Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The real issue is with Hitler taking his focus off Britain and turning to Russia. If he puts 100% into Britain they win .
This is the sort of indoctrinated history that permeates this board. How could he win with no surface navy, facing the world's largest, and an air force that was defeated twice by the RAF? Was Hitler going to beam his army over the England?
This wonder German army tried for just under two years to defeat the British Army, and failed.
The real issue is with Hitler taking his focus off Britain and turning to Russia. If he puts 100% into Britain they win and Stalin would have been kept at bay.
Without Britain as a basis the Americans would have had a far far more difficult time gaining footholds in Europe. Likely in that case we would have had to focus on fighting Japan at first. Meaning a much more naval focused war with likely far far higher death tolls.
The best Hitler could have achieved against the British would have been a negotiated truce, and even for that to happen a lot of stars would have had to line up just right. Defeating the Brits was simply not possible.
The best Hitler could have achieved against the British would have been a negotiated truce, and even for that to happen a lot of stars would have had to line up just right. Defeating the Brits was simply not possible.
Hitler turned to the USSR in a rushed under-resourced operation to gain its resources, to build a huge air fleet to counter the British in the coming air war. Britain alone produced more planes than Germany in WW2. The Germans could not even manage to make a 4 engined bomber.
I just did. Great link. A small part of the reason may have been that surrendering to the relatively peaceful U.S. may have been preferable to surrendering to the U.S.S.R. or surprisingly militant Australia. Either way, that is how wars should be fought; to conclusion and not to a muddled ending with confusion as to the aggressor's/loser's "rights."
I just did. Great link. A small part of the reason may have been that surrendering to the relatively peaceful U.S. may have been preferable to surrendering to the U.S.S.R. or surprisingly militant Australia. Either way, that is how wars should be fought; to conclusion and not to a muddled ending with confusion as to the aggressor's/loser's "rights."
Well of course that presumes that the winning side is willing to expend even more lives and resources to get that desired unconditional surrender. WWII seems rather unique in that the Allies were preparing to do just that with the Soviets jumping in at the end to grab their own share
The problem with that is that both the U.K. and the U.S. depend upon imports and exports. The strength of both countries is largely trade. Germany and/or Japan didn't need to invade. Shipping would have been impossible because no one in their right mind would provide insurance for ships or aircraft traveling in a war zone. The sea and air lanes needed to be kept open.
My response was to the post that said Germany and Japan would invade both US coasts, and that we would be fighting a two front war right at home. My point was the fact that neither country was ever even close to being able to pull off such an operation, to say nothing of resupply and reinforcement. Did I miss something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41
I disagree somewhat here. Lend-Lease, previously enacted to aid the UK and China, was extended to the USSR by the Congress only in October of 1941, by which time the expected knockout blow of Barbarossa had failed to occur. By the end of the year, materiel had only just begun to flow, and when the Soviets stopped the German Army at Moscow in early December, Germany had lost all of its invasion initiative. Lend-Lease definitely contributed to the USSR being able to turn the tables and drive German forces back (and seize much of eastern Europe in the process). But those German supply lines were just too long. They had a shot at winning via quick KO but they were never going to be able to win a drawn-out slugfest. Without Lend-Lease, perhaps the USSR has to sue for some sort of terms, but it isn't conquered.
I should have written that a little better. I agree that the Soviet Union wouldn't be conquered, at worst they would have had to ask for an armistice of some sort. And as you said, German supply lines were too long, especially for their airlift capacity, most of which was the small, lumbering Ju 52.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
