStates Jolt Archive

The "Why won't Canada join USA" thread has degenerated into a discussion over whether Nazi Germany was capable of defeating the Brits in WW2

Apparently reading doesgo faster if you don't sweat comprehension.

At the risk of repeating myself: 1940's era Britain would not have been able by itselfto withstand a Third Reich with the economic and demographic power of continental Europe behind it without American intervention, especially not once Hitler finished with Russia. The whole point behind the Luftwaffe's and Hitler's rockets hammering Britain was to soften Britain and to break the British spirit for an invasion. There were even two or three plans drawn up by Hitler's 'Joint Chiefs' for different methods of invasion. Given an absence of American intervention, Hitler wouldn't even have had to invade. He could have just blockaded the island and starved it into submission.




A couple of problems with you statement.
1) Britain wasn't by itself.
2) American intervention in the form of foreign aid programs was nothing but its attempt to make money off the war and pull itself out of a big screw-up called the Depression. The American people didn't give a rats' ass what was happening in Europe in a post-isolationism society.
3) What makes you think Hitler would lose in Russia? Even without western allies' intervention, Russia held its own against Hitler's army pretty well. (see: Stalingrad. before D-Day)

True, but ultimately, Britain won the fight for air superiority. Again, without American military assistance.

Germany didn't have the naval capabilities to do that. Even if they did, the British air forces would just sink the German ships from the sky. Your argument has no validity when Germany never had air superiority.


So give your opinions peoples... I don't think the Nazi's could have taken Britain. Britain was still the world's largest Empire, a major world power and the Nazi's couldn't get past the RAF and Royal Navy. Also, Britain was getting enough aid from Canada to to not be starved to death.

Im going with a no. It would have been a stalemate.

I think Germany could have won, but more would have to be different than the United States not showing up.

England won the Battle of Britain; American aid wasn't necessary for that. That seemed to stop Germany for a while. Now, if Germany had continued to focus on England and didn't break it's non-aggression pact with the USSR, the island probably would have fallen: Germany was just bigger and better (from a militaristic standpoint).

"Could" is a pretty far-reaching question. I certainly do not think the involvement of the US is the pivotal event, and that the combined efforts of Britain and Russia would have kept German dominance to mainland Europe with or without US support.

However, there is at least one way in which German victory in Britain is a possibility. If, rather than diving head-first into Britain itself, Germany had established itself in Ireland (breaking neutrality, of course), they would have the island of Great Britain essentially surrounded. Air supremecy be damned; there's little your air force can do when your cities are being attacked from all directions. What's more, the eventual ground invasion would be overwhelming.

Had Germany not changed it's tactics from bombing airfields to bombing cities, the RAF would have been knocked out in a few more weeks.

Air superiority.

Leads to domination of Channel etc etc. Entirely plausible if they hadn't of changed tactics.

Edit: Oh, and props to the OP for have one question as the thread title and the complete opposite in the poll.

Reasonable question, but I personally think that if the Germans had not attacked the cities then the people would have pressed for surrender, yet the conclusion is still open ended.

No, but the Russians probably would have rolled over us instead once they'd finished with Germany.

No, but the Russians probably would have rolled over us instead once they'd finished with Germany.

Gogo Red Alert!

well before I say anything I think 60 years is a long time and it would be nice if we let this whole war go for a change, I mean we had a frigging cold war and a previous World war that was more or less a giant game of risk so why the fascination?

now with that out of the way I must say:

Britain was producing more and destroying more even if by some miracle the Nazi's could fight long wars instead of just running to the capital, the royal navy would block of all supply and the troops that do land would be spasmed to death in a cloud of yellow

hell its WWI all over again and Britain can play the game of waiting for Germany to collapse

No, but the Russians probably would have rolled over us instead once they'd finished with Germany.

not if we get the chronosphere up and running :p

Well according to John Keegan's essay in What If? The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been, he states that Hitler might have won a strategic position or eventual victory if he had crossed into the Eastern Mediterranean, into Syria and Lebanon. If Hitler secured the oil fields of the Middle East he then could have moved north into the Soviet oil fields in the Caspian Sea and allowing to give him a foothold to attack eastward towards British India.

They might have had a quick occupation, IF they had accompanied the air strikes with an invasion force, and kept Russia as a neutral power. There would have been no way that the US would not have got involved, even if Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.

The "Why won't Canada join USA" thread has degenerated into a discussion over whether Nazi Germany was capable of defeating the Brits in WW2





So give your opinions peoples... I don't think the Nazi's could have taken Britain. Britain was still the world's largest Empire, a major world power and the Nazi's couldn't get past the RAF and Royal Navy. Also, Britain was getting enough aid from Canada to to not be starved to death.

I think the Nazis could have won, provided three conditions had been changed.

A) The US stayed out of it.

B) They hadn't started bombing London. In the beginning most of the bombing was for the sake of preparing for a land assault, however, they became too confident and started bombing cities, losing many to the RAF, and stiffening resistance against them.

C) Russia hadn't been a total disaster.

Well according to John Keegan's essay in What If? The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been, he states that Hitler might have won a strategic position or eventual victory if he had crossed into the Eastern Mediterranean, into Syria and Lebanon. If Hitler secured the oil fields of the Middle East he then could have moved north into the Soviet oil fields in the Caspian Sea and allowing to give him a foothold to attack eastward towards British India.

But, at the time, there wasn't an extensive amount of oil known to be in the Middle East, right? I mean, they knew there was some, but did they know there would have been enough to make it worth while to send an attack force?

Had Germany not changed it's tactics from bombing airfields to bombing cities, the RAF would have been knocked out in a few more weeks.
That's a bit optimistic. The most they could have realistically expected, even without changing focus is to drive the RAF northwards. They'd still be free to bimble south again en masse when it's most inconvenient, like when you're trying to run an invasion.

Air superiority.

Leads to domination of Channel etc etc. Entirely plausible if they hadn't of changed tactics.

The Luftwaffe at the start of the war had very little in the way of anti ship weaponry or training. Crete and Dunkirk showed that even with the best conditions, stationary targets etc. they weren't able to stop the Royal Navy carrying out its mission, and defending the channel wasn't so much a mission as the raison d'etre, the sine qua non of the RN. All it has to do is catch the invasion barges once as they go back and forth across the channel and the invasion forces won't be able to build up fast enough and they'll be pushed back into the sea.

I think realistically an invasion isn't going to be the answer. Something like decisively winning the Battle of the Atlantic, or preventing the escape from Dunkirk might have put enough pressure on government to force it out of the war though.

in a very different world with a very different hitler and a very different brittain, maybe.

a hitler who hadn't attacked poland first.

but only a hitler who had consolodated france in a more peaceful way and hadn't been affraid to cross the water other then by air.

and only a hitler who hadn't been such a total loonie about ethnicity and his screwball pseudo-science about it.

not that i would have cheered for anybody attacking anybody, nor do i now.

hitler's messing up wasn't a retribution for his inequities so much as a direct resault of them, even though they bought him a cheap short rise to political dominance, they really were a mistake in practical terms over anything other then the very short term.

basically a hitler who hadn't killed off the very people he most needed, which essentially he did. starting with the gays who brought him to power in the first place, even before he started in on eliminating the diversity of opinion in science and engineering which the jewish people and even in a sense the romany also represented.

even killing off the so called loonies was a loonie thing to do considering the absurd arbitraryness with which people were labled and assigned.

the causing of suffering and harm isn't just a mater of some sort of spiritual aesthetic, there is a real practical negative consiquence to the kind of world doing so creates.

=^^=
.../\...

I saw a program on this a while back, all about the preparations Britain made against a German invasion - the networks of defences that were set up. Fair enough it was on the BBC, so it may have had a slight bias, but it should hopefully be negligible.

But yes, they had a variety of military experts of some kind simulating what would've happened, and apparently the most likely outcome would've been a complete stonewalling of the German advance only a few dozen miles inland. So yeah, I'm gonna go with we would've won.

Germany didn't have either the naval or the air power to force an invasion. They had their ships in port, blocked, and their air force depleted after the defeat at the battle of britain.

They could had built a new fleet, and more airplanes, at the same time that the british would do the same. More likely, a stalemate.

If Hitler had decided against trying to invade Russia, Germany would have been a lot tougher to beat

I saw a program on this a while back, all about the preparations Britain made against a German invasion - the networks of defences that were set up. Fair enough it was on the BBC, so it may have had a slight bias, but it should hopefully be negligible.

But yes, they had a variety of military experts of some kind simulating what would've happened, and apparently the most likely outcome would've been a complete stonewalling of the German advance only a few dozen miles inland. So yeah, I'm gonna go with we would've won.

Plus Britain was the only country in the war to set up a resistance movement in advance of an invasion. Basically gamekeepers, poachers, ghillies, farmers etc. with hidden bases and enough explosives and silenced weaponry etc. to make themselves very inconvenient in the two weeks the were expected to survive.

That's a bit optimistic. The most they could have realistically expected, even without changing focus is to drive the RAF northwards. They'd still be free to bimble south again en masse when it's most inconvenient, like when you're trying to run an invasion.
It wasn't about driving them North. It was bout wiping them out as an effective fighting force. The RAF was having terrible time replacing pilots - moreso than the Luftwaffe. Without the aid of the multinationals in the RAF - they would have been drastically short handed to survive a continuation of the attacks of the airfields.

I think realistically an invasion isn't going to be the answer. Something like decisively winning the Battle of the Atlantic, or preventing the escape from Dunkirk might have put enough pressure on government to force it out of the war though.
Once you've got air superiority, you've got naval superiority - then you've got a chokehold on the island. Don't forget, the above scenario doesn't involve other international Allied assistance (...er, right?)

I do believe yes I've studied german military tactics from WWII. If hitler was to attack using air and sea power, he could have taken a foothole on Britian. Also, hitler could then take London and secure britian than after that he could have built up his forces even more and take over the African continent. But then he would face war with Japan because he would want Asia.

It wasn't about driving them North. It was bout wiping them out as an effective fighting force. The RAF was having terrible time replacing pilots - moreso than the Luftwaffe. Without the aid of the multinationals in the RAF - they would have been drastically short handed to survive a continuation of the attacks of the airfields.

The attacks weren't intended to drive the RAF north, but if it had been under serious threat that's what would have happened. The RAF would just have refused to bring the Luftwaffe to battle unless it was on their terms. And if the Luftwaffe wants to chase them then it'll be doing so at extreme range with the fighters having to turn for home and lots of lovely unescorted bombers.

And about the pilot situation, bear in mind that any RAF pilot forced to bail out over Britain could be back in action that day if necessary. Fr the Germans the war was over.

Once you've got air superiority, you've got naval superiority - then you've got a chokehold on the island.
Air superiority goes a long way, but the Germans were so far behind in terms of naval superiority that the luftwaffe would have to be miracle workers to overcome it. And to choke the island they would really need to be based on the other side of it.
Don't forget, the above scenario doesn't involve other international Allied assistance (...er, right?)
No but the battle of the atlantic was still vital even if the US wasn't going t enter the war.

It wasn't about driving them North. It was bout wiping them out as an effective fighting force. The RAF was having terrible time replacing pilots - moreso than the Luftwaffe. Without the aid of the multinationals in the RAF - they would have been drastically short handed to survive a continuation of the attacks of the airfields.


Once you've got air superiority, you've got naval superiority - then you've got a chokehold on the island. Don't forget, the above scenario doesn't involve other international Allied assistance (...er, right?)

the scenario disregards AMERICAN assistance, IIRC Britain got most supplies from Canada during the blitz...

If Hitler wouldn't have turned his attention elsewhere, I believe he could have eventually defeated the British, at least in Europe.

I seem to remember a historical documentary a couple of years ago where modern military commanders used the Nazi invasion plans for Britain to conduct an exercise to see if the invasion would have succeeded. They were rather surprised to find that in the end the Nazi invasion was repulsed at huge cost, mainly because of the Royal Navy cutting off the channel after the invasion and stopping the Germans from resupplying.

All in all, I think it would have been possible, but the vast majority of Europe at the end of the war would be under Soviet control.

[Edit]Ah, I was right. But Mooseica got in before me! XD

Im going with a no. It would have been a stalemate.

If it had been a stalemate, Nazi Germany would've likely collapsed under the weight of insurgencies in the lands it had already conquered. The French and the Norwegians were already very active, and the others would've likely followed suit. Meanwhile, Germany would've had to place much of it's army, air force, et cetera, continuing it's futile attempt to conquer England, draining away it's resources and eventually finding that the lands it invaded were stronger then it. Eventually, the forces would've thrown the German Army out altogether and probably pursued them back to their home country.


Would be a different world though. All the governments would've been overthrown, besides maybe Englands, so new governments and in some cases new countries would've arisen very different then the ones that came before them. You probably would not have had a Soviet Union or a Yugoslavia, as both of these would've been conquered, without American assistance, by the Nazis only to have been lost shortly thereafter, and many other countries would've been similar in this respect.

If the UK hadn't had the support (and/or at least handy distraction capabilities) of the USA, Russia, and so on it's highly likely they would have sort some kind of deal with Germany.

Without the aid of the multinationals in the RAF - they would have been drastically short handed to survive a continuation of the attacks of the airfields.


Which particular multinationals? Since I believe we are including the British Empire as a whole, and I'm assuming we can't just exclude the French, Poles etc since we'd be rewriting WWII to the extent that speculation becomes useless.

The "Why won't Canada join USA" thread has degenerated into a discussion over whether Nazi Germany was capable of defeating the Brits in WW2





So give your opinions peoples... I don't think the Nazi's could have taken Britain. Britain was still the world's largest Empire, a major world power and the Nazi's couldn't get past the RAF and Royal Navy. Also, Britain was getting enough aid from Canada to to not be starved to death.

Actually, Britain was on the end of a thread by the time the US entered the picture. Ya, Britain's air force had a bit of a lead on the Nazi's, but the V1 and V2 rockets were the key to the whole invasion. These bombs didn't only destroy, but they were psychological weapons. The V1 was called the Buzz bomb because when it fell, it gave off a buzz. With bombing after bombing with this noise, the citizens of Britain were on the last nerves. And for the Air force bombing the German navy....that's wrong too. The Nazis had the Unterseeboten aka U-boat was the ultimate blockade ship. These submarines could dive below the range of air planes and destroy any boat in the water. It it wasn't for the US, Britain would have been just like France. Russia would have stood its ground for a while too, though.

PS, the Germans also would have had the H-bomb in a couple of years too. They would have actually had a lot of weapons that the US has now. They stole a lot from the Germans...ex tech, material, scientists....

The "Why won't Canada join USA" thread has degenerated into a discussion over whether Nazi Germany was capable of defeating the Brits in WW2





So give your opinions peoples... I don't think the Nazi's could have taken Britain. Britain was still the world's largest Empire, a major world power and the Nazi's couldn't get past the RAF and Royal Navy. Also, Britain was getting enough aid from Canada to to not be starved to death.

Britain alone? Yes, probably.
Britain while also taking on Russia? No, they already were losing big time to the Red Army by the time the USA decided to join in in time to forever claim it single-handedly won a war that was already decided in favour of Britain and Russia.

No, but the Russians probably would have rolled over us instead once they'd finished with Germany.

Distinct possibility, I would say.

-snip-.

Ok, well I'll agree to disagree about it - your points are valid and accurate.
It's still just a hypothetical situation and I'm not going to get into a protracted "what if" debate. :)

They might have had a quick occupation, IF they had accompanied the air strikes with an invasion force, and kept Russia as a neutral power. There would have been no way that the US would not have got involved, even if Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.

What, you're saying it was the plan all along to wait and see who would look like the winner and then join forces with whoever that would be? ;)

Aside from the fact that the Russians did almost all of the major fighting in the war, yes, the British Empire could defeat Germany, but only in a long and drawn out war (needing the time to mobilise troops from Canada, India, Australia and South Africa etc.)

C) Russia hadn't been a total disaster.

Russia was in fact a little more than a total military disaster. By the time the US showed up, the Red Army had already destroyed large parts of the Wehrmacht and was quickly advancing towards the Reich. I'd say all things considered, it was they who won that war really.

Actually, Britain was on the end of a thread by the time the US entered the picture. Ya, Britain's air force had a bit of a lead on the Nazi's, but the V1 and V2 rockets were the key to the whole invasion. These bombs didn't only destroy, but they were psychological weapons. The V1 was called the Buzz bomb because when it fell, it gave off a buzz. With bombing after bombing with this noise, the citizens of Britain were on the last nerves. And for the Air force bombing the German navy....that's wrong too. The Nazis had the Unterseeboten aka U-boat was the ultimate blockade ship. These submarines could dive below the range of air planes and destroy any boat in the water. It it wasn't for the US, Britain would have been just like France. Russia would have stood its ground for a while too, though.

PS, the Germans also would have had the H-bomb in a couple of years too. They would have actually had a lot of weapons that the US has now. They stole a lot from the Germans...ex tech, material, scientists....

oooohh ooooh dont forget about the Apollo programs too. Without the help of former nazi scientists and their research, there wouldnt be any of these fine space programs we have now. lol

in retrospect, the nightmarish conduct that the nazi's commited allowed some insight on what extremes the human body can take.

Aside from the fact that the Russians did almost all of the major fighting in the war, yes, the British Empire could defeat Germany, but only in a long and drawn out war (needing the time to mobilise troops from Canada, India, Australia and South Africa etc.)

I think the correct answer is in fact missing from the poll :

Britain would have survived without the USA. But they would not have survived without Stalin and the Red Army.

oooohh ooooh dont forget about the Apollo programs too. Without the help of former nazi scientists and their research, there wouldnt be any of these fine space programs we have now. lol

in retrospect, the nightmarish conduct that the nazi's commited allowed some insight on what extremes the human body can take.


