Hitler and the Conquest of Britain, Ireland and America

page: 2
61
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Thank you.

Sliders was a really innovative piece of TV in the mid to late 1990s and the underlying Kromagg arc helped keep the series fresh until it's main stars began to leave. I haven't seen all of Enterprise to be honest. Although Scott Bakula is a much under-rated actor (Quantum Leap was one of my fave TV series when I was a teenager). I have made a mental note to catch up with the "Enterprise" episodes I missed as they are still shown here in the UK.

Going back to the original post though. I thought, as it was mainly a fictional exercise in what might have been, then perhaps it was also an opportunity to lighten it up and have a a bit of joke as well. It's not something you can always do on here, and some may not appreciate it or even get the all the corny puns.

But it is what it is and I hope people reading it get that.




posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
What a great thread!! Thanks O.P, real fun reading that and really well constructed and presented.

Just one bone of contention for me. IMO, I really don't believe, despite the outcome of WWII, Vienna would ever knock Shutuppa yer face off the coveted No.1 spot in the music charts.
edit on 26/10/13 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by keenasbro
 


Glad you had a laugh mate. I was going to add something about your fair nation down under but it had to stop somewhere.

There was once a great series called "Anzacs" starring Paul Hogan (Hoge's) shown here in Britain in the 1980s in the afternoon about WWII. I remember seeing it as I was off school sick for the week. So glad that I was It was awesome and unlike some American productions did not change the basic facts of the war. It didn't paint the British ruling classes in a great light either. So to most of us kids growing up in Thatcher's Britain that was most welcome.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


All I can say is:



And well spotted


I thought that one might well go past a lot of people



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageman
 


If you're not currently a writer of alternate-history fiction you've missed your calling.

This was just terrific.

:thumbsup:

Damn, I really miss that emoticon...



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageman
 


Nicely done!!



Its rare for such a pleasantly laid out post.
I've got to say it was very entertaining and got me thinking about how things could be in a lot of different scenarios.

Thanks for greasing my gears
edit on 26-10-2013 by Inarismessenger because: no more :thumbsup:



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

woogleuk
Great story, enjoyed that, extra brownie points for the Armstrong and Miller sketch you threw in, cracks me up every time.


In reality though, I think it is safe to say that Germany could never have conquered Britain...not without killing every man, woman and child capable of fighting, what our ancestors did makes me proud to be British.

EDIT: Another thank you for posting that Hitlers Britain video, going to watch that now, put an hour and a half in
edit on 26/10/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)


Britain had been conquered many times in history, there was nothing special about her people in this war.

Fact is that Britain was done, they had lost, and it was Hitler who changed events that led to Germany's defeat. The RAF was finished, almost all their bases were destroyed but Hitler switched the bombing from legitimate military targets towards civilian cities which allowed the RAF to continue fighting.

Hitler also allowed around 300,000 British troops to be rescued out of Dunkirk when he had them surrounded and beaten. Why he didn't push that attack is still unknown. Hitler also had the Soviets beat but, within sight of Moscow, made the horrible decision to send his forces South instead of pushing on the last lines of Russians to deliver the final blow. This allowed them to regroup and counter-attack.

These issues are easily seen now but back then we did not have the benefit of hindsight. Still, the fact that the war was very winnable by the Nazi's, if only a few decisions were made differently, says a lot.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageman
 


Got to say when I first noticed then started reading this thread I thought what a complete load of bollocks and a rip off - but then I got quite engrossed in the tale which is very well presented, a bit of a laugh in places and quite a clever ending.

I take my hat off to you Sir, a welcome and pleasant surprise.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Spookybelle
 




Britain had been conquered many times in history,


Err....not for quite some time - 1066 was the last time Great Britain was successfully invaded, nearly a thousand years ago.



..... there was nothing special about her people in this war.


You may believe this, many would disagree - the facts tend to lean towards you being wrong but hey, don't let them get in the way.



Fact is that Britain was done, they had lost,


Err, actually the latest consensus of opinion is that the German Luftwaffe had been stretched to it's limits and had indeed been defeated, the UK was building record numbers of planes and had the upper hand in technology and tactics.



..... and it was Hitler who changed events that led to Germany's defeat.


He certainly didn't help matters.



The RAF was finished, almost all their bases were destroyed


Wrong and wrong - you're not very good at this are you?



..... but Hitler switched the bombing from legitimate military targets towards civilian cities which allowed the RAF to continue fighting.


German Intelligence believed the RAF to be on it's last legs and decided to switch to bombing civilian and industrial targets - they were very wrong.
In addition the Germans lacked a coherent strategy to neutralise Britain's industry and in reality were little more than a nuisance.



Hitler also allowed around 300,000 British troops to be rescued out of Dunkirk when he had them surrounded and beaten. Why he didn't push that attack is still unknown.


The reason may be contested by white supremacists and other Hitler apologists but it's not 'unknown'.
An interesting article;
skeptoid.com...

But more to the point; what has any of this got to do with this thread?
Do you not see the point or reasoning behind it?
edit on 26/10/13 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   


Err....not for quite some time - 1066 was the last time Great Britain was successfully invaded, nearly a thousand years.


What does the length of time have to do with anything? Did some genetic change happen over those thousand years that the British people are now somehow different than they were back then?

I hardly think so, therefore the point is still relevant.




You may believe this, many would disagree - the facts tend to lean towards you being wrong but hey, don't let them get in the way.


The facts would support my statement. I'm sorry but you had Churchill running your planning, the same guy that got what, 200,000 British killed when he was running the Navy with his horrible planning? So horrible he was that they had to remove him from his post.

Then you have your diplomat coming off the plane and waving his little piece of paper saying that everyone can relax because they just signed a peace deal with Hitler.

Maybe your right and there was something special about the British......they were beyond ignorant.




Err, actually the latest consensus of opinion is that the German Luftwaffe had been stretched to it's limits and had indeed been defeated, the UK was building record numbers of planes and had the upper hand in technology and tactics.


Because Hitler had ordered the Luftwaffe to stop focusing on the factories and military bases and start hitting civilian targets. Had he continued the original plan, you would not have built more planes, or had a place to take off and refuel from. You also never would have built your radar stations.

Britain also relied on American supplies and pilots to fight, without that the British were out of the war. Nobody disputes that.




Wrong and wrong - you're not very good at this are you?


If you think I am wrong than a counter point would be a good place to start. Stomping on the ground and saying your wrong is not a very viable retort. Nobody takes you seriously.




But more to the point; what has any of this got to do with this thread?


This thread is about an alternative outcome to WWII, of which my post is dead on target.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Spookybelle
 


I have to say Freeborn was correct in his replies.

Britain (and Russia) had Germany on the defensive, the war was pretty much won.

Thankfully the Americans joined when they did otherwise it would have stretched out a lot longer and a lot more casualties would have been had.....we would still have won the war, but at heavy cost.

As for Churchill, I think his military strategies were far overrated, but he knew how to inspire the people with words, and that counted for a lot to be honest.

As far as British uniqueness goes, yes, we are unique, we have traits no other countries have, our humour is our own, our self-deprecation, even our sense of irony. But then most cultures around the world have their own uniqueness, so it's not just the Brits (we just do it in style
lol).



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
This was a nice write-up, good job. I find the European Theater of WWII fascinating to say the least. I personally believe, with good reason, that Hitler is the reason Germany lost WWII. His meddling was extremely costly, although had he refrained from opening a second front, he likely could still have succeeded. Knowing what we now know, if Hitler would have focused more resources on building and outfitting U-boats, the war may have been different. The Kriegsmarine commander was quite adept, and did an outstanding job despite having only a fraction of the vessels he knew he would need to accomplish Hitler's goal of strangling Britain through a war of attrition.

Hitler truly believed that Germany and Britain should be allies, not enemies. I think there is evidence to suggest he fully expected the British to sue for peace, especially after the British army was almost annihilated in France. In fact, I think the British would have made peace with Nazi Germany, since there were many politicians and people in high places who wanted to do just that. But there was one man who stood in the way...The new prime minister. In hindsight it was a great move, hanging on despite the fact that the situation looked almost hopeless.

So let me speculate with you on what might have occurred if things had been different. Like you said, an invasion of Britain was suspended for a reason. Hitler should have invaded Britain, while at the same time he should have kept appeasing the Russians, while simply establishing a strong defensive position along the Polish-Russian border. This would have given the needed resources for victory on the British Isles. Britain, despite the condition of its armed forces at the time, which would only later be built up rather strongly, especially the RAF, would have put up a heck of a fight, but I think it would have been in vain. Speed and force concentration, along with blockading English ports with U-boats, as well as massive Luftwaffe bombardments, followed up by a large scale invasion by sea and air, would have succeeded in short order. Once the main island fell, the others would soon follow.

I think Hitler was a bit to overzealous, and that is why he overextended himself. Early successes in Europe gave him too much confidence. Had he concentrated on one objective at a time, the German military might of the time could have dealt with the task they had been given. So while a massive invasion of Britain occurred, what would the US and the USSR have been doing? I am pretty sure that Stalin would not have invaded Germany. I think it is out of the question. He would easily have still been unprepared, just like he was when Operation Barbarossa was launched. His commanders KNEW a German attack was coming, yet Stalin did little to prepare. So Germany could have went after Russia at any time. There was the fact that the massive amounts of resources in Russia would have been helpful, but still, I think the move was more motivated by Hitler's crazy ideology.