Unfortunately, your right. Because of the ghastly experiments they did on Jews and other prisoners, we learned from their scientists how humans behaved in no air, in extreme hot/cold, how far the human can truly go. I am a hardened person. I'm one of the members of the desensitized generation. Yet, when I went to the Holocaust Museum in the capital of the US, I was on the verge of getting sick. They had pictures and artifacts and continuous movies playing that will never leave my mind.

Anyway....German just might have had the problem that is in Iraq that the Americans are having. We don't and won't know.

Germany would have easily destroyed Britain's armed forces, but would not have been able to occupy england. then they would have a situation like africa or the mid-east: subject to constant revolt and rebellion (even if it was throwing stones). they were fighting too many battles at once, not enough manpower to suppress the masses.

Let's not forget Britain's dirty little secret of how much of their upper class(including selected members of the royal family) thought that Hitler wasn't all that bad after all, compared to the Russians(this was, of course, before anyone knew or seriously countenanced what he was doing in the camps. After that was revealed, nobody had a good word for him, and rightly so)

The inroads that the Bolshevik ideology was making on the working class of the UK at the time scared the bejeezus out of the aristocracy, and many of them saw Hitler as a necessary counterweight to Stalin. Hitler would have to fight like the devil to take Britain, and he could have taken it, make no mistake about that, but once he had it, he probably would not have found Britain any more difficult to govern then he did France.

if germany really needed to defeat the british that badly, they could have. they would have been able to keep their nonagression pact with the russians going until they finished with britain, and then they probably could have made some kind of deal with the russians and bided more time until the time was right.

Russia was in fact a little more than a total military disaster. By the time the US showed up, the Red Army had already destroyed large parts of the Wehrmacht and was quickly advancing towards the Reich. I'd say all things considered, it was they who won that war really.

oh and by the way, how did russia do a lot of its fighting? on american trucks that the germans lacked, with american raw materials, rations (spam!), fuel, weapons, and more all supplied through lend-lease. just putting that out there

oh and by the way, how did russia do a lot of its fighting? on american trucks that the germans lacked, with american raw materials, rations (spam!), fuel, weapons, and more all supplied through lend-lease. just putting that out there

What, on a 90% non-military lend-lease program?
Sorry, if you're handing out credit you're not allowed to claim it as charity on your tax form.

Wow Godwin's law there...

if germany really needed to defeat the british that badly, they could have. they would have been able to keep their nonagression pact with the russians going until they finished with britain, and then they probably could have made some kind of deal with the russians and bided more time until the time was right.

I think you SERIOUSLY underestimate the island mentality of the British, same as Hitler did. And bombing the cities only increased the resolve.

The Germans should have run across Franco's Spain and siezed Gibraltar, sealing off the Mediterranean...

oh and by the way, how did russia do a lot of its fighting?

With millions upon millions of men - over 10 million Red Army soldiers died.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/WorldWarII-DeathsByCountry-Barchart.png

Germany could have won ww2. Not in the form Hitler wanted it though. He wanted to much. First Hitler let the British army at dunkirk escape. That was most of the British army of the time. Without that army Britain would have fallen fast in a land assault. The French navy was the 4th biggest in the world so the Germans just needed to be cooperative with Vichy France an dthey got a huge fleet to help deal with the royal navy. The German airforce should have built more planes. Malta should have been invaded not Crete. They should have never invaded the Soviet Union. Instead he should have moved most of those forces into north africa. The royal navy couldn't land in german occupied Malta only in Egypt. But with more ground support Egypt would have been theirs. Germany only had 1 division there with the non-mobile Italian army. If they won North Africa they would have gone into Iran and take out Russia without a single shot fired. The USSR needed the oil in the caucuses and Germany would be able to destroy it easily. Give time Vichy France would unify with Germany and occupied France to create the best military force ever seen. Russia supporting them (because they can't risk losing their oil) and Japan moving forward with ease. Hitler also started terror boming London. Big mistake. He was so close to destroying all of the radar and sector stations which was the only way the british could defend themselves. Britain would be more than likely invaded in 1943 or 1944. Only as long as Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor. Japan only attacked because they had no oil. With russia trading oil with them now they are happy. The U.S. comes out of isolationism to late to fix things and is forced into an alliance treaty with United Europe and Japan. Bam ww2 won and the world is screwed. Holy Fucking shit I am actually right! :headbang:

Britain alone? Yes, probably.
Britain while also taking on Russia? No, they already were losing big time to the Red Army by the time the USA decided to join in in time to forever claim it single-handedly won a war that was already decided in favour of Britain and Russia.

Eh, I always kind of felt like the US was sort of the aloof badass of the movi--War. Of the war. Not that we did anything really decisive or anything, but we were like that guy in the movie who hangs out with the protagonists and then disappears after the BBEG is killed in order to settle his affairs.

Now that I've wasted your time, what I mean is that Hitler wasn't really our war for the same reasons World War I wasn't our war either. Sure we sent aid, but we were there to settle our score with Japan. I'll plead ignorance on that to a degree however, since I don't know if we had any help fighting Japan from Britian or anyone (though I wouldn't be surprised if we did) or why Japan decided to attack us in the first place.

That said, I don't know of anyone who claimed that the US was the reason for victory in Europe. Most people just say that the US singlehandedly won against Japan which is more accurate, if not still a little incorrect. Then again, maybe that's just because my Dad is obsessed with that theater of the war on account of his father having been on Iwo Jima.

Eh, I always kind of felt like the US was sort of the aloof badass of the movi--War. Of the war. Not that we did anything really decisive or anything, but we were like that guy in the movie who hangs out with the protagonists and then disappears after the BBEG is killed in order to settle his affairs.

Except we did a lot.

Now that I've wasted your time, what I mean is that Hitler wasn't really our war for the same reasons World War I wasn't our war either. Sure we sent aid, but we were there to settle our score with Japan.

Hitler declared war on us after we declared war on Japan.

I'll plead ignorance on that to a degree however, since I don't know if we had any help fighting Japan from Britian or anyone (though I wouldn't be surprised if we did)

China
The Phillippinse
Australia

or why Japan decided to attack us in the first place.

Because we were provoking the shit out of them.

That said, I don't know of anyone who claimed that the US was the reason for victory in Europe. Most people just say that the US singlehandedly won against Japan which is more accurate, if not still a little incorrect. Then again, maybe that's just because my Dad is obsessed with that theater of the war on account of his father having been on Iwo Jima.

We were helpful in Europe as we brought fresh troops.

Germany could have won ww2. Not in the form Hitler wanted it though. He wanted to much. First Hitler let the British army at dunkirk escape. That was most of the British army of the time. Without that army Britain would have fallen fast in a land assault. The French navy was the 4th biggest in the world so the Germans just needed to be cooperative with Vichy France an dthey got a huge fleet to help deal with the royal navy. The German airforce should have built more planes. Malta should have been invaded not Crete. They should have never invaded the Soviet Union. Instead he should have moved most of those forces into north africa. The royal navy couldn't land in german occupied Malta only in Egypt. But with more ground support Egypt would have been theirs. Germany only had 1 division there with the non-mobile Italian army. If they won North Africa they would have gone into Iran and take out Russia without a single shot fired. The USSR needed the oil in the caucuses and Germany would be able to destroy it easily. Give time Vichy France would unify with Germany and occupied France to create the best military force ever seen. Russia supporting them (because they can't risk losing their oil) and Japan moving forward with ease. Hitler also started terror boming London. Big mistake. He was so close to destroying all of the radar and sector stations which was the only way the british could defend themselves. Britain would be more than likely invaded in 1943 or 1944. Only as long as Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor. Japan only attacked because they had no oil. With russia trading oil with them now they are happy. The U.S. comes out of isolationism to late to fix things and is forced into an alliance treaty with United Europe and Japan. Bam ww2 won and the world is screwed. Holy Fucking shit I am actually right! :headbang:

:):sniper:

Nice. Honestly, I'm not a Nazi or a Nazi supporter, but you have to give Hitler some credit. Ya, he thought of himself as a god and wanted the world to worship him, but he turned an extremely poor, bottom-of-the-food-chain, head under water country into the greatest military power in comparison in all time. For it's time, it was stronger than the Chinese and American armies of today.

We did some stuff, yes. But like was stated earlier, hadn't Russia and Britain really won the war by that point? We probably just sped along the process which is still pretty important.

Yeah, thats exactly what we did. By the time he got bogged down at Stalingrad, it really was over. With or without us.

We did take Italy however. With Monty's help. But it was mostly Patton's doing.



Yeah that sounds familiar. Seriously though, didn't the guy have enough enemies by then?

NEIN! DO YOU QUESTION DER FURHER?!?



Ah, forgot about those ones. Especially China. I imagine that they'dve had the biggest grudge of all.

Korea has some legit reasons to have a bone to pick with Japan as well.



It was sort of mutual, according the Wikipedia article I looked up right after making the post.


Well, we were angry over their imperialistic ambitions. And we were looking for a reason to enter WWII, FDR had been planning to jump in with Chruchill for some time. So we provoked Japan. We even knew we were gonna get attacked, and were waitin for it. Without Pearl Harbor, FDR would never have had the support to enter anohter "Europian war" so he needed Pearl Harbor to happen. Espcially since mose Americans thought Hitler was a pretty good guy at the time, keeping those dirty commies down and all. Remember in the late 30s (1939 I think?) he was even TIME's Man of the Year.

Except we did a lot.

We did some stuff, yes. But like was stated earlier, hadn't Russia and Britain really won the war by that point? We probably just sped along the process which is still pretty important.

Hitler declared war on us after we declared war on Japan.

Yeah that sounds familiar. Seriously though, didn't the guy have enough enemies by then?

China
The Phillippinse
Australia

Ah, forgot about those ones. Especially China. I imagine that they'dve had the biggest grudge of all.

Because we were provoking the shit out of them.

It was sort of mutual, according the Wikipedia article I looked up right after making the post.

How does Godwin's Law apply to this thread?

[QUOTE=Knights of Liberty;13504465]We did take Italy however. With Monty's help. But it was mostly Patton's doing.



Yes we did but Monty actually did nothing really. He stood around and made a huge army that did absolutly nothing until a big moment and then completely fail. During the Anzio operation Monty was supposed to Break the German line to reach Anzio. He failed miserably. It was a French corps that broke the enemy line. Not the massive British army, not the massive American Army, a simple French corps broke the line.British inginuity is over rated.

I seem to remember a historical documentary a couple of years ago where modern military commanders used the Nazi invasion plans for Britain to conduct an exercise to see if the invasion would have succeeded. They were rather surprised to find that in the end the Nazi invasion was repulsed at huge cost, mainly because of the Royal Navy cutting off the channel after the invasion and stopping the Germans from resupplying.

All in all, I think it would have been possible, but the vast majority of Europe at the end of the war would be under Soviet control.

[Edit]Ah, I was right. But Mooseica got in before me! XD

It was wicked wasn't it? The Real Dad's Army I seem to recall it being called... something like that. All about the Home Guard and so forth. Crazy awesome stuff. Also highly impressive when you consider the scale of the fortifications that were constructed. Intimidating stuff. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be on the wrong side of them.

Cabra West: I think you SERIOUSLY underestimate the island mentality of the British, same as Hitler did. And bombing the cities only increased the resolve.

Were you there? I dont think so! My great grandfather was and you know what he says about the city bombings? That England was going to collapse in about three months if the US hadnt arrived. It got so bad that there were days were the dust and debris in the air was so thick that you couldnt see two feet away. Yeah, I think the British were going to get there ass'es handed to'em.

Yes we did but Monty actually did nothing really. He stood around and made a huge army that did absolutly nothing until a big moment and then completely fail. During the Anzio operation Monty was supposed to Break the German line to reach Anzio. He failed miserably. It was a French corps that broke the enemy line. Not the massive British army, not the massive American Army, a simple French corps broke the line.British inginuity is over rated.

Yeah Rommel crushed Monty in almost every engagement between the two.

Nice. Honestly, I'm not a Nazi or a Nazi supporter, but you have to give Hitler some credit. Ya, he thought of himself as a god and wanted the world to worship him, but he turned an extremely poor, bottom-of-the-food-chain, head under water country into the greatest military power in comparison in all time. For it's time, it was stronger than the Chinese and American armies of today.

Same here. I do want to say that Germany was only backwater because of the 10 billion dollar debt they head to pay to the allies. (For all of you idiots who say that isnt that much money, at the time it was like telling a country that they owed the rest of the world seven thousand googleplexes) Although the Chinese have a pretty crappy military.

Were you there? I dont think so! My great grandfather was and you know what he says about the city bombings? That England was going to collapse in about three months if the US hadnt arrived. It got so bad that there were days were the dust and debris in the air was so thick that you couldnt see two feet away. Yeah, I think the British were going to get there ass'es handed to'em.

Yes because what your great grandfather feels=how all British people felt. Not to say he isn't honest, but it is pretty well documented that Britain was going to both fall or keep fighting, depending on who you talk to.

Other than that I will stay out of what ifs, since they can never be concluded in any way.

Yes because what your great grandfather feels=how all British people felt. Not to say he isn't honest, but it is pretty well documented that Britain was going to both fall or keep fighting, depending on who you talk to.

Other than that I will stay out of what ifs, since they can never be concluded in any way.

He doesnt represent all of the British people, but he does (did, he's dead) say that people were beginning to kill themselves just from the stress of the constant bombings.

Irrespective of whether Hitler could have successfully invaded Britain or not does not matter as Hitler never wanted to invade the British Isles in the first place all he wanted to do was push the British Expeditionary Force and allies of the continent so he wouldn't have to worry about them.

His plan was that he would hope that Britain would ally with Hitler and help him defeat his true enemies Communist Russia. Unfortunately for him Britain was 6 years behind his plan of going against Communism and so it never happened. Hitler should have invaded the Isles which he could have done after all had he managed to push the British along with the remnants of the British Armed forces and other allied troops which had sought safe haven in Britain out to America then they would not have been able to launch an invasion of the Isles due to the extreme distance and the strength of the U-boat fleet in the Atlantic (of course would the strength be as high as the US would not have been sending ships across and would the US be able to effectively counteract this fleet as they would not know the tactics used by the U-boats due to the same reason). Had he pushed them off then Hitler could have easily attacked his true enemies and obliterated Communism

If he could cut the Suez Canal, he could have defeated the British, just as if he could have cut deep enough into the transatlantic lifeline of foodstuffs and fuel, which could have been done by actually focusing on the construction of the U-Boat fleet, instead of ignoring it and treating Doenitz like that weird uncle who always shows up at family reunions, but none of the girls will talk to.

How does Godwin’s Law apply to this thread?
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3804/regardingmussoliniqu3.png

2nd Rule of the Internet: For every online situation, there is an xkcd.

:):sniper:

Nice. Honestly, I'm not a Nazi or a Nazi supporter, but you have to give Hitler some credit. Ya, he thought of himself as a god and wanted the world to worship him, but he turned an extremely poor, bottom-of-the-food-chain, head under water country into the greatest military power in comparison in all time. For it's time, it was stronger than the Chinese and American armies of today.

Germany had been, prior to World War I, one of the greatest industrial powers in the world. It also had (still has) a huge population, one of the most populated countries in the world, and in addition to this had some of the most incredible engineering and scientific talent you could have ever hoped for, including none other then Max Planck, inventor of the Quantized model of energy, and Verner Von Braum, the man who first built the V2 Rocket, and then after World War II helped America build it's space program. These were the real stars of Nazi Germany.

Now granted, quite a bit of that industry that I mentioned first had fallen apart, but the skilled labor, infrastructure, education, investment housing and most of the other fundamental resources that are by far and away the most difficult part of developing an industrial state had remained. So no, Hitler's task in making Germany a powerful country was not exactly difficult, and you could hardly call the country that lead the world in to modern physical thinking a "backwater," especially since it had only been about 20 years since it had been a superpower when Hitler began his task.

According to the British War College, had the Germans initiated operation Sea Lion (their plan for the invasion of Britain) either immediately after Dunkerque or in the spring/summer of the following year, Britain would have fallen in six weeks. This was, however, their one and only chance. After that, the Home Guard and Army forces had been brought back up to strength; the Navy had redeployed to cover the channel sufficiently (not enough to stop a landing - the Channel is too bad a seaway for Naval power to be effective - but enough to prevent resupply and reinforcement of a beachhead), and the RAF was shifting to more effective planes and tactics (such as adopting the German "Finger-four" formation, still, in modified form, used today).

Germany attempted to starve out Britain, and failed. Even without US assistance, the introduction of ASDIC and dedicated subhunter frigates would have ended the real threat of that by 1944, just as it did in reality.

Germany had been, prior to World War I, one of the greatest industrial powers in the world. It also had (still has) a huge population, one of the most populated countries in the world, and in addition to this had some of the most incredible engineering and scientific talent you could have ever hoped for, including none other then Max Planck, inventor of the Quantized model of energy, and Verner Von Braum, the man who first built the V2 Rocket, and then after World War II helped America build it's space program. These were the real stars of Nazi Germany.

Now granted, quite a bit of that industry that I mentioned first had fallen apart, but the skilled labor, infrastructure, education, investment housing and most of the other fundamental resources that are by far and away the most difficult part of developing an industrial state had remained. So no, Hitler's task in making Germany a powerful country was not exactly difficult, and you could hardly call the country that lead the world in to modern physical thinking a "backwater," especially since it had only been about 20 years since it had been a superpower when Hitler began his task.

Yes that is correct but the reparations that Germany had enforced upon it by angry and greedy men in the treaty of Versailles caused the German economy to fall badly as they lost all colonies as well as 13% of its European territory this territory was about 10% of its industry and 20% of its agricultural land including 13% of its population and 16% of its coal mines and a large amount of its steel industry, on top of that they had to pay about $14 billion a large amount in those days.

Losing all that was a huge blow to Germany where unemployment was high and inflation ran amok, people would carry their pay in wheelbarrow and when they were mugged the mugger would tip the money out and take the wheelbarrow which was worth more.

So yes Hitler did quite a bit by overthrowing these severe restrictions and managed to bring Germany out of its Slump and bring it back to a major superpower through such things as more government spending on defence (Military Industrial Complex) and other infrastructure (The Autobahns) and a reworking of the education system those three things alone are good start to reviving an economy, to say that Hitler didn't have a difficult task ahead of him is wrong

According to the British War College, had the Germans initiated operation Sea Lion (their plan for the invasion of Britain) either immediately after Dunkerque or in the spring/summer of the following year, Britain would have fallen in six weeks. This was, however, their one and only chance. After that, the Home Guard and Army forces had been brought back up to strength; the Navy had redeployed to cover the channel sufficiently (not enough to stop a landing - the Channel is too bad a seaway for Naval power to be effective - but enough to prevent resupply and reinforcement of a beachhead), and the RAF was shifting to more effective planes and tactics (such as adopting the German "Finger-four" formation, still, in modified form, used today).

And the reason why Germany didn't go through with operation Sea lion is because Hitler had no intention of invading the British Isles

Blouman Empire, you're forgotting something really important: Hitler benefits for the Republic of Weimar politics.

The German army was in theory very strained by the traity, but the preparation of the revenge gets back to Weimar.
According to the treaty, German had strong ties about the Wermacht forces: not more than 100 000 soldiers, and only 5000 officers allowed.
And they totally biased this.
_First, all German troops were trained to be able of acting two-galons upper in the Hierarchy: the grenadiers were trained like sergents, the sergents were trained like captains, and the captain were trained like colonels...
_Second, Weimar Republic strongly supported the para-military groups, like the " Stall Helm " who give a true soldier training to hundred of thousands of youg Germans ( the Stall Helm alone regroups three MILLIONS of people in 1933 ), all those para-military groups strongly supported Hitler and were absorded by the NSDAP.
_Third, the German recession was ended due to international funding, mainly US ones.
_Four: thanks to the Soviet Union, the Wermacht could train and conduct exercices on a large scale on USSR soil.

Most of the industrial and population losses of the Traité de Versailles were given back to Germany in 1936 and 1938, by the cowardice of us, French and English, who refused to fight another war against Germany.
Yes, there was really good reasons to this, like the fact that France lost more than 1,5 million soldiers in WWI, for a 40 million population in total...Germany exceeded 60 millions at the same time, and Britain get no large standing army, all those kind of things.
Plus large parts of the public opinion was more or less favourable to Hitler, especially in the upper class, as it was mentionned ( in France it was thoses upper classes who impeached the government to give help to the Republican Spain, in order of " fighting the commies " .... )

To get back to the point:
I personnaly think that, if Hitler had launched a full assault at Dunkirk instead of stopping his armies, if in the same move he had assaulted Britain in the following months and if he had secured French helps ( after the English treacherous assault against the French at Mers-El-Kebir, with a proper diplomacy, it could gave worked ) and, most of all, if USSR hasn't do anything in German back, YES, Britain COULD eventually have fallen.

But still it is very unsure: there is one thing we French knew very well... British Army was never the best of the world, but the strength of UK was never on the land, it was on Sea (and, at this time, in the air)...

And the reason why Germany didn't go through with operation Sea lion is because Hitler had no intention of invading the British Isles

Yet, the stated reason for the Germans engaging in the Battle of Britain was to reduce Britain to the point of making Sea Lion easier and costing less troops...

For as I know, Hitler never intended to invade Britain, but hope to sign a peace, precisly because he knew that a lot of Englishmen support him and would back him against USSR.

If a Chamberlain was still in position, instead of a Chruchill ?

Who knows...
Petain was a war hero and an anti-conformist, he nevertheless end his life as a pathetic collaborateur and a dictator...

Yes and no. Had USA kept it's nose out of the war, after the battle for Britain Germany would have continued it's defensive policy toward Britain. After successfully taking europe with ease as it did, it's offensive capabilities would have been focussed on Russia. Without the beating it was copping from uncle Sam I think things would have gone better for them and they probably could have taken Moscow; pushing russia to siberia (and thus effectively Vladisvostok). Allied Japan could have cleaned up the mess in Vladisvostok at some stage resulting in the annhilation of Russia altogether. Without any opposition from US forces Taking asia would have been a stroll in the park for Japan. However, also without having to take on USA, southeast asia and Australia would have been of lesser strategic importance. Basically this would put eurasia as being divided cleanly in half by the Nazi's and the Japanese.

Should Russia have fallen, the British would be crazy to refuse any treaty offered to them by the Nazis, they might have even offered the treaty themselves. Nazi Germany ultimately would have sealed europe and signed a treaty with England. This treaty would probably save Australia from domination under the Japanese.

To go further would be baseless conjecture (even more so than the above). But you would basically have Germany owning most of western and northern europe, Italy with southern and eastern europe, Japan with continental asia possibly india and most of south east asia. The crumbling colonial empire of Britain would probably strengthen fading unity under a much more executive commonwealth alliance, leaving Britain, Canada, Australia, and South Africa banded together as ambiguous neighbours to the new reich. The rest of Africa, USA, and South America would remain much the same and likely be the focus for any further expansionism on the part of the reich. Despite their inaction in WW2, I could see the commonwealth coming to America's aid should the German-Japanese alliance invade (though I would expect them first to take south America before launching a war against USA). This would be a cataclysmic war of unprecedented scale, and the commonwealth-US alliance would probably lose.

Well, Germany was in no position to strike at Britain in 1940. Instead (In 1941), Hitler made the biggest mistake of his life and invaded Soviet Union.

I don't think Hitler would have been able to successfully invade Britain. However, if the U-boat campaign managed to stop enough food & resources from arriving in Britain, then the British would simply not have been able to continue. Somewhat of a stalemate IMO.

Britain could probably have survived without the USA. Not because I undervalue America's huge contribution (in terms of both industrial might and the bravery of her servicemen) , but because Hitler was essentially finished as soon as he attacked the USSR. The greatest fear of many in German high command was having to fight Britain and the USSR at the same time (the assumed, whether correctly or not, that they could take either of them individually)

Could Hitler have defeated the British?

No.

Could someone else in his position have defeated the British?

Quite likely, as "someone else" probably wouldn't be foolish enough to attack Russia and then declare war on the U.S. before the issue was decided.

I think the correct answer is in fact missing from the poll :

Britain would have survived without the USA. But they would not have survived without Stalin and the Red Army.

**Awards prize for most intelligent post**

The short answer is they did- the Royal Air Force won the Battle of Britain essentially by themselves, repulsing a German invasion before it could begin.

The long answer? Well, Nazi Germany might have had a chance if Adolf Hitler didn't have to bail out Benito Mussolini in Yugoslavia, Greece and Egypt allowing him the time it would have needed to effectively invade the Soviet Union. That way, the Nazis wouldn't have been fighting a two-front war and would have allowed them to focus their energies on making Sealion work, at which point it probably would have- at its prime, the Nazi army was the best in the world.

The question then, though, is would the Nazis have actually tried it...that I'm not too sure off. Historically, the Germans never really felt much animosity towards Britain (let's not forget that British royal lines originated out of Hanover, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, all German regions)- they probably considered them "rivals" but in terms of destruction, the Germans had higher priorities, namely France (the architects of Versailles) and the Soviet Union, a nation the British also despised (there was even some talk about the Germans and British collaborating against the Soviets). Plus, at the time, the Germans seemed more concerned with knocking the Brits out of the war instead of taking them over, and that's essentially what happened after the Battle of Britain, since although the Germans didn't win, the British still left them alone (long enough to invade Russia, that is). It's entirely possible that had Russia been a successful invasion the Germans might have redrawn Sealion (if not invasions of other countries- Hitler certainly had a "worldwide" view), but maybe not at that immediate juncture.

Well, Germany was in no position to strike at Britain in 1940. Instead (In 1941), Hitler made the biggest mistake of his life and invaded Soviet Union.

Yes and no.
Hitler invaded at the wrong time of the year he also made some very important mistakes during the planned invasion apart from the wrong time of year not make peace with the British before committing to his ideological war against the communists and diverting troops from the gates of Moscow and continuing through the Russia but instead diverted south to secure the oil fields.

Of course the biggest mistake was taking part of Poland (awaits comments for pointing out the obvious) which lead to the British declaring war Hitlers only intention with that was to link German Controlled Danzig and parts of western Poland that was predominantly German to be connected with the Fatherland. Had he not done this but gone about it some other way or had Britain not declared war then Hitler would never have invaded the rest of the continent bar the Iberian peninsula and Italy and Britain would never have had to worry about it.

Of course Hitler would still have attacked the USSR as the communists were his sworn enemy (as the Allies were against the USSR the cold war may never have happened or delayed had the Red Army taken all of Germany. Of course Hitler may have succeeded with his main objective as he would not have had to worry about those pesky Allies and put all his resources into the communists)

Yet, the stated reason for the Germans engaging in the Battle of Britain was to reduce Britain to the point of making Sea Lion easier and costing less troops...

I would like to see this on a credible source as the many docos and books on the matter failed to mention that point or I have somehow forgotten about it. But as I have said Hitler never wanted to ally with Britain in the hope that they would help him in destroying the USSR and overthrowing the communist regime

Blouman Empire, you're forgotting something really important: Hitler benefits for the Republic of Weimar politics.

The German army was in theory very strained by the traity, but the preparation of the revenge gets back to Weimar.
According to the treaty, German had strong ties about the Wermacht forces: not more than 100 000 soldiers, and only 5000 officers allowed.
And they totally biased this.
_First, all German troops were trained to be able of acting two-galons upper in the Hierarchy: the grenadiers were trained like sergents, the sergents were trained like captains, and the captain were trained like colonels...
_Second, Weimar Republic strongly supported the para-military groups, like the " Stall Helm " who give a true soldier training to hundred of thousands of youg Germans ( the Stall Helm alone regroups three MILLIONS of people in 1933 ), all those para-military groups strongly supported Hitler and were absorded by the NSDAP.
_Third, the German recession was ended due to international funding, mainly US ones.
_Four: thanks to the Soviet Union, the Wermacht could train and conduct exercices on a large scale on USSR soil.

Most of the industrial and population losses of the Traité de Versailles were given back to Germany in 1936 and 1938, by the cowardice of us, French and English, who refused to fight another war against Germany.
Yes, there was really good reasons to this, like the fact that France lost more than 1,5 million soldiers in WWI, for a 40 million population in total...Germany exceeded 60 millions at the same time, and Britain get no large standing army, all those kind of things.
Plus large parts of the public opinion was more or less favourable to Hitler, especially in the upper class, as it was mentionned ( in France it was thoses upper classes who impeached the government to give help to the Republican Spain, in order of " fighting the commies "

Well I am not to sure on the first part in regards to the millitary under the Weimar Republic so I will take your word for it untill otherwise.

As for number three you say the the recession in Germany ended becuase of economic aid mainly from the US but the US was in a recession as well along with most of the world a economic incident know as the great depression.

Now you say Germany got a lot of its land back in 1936 and 1938 well who was in power then yes that is right Hitler, of course it wasn't everything they only took Studutenland a part of Poland where as Germany before the war was a large country most of Poland right up around the Baltic Sea including Latvia and surrondign countries. nevertheless once Hitler refused to pay back money and other restrictions imposed on Germany he did have a lot more freedom and money in which to use thus helping the economic recovery in Germany once he cam back to power

Remember, Britian declared war on Germany, over Poland. Hitler respected the British, knew they were a hard fight and would not give in. He did not want to fight us at that moment in time. There were, and still are many ties between Britain and Germany, and the Royalty link is just one.

Britian would not of declared war if she could not take the fight. The defeats in the beginning of the war were due to deteriating Ango French co operation. Britain may not been able to win on her own, But with her empire, that included Canada, South Africa, India, and Austrialla, She was more than capable of defending herself. Which she did. Take note Britain was fighting the Japanese in Burma. And the Italians in the desert, until the arrival of Rommel. American assistance really helped alot. But it has to be said that the war winner here was the Soviet Union and the British Empire. Both could feild alot more numbers than America, The British Empire was huge for crying out loud.

Where America really helped, was not her military support, but her logistal. The supplies and equipment received were needed a hell of a lot more than the manpower.

In short, yes Britian could stand alone almost indefinatly. But probably could not of defeated the Nazis. after a period of time a negiotiated settlement would of been agreed.

And I ask the Americans this.

Where was you before 1941???
:upyours:

I would like to see this on a credible source as the many docos and books on the matter failed to mention that point or I have somehow forgotten about it. But as I have said Hitler never wanted to ally with Britain in the hope that they would help him in destroying the USSR and overthrowing the communist regime

Fair request, I'll see what I can dig up. You're quite right that Hitler never wanted to go to war with Britain in the first place, of course.

well before I say anything I think 60 years is a long time and it would be nice if we let this whole war go for a change, I mean we had a frigging cold war and a previous World war that was more or less a giant game of risk so why the fascination?

now with that out of the way I must say:

Britain was producing more and destroying more even if by some miracle the Nazi's could fight long wars instead of just running to the capital, the royal navy would block of all supply and the troops that do land would be spasmed to death in a cloud of yellow

hell its WWI all over again and Britain can play the game of waiting for Germany to collapse



not if we get the chronosphere up and running :p

I think this is a very good point. I do not understand why people say they don't speak surrender when asked if they know any French.
Although i disagree with Britain playing a waiting game. Germany's army was designed around a mobile doctrine (e.g. Blitzkrieg) and would have planned such and invasion for months, and a contigency plan for the next few weeks. Considering that most of Britain's army at the time was either in Libya, Egypt, India, or *shudder SE Asia, a land battle would have been completely one-sided.
The air battle would have been nothing if Hitler had given his naval commanders more resources. After about two years of effective raids in the Atlantic, he focused more on the RUSSIAN campaign. This is was his biggest mistake of the war.

Could the Allies (ie Britain, Russia and the remaining forces from the occupied contiental powers) have won the war if the US hadn't militarily entered the war when it did? Yes, although the victory would have taken longer, been significantly more bloody and have left all parties involved significantly more damaged (I think that's the polite term for their condition) than they were.

Could they have won the war with no US aide at all (supplies etc) possibly, since a lot of supplies came from Canada as well, but chances are it would have ended up a stalemate.

Could Britain have won if the Russians hadn't come in or had been beaten, for whatever reason. Almost certainly not, although the invasion of Britian would have been long and very bloody. The resistances set up, the home guard, not to mention conventional forces, would have meant that Germany paid very very dearly for every inch gained.

would it been worth invading the the UK have to remember that soon as the Germans landed they would cut the dykes in the fenland thus flooding most of of the eastern counties, all that prime Agricultural land suddenly gone for a few years and plus members of the so called secret army that knew the region like the back of their hand, and could they of tamed the angry rural peasant or farmer it took a lot rile them them up but when they where riled up

Were you there? I dont think so! My great grandfather was and you know what he says about the city bombings? That England was going to collapse in about three months if the US hadnt arrived. It got so bad that there were days were the dust and debris in the air was so thick that you couldnt see two feet away. Yeah, I think the British were going to get there ass'es handed to'em.


No. My fiance's father and mother were, though, and they give quite a different picture.
Not about the amount of damage, that certainly was very bad, but if Germany ever had tried invading, they would have met with a Switzerland situation.

probably not by himself. He'd have needed at least Goering and perhaps even Goebbels alongside.

I would like to see this on a credible source as the many docos and books on the matter failed to mention that point or I have somehow forgotten about it. But as I have said Hitler never wanted to ally with Britain in the hope that they would help him in destroying the USSR and overthrowing the communist regime

That's simple. Operation Sealion could not be won without aerial superiority; thus the need to engage the Royal Air Force and eliminate it's fighters and airbases.

probably not by himself. He'd have needed at least Goering and perhaps even Goebbels alongside.

This answer makes me smile.

Just remind us where the USA was during the battle of Britain.
Oh yeah that's right sitting safely the other side of the Atlantic twiddling their thumbs.

I think the correct answer is in fact missing from the poll :

Britain would have survived without the USA. But they would not have survived without Stalin and the Red Army.

And, as Marshall Zhukov wrote, the USSR would not have survived without the US. Wonderful little interdependent alliance structure they had going there, eh?

Germany was on course to win the battle of Britain,and as an earlier post (or a few posts) have stated,had operation sea-lion began,then Britain would have been Nazi Britain.
Germany had a strangle hold on Britain's commerce over the sea,and it was growing tighter and tighter by the day. While the British were sending aircraft into the air that looked like swiss cheese because the British had not the resources or the time to repair them properly,the Germans were sending shiney new BF-109E "Emils" every day,in the hundreds. The British had been defeated,it's just that noone told them yet.
Unfortunatly,it started to unravel after an event that changed it all.
A German bomber group of HE-111s got lost in a storm,and bombed London. Inciting rage in the British parliments. Don't quote me on this,but there was I believe a "gentlemen's agreement" on Hitler and Churchill's part not to attack cities. With the advent of said accident,Churchill ordered the bombing of Berlin,Bremen,and other large cities. Hitler,infuriated by this,concentrated his air power then on London,Giving the RAF the space they needed to get their airfields back together and rally a new defence. Had Hitler continued to concentrate efforts on the RAF and not on London,Britain would have fallen.
But by then it was too late,Sufficient Numbers of Spitfire Mk1s had now been delivered,and unfortunatly for the German U-Booters,ASDIC,Radar and lend-Lease 4 Stack Destroyers and Equipment from the United States made it very hard to infiltrate a convoy successfully. That,and as an earlier post had described,Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. But that was partially Stalin's fault.
Stalin breached the terms of the Molotov/Rippentorp agreement over Poland. Fearing that the Soviet Union were up to no good,Hitler struck. Which gave Britain even more breathing room. Thus in essence,Germany lost the battle of Britain due to Hitler's Impatience with his lust for "Lebens Raum" (Living room) for the German people. And his hate for Stalin.

Fair request, I'll see what I can dig up. You're quite right that Hitler never wanted to go to war with Britain in the first place, of course.

Cheers mate even if it is not a website but the name of a book or TV documentary.

And it is exactly why Hitler never wanted to invade Britain as to why I would like to see that info, the main reason he continued the attack on the RAF forces was to knock them down so they wouldn't give him an trouble the same reason why he kicked the British forces off the continent, hoping that they would ally with him and help defeat the USSR.

Communist WorkersParty yes that is exactly what happened as the Luftwaffe focused the majority of their attacks on London and other cities as the RAF dropped about 1000 times the weight of bombs on Berlin in response to the initial attack on London, Hitler decided to continue the attacks on English cities and so to the RAF

Counter-Historical analysis is really not my forte but I suspect that Britain (and while we are at it I guess I should say the Allies) could not have won WWII without US assistance. American troops (including my Grandfather and I am very proud of his participation) were a very important asset. However, it was really the industrial might and merchant marine fleet that I think did the most to advance the allied cause. I think any analysis of this question would be incomplete if we did not also account for the role that the atomic weapon played. Perhaps, atomic technology would have been develloped first by the Axis if the US was not involved.

Without American assistance, the Japaneese would have been a much larger threat to India, Australia, and New Zealand. The Dutch navy would also have been completely annihilated without US assistance against the Japaneese.

However, I am not sure that the outcome would necessarily be the conquest of the UK by Germany. I think that Hitler underestimated Soviet resistance. I think that if the US was not involved in the war, the UK would have been forced to surrender under terms that gave up all of its colonies to the Axis. I think that Italy would have received some African colonies. I think that Italy and Germany would be given joint control of Gibraltar. I think that Germany would have taken South Africa, other African colonies, and Middle Eastern territory. I think that Japan would have received India and conquered the colonies and British Commonwealth countries in Asia and Australia.

Japan would then spend a good bit of time, blood, and treasure trying to unite its new Empire and who knows what that would lead to. Germany would also have similar problems in administering its new territories, espescially as nationalist and communist movements gained mommentum.

Assuming that Japan, Germany, and Italy maintained a strong and aggressive alliance once the dust settled. A future war of conquest by them would have been devestating. If this war was aimed at the UK and the US, it is doubtful that the UK and USA could win. However, I believe that by this point nuclear weapons technology would be around and make it unlikely that anything more than a Cold War would really result. II think that we would have an Axis dominated world where there were frequent rebellions and guerrilla wars and a smaller yet more democratic and stable US, Canadian, British, and Icelandic world. Both of these powers would jockey for influence in the Caribbean, Latin America, and South America. There might be proxy wars in those areas as well.

the brits would have been anhilated if it weren't for two reasons
1). the united states invading and destroying the nazi empire
2). hitler did not use his panzer division to attack the beachheads during d-day resulting in US forces not being massacred because if he did use them we would be speaking german right now

the brits would have been anhilated if it weren't for two reasons
1). the united states invading and destroying the nazi empire
2). hitler did not use his panzer division to attack the beachheads during d-day resulting in US forces not being massacred because if he did use them we would be speaking german right nowI am speaking German right now.

the brits would have been anhilated if it weren't for two reasons
1). the united states invading and destroying the nazi empire



Never mind that the Brits helped immensly with that on D-day, right?


Also, never mind that it was actually the Russians who did most of the damage to the Nazis.

Yes, Germany, with a better planning, could have defeated the Brits.

Too bad for Hitler (and happily for us all) his war conduct was the result of a poor planning.

Main initial error of Hitler's:
He didn't think that France and Britain would declare war on Germany when he attacked Poland. He thought he could work things around as he was allowed to do with Czechoslovakia. Proof? No operations on the western front until mid-spring 1940.

Following errors: not building a serious invasion force (and yes, an invasion force through the English Channel is easy, it's just an invasion version of the Dunkerque evacuation fleet); dispersing the Kriegsmarine through the North Sea and the North Atlantic instead than focusing on taking aeronaval superiority on the English Channel; not recognising the uselessness of terror bombings on british cities - instead he could have sent his bombers against military targets and military industry only, that would have been more effective as a preparation.

Hitler thought that he could reach a peace agreement with Britain (a radio speech in June 1940 iirc), and he thought that some sectors of the british politics were ready to switch alliances and join Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union. That's why his initial war conduct against Britain was so erratic.

the brits would have been anhilated if it weren't for two reasons
1). the united states invading and destroying the nazi empire
2). hitler did not use his panzer division to attack the beachheads during d-day resulting in US forces not being massacred because if he did use them we would be speaking german right now

Wow. Do you seriously think that an Allied Defeat on D-Day would have allowed the Germans to win? Would such a defeat really have significantly delayed the devellopment of atomic weapons?

I want to hear your explanation for your second point. Also, lets assume that on point 1 the US did not invade the German Empire. Lets assume that it focussed its military strength on the Japanese and Italians and only engaged Germany with naval forces and air power. Also, let us assume that the US stationed a lot of troops in the UK defensively and provided a lot of material to its and other forces stationed there.

I think that this would still have resulted in an Allied victory but the war would have taken longer. In fact, dropping a few A-bombs on Germany would have been pretty effective at avoiding a situation where we are all speaking German now.

Perhaps, atomic technology would have been develloped first by the Axis if the US was not involved.
I don't think so. Fermi emigrated to the US before WW2 because the fascists cut the funds for his researches (also, his wife was a jew). Bohr escaped the occupation of Denmark. Einstein was already living in the US. German scientists were verboten to use Einstein's relativity in their calculations because it was a "jewish" theory.
The idiotic scientific policies of the Axis themselves spelt failure for any Axis attempt at nuclear weapons.


However, I am not sure that the outcome would necessarily be the conquest of the UK by Germany. I think that Hitler underestimated Soviet resistance.
That's for sure. Also they invaded the Soviet Union too late (late summer instead than late spring), and failed to fortify their spearheads against the Soviet counterattacks.


I think that if the US was not involved in the war, the UK would have been forced to surrender under terms that gave up all of its colonies to the Axis. I think that Italy would have received some African colonies. I think that Italy and Germany would be given joint control of Gibraltar. I think that Germany would have taken South Africa, other African colonies, and Middle Eastern territory. I think that Japan would have received India and conquered the colonies and British Commonwealth countries in Asia and Australia.

Meh. I think that, in the case of a British surrender (or peace agreement, more likely), Britain would have been forced to side with Germany against the Soviet Union; to achieve that, I don't think that the Axis diplomacy would have chosen to force such harsh conditions on the British Empire.


If this war was aimed at the UK and the US, it is doubtful that the UK and USA could win.
The Atlantic would still have proven a very difficult barrier to overcome, expecially against the strong US naval power.

The Battle of Britain was won by Britain. Alone. Therefore Operation Sealion had to be abandoned.

Remember, Britain ruled about 1/4 of the World then. Now, Germany ruled a large part of a small Continent. Had it been a war of Complete resource use by both sides I think Britain would have won.

I think however that had Hitler been able to get the King or Churchill Killed or Captured, (is it true that Churchill and The King wanted to lead the Troops on D-day?) Hitler Could have won as British Morale would have been Crushed.

Had the British Empire and Commonwealth (Inc Mandates) been told more about the Holocaust in the War then the War might have been over quicker as more people in the Colonies etc would have joined up out of sheer anger.

The Atlantic would still have proven a very difficult barrier to overcome, expecially against the strong US naval power.

2 Things.

First, German U-boats did attack some US shipping (anyone got a link? It was on the History Channel a while back). So much for US naval power and the Atlantic.

Second, The Royal Navy had a Policy of Being Bigger than the Next two mots powerful Navies put together before WWI. By WWII the British Navy was at least Roughly the same size as that of the USA, (was that the Locarno Treaty?) and bigger if the Colonies had their own navies.

I don't know If Hitler planned to Attack the US. The Japanese Certainly did. They dropped a Couple of Firebombs I think on the Mainland USA. (Yeah, worth the effort of getting a plane all the way across the Pacific then, Not!)

I don't think so. Fermi emigrated to the US before WW2 because the fascists cut the funds for his researches (also, his wife was a jew). Bohr escaped the occupation of Denmark. Einstein was already living in the US. German scientists were verboten to use Einstein's relativity in their calculations because it was a "jewish" theory.
The idiotic scientific policies of the Axis themselves spelt failure for any Axis attempt at nuclear weapons..

I do not know anything about any German or Italian nuclear research during WWII. However, the Japanese were pretty advanced. The day after Hiroshima there were Jap scientists in radiation suits with geiger counters.

2 Things.

First, German U-boats did attack some US shipping (anyone got a link? It was on the History Channel a while back). So much for US naval power and the Atlantic.Naval power strictly required to avoid warlike actions against Germany because Congress said so.

I do not know anything about any German or Italian nuclear research during WWII. However, the Japanese were pretty advanced. The day after Hiroshima there were Jap scientists in radiation suits with geiger counters.That only proves that they too had heard about radiation.

I do not know anything about any German or Italian nuclear research during WWII.

I don't know much about it either but...
"Copenhagen" by Michael Frayn on 29 January and on 4, 10, 15 and 16 February 2005

Why did Werner Heisenberg, who was involved in the Third Reich's nuclear research programme, visit his friend and mentor Niels Bohr in occupied Denmark in September 1941? Was it a deliberate attempt to mislead the allies, whose cause Bohr supported? Or was he really pursuing the utopian goal of halting the race to build the atomic bomb? The play "Copenhagen"explores a question that historians have never been able to explain fully. (see also Bulletin n° 47/2003 17 November 2003).
link (http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=06/2005&base=art)
it's at the very bottom of the article

That only proves that they too had heard about radiation.

It also suggests that they had a pretty good idea of what made the A-bomb so powerful.

My recollection of a History Channel show was that the Japanese somehow either had the technology to make a "dirty" atomic bomb or else were pretty darn close.

It also suggestst that they had a pretty good idea of what made the A-bomb so powerful.Everyone knew that, though. It was how to get it to work that was the big question.
My recollection of a History Channel show was that the Japanese somehow either had the technology to make a "dirty" atomic bomb or else were pretty darn close.Dirty atomic bombs and atomic bombs are very, very different.

Everyone knew that, though. It was how to get it to work that was the big question.
Dirty atomic bombs and atomic bombs are very, very different.

I am not an expert on this stuff at all, but dirty Abombs are still a pretty major advance at a time when there were no atomic energy plants or no atomic weapons yet in existance.

I am not an expert on this stuff at all, but dirty Abombs are still a pretty major advance at a time when there were no atomic energy plants or no atomic weapons yet in existance.Dirty atomic bombs aren't atomic bombs at all. They're conventional bombs with radioactive matter attached so it will contaminate an area. They don't indicate a pretty major advance in technology anymore than strapping a cat to a bomb would.

As for number three you say the the recession in Germany ended becuase of economic aid mainly from the US but the US was in a recession as well along with most of the world a economic incident know as the great depression.
Not at the time of Hitler's ascension of power, everyone was already recovering in 1933, and most of the US founds I was speaking of are dating of 1933-1939, of course, didn't think much credit of this could be allowed to the Nazis.


Now you say Germany got a lot of its land back in 1936 and 1938 well who was in power then yes that is right Hitler, of course it wasn't everything they only took Studutenland a part of Poland where as Germany before the war was a large country most of Poland right up around the Baltic Sea including Latvia and surrondign countries. nevertheless once Hitler refused to pay back money and other restrictions imposed on Germany he did have a lot more freedom and money in which to use thus helping the economic recovery in Germany once he cam back to power
This is not exactly true.
During Weimar Republic, with British help, Germany received a delay for paying and a big cut in the reparation of war...when Hitler was elected, Germany hasn't payed a single piece since years.
The Occupation of the Ruhr by Belgium and France in the 20's was motived by this willigness to not pay anything, who was backed by USA and England ( the first in the name of freedom, the second because Britain was thinking that France could grow to big...this is also why England helped Germany in securing industrials areas in the newly born Poland )

The " Hitler miraculous recovery of Germany " is just a myth.

Thus, I'm still thinking that after Mer-el-Kébir, the " British Pearl Harbor against the French ", the Nazis gets and let go their only chance to win against England.

its very simple

NO

if Germany could push through the west through a nation the size of France, then swing east to push about a quarter of the way through the USSR, a small island nation like the UK would have been conquered in a month

its very simple

NO

if Germany could push through the west through a nation the size of France, then swing east to push about a quarter of the way through the USSR, a small island nation like the UK would have been conquered in a month

Let me point out the quote button in the bottom right corner of ech post, use of this makes discussions much easier to follow.

Hitler could have conquered Britain but he made these fatal errors

1) Failure to destroy the British at Dunkirk

2) Switch from tactical bombing to carpet bombing civilians

3) attack on Russia


The other big things that swung against the Nazis

1) Britain employing the convey system in the Battle of the Atlantic

2) Not completing their rocketry research fast enough

3) Making a fatal error in the calculation of the Nazi nuclear bomb (they made a fundamental error about nuclear physics and never got anywhere with it)

4) Attack on Pearl Harbour and entry of the US

With hindsight, the Nazis as set up were doomed to failure. IF some other totalitarian regime had been set up that was, er, sane, then I think it would have conquered Britain.

Could Hitler have defeated the British?

No, now could Germany have done so under different leadership, quite possibly.

No, now could Germany have done so under different leadership, quite possibly.


Actually thats where you're wrong, Hitler basically started WW2 because he was a power mad loony, Germany lost the war because they had a power mad loony in charge

As for whether the british could have survived the nazi onslaught alone, Germany had one chance to force Britains surrender, that a sea invasion was doomed to failure anyway (look how large the D-day operation was and how close it came to falling over)
What the German high command should have done is made the Stuka crews do training runs for bombing ships, while carrying on the attacks on RAF airfields with their other planes while building decoy ships in the french and belgium harbours, (you know ... wooden mock ups of tanks on the invasion barges for example)

Then around about 6 pm in the first week in sept.1940 made sure that the British could see this 'fleet' putting to sea, the result would be that the Royal Navy would rush everything it had into the channel in order to block/destroy the invasion and when dawn broke the next day, the channel turkey shoot would begin, the RAF still caught up with the airfield attacks would be unable to come out over the channel, while the Stuka's highly accurate dive bombing would send most of the Royal navy's home fleet to the bottom.

Hitler's 6pm broadcast from Berlin would then be 'Surrender...or else'

However , it was'nt to be, and so the British survived

Then around about 6 pm in the first week in sept.1940 made sure that the British could see this 'fleet' putting to sea, the result would be that the Royal Navy would rush everything it had into the channel in order to block/destroy the invasion and when dawn broke the next day, the channel turkey shoot would begin, the RAF still caught up with the airfield attacks would be unable to come out over the channel, while the Stuka's highly accurate dive bombing would send most of the Royal navy's home fleet to the bottom.


Now I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have worked*, since the Royal Navy was all stationed up near Scotland (to keep them safe from air attack), thus they wouldn't have been able to respond to the German fleet quick enough for the ploy not to have been discovered.

The tactic to deal with a German invasion over the channel was to fight them every step of the way with multiple line defences and have the Royal Navy cut of their supply chain after they landed.


*Please note this knowledge is vaguely remembered from History documentaries, I could be wrong.

The "Why won't Canada join USA" thread has degenerated into a discussion over whether Nazi Germany was capable of defeating the Brits in WW2





So give your opinions peoples... I don't think the Nazi's could have taken Britain. Britain was still the world's largest Empire, a major world power and the Nazi's couldn't get past the RAF and Royal Navy. Also, Britain was getting enough aid from Canada to to not be starved to death.

I think Hitler was doomed to failure, With Mussolini's troops not ready for war, and invading Russia Hitler picked the wrong people to fight. What he could have done is crush the British at Dunkirk, invade immediatly after, take a stronghold of South England, as this part is in the main pretty flatland and with large areas of coast Hitler could land troops along most of England. The problems would come with Taking Scotland, Wales and North England all of which fairly hilly and barren (at this point) so fighting would have been slow, but if he had managed to take the rest of Britian then he'd have the Scottish shipyards, Liverpool docks and Plymouth docks to build up a stronger navy to consolidate his hold on France and Britain he could swing his attention to the East.
Gain US support and not ally with Japan, Then Hitler with US support would have supplies from them to stop Stalin in the East.

I think Hitler was doomed to failure, With Mussolini's troops not ready for war, and invading Russia Hitler picked the wrong people to fight. What he could have done is crush the British at Dunkirk, invade immediatly after, take a stronghold of South England, as this part is in the main pretty flatland and with large areas of coast Hitler could land troops along most of England. The problems would come with Taking Scotland, Wales and North England all of which fairly hilly and barren (at this point) so fighting would have been slow, but if he had managed to take the rest of Britian then he'd have the Scottish shipyards, Liverpool docks and Plymouth docks to build up a stronger navy to consolidate his hold on France and Britain he could swing his attention to the East.
Gain US support and not ally with Japan, Then Hitler with US support would have supplies from them to stop Stalin in the East.

There was no chance that the US woud have supported Hitler, his only big chance to win was if he kept his alliance with the USSR, and with their help take Europe and Africa and then arttack the USSR, by that point Nazi germany woud be the biggest nation of the world and the USSR woud not have a chance...
But he was too opsset with invading the USSR that he did not think of taking the rest of Aurope and Africa first and thank God for that.. I cant speak german :D

Of course, if Neville Chamberlain hadn't been such a huge pussy about the Sudaetenland, the British would have never had to worry about invasions or suffered a Battle of Britain. And yet, even if with Neville's example, people still have not learned the folly and waste of appeasement as a foreign policy.

Someone asked at the beginning of the thread why WWII continues to captivate both the popular and the academic imagination. I think it's because, apart from the Cold War, you're unlikely to find a more stark example of Good v. Evil in the last hundred years. The Nazi's were unmistakably Evil through and through, to the bone. Everything they said and did was tainted with it, the way smoke clings to a ceiling. They represented the worst qualities of humanity's darkest heart exalted into virtues.

I think Germany could have won, but more would have to be different than the United States not showing up.

England won the Battle of Britain; American aid wasn't necessary for that. That seemed to stop Germany for a while. Now, if Germany had continued to focus on England and didn't break it's non-aggression pact with the USSR, the island probably would have fallen: Germany was just bigger and better (from a militaristic standpoint).

Nonsense. England won the battle of Britain because Hitler ordered his air generals to attack civilian targets instead of pressuring air fields and military factories. Stalingrad was a pivotal point because Hitler refused to accept defeat in a symbolic battle. Ideally, military leaders would have made sensible decisions had Hitler not directly interfered with military operations, which very well might have allowed the German war machine to prevail.

With regard to the naval issue, ships only take so much time to complete, and planes and paratroopers are produced and trained even faster, so an invasion of Britain probably wouldn't have followed too far behind a victory over the Soviets, the whole naval issue circumvented by air supply. Not mention the ability to bomb enemy shipping that would come from German air superiority because of intelligent military campaigning instead of trading insult for insult. Not to mention that the US provided a fair amount of naval assistance to the overstretched Royal Navy.

The Reds never really held their own very often. Hitler just didn't know when to quit and marshal his resources for further operations. Or how to make winter clothes, it would seem.

Dirty atomic bombs aren't atomic bombs at all. They're conventional bombs with radioactive matter attached so it will contaminate an area. They don't indicate a pretty major advance in technology anymore than strapping a cat to a bomb would.

A diseased cat makes a better parallel. ;)

If Germany would have destroyed the Navy and held the Ocean they would have a better chance. Also if their was diversionary forces that would split the RAF the chances would have been greatly increased. Maybe if they used the tactic of D-Day, but that had not happened:rolleyes:.

There was no chance that the US woud have supported Hitler, his only big chance to win was if he kept his alliance with the USSR, and with their help take Europe and Africa and then arttack the USSR, by that point Nazi germany woud be the biggest nation of the world and the USSR woud not have a chance...
But he was too opsset with invading the USSR that he did not think of taking the rest of Aurope and Africa first and thank God for that.. I cant speak german :D
Not true. If the Germans had been the obvious winners in Europe before an entry into the war, the US would have supported them against the Communists. That would have become more important. Not to mention that the Germans had no problem taking sides against the Japanese if it meant a stronger ally in the US. So basically, US support would have been non-existent or in German favor. Everybody feared the Ruskies. :p

Of course, if Neville Chamberlain hadn't been such a huge pussy about the Sudaetenland, the British would have never had to worry about invasions or suffered a Battle of Britain. And yet, even if with Neville's example, people still have not learned the folly and waste of appeasement as a foreign policy.

Someone asked at the beginning of the thread why WWII continues to captivate both the popular and the academic imagination. I think it's because, apart from the Cold War, you're unlikely to find a more stark example of Good v. Evil in the last hundred years. The Nazi's were unmistakably Evil through and through, to the bone. Everything they said and did was tainted with it, the way smoke clings to a ceiling. They represented the worst qualities of humanity's darkest heart exalted into virtues.

"They had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor; they will have war." ~ Winston Churchill
There was no real recourse from war at that point. Hitler's mind was made up, with or without a prepared Italy.

That isn't true. It was a mixed ideology. There was much about them to be admired. But there was also much to be abhorred. You make the same mistake they did when you think of things in such black and white terms. You are a product of propaganda, I'm afraid.

If Germany would have destroyed the Navy and held the Ocean they would have a better chance. Also if their was diversionary forces that would split the RAF the chances would have been greatly increased. Maybe if they used the tactic of D-Day, but that had not happened:rolleyes:.

They wouldn't need it. Britain wasn't nearly the fortress the Atlantic Wall was vaunted to be. Both were propaganda, but the Atlantic Wall came closer to the reality, especially after Rommel took charge of the beach defenses. Fighting a way into Britain wouldn't have been very hard earlier in the war. The massive buildup of US troops made it much more difficult closer to D-Day. A Britain-first approach instead of a Soviet-first approach may have been the wiser, short-term, but the last thing Hitler wanted was to give the Reds more time to recover from the purges and strengthen their armies.

I still think Hitler would have attacked France- Franco-German animosity stretched back quite a while (Franco-Prussian War, WWI) and the fact the French were the architects of the Treaty of Versailles added to that. There was also the sting of losing to the French in WWI after botching the Schlieffen Plan. Plus, the French themselves built considerable defences (Maginot Line) in preparation for a war against the Germans. In short, Hitler attacking France was inevitable.

Exactly. It was more than an a matter of honor, although that played into it. Even without Allied support, the French would likely have declared war on Germany if Germany had had the notion to simply take the war to the Soviets first. I don't see France sitting behind their forts while the Germans gain access to that much territory, military resources and manpower. It would have come to continental war anyway, likely as not. The Poles wouldn't have folded to political demands, so there would certainly have been war there, I might add, to put the whole thing into a realistic frame of a Soviet-German war starting the rest of the mess.

Of course the biggest mistake was taking part of Poland (awaits comments for pointing out the obvious) which lead to the British declaring war Hitlers only intention with that was to link German Controlled Danzig and parts of western Poland that was predominantly German to be connected with the Fatherland. Had he not done this but gone about it some other way or had Britain not declared war then Hitler would never have invaded the rest of the continent bar the Iberian peninsula and Italy and Britain would never have had to worry about it.

Of course Hitler would still have attacked the USSR as the communists were his sworn enemy (as the Allies were against the USSR the cold war may never have happened or delayed had the Red Army taken all of Germany. Of course Hitler may have succeeded with his main objective as he would not have had to worry about those pesky Allies and put all his resources into the communists)

I still think Hitler would have attacked France- Franco-German animosity stretched back quite a while (Franco-Prussian War, WWI) and the fact the French were the architects of the Treaty of Versailles added to that. There was also the sting of losing to the French in WWI after botching the Schlieffen Plan. Plus, the French themselves built considerable defences (Maginot Line) in preparation for a war against the Germans. In short, Hitler attacking France was inevitable.

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3804/regardingmussoliniqu3.png

2nd Rule of the Internet: For every online situation, there is an xkcd.

No, the 2nd rule of the Internet is "You do not talk about /b/."

Which, quite frankly, is much better than Rule 34 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/RhynoD/poster29628156.jpg).

I don't know If Hitler planned to Attack the US. The Japanese Certainly did. They dropped a Couple of Firebombs I think on the Mainland USA. (Yeah, worth the effort of getting a plane all the way across the Pacific then, Not!)

I dont know if the Japanese actually got planes to mainland USA, but they did get some balloons with explosives here.
They also had intentions of sending crop destroying diseases on balloons in an effort to decimate the US bread-basket in the midwest.

And the Germans had U-Boats right off the east coast of the US.

If Germany wouldnt have invaded Poland and focused its strength on the west they would have won. Poland would have been a buffer between Russia and Germany except for a small border that is commonly shared between them. In the west, Hitler made the mistake of attacking civilians instead of military. Hitler was winning the Battle of Britain before the focus shift. The German subs were also dropping more boats and strangling Britain. All in all, Hitler should have taken the world in piece-meal rather than in bulk.

I dont know if the Japanese actually got planes to mainland USA, but they did get some balloons with explosives here.
They also had intentions of sending crop destroying diseases on balloons in an effort to decimate the US bread-basket in the midwest.

And the Germans had U-Boats right off the east coast of the US.

There were German plans to attack the US at least via ultra-long-range stratospheric bombers with the nuclear bomb they never quite developed. Wunderwaffen. Other than that, I don't know that the Germans really bothered with much in the way of plans to directly invade the US. It would seem they probably had more pressing concerns.

If Germany wouldnt have invaded Poland and focused its strength on the west they would have won. Poland would have been a buffer between Russia and Germany except for a small border that is commonly shared between them. In the west, Hitler made the mistake of attacking civilians instead of military. Hitler was winning the Battle of Britain before the focus shift. The German subs were also dropping more boats and strangling Britain. All in all, Hitler should have taken the world in piece-meal rather than in bulk.

Piecemeal means no attacking the Reds at all. :p I don't think invading Poland was a mistake. Losing the war in the East was. The Battle of Britain certainly was. But Poland was what got the whole thing started, provided the momentum. It also gave Germany even more influence in Southern/Eastern Europe, in both positive and negative ways, partly due to one less country set to oppose their political aims in the region.

Piecemeal means no attacking the Reds at all. :p I don't think invading Poland was a mistake. Losing the war in the East was. The Battle of Britain certainly was. But Poland was what got the whole thing started, provided the momentum. It also gave Germany even more influence in Southern/Eastern Europe, in both positive and negative ways, partly due to one less country set to oppose their political aims in the region.

I agree that attacking Poland wasnt a bad idea, dont get me wrong on that. I also understand that resources and influence there is in the East. I was only speaking on behalf of the original argument if Hitler could have taken Britain. I believe he opened himiself on too many fronts. Also, he could have been the one to force Russia to break the non-agression act, making Germany the liberators in Poland, alot of whom were German until 30 years prior.

There were German plans to attack the US at least via ultra-long-range stratospheric bombers with the nuclear bomb they never quite developed. Wunderwaffen. Other than that, I don't know that the Germans really bothered with much in the way of plans to directly invade the US. It would seem they probably had more pressing concerns.

I hadnt heard of that, but I'm not shocked. Thank God it never came about.

The Japanese also had subs they planned to release rats on US shores, full of disease ridden fleas- plague,cholera, etc...

I remember reading a report in the NY Times years ago after they interviewed an elderly Japanese doctor who took part in testing various diseases on kidnapped Chinese and then Russians as they were more similar to Americans. They also put diseases in Chinese villages/water wells to test the effectiveness.

I seriously keep reading this thread as "Could Hitler have defeated Bush?"

I agree that attacking Poland wasnt a bad idea, dont get me wrong on that. I also understand that resources and influence there is in the East. I was only speaking on behalf of the original argument if Hitler could have taken Britain. I believe he opened himiself on too many fronts. Also, he could have been the one to force Russia to break the non-agression act, making Germany the liberators in Poland, alot of whom were German until 30 years prior.
No, invading Poland wasn't that detrimental. The German war machine worked well on multiple fronts. The real trick when dealing with two large fronts if you don't have enough resources for both is stalling the one while assaulting all along the other, which the Germans effectively did by occupying France and allowing the Vichy government to take limited power. So really the Western Front was all but neutralized until 1944, barring the test invasion at some port along France's west coast.

That said, the political maneuvering involved to make the Germans look like liberators in Poland was against their policy and ideology. They wanted it back, and they felt they deserved it, so the Poles were unduly withholding rightfully German territory. The Nazi Party simply wouldn't back down on such an issue being as militarily powerful as they were, so they went with the simplest, and probably best, route: a direct assault to get what they felt was theirs to begin with.

I hadnt heard of that, but I'm not shocked. Thank God it never came about.

The Japanese also had subs they planned to release rats on US shores, full of disease ridden fleas- plague,cholera, etc...

I remember reading a report in the NY Times years ago after they interviewed an elderly Japanese doctor who took part in testing various diseases on kidnapped Chinese and then Russians as they were more similar to Americans. They also put diseases in Chinese villages/water wells to test the effectiveness.

The Germans had all kinds of crazy ideas, some of which might have worked, others of which were laughable fantasies, still others of which the United States uses today.

I read about those kinds of things as well. China still has problems with the black plague today, as I recall.

I seriously keep reading this thread as "Could Hitler have defeated Bush?"

That'd make one funny battle. XD

No, invading Poland wasn't that detrimental. The German war machine worked well on multiple fronts. The real trick when dealing with two large fronts if you don't have enough resources for both is stalling the one while assaulting all along the other, which the Germans effectively did by occupying France and allowing the Vichy government to take limited power. So really the Western Front was all but neutralized until 1944, barring the test invasion at some port along France's west coast.

That said, the political maneuvering involved to make the Germans look like liberators in Poland was against their policy and ideology. They wanted it back, and they felt they deserved it, so the Poles were unduly withholding rightfully German territory. The Nazi Party simply wouldn't back down on such an issue being as militarily powerful as they were, so they went with the simplest, and probably best, route: a direct assault to get what they felt was theirs to begin with..


God bless them for taking what was rightfully theirs. Speaking from a tactical standpoint Britain and France were more powerful than Poland ever could have imagined. Knocking them out should have been a priority in my opinion.

The Germans had all kinds of crazy ideas, some of which might have worked, others of which were laughable fantasies, still others of which the United States uses today.

I read about those kinds of things as well. China still has problems with the black plague today, as I recall.

If I recall correctly, our rocket program was born of Nazi V-2 technology.

They had some brilliant scientists and a load of loonies studying astrology and teutonic knights,magic, etc...

I'm not surprised. China suffered greatly at the hands of the Japanese and you dont learn about it as much as we do the holocaust, in this hemisphere.

If I recall correctly, our rocket program was born of Nazi V-2 technology.

They had some brilliant scientists and a load of loonies studying astrology and teutonic knights,magic, etc...

I'm not surprised. China suffered greatly at the hands of the Japanese and you dont learn about it as much as we do the holocaust, in this hemisphere.

Indeed, among other things like the idea of a "flying wing" as a bomber. The idea was developed in the US as well, but it wasn't really popular until after designs were captured from the Germans and the military realized how useful stealthy aircraft could be.

All nations have their load of loonies; but the Allies did their work well in publicizing that of the Germans. ;)

The irony is that it was actually much worse, because of its sheer scale and far-reaching effects, than the Holocaust in a lot of respects. I suppose the reason is because the Japanese made good allies after the war while the Germans were divided, and it could be said the "good" Germans were the capitalist-friendly Germans, and the others were still ideological enemies. Works rather well as a lot of the largest concentration camps were toward the east.

God bless them for taking what was rightfully theirs. Speaking from a tactical standpoint Britain and France were more powerful than Poland ever could have imagined. Knocking them out should have been a priority in my opinion.

Why? It makes sense to reduce your enemies and fronts as quickly as possible, so Poland was the most logical primary enemy. Knock them out of the war, and then you can put nearly everything on the West. Besides which, the Germans had reasonable defenses, and the Allies weren't willing to run across their own Maginot Line to attack. They waited until then neutral Belgium and the Netherlands were forced into the war. Frankly, the Allies just didn't have sufficient military force to stop the Germans. They didn't count on the masses of German armor even trying to go through the woods. For that matter, they didn't count on masses of armor. The French armor was scattered in infantry support roles, not the armored spearhead roles the Germans had developed. They were too far behind in doctrine, and the Germans knew it. The Allies banked on rushing in to support Belgian fortifications, like in the last war, but there wasn't time to move in from the border. The Germans were already there, and still moving, well conditioned to a war of maneuver the Allies couldn't match. As a side note, no one wanted a winter campaign, least of all the manpower-conscious Allies, who were resigned to wait it out.

Germany could have easily defeated the British, except for this one really crazy guy called Hitler. During the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe came within a hairsbreadth of entirely destroying the RAF fighter squadrons and bases. However, at this point in history, Hitler demanded attacks on British Civilians, lowering moral, but strategically useless. Had Hitler also not demanded that the ME - 262 not be converted into a bomber, thousands more could have been created to attack the allies.

However, once the Americans became involved the situation became strategically hopeless, as the Nazis had no way of attacking America, and their industry couldn't keep up.

I still think Hitler would have attacked France- Franco-German animosity stretched back quite a while (Franco-Prussian War, WWI) and the fact the French were the architects of the Treaty of Versailles added to that. There was also the sting of losing to the French in WWI after botching the Schlieffen Plan. Plus, the French themselves built considerable defences (Maginot Line) in preparation for a war against the Germans. In short, Hitler attacking France was inevitable.

Maybe only if the French didn't ally with them in attacking the communists. Or Hitler may have only taken back parts of France that was really German territory. After all he wanted a unified Germany one where all Germans were together so yes he may have taken part of France but really only the areas that used to belong to Germany. The only reason he invaded Poland was to take back an area of land that was predominantly German and to reconnect the Port City Danzig with the rest of Germany.

Maybe only if the French didn't ally with them in attacking the communists. Or Hitler may have only taken back parts of France that was really German territory. After all he wanted a unified Germany one where all Germans were together so yes he may have taken part of France but really only the areas that used to belong to Germany. The only reason he invaded Poland was to take back an area of land that was predominantly German and to reconnect the Port City Danzig with the rest of Germany.

I agree he wouldn't have annexed all of France- he probably would have just taken Alsace and Lorraine (which was all Otto von Bismarck took after he beat down the French in 1871). Still, though, a lot of Germans at the time remembered World War I and the Treaty of Versailles and I'm sure placing another crushing defeat on the French was high on Hitler's list, complete with burning Paris to the ground. At the very least, Hitler would have put in a puppet government, if not insist France be divided into many different "countries", much like Germany was only seventy years prior (and how the French wanted to reorganize Germany after WWI- instead, it was Austria that was split up).

2 Things.

First, German U-boats did attack some US shipping (anyone got a link? It was on the History Channel a while back). So much for US naval power and the Atlantic.


Ok, still the shipment of goods and military support to the UK was never disrupted.

[QOUTE]Second, The Royal Navy had a Policy of Being Bigger than the Next two mots powerful Navies put together before WWI. By WWII the British Navy was at least Roughly the same size as that of the USA, (was that the Locarno Treaty?) and bigger if the Colonies had their own navies.[/QUOTE]

You should take into account the enormous (and untouched by war) industrial capability of the US at the time - the US never converted their whole industry to military production - , and also the fact that their resources didn't need to come via ship to their industries.


I don't know If Hitler planned to Attack the US. The Japanese Certainly did. They dropped a Couple of Firebombs I think on the Mainland USA. (Yeah, worth the effort of getting a plane all the way across the Pacific then, Not!)

Hitler had Werhner von Braun plan the A-4 ballistic missile, aptly coded New York, iirc. Also, there were projects for a 4-engine long-range jet bomber, but they never went anywhere.
Yes, Hitler meditated attacks across the Atlantic, at least in forms of air raids and missile bombing.

There was no real recourse from war at that point. Hitler's mind was made up, with or without a prepared Italy.

That isn't true. It was a mixed ideology. There was much about them to be admired. But there was also much to be abhorred. You make the same mistake they did when you think of things in such black and white terms. You are a product of propaganda, I'm afraid.

I don't think war was inevitable in the very beginning, though. If Britain and France had presented and maintained a strong and unified front, and made Hitler back down over the Sudaetenland(which could have been done) it would have checked him long enough, I think, for the Nazi party to weaken itself with in-fighting to the point where home-grown opposition could have taken him out of power.

As far as the rest, some things deserve to be seen in black and white, because that's the way they are. While there is much to be abhorred, there is nothing admirable, or even tolerable, about the Nazi ideology. There are some means that forever taint the ends they accomplish, and some ends that are tainted to begin with, and remain so, no matter the means used to accomplish them. Nazism embodies both. It is, like Communism, a vicious, godless, totalitarian system that promises utopia, but delivers only degradation, death and despair, to it's adherents as well as those it oppresses.

I don't think war was inevitable in the very beginning, though. If Britain and France had presented and maintained a strong and unified front, and made Hitler back down over the Sudaetenland(which could have been done) it would have checked him long enough, I think, for the Nazi party to weaken itself with in-fighting to the point where home-grown opposition could have taken him out of power.

As far as the rest, some things deserve to be seen in black and white, because that's the way they are. While there is much to be abhorred, there is nothing admirable, or even tolerable, about the Nazi ideology. There are some means that forever taint the ends they accomplish, and some ends that are tainted to begin with, and remain so, no matter the means used to accomplish them. Nazism embodies both. It is, like Communism, a vicious, godless, totalitarian system that promises utopia, but delivers only degradation, death and despair, to it's adherents as well as those it oppresses.

perhaps but what you've got to remember with the Sudetenland is that Hitler really wanted to smash Czechoslovakia anyway, he was fuming at some of the meetings with Chamerlain making unrealistic demands, they should have called Hitler in before then at the Austrian Anschluss a warning then, backed Benes when he mobilised his troops i mean come on, you don't make your troops move about without good reason. And they should have included Stalin in their negotiations or at least the Czech president himself. But that's a long debate too.

I seriously keep reading this thread as "Could Hitler have defeated Bush?"
armed with a decent razor and a waxing kit, I'm sure he could have.

:confused: It's all my fault :o sorry :p(I'm the canada join us post guy xP)


On the topic, I think it was possible for the nazi's to conquer Britain. The thing is though, that when you expand too quickly, you expose your weak points. No empire lives forever.

they should have called Hitler in before then at the Austrian Anschluss a warning then, backed Benes when he mobilised his troops i mean come on, you don't make your troops move about without good reason.

In terms of pre-war European realpolitik the Sudaetenland probably made a more logical confrontation point. The Anschluss was, I think, a bit of a non-event for everyone but the Austrians, who were possibly also the only people in Europe who didn't think they were practically Germans anyway. The Sudaetenland was such a obviously transparent angle though, that it had to be addressed, although since they sent Chamberlain, they could have just not done anything and achieved the same result.

Oh, just FYI, if you ever go to Austria, they don't think it's funny if, all of a sudden, you start, say 'What was that?' and look off in the direction of Germany with a worried look on your face.

Trust me.

In terms of pre-war European realpolitik the Sudaetenland probably made a more logical confrontation point. The Anschluss was, I think, a bit of a non-event for everyone but the Austrians, who were possibly also the only people in Europe who didn't think they were practically Germans anyway. The Sudaetenland was such a obviously transparent angle though, that it had to be addressed, although since they sent Chamberlain, they could have just not done anything and achieved the same result.It's "Sudetenland."

In terms of pre-war European realpolitik the Sudaetenland probably made a more logical confrontation point. The Anschluss was, I think, a bit of a non-event for everyone but the Austrians, who were possibly also the only people in Europe who didn't think they were practically Germans anyway. The Sudaetenland was such a obviously transparent angle though, that it had to be addressed, although since they sent Chamberlain, they could have just not done anything and achieved the same result.

Oh, just FYI, if you ever go to Austria, they don't think it's funny if, all of a sudden, you start, say 'What was that?' and look off in the direction of Germany with a worried look on your face.

Trust me.

hmm maybe not a confrontation point, but it still broke the terms of the Versailles treaty, if the Democratic powers stuck to that, Hitler might not have gained power as quickly.
in fact it was a huge flouting of the treaty, they must have seen Hitler was ready to take Czechoslovakia, in fact the British Cabinet came to a decision that the Sudetenland wasn't of interest to Britian before the crisis came about.
Also France told Britian "hey look what's happening there, don't you think we should send them a warning?" in 1937, yet Britain did nothing.
I can see why Chamberlain did give over the Sudetenland, as so much of the British public were against war (see Oxford union deabte, recent by-elections) it was in the electoral interests of the government not to start a warlike stance also even Newspapers didn't really know what was going on, and only changed their minds after the Sudetenland, when it finally clicked that Hitler was not going to stop, it also made Chamberlain look good in front of the Roosevelt to try at all costs to gain peace.
Still so much going on in politics at this time, so many reasons why and why not. I think Britian's best chance was to not overly appease Hitler (e.g. Anglo-German naval pact) and try to get the US interested in Europe.

It's "Sudetenland."

Did the mistaken addition of an extra 'a' somehow muddle my point? Did it obscure my meaning? Did it render my verbiage unclear? If so, rest assured, I shall pay closer attention to the way in which I spell foreign words. If not, might I suggest adding actual useful contributions, or failing that, focussing your OCD on something else.


I can see why Chamberlain did give over the Sudetenland, as so much of the British public were against war (see Oxford union deabte, recent by-elections) it was in the electoral interests of the government not to start a warlike stance also even Newspapers didn't really know what was going on, and only changed their minds after the Sudetenland, when it finally clicked that Hitler was not going to stop, it also made Chamberlain look good in front of the Roosevelt to try at all costs to gain peace.

It's ironic how (with apologies to Terry Pratchett) what is in the public interest is not always what the public is interested in. If W. Europe had known how much appeasement and 'peace at any cost' would actually cost them(both in terms of the war, and it's fifty year aftermath as the Soviet Union lurked on it's doorstep) I wonder if they might not have been inclined to 'spend a little now to save a lot later.'

Did the mistaken addition of an extra 'a' somehow muddle my point? Did it obscure my meaning? Did it render my verbiage unclear? If so, rest assured, I shall pay closer attention to the way in which I spell foreign words. If not, might I suggest adding actual useful contributions, or failing that, focussing your OCD on something else.Did I allege that your argument was faulty anywhere or was I attempting to correct a repeated spelling mistake before it was repeated more often?

Did I allege that your argument was faulty anywhere or was I attempting to correct a repeated spelling mistake before it was repeated more often?

My point is that unless a grammatical mistake obscures or muddles the point the text in question is making, to point it out is, at best, nit-picking. Besides, compared to the way the vast majority of Internet users spell and/or converse, merely adding an extra letter to a foreign word practically makes me a MENSA member.

My point is that unless a grammatical mistake obscures or muddles the point the text in question is making, to point it out is, at best, nit-picking. No, making an argument based solely on said error would be nitpicking. Merely pointing it out without going into the argument (unless of course one is part of the relevant debate), is merely pointing out a spelling mistake. You could have easily ended this threadjack by ignoring my post or saying "Gee thanks :) I'll correct it next time," but for some reason you decided to blow this whole thing out of proportion.
Besides, compared to the way the vast majority of Internet users spell and/or converse, merely adding an extra letter to a foreign word practically makes me a MENSA member.You're my hero-sign my paddle.

A pox on uniform orthographies everywhere.

Sudaetenland.

Also, the "fs" (as in "Congrefs of the United States") needs to be reintroduced to the English language.

Only if he was willing to wait for literally years and build up a proper navy to attack our shores with, as well as actually attacking RADAR installations. Which he obviously wasn't, as can be seen by his extreme petulence when dealing with the Eastern Front when he got there. By 1943 the game was up for Germany.

Sudaetenland.
Sudetenland. The Germans didn't call it the Sudätenland, which would be only time when your spelling would be valid, ever.
Also, the "fs" (as in "Congrefs of the United States") needs to be reintroduced to the English language.
The long 's' was rubbish. Not only did it not really... well... do anything of much value, people always used to completely vary where they put it essentially for the grins.

It was meant to be used in the middle of words, rather than at the start or at the end, but people got slapdash with it, and it was a complete pain in the arse to print unless you did it in italics, where printers could just about manage it.

Sudetenland. The Germans didn't call it the Sudätenland, which would be only time when your spelling would be valid, ever.


All spelling is valid, young caterpillar. You have much to learn.

All spelling is valid, young caterpillar. You have much to learn.
Fine, "your spelling is completely non-standard, and your use of 'ae' is utterly perplexing in this context, as it would usually replace the German 'ä', which was, in fact, not used for the word 'Sudentenland'"

There we go, that better?

All spelling is valid, young caterpillar. You have much to learn.Depends. "Sudetenland" is taken from German, where since 1901 all spelling is no longer valid.

Fine, "your spelling is completely non-standard, and your use of 'ae' is utterly perplexing in this context, as it would usually replace the German 'ä', which was, in fact, not used for the word 'Sudentenland'"

There we go, that better?Actually, it isn't ;)

ok the last three posts were offtopic, so germany would have won if they had not attacked Russia. Right?

If Hitler let Rommel Destroy the British expeditionary force at dunkirk then germany would have invaded. But Hitler respected the British empire so he decided to push for peace to unify against The USSR. The expeditionary force was the only force qualified to fight the germans in the british army. their training and experiance was invaluable. Britain also had little to no troops in Britain because they were in the colonies or in the expeditionary force. If the force was gone Germany would have invaded in 1941-1942. But only if they did not plan to invade Russia and keep all those troops on the border. Islamic rebel groups would have been attacking British troops in the colonies, Indian independance extremists would this chance to break away with violence and everything possible.BRitish troops would not be able to hold their territories so they send reinforcements and empty out Britain. If they don't do that but abandon the colonies the Germans hit the retreating troops with the U-Boats. The U-Boat fleet would be concentrated in the English channel to support the landings and German bombers destroy sector stations and radar positions. bombers then hit ports to dirupt the British fleet and make a hard, swift landing. The more well equiped Germans quikly spread out and take ports filled with supplies. The British fleet will deal a heavy blow to the German navy but Vichy France ships will be used to help to. Basically entire French and German fleets vs. small portion of British fleet. I hate it when I am right!:headbang:

ok the last three posts were offtopic, so germany would have won if they had not attacked Russia. Right?If and only if Russia had not attacked Germany, which Stalin planned to do.

If Germany had never, or at least waited to attack Russia, they probably could have won. Hitler made the same mistake Keiser Wilhielm II made in WWI, he made a 2 front war.I don't recall Kaiser Wilhelm having much choice in the matter, nor the second front really existing after the Russians dropped out.
That aside, the only reason the RAF was able to win the battle over Britian was because Hitler switched his bombing and V-weapon raids over to London/cities instead of airfields. The RAF was taking a royal ass whoping up until that dumbass move.The "Vengeance" weapons were not around until well after the Battle of Britain was over.

Any interventionalism, not just militarywise counts here. Without American supplies the British war machine would have been dead in the water.

If Germany had never, or at least waited to attack Russia, they probably could have won. Hitler made the same mistake Keiser Wilhielm II made in WWI, he made a 2 front war.

That aside, the only reason the RAF was able to win the battle over Britian was because Hitler switched his bombing and V-weapon raids over to London/cities instead of airfields. The RAF was taking a royal ass whoping up until that dumbass move.

Hitler made the same mistake Keiser Wilhielm II made in WWI, he made a 2 front war.

Actually Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon by bringing about a multi front war, that and invading Russia just before the winter

Depends. "Sudetenland" is taken from German, where since 1901 all spelling is no longer valid.

Never in a million years would I have thought a thread on WWII would include a section on spelling. :D

It's ironic how (with apologies to Terry Pratchett) what is in the public interest is not always what the public is interested in. If W. Europe had known how much appeasement and 'peace at any cost' would actually cost them(both in terms of the war, and it's fifty year aftermath as the Soviet Union lurked on it's doorstep) I wonder if they might not have been inclined to 'spend a little now to save a lot later.'

Shows that democracy isn't always the best choice, since the "will of the people" may not always be what's best for the state. Of course, as they say, "hindsight is 20/20", and at the time WWI was so engrossed in the people's minds that no one wanted another war- even if it was a tiny one because "you never know" (let's not forget, most in Europe thought WWI was going to last at most a year- instead it became five and crippled Europe beyond belief).

However, that is a good point though- especially considering most thought Hitler would have been soundly defeated had Britain and France gone to war in 1938 not 1939.

Actually Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon by bringing about a multi front war, that and invading Russia just before the winter

IIRC, Hitler started "Operation Barbarosa" on July 22, 1941- now, his timing meant he would reach Moscow in winter but he did invade in the summer.

My rough guess is that if

1. The USA stayed out of WW2 or exclusively fought Japan

AND

2. Hitler had not attempted to invade Russia

THEN

Hitler would have gained control over all of Europe for a momentary amount of time, and Russia would have become slightly more prosperous and powerful

BUT

Hitler's reign would be temporary as Europe is too vast to be ruled under one order, and his empire would have collapsed from within, and Nazism would decline sharply

RESULTING IN

A very dark age for the Western World, and all of the world's superpowers manifesting within the East.

Hitler made a few mistakes which cost him dearly...his whole philosophy of never retreating once a german soldiers foot had walked there was ridiculous this meant many of his forces died holding ridiculous positions instead of retreating to fight another day

He also should have ploughed his resources into taking Dunkirk when he had our army surrounded...if we had been crushed there...retreating with little or no equipment and artilliary...we would never have had the lift needed to get us through the battle of britain

I don't think war was inevitable in the very beginning, though. If Britain and France had presented and maintained a strong and unified front, and made Hitler back down over the Sudaetenland(which could have been done) it would have checked him long enough, I think, for the Nazi party to weaken itself with in-fighting to the point where home-grown opposition could have taken him out of power.
.

Actually the time ideal time to oppose Hitler would have been in 1936 when he ordered German troops into the DMZ between Germany and France, because the Germans had orders to retreat back out if the French/British were going to declare war for the breach of the treaty making the area a DMZ.

With that loss of face, would Hitler been able to go on his European tour.....

Actually the time ideal time to oppose Hitler would have been in 1936 when he ordered German troops into the DMZ between Germany and France, because the Germans had orders to retreat back out if the French/British were going to declare war for the breach of the treaty making the area a DMZ.

With that loss of face, would Hitler been able to go on his European tour.....

And it might have been, however with the French Government switching dangerously from strong polarisation of politics between left and right, and riots in Paris the year before the French government didn't want to stop Hitler.
The previous invasion of the Ruhr without British support drastically reduced French confidence in making a stand without foreign aid. The French Generals also overestimated the size of Hitlers army marching in.
Hitler's timing of the event was well done, on a Saturday 7th March he marched in, just when the French and British Governments were on holiday, so when they found out the situation on the following monday it seemed too late to do anything.
The British Government didn't do anything, because it didn't really care at this time, and wanted to appease Hitler, as he made promises to re-enter the league of nations and to talk about disarming.
Earlier that year the British Cabinet met, to discuss the possible remilitarisation of the Rhineland and decided it was not in British interests to interve, this was before it even happened.
And the British felt sorry for Hitler, and didn't have a strong agreement with France (the Hoare-Laval Fiasco didn't help either), with the French treaty with Russia (Treaty of Rapollo) they were encircleing Hitler, so in effect Hitler had to secure his Western front to bolt the door. The British Armed forces were ridiculously small, and had no army to speak of that could remove Hitler.
The French forces were defensive, and had no offensive formations of troops, to move beyond the safety of the Maginot line.

So with these reasons it's clear the neither the British or the French had any good chance of stopping Hitler at this time either, the French political instability and the British not caring about it allowed Hitler this land, it would have seemed odd if either of the democracies had even tried to stop Hitler at this point.

I don't recall Kaiser Wilhelm having much choice in the matter, nor the second front really existing after the Russians dropped out.
Yeah, and we got the Spring Offensive in 1918, which nearly won the Germans the entire war.
The "Vengeance" weapons were not around until well after the Battle of Britain was over.
Indeed.

Yeah, and we got the Spring Offensive in 1918, which nearly won the Germans the entire war.Another interesting tidbit. If the Germans had begun transferring troops in earnest after Brest-Litovsk instead of pushing further into Russia, they might well have. However, despite the French suffering heavy demoralization from Verdun, and the British slowly being infected with that as well, the Americans showed up fresh and eager to defend liberty, which probably did save the Allies, despite arguments to the contrary.

Quite true. BUT, The American forces were small and untrained. mostly all they did was boost morale to new heights. Don't understimate morale. It was at a breaking point at the time, and the arrival of the Americans probably tipped the scales in favor of not breaking down. The war was mainly fought by the French vs. Germans. The British only really sent a few troops to fill up holes and send in their airforcewhich was very small for much of the war. The Americans eventually landed enough men to be effective and they won the war right then and there. Hard to say. The big boost the Americans gave the allies was the prospect of victory, not necessarily victory itself. The relief that gave was quite critical, but the forces themselves largely were not, as the Americans hadn't figured out that running at machine guns wasn't as fun as it sounded, unlike the British and French infantry.
also the Germans lacked any tanks. British and French forces had tons of them. That was the tipping point. Germany simply lacked the resources to prolong the war and slept through the development of tanks until it was too late.
If the Zimmerman telegram hadn't been captured then we would have been at war with Mexico and Germany. It would have been better for us since we would have some of current Mexico under our control, and still win the war. Europe would have been in trouble but Hitler might have gotten killed in the extended war. no WW2.I doubt the Mexicans would have been that stupid, though. Afterall, they did receive the telegram and decided not to act on it.

Another interesting tidbit. If the Germans had begun transferring troops in earnest after Brest-Litovsk instead of pushing further into Russia, they might well have. However, despite the French suffering heavy demoralization from Verdun, and the British slowly being infected with that as well, the Americans showed up fresh and eager to defend liberty, which probably did save the Allies, despite arguments to the contrary.


Quite true. BUT, The American forces were small and untrained. mostly all they did was boost morale to new heights. The war was mainly fought by the French vs. Germans. The British only really sent a few troops to fill up holes and send in their airforcewhich was very small for much of the war. The Americans eventually landed enough men to be effective and they won the war right then and there. also the Germans lacked any tanks. British and French forces had tons of them. If the Zimmerman telegram hadn't been captured then we would have been at war with Mexico and Germany. It would have been better for us since we would have some of current Mexico under our control, and still win the war. Europe would have been in trouble but Hitler might have gotten killed in the extended war. no WW2.

The British only really sent a few troops to fill up holes and send in their airforcewhich was very small for much of the war.
"Only"? I'm sure you're not deliberately omitting Britain's most important contribution to the Entente. France was primarily a land based power; Britain was a naval one. And its navy not only kept the hugely expensive German navy confined to port for the entire war, bar a brief foray, and defeated its attempts to stop British trade with a large submarine offensive, it also maintained a blockade which greatly sapped German productivity and morale.

In addition to which, for all the initial lack of size of the British land forces at the start of the war, during the 100 day offensive that ended the war it was British Empire forces that caused the bulk of the casualties.

Britain was in the process of being strangled by the German Uboats, and were only saved through the sacrifice of American shipping and the subsequent entry of the US into the war. That's the trouble with being an island country, you can't be attacked overland with armies, but unless you control the seas around you, supplies become a problem.

So yes, if the US would've remained out of the war, Britain would have been invaded and either militarily defeated, or starved into submission.

Hitler's reign would be temporary as Europe is too vast to be ruled under one order, and his empire would have collapsed from within, and Nazism would decline sharply


I don't know about that. Napoleon did a pretty good job of ruling over Europe until he was displaced by the British, and after his strength was also sapped by a foray into Russia (note to all future European rulers looking for world domination: STAY OUT OF RUSSIA.

Hitler had the backing of pretty much his entire country tied with a fanatical ideology, there would have been few obstacles to his consolidating his power within Europe and making it much harder to crack than it already was (other than the fact that he was insane, and probably would've tried to overreach again, which is what he did in real life). And given a greater time lapse the amount of soldiers that he would've had at his disposal would have been much greater (and if he would have managed to stay out of Russia he would've had a lot more soldiers to start with).

Hitler could have won the war in Europe, but he chose to lose it instead.

So basically from what I'm hearing of the "Hitler could have done it" side:

Hitler could have done it if he made no mistakes, and was only fighting Britain...who do make mistakes.

:)

I don't know about that. Napoleon did a pretty good job of ruling over Europe until he was displaced by the British, and after his strength was also sapped by a foray into Russia (note to all future European rulers looking for world domination: STAY OUT OF RUSSIA.

Well, the Mongols successfully invaded Russia in winter so it is possible- Hitler and Napoleon just did it wrong.

Don't understimate morale. It was at a breaking point at the time, and the arrival of the Americans probably tipped the scales in favor of not breaking down.
Quite. As much as the loss of materiél that we had to give to the Americans (this was fairly serious, the British and especially the French had to give out thousands of rifles, but the main problem was the lack of artillery and machine guns in the American forces) went, that was a problem, but the rise in morale was pretty much worth it.
Hard to say. The big boost the Americans gave the allies was the prospect of victory, not necessarily victory itself. The relief that gave was quite critical, but the forces themselves largely were not, as the Americans hadn't figured out that running at machine guns wasn't as fun as it sounded, unlike the British and French infantry.
Indeed. The doughboys had some serious problems with machine guns, seeing as they sort of ignored the French and British when we told them to not walk at the machine guns without fire support, or indeed ever, if you can help it.

But there we go.

Well, the Mongols successfully invaded Russia in winter so it is possible- Hitler and Napoleon just did it wrong.
The Russians didn't have a proper army when the Mongols invaded, and the problem for Napoleon wasn't just that it was cold, more that there was absolutely no march discipline and that the Tsar wasn't interested in giving up after he burnt down Moscow.

Well, the Mongols successfully invaded Russia in winter so it is possible- Hitler and Napoleon just did it wrong.

Ok fine, if you can find a way to get Russia to degenerate into it's old nobility based, decentralized state, it is possible to conquer them with help from some of those princes. In its current state, or the state that it has been in since the Czars consolidated power, it would be, and has been, very difficult.

And that he couldn't find the Russian army anywhere, at least until he was retreating. :sniper:
Wasn't that he couldn't find them, more that he found them 10 miles off, running into the distance.

IIRC, Hitler started "Operation Barbarosa" on July 22, 1941- now, his timing meant he would reach Moscow in winter but he did invade in the summer.

Yes that took him to Ukraine and White Russia but, when continuing it was during the winter, had Hitler invaded in late March then he would have gotten further, along with taking Moscow instead of stopping at the gates and heading south

I'm sure that people know this, but the Nazis were WWII. If you want to discuss WWI (which I would wholeheartedly enjoy) you should probably start another thread, to avoid confusion.

The Russians didn't have a proper army when the Mongols invaded, and the problem for Napoleon wasn't just that it was cold, more that there was absolutely no march discipline and that the Tsar wasn't interested in giving up after he burnt down Moscow.

And that he couldn't find the Russian army anywhere, at least until he was retreating. :sniper:

Either way he couldn't get a decision in battle and either start moving back earlier, or stop their campaign of destroying anything useful to his army.
There's evidence both ways for whether the Russians really practised scorched earth-type tactics in the war of 1812.

Wasn't that he couldn't find them, more that he found them 10 miles off, running into the distance.

Same difference, couldn't find them, couldn't engage them, whatever.

Either way he couldn't get a decision in battle and either start moving back earlier, or stop their campaign of destroying anything useful to his army.

There's evidence both ways for whether the Russians really practised scorched earth-type tactics in the war of 1812.

So, what was the burning of Moscow exactly?

So, what was the burning of Moscow exactly?
Tolstoy claimed that it was basically an accident, as a whole city made mostly of wood was left unattended.

Some others claim it was deliberate.

Tolstoy claimed that it was basically an accident, as a whole city made mostly of wood was left unattended.

Some others claim it was deliberate.

Hmm, well I had always heard that there was a dialogue between the Czar and Napoleon about the burning of the city (mostly that Napoleon was pissed it had been burned, and didn't think it fit the conventions of warfare). However, people are entitled to their opinion I guess.

It's still a bad idea to invade Russia.

The Russians didn't have a proper army when the Mongols invaded, and the problem for Napoleon wasn't just that it was cold, more that there was absolutely no march discipline and that the Tsar wasn't interested in giving up after he burnt down Moscow.

Ok fine, if you can find a way to get Russia to degenerate into it's old nobility based, decentralized state, it is possible to conquer them with help from some of those princes. In its current state, or the state that it has been in since the Czars consolidated power, it would be, and has been, very difficult.

The Poles were successful in winter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Soviet_War), and you can't tell me that had Hitler and Napoleon been properly prepared they might have won. The fact of the matter is they weren't. They might still not have won (the Russians were a superpower then, after all) and the weather played a part (I'll admit that) but it wasn't the only factor.

Yes that took him to Ukraine and White Russia but, when continuing it was during the winter, had Hitler invaded in late March then he would have gotten further, along with taking Moscow instead of stopping at the gates and heading south

So you're referring to "Russia" as it is now- I referred to "Russia" as a synonym for the Soviet Union (given the context). Other than that our points are still the same.

On top of the winter factor, you also have the issue that Stalin could keep relocating his industry almost indefinetely, and you have two major issues. When the enemy produces two tanks for every one you destroy, it doesn't help much. Even when you do kill more than 10 tanks for every one of your own lost... In my humble opinion, Germany would have taken out the UK before the USA got involved if it hadn't have been for the invasion of Russia.

On top of the winter factor, you also have the issue that Stalin could keep relocating his industry almost indefinetely, and you have two major issues. When the enemy produces two tanks for every one you destroy, it doesn't help much. Even when you do kill more than 10 tanks for every one of your own lost... In my humble opinion, Germany would have taken out the UK before the USA got involved if it hadn't have been for the invasion of Russia.

That's a good point too, although I doubt there was anything that was going to stop Hitler from invading the Soviet Union.

I am wondering- because I haven't been able to figure it out- if Hitler ever appealed to the sensibilities of those under Soviet control. I have a feeling he might have (given Josef Stalin was in charge) but then again he didn't like the Slavs either...but it might have given him an edge against the Soviets if he tried it, at least for the time he needed them.

Though Britain would be able to resist capture from Germany, I doubt they would be able invade Europe and take down Germany.

If Hitler had made more U-boats he could have.

If the USA hadn't taken part in the liberation of Europe, the Red Army would have just marched all the way to Paris. The war would have been longer and costlier, but ultimately the Soviet Union and Britain would have won out.

If the USA hadn't taken part in the liberation of Europe, the Red Army would have just marched all the way to Paris. The war would have been longer and costlier, but ultimately the Soviet Union and Britain would have won out.

Marshall Zhukov would disagree with you. He felt that without American lend-lease, the Soviet Union would likely have collapsed in the winter of 1942 and the winter of 1943, and that's fairly well documented, as it's in his book.

The only boots marching in Paris would have been Nazi jackboots, without American economic and military aid.

If the USA hadn't taken part in the liberation of Europe, the Red Army would have just marched all the way to Paris. The war would have been longer and costlier, but ultimately the Soviet Union and Britain would have won out.

I think you're forgetting the fact that germany wasnt alone as well. the combined forces of germany and italy could destroy the Soviet union and britain i think. you must not forget how massive germany was before the war. the german technology was higher than the soviet's & britains as well. i think the axis could have won.:(

I think you're forgetting the fact that germany wasnt alone as well. the combined forces of germany and italy could destroy the Soviet union and britain i think. you must not forget how massive germany was before the war. the german technology was higher than the soviet's & britains as well. i think the axis could have won.:(

Initially German technology was higher than the Soviets, but they played catch-up very well indeed....

And I ask the Americans this. Where was you before 1941???:upyours:

Probably in the same place Britain and France were when Hitler took Austria and the Sudaetenland. 'Yes well, that's terrible, obviously, but it not really our problem, you see.' Plus, there was a bit of a Depression going on that we had to contend with at the time.

Shows that democracy isn't always the best choice, since the "will of the people" may not always be what's best for the state.

I'm going to have to disagree with that there. Yes, you may lose a bit of efficency with democracy, but the trade-offs you get in individual freedom and the ability of people to (more or less) determine their own destiny are, I think, worth it. Remember what Churchill said "Democracy is, I think, the worst system of government ever invented, except, of course, for every other one.'

Probably in the same place Britain and France were when Hitler took Austria and the Sudaetenland. 'Yes well, that's terrible, obviously, but it not really our problem, you see.' Plus, there was a bit of a Depression going on that we had to contend with at the time.


I'm sorry, but was the poor ickle USA the only wickle Country suffering from da big bad depression?

Ever heard of the Munich Talks.

And Austria voted to join Germany. (99.75% I think were in favour.)

The British had to stall at Munich so we could build up defences. Thanks to that stalling, we built up the RAF, which meant we could Win the Battle of Britain and hence the War.

And Austria voted to join Germany. (99.75% I think were in favour.)

The day the referendum was held, 10th April, legitimising the Austrian parliaments declaration of Anschluss on the 13th of March, the German 8th Army had already marched over the border unopposed on the 12th of March.

Even before March 12th, Himmler and a number of SS officers had infiltrated the country and arrested a number of prominent Austrian politicians, including the Mayor of Vienna.

Between the German invasion and the referendum date, 700,000 Socialists, Communists, Jews, Austrian nationalists and others had been imprisoned.

400,000 people were disenfranchised, turned away at the polls, mostly Jews and Leftists.

It's hardly fair to say that the Anschluss was embraced by Austrians due to the results of the plebiscite.

Initially German technology was higher than the Soviets, but they played catch-up very well indeed....

German technology was sort-of better off than that of the Soviets. The Wehrmacht had a hardened, armored corp equipped with the finest tanks and vehicles, that was supported by a surrounding infantry force that was largely on par with German forces during World War I. Overy talks about how, during the planning phases of Operation Barbarossa, the Germans scoured occupied Europe to gather together enough vehicles, armored or otherwise, to transport their armies across Soviet Russia. Their military was equipped with such a weird hodgepodge of tanks, trucks and civilian automobiles, that supply of spare parts was a pure nightmare. In fact, even at the start of Barbarossa, much of the German army was actually being transported by horse!

So, while there was an advanced, high-tech core to the Wehrmacht, much of the military force was stuck in the 19th century.

I'm sorry, but was the poor ickle USA the only wickle Country suffering from da big bad depression?

Ever heard of the Munich Talks.

And Austria voted to join Germany. (99.75% I think were in favour.)

The British had to stall at Munich so we could build up defences. Thanks to that stalling, we built up the RAF, which meant we could Win the Battle of Britain and hence the War.

Hitler came to power in 1933, and had already shown long before then what kind of a psychopath he was.

So, what were you doing between 1933 and 1938, and did you remember to throw the kleenex away afterwards? :sniper:

Hitler came to power in 1933, and had already shown long before then what kind of a psychopath he was.

So, what were you doing between 1933 and 1938, and did you remember to throw the kleenex away afterwards? :sniper:

Remember, Britain wasn't much of a fan of Versailles.

Between 1933 & 1938 we had other things to deal with.

Like running an Empire, ending the depression, keeping the peace in Palestine...

I threw the Kleenex out the window. It's in the bird's nest across the street. :D

German technology was sort-of better off than that of the Soviets. The Wehrmacht had a hardened, armored corp equipped with the finest tanks and vehicles, that was supported by a surrounding infantry force that was largely on par with German forces during World War I. Overy talks about how, during the planning phases of Operation Barbarossa, the Germans scoured occupied Europe to gather together enough vehicles, armored or otherwise, to transport their armies across Soviet Russia. Their military was equipped with such a weird hodgepodge of tanks, trucks and civilian automobiles, that supply of spare parts was a pure nightmare. In fact, even at the start of Barbarossa, much of the German army was actually being transported by horse!

So, while there was an advanced, high-tech core to the Wehrmacht, much of the military force was stuck in the 19th century.

Indeed. Might I also add that Germany actually had a chronic shortage of tanks and half-tracks for thier Panzergrenadier divisions, the mechanized infantry that provided the core of supporting infantry for armoured advances.

Only 10% of the Panzergrenadier divisions had troop-ferrying half-tracks, and instead relied on army trucks and other vehicles they captured from the French and other occupied nations armies.

On paper, each PzGren division had a battalion of tanks, but in practice they were more often than not self-propelled assault guns like the Stug III.

Thier Anti-Tank guns were also towed by horses, more often than not.

Hitler came to power in 1933, and had already shown long before then what kind of a psychopath he was.

So, what were you doing between 1933 and 1938, and did you remember to throw the kleenex away afterwards? :sniper:

Well you've got to remember the German parliament had suffered from various riots in the past and the people wanted someone to rescue them, Hitler was such a guy, through bribery and corruption he took power and gave promises of building up the German pride by flouting the Treaty of Versailles.


Britain was also pre-occupied with the Italian invasion of Abyssinia and trying to appease the Italians, in the Hoare-Laval Fiasco. Also in 1934 a Nazi Putsch in Austria fails, due to Mussolini moving troops up to his border fearing Germany would use Austria to attack Italy.
Also the French were't playing ball either they had set up a cordon sanitare of alliances around Germany, and even Soviet Russia, so Britain felt sorry for Germany and allowed her to build up some of her navy.
The Spanish Civil war also turned attention away from the Rhineland incident and other things happening in Europe. Politics at this time was chaotic.

What i'd like to know is what the Americans were doing between 1933 and 1938?

I'm sorry, but was the poor ickle USA the only wickle Country suffering from da big bad depression?

Ever heard of the Munich Talks.

And Austria voted to join Germany. (99.75% I think were in favour.)

The British had to stall at Munich so we could build up defences. Thanks to that stalling, we built up the RAF, which meant we could Win the Battle of Britain and hence the War.

No, but I think a case could be made that the effects were felt more here than in smaller or less industrialised countries.

I'm sure Austria voted to join Germany. The same way the Iraqi's voted in Saddam Hussein or the way the Soviets elected their Premiers.

As for the last, defense doesn't win football games...or wars. If Chamberlain's government was stalling, it probably wasn't to build up defenses, it was probably because he was trying to avoid confrontation by any means, no matter how dishonorable.

Between 1933 & 1938 we had other things to deal with.Like running an Empire, ending the depression, keeping the peace in Palestine...

Yes, I'm sure Britain ended the depression, all by itself. Still, that's not as impressive as keeping peace in Palestine, something no-one's been able to do since oh, I don't know, the beginning of time.

What i'd like to know is what the Americans were doing between 1933 and 1938?

At the time, we were unaware we were supposed to save Europe from itself. Especially since the Europeans are, and apparently always have been, so inarguably superior in every possible sphere. Of course, once we did, we heard nothing for the next fifty years but 'we didn't need you, you did nothing really, we could've done it all ourselves, who invited you anyways.'

As hystory goes... Germans could have won only if Sir Hugh Dowding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Hugh_Dowding)
had been replaced as Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Fighter Command as Churchill proposed more times.
Actually I read a nice alternative history novel about this in an anthology compiled by Harry Turtledove. "Alternate Generals"

At the time, we were unaware we were supposed to save Europe from itself. Especially since the Europeans are, and apparently always have been, so inarguably superior in every possible sphere. Of course, once we did, we heard nothing for the next fifty years but 'we didn't need you, you did nothing really, we could've done it all ourselves, who invited you anyways.'

That's not quite what i was asking, i asked what were the Americans doing between 1933 and 1938. But feel free to add in your own theories too.

I'm going to have to disagree with that there. Yes, you may lose a bit of efficency with democracy, but the trade-offs you get in individual freedom and the ability of people to (more or less) determine their own destiny are, I think, worth it. Remember what Churchill said "Democracy is, I think, the worst system of government ever invented, except, of course, for every other one.'

Don't get me wrong- I prefer democracy over every other system myself but you can't tell me that it doesn't have it's faults because every system does- democracy is no exception.

Since this is more of a discussion for another thread I'll just leave my response at that.

Remember, Britain wasn't much of a fan of Versailles.

It was Britain, don't forget, that kept Germany together- the French wanted it dismembered, worried that a "united" Germany would be strong enough to launch another attack on it (which it did, though no one realized it at the time). The British were worried that without a "united" Germany the Soviets could have gotten all the way to the French border virtually unopposed, which the Soviets almost wound up doing anyway since they gobbled up the small Eastern European countries shortly after WWII that the French themselves insisted on creating (from dismembering Austria-Hungary, which the British had hoped to keep reasonably together).

At the time, we were unaware we were supposed to save Europe from itself. Especially since the Europeans are, and apparently always have been, so inarguably superior in every possible sphere. Of course, once we did, we heard nothing for the next fifty years but 'we didn't need you, you did nothing really, we could've done it all ourselves, who invited you anyways.'

I think you would find it the other way around after all the Americans won't going to enter the war because they thought it was another one of those "Little europoean tiffs" which Europe had been involved in over the past 1000 years so why would America join in just let them do what they always do. I have always thought that WWII was the last of the ideal of the great wars.

Could Britain have survived without the USA
Could Hitler have defeated the British?

This would depend upon how you define 'without US aid'

If you define it as the U.S. didn't provide any assistance at all (not even lend-lease) to the allies, then yes, Germany could have won (this, however, would also require that Hitler let his generals do their jobs without his micromanaging).

had the Normandy invasion never happened and the Nazi air leaders concentrated on military targets, then i would say yes.

had Hitler utilized the following he had in the United States, he may of even been able to at least cause havoc within the United States

No, but I think a case could be made that the effects were felt more here than in smaller or less industrialised countries.

I'm sure Austria voted to join Germany. The same way the Iraqi's voted in Saddam Hussein or the way the Soviets elected their Premiers.

As for the last, defense doesn't win football games...or wars. If Chamberlain's government was stalling, it probably wasn't to build up defenses, it was probably because he was trying to avoid confrontation by any means, no matter how dishonorable.

Yes, I'm sure Britain ended the depression, all by itself. Still, that's not as impressive as keeping peace in Palestine, something no-one's been able to do since oh, I don't know, the beginning of time.


The Depression was felt stronger in smaller countries whose economies were less resiliant to market changes of such magnitude.

The Problem with dictators is that they are often elected to start with.

Defence doesn't win wars? Erm, ever heard of Russia. Their defences (winter, ease of moving their cities' factories to safety etc) helped win the war!!!!!! Chamberlain was trying to avoid war, though by 1938 the war was rather inevitable.

Britain ended the depression for itself and it's colonies as it had lots of industries. It took a while, but we got there.

Palestine has often had periods of peace. From when it became a mandate it was reasonably peaceful, until the end of the War when all the Survivors of the Holocaust fled to the region as it was safer than much of Europe, or so they thought.

Hitler's ultimate downfall was caused because he was insane. He trusted astrologers more than German Generals (despite Prussian Militry Prowess) and he killed / exiled / made flee many of the finest minds of Germany.

A tad off topic, but Defense can't win a war, as if you defend, you never attack, and you never impede your opponent’s ability to make war on you. While the British did try bombing raids, it truly wouldn't have been enough of a hindrance to be effective. The Russian's got lucky. They got one of the coldest winters ever on record, and were able to counter attack through numerical superiority, they went on the offensive. If you want the greatest example of why defensive strategy loses? The Maginot Line.

The British would have been able to hold the Germans back for a while, sure, but not defeat them. Vice Versa with the Americans. If Britain (namely England) surrendered or were conquered, the D-Day landings couldn't of gone ahead.

The Problem with dictators is that they are often elected to start with.

First of all, define 'often.' Hitler and Mussolini are really the only modern dictators that spring to mind as having been elected by a democratic system. The majority tend to seize power from existing governmental institutions.

Defence doesn't win wars? Erm, ever heard of Russia. Their defences (winter, ease of moving their cities' factories to safety etc) helped win the war!!!!!! Chamberlain was trying to avoid war, though by 1938 the war was rather inevitable.

The Russian army fought the Germans down to the point of killing Wehrmacht soldiers with shovels in bombed out cellars in Stalingrad. Russia owes its survival to dogged offense, and a general unwillingness to be conquered, not defense. Plus, if defense won wars, the Maginot line would have been unbeatable. Instead, Hitler ran around it in about 15 mins. (Of course, the fact that it was manned by the French might have had something to do the ease of capture.)

Palestine has often had periods of peace. From when it became a mandate it was reasonably peaceful, until the end of the War when all the Survivors of the Holocaust fled to the region as it was safer than much of Europe, or so they thought.

'Reasonably peaceful?' Isn't that like 'a little bit pregnant?' Or 'mostly dead?' Either something is peaceful, or it isn't. Plus, you contradict your own statement there in the end, right after you blame the Jewish emigrees for Palestinian turmoil.

First of all, define 'often.' Hitler and Mussolini are really the only modern dictators that spring to mind as having been elected by a democratic system. The majority tend to seize power from existing governmental institutions.



The Russian army fought the Germans down to the point of killing Wehrmacht soldiers with shovels in bombed out cellars in Stalingrad. Russia owes its survival to dogged offense, and a general unwillingness to be conquered, not defense. Plus, if defense won wars, the Maginot line would have been unbeatable. Instead, Hitler ran around it in about 15 mins. (Of course, the fact that it was manned by the French might have had something to do the ease of capture.)



'Reasonably peaceful?' Isn't that like 'a little bit pregnant?' Or 'mostly dead?' Either something is peaceful, or it isn't. Plus, you contradict your own statement there in the end, right after you blame the Jewish emigrees for Palestinian turmoil.

Robert Mugabe?

The Maginot line failed because they forgot the Schlieffen Plan. (stupid French) Had the wall extended around the low countries the Germans could well have been stopped. And it was hardly minuites. And the very fact Hitler went around it shows how useless it was.

The final statement is reference to the Arab-Jewish Civil war after WWII as the Jews demanded their own nation. Not the British Palestinian control of before WWII. Remember, that region has often been at peace, such as during the Ottoman Empire.

The war would probably won with any combination of two of the three major allies.

Assuming America continued lend lease to Britain and Russia then Britain would have held on to it's colonies as Germany got sucked into the Russian disaster. American money was far more important than American troops.

What's interesting is how that victory would have been achieved. Russia would have overwhelmed Germany (providing Germany didn't complete the a bomb) but it would have taken longer. Britain's most influence in the aftermath of the war would be greatly reduced. The Soviets gain control over most of Europe. WWIII between America and Russia occurs 20 years later. Everybody dies.

Marshall Zhukov would disagree with you. He felt that without American lend-lease, the Soviet Union would likely have collapsed in the winter of 1942 and the winter of 1943, and that's fairly well documented, as it's in his book.

The only boots marching in Paris would have been Nazi jackboots, without American economic and military aid.

Without the economic aid, certainly, but America had been providing that to Britain before 1941 why would it stop. More likely it would have increased

I think you're forgetting the fact that germany wasnt alone as well. the combined forces of germany and italy could destroy the Soviet union and britain i think. you must not forget how massive germany was before the war. the german technology was higher than the soviet's & britains as well. i think the axis could have won.:(

Italy was more of a hindrance than help. The Italian army in North Africa was seen off by little more than an Australian(?) infantry division and a tank regiment, Germany had to get involved along comes Rommel and DAK and things get more difficult. Just when Germany's ready to invade Russia, Mussolini decides to invade Greece and is held off by the Greeks and a handful of British. Germany delays it's invasion of Russia to clean up the mess. Without the delay there is an argument that Germany would have had enough time to have delivered a killer blow in 1941 when the Soviets were poorly prepared before Winter brought the German offensive to a standstill

Robert Mugabe?

Yeah, that's still only three dictators out of the many that have plagued the world. Three occurrences of something is not exactly what you can call 'often' with any degree of assurance. That's leaving aside the vaild question of exactly how free and open any of those elections were in the first place, especially Mugabe's.

The Maginot line failed because they forgot the Schlieffen Plan. (stupid French)Had the wall extended around the low countries the Germans could well have been stopped. And it was hardly minuites.

So your contention is that if the French had extended their defenses across two different sovereign countries then it would have worked? Yeah I think that's fairly unlikely on a couple of different levels. For the record, I am fully aware it took longer than minutes for Hitler to overrun the Maginot Line. This is what is known as 'hyperbole' or 'comic exaggeration.'

And the very fact Hitler went around it shows how useless it was.

That's my point! Defensive strategies are always weaker than a daring and imaginative offensive strategy, therefore defensive strategies will not win a war when matched against offensive strategies.

The final statement is reference to the Arab-Jewish Civil war after WWII as the Jews demanded their own nation. Remember, that region has often been at peace, such as during the Ottoman Empire.

Yeah, it was all nice and quiet until the Jews arrived. Damn those people, will they ever stop making trouble? Of course, this ignores the fact that a Jewish state had been the reason for the mandate since WWI, not just after WWII. Also, it's inaccurate to call it a 'Civil' War since the modern state of Israel didn't come into being until after the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. Thirdly, the Ottomans 'kept the peace' the same way the Soviets did in what used to be Czechoslovakia. Just because everybody is too scared of a repressive authority to pick up a weapon, doesn't mean it's peaceful.

I think Hitler is one of History's most lucky people. After all, he cheated death loads of times. So many might have beens. I wish he'd been little more than a name on a list of Germans killed in WWII to us now.

Ultimately the War was ineveitable from Versailles. Had we gone woth what any one of the big three had wanted it may well have not happened. Still that's compromise for you, it just screws you over again and again.

As it happens, Hitler was also doing meth.

If France hadnt been a bunch of Pussies, lol....

But, seriously, by itself, i just dont see it doing more than holding out, they probably couldve held out indefinitely , but Britain actually invading and defeating Germany wouldve been difficult without France, in World War I they were winning the war by the time we(US) entered the war, and could have won, though it wouldve taken awhile longer.... But, without France, the UK is isolated and simply didnt have the Logistics to defeat Nazi Germany and its allies...

If France hadnt been a bunch of Pussies, lol....

But, seriously, by itself, i just dont see it doing more than holding out, they probably couldve held out indefinitely , but Britain actually invading and defeating Germany wouldve been difficult without France, in World War I they were winning the war by the time we(US) entered the war, and could have won, though it wouldve taken awhile longer.... But, without France, the UK is isolated and simply didnt have the Logistics to defeat Nazi Germany and its allies...

Forgetting USSR? Wth American money and equipment delivered by the British the USSR had the men, equipment, and generals to defeat Germany

If France hadnt been a bunch of Pussies, lol....

But, seriously, by itself, i just dont see it doing more than holding out, they probably couldve held out indefinitely , but Britain actually invading and defeating Germany wouldve been difficult without France, in World War I they were winning the war by the time we(US) entered the war, and could have won, though it wouldve taken awhile longer.... But, without France, the UK is isolated and simply didnt have the Logistics to defeat Nazi Germany and its allies...

Two words:

British Empire.

The USSR was being crushed in Stalingrad prior to the US entering the war, only when Hitler shifted troops to France to block D-Day did the Russians start to push back...so, without our entry, i dont think the Soviets wouldve amounted to much, and probably wouldve surrendered long before the UK...

Edit: and with the UK confined to the British Isles the Dominions wouldnt amount to much, Canada didnt factor in the war till D-Day

Two words:

British Empire.

9 more words...

was ready to sign a separate peace with Germany.

9 more words...

was ready to sign a separate peace with Germany.

1 more word:

Proof?

1 more word:

Proof?

Give me some time, first a comment on my statement: from my understanding it was not out of any belief that they couldn't win, but more that they felt that Germany would be a useful tool against the USSR.



Edit: So far this is all I've come up with, it does nothing to 'prove' my statement, but still
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qk_xKD62G7cC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=british+separate+peace+with+germany&source=web&ots=fdCDXmySWD&sig=y-Ssg-C1TYrGjNzVrcQuBkPAMTs&hl=en

1 more word:

Proof?

Rudolf Hess's journey to England and attempt to negotiate the treaty....

Rudolf Hess's journey to England and attempt to negotiate the treaty....

He crashed in Scotland and was imprisoned!!!!!!!!!! He was seen by all as completely Cracked!

Really NOT proof.

He crashed in Scotland and was imprisoned!!!!!!!!!! He was seen by all as completely Cracked!

Really NOT proof.

Here (http://cges.georgetown.edu/docs/Docs_Working_Papers_Page/Working_Paper_Boghardt_6-04.pdf) you go (warning it's a pdf)

Rudolf Hess's journey to England and attempt to negotiate the treaty....

You realise he totally lost it at that point, and was acting completely independently of Hitler's agenda right? I mean what kind of sane man crashes a plane into some Scottish farm asking to see some noble whom he once had a brief conversation with at the German Olympics and was deluded that this noble even gave a shit about him?

He crashed in Scotland and was imprisoned!!!!!!!!!! He was seen by all as completely Cracked!

Really NOT proof.

He crashed in Scotland on his way to meet Prince George, Duke of Kenton,who hadnt told the British military of his meeting, and so was arrested...he went crazy due to his harsh treatment in Soviet prison...Hitler also propagated the rumor that he was insane to distance himself from the embarrassment of the botched mission...

The USSR was being crushed in Stalingrad prior to the US entering the war, only when Hitler shifted troops to France to block D-Day did the Russians start to push back...so, without our entry, i dont think the Soviets wouldve amounted to much, and probably wouldve surrendered long before the UK...

Edit: and with the UK confined to the British Isles the Dominions wouldnt amount to much, Canada didnt factor in the war till D-Day


No it wasn't. 1941 was invading Russia as America entered the war. 1941 ended with the Germans gound to a halt outside Moscow. Stalingrad was 1942 and a Russian victory unaffected by the presence of American or British troops.

He crashed in Scotland on his way to me Prince George, Duke of Kenton,who hadnt told the British military of his meeting, and so was arrested...he went crazy due to his harsh treatment in Soviet prison...

Please, don't drag the Royals into some Crackpot conspiracy theory.

No it wasn't. 1941 was invading Russia as America entered the war. 1941 ended with the Germans gound to a halt outside Moscow. Stalingrad was 1942 and a Russian victory unaffected by the presence of American or British troops.

Although we'd entered the war, D-Day didnt occor until 1944, which was when Germany actually began hitting setbacks...

Please, don't drag the Royals into some Crackpot conspiracy theory.

Im just saying that its a possibility i dont actually think the British were going to surrender anytime soon...

Rudolf Hess's journey to England and attempt to negotiate the treaty....
Hess? Hess isn't proof of anything but Hess being a total nutcase. He got jailed, showing you how willing the British were to sign a separate peace treaty, and Hess certainly wasn't doing it on Hitler's orders, as the latter, along with the rest of the Nazi elite, were fuming about it afterwards.

The USSR was being crushed in Stalingrad prior to the US entering the war
...

The US entered the war about a year before Stalingrad started.
only when Hitler shifted troops to France to block D-Day did the Russians start to push back...
Simply untrue. The Germans weren't particularly worried about an attack on France until early 1944 when it became a plausible feat for the Allies to attain.

The Russians were pushing the Germans back from early 1943 onwards, the real advance came after Kursk, however.
so, without our entry, i dont think the Soviets wouldve amounted to much, and probably wouldve surrendered long before the UK...
Err, no.
Edit: and with the UK confined to the British Isles the Dominions wouldnt amount to much, Canada didnt factor in the war till D-Day
Wait, what?

You do know that the UK was fighting on about four fronts from 1941 onwards, with the Empire doing its bit in every theatre, right?

He crashed in Scotland on his way to meet Prince George, Duke of Kenton,who hadnt told the British military of his meeting, and so was arrested...he went crazy due to his harsh treatment in Soviet prison...Hitler also propagated the rumor that he was insane to distance himself from the embarrassment of the botched mission...Which Soviet prison would this be?

Here (http://cges.georgetown.edu/docs/Docs_Working_Papers_Page/Working_Paper_Boghardt_6-04.pdf) you go (warning it's a pdf)

You provided a theory.

Any letters from the Nazis to London?

Any note of telegrams from one to the other?

...

Wait, what?

You do know that the UK was fighting on about four fronts from 1941 onwards, with the Empire doing its bit in every theatre, right?


Thank you for stating that.

...

The US entered the war about a year before Stalingrad started.

Simply untrue. The Germans weren't particularly worried about an attack on France until early 1944 when it became a plausible feat for the Allies to attain.

The Russians were pushing the Germans back from early 1943 onwards, the real advance came after Kursk, however.

Err, no.

Wait, what?

You do know that the UK was fighting on about four fronts from 1941 onwards, with the Empire doing its bit in every theatre, right?

I refer to my earlier statement about Stalingrad, in which although we'd entered the war, America didnt factor against Germany until 1944...

And as far as the Empire is concerned, although they could have beaten the Germans in those fronts, im saying that they werent logistically able to factor into an actual invasion of Germany on their own...

I personally wouldn't mind if Fritz had won, but I believe that even without America 'saving the day' Britain would have won.