The US is a bit harder to pin down in my opinion. They would not have been at war with Germany at the time, but would they have declared war once Britain was invaded? I think so. However, that would have meant very little at the time. They would not have sent any military forces, and if they did, they could never have invaded a German held Britain at that particular time and succeeded. It would have been a massive failure. It turns out that the Americans bloodied their nose in North Africa, and this is where they earned their stripes. Had they first gone up against the cream of the German army crop, which is what would have been in Britain, the results would have been devastating for the US. Canada would have been in the same position as well after a German conquest of Britain.

The more I think about it, an invasion of Britain, had it succeeded, would have most likely given Hitler a great opportunity to win the war. Of course there would be the Americans to face at some point, but an American invasion of France via sea would have been IMPOSSIBLE if the Germans controlled Britain. They would have had no staging point, among a myriad of other problems. The only route for them to take, plausibly, is via Africa, sort of like what actually happened. But without Britain, Hitler would have been able to divert more resources to Africa, which would have likely meant a failure by the US there. And without Britains help in North Africa, as they were great there, it would have been impossible. And then if Japan still attacked the US, it would have been even more difficult.

Then, after Britain's fall, Hitler could have diverted many resources to the invasion of Russia. Think about this though...One of the reasons the Russians did succeed, eventually, was because of the lend-lease supplies coming from the US. The trucks alone, which the USSR used to quickly move artillery and supplies to, from, and around the battlefields, would have made a huge difference. The main routes into Russia were from the South, where complete infrastructure had to be assembled, which would have been impossible without help from Britain, and then the North, via the Scandinavian countries. With German control of Britain, this route would have been cut off, and the U-boats would have stopped any attempt of aiding the Russians.

The Russians beat Napoleon in a very similar fashion to how they beat the Nazis. Instead of facing them head on, they simply drew them further into the country. Then there is the harsh winters of Russia. This by itself would not have been enough to stop Napoleon or Hitler. But, the scorched earth policy employed in both instances wreaked havoc on the ability of the armies to function. Plus, Hitler was so overconfident that his troops were not equipped for winter warfare. So to sum it up, if Britain had fallen, a series of events would have unfolded that probably would have led to the fall of Russia as well.

And once that occurred, and Hitler mopped up any resistance in Europe, and virtually was free from any threat of invasion, he could have focused in on an invasion of the US. And I think that the Japanese would have also played a big role had this happened. The Americans would have been fighting a war on two fronts themselves, with both the eastern and western coasts of the US vulnerable. Now whether an invasion of the US could have succeeded, I am not certain. We have to think about the atomic bomb. Maybe it wouldn't have been invented had Britain fell early in the war. Or maybe Germany, who was relatively close to it themselves, would have received it first. Either way, I believe that had it come down to this scenario, we would have likely either had nuclear bombs going off in Europe, or in America. And things would have probably worked out much, much more badly for everyone.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   

miragemanand eventually conquer America.


And you base this on what? That you were told on the History Channel that Hitler wanted to conquer the world?



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
good read it gave me a laugh to see how things might have played out s & f the royal family would have gone back to their german name .



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


Yes Britain and Russia had Germany on the defensive and that's just history, no dispute there. But the reasons are not because Britain or Russia had beaten them back through superior military tactics or their uniqueness of culture, it was because Hitler made specific military moves that allowed them to.

Had Germany done things a bit differently they would have had Western Europe with only America left to take them on. Its debatable on whether America would have continued the war or signed an agreement to simply end hostilities but I have no knowledge of any concrete plans for a German invasion of America.

The only person I know of with an actual plan to invade the US was Napolean.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Spookybelle
 


I normally stay away from commenting on Historical issues on ATS due to the hilarious BS people post, and that their education is not my responsibility.

However, please do more research on when England actually became England, and it's difference from Britain. The only people to ever conquer Britain were the British. If you think that it's an Oxymoron, then you are right - it's the Act of Union. Britain was never conquered by the Bronze or Iron age folks, the Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Dutch, Spaniards, French etc. I dont even feel The Gerries had that much of a chance. And of course they never managed it - you may remember that they lost the war. Britain has never been successfully invaded and England was still in it's nappies (Diapers to you) when the Normans successfully conquered it.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageman
 


What an absolutely awesome piece of work!!! STANDING OVATION, OP!! Excellent, just excellent!! S&F for sure!!


Looks like the road traveled ends at the same destination either way, huh?



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Spookybelle
 


Germany was very, very lucky to get as far as they did. And I think that your facts about the Battle of Britain are a bit suspect. 11th Group was stretched mighty thin, but the Luftwaffe was gutting itself doing so. And even if Sealion had been launched it would have been a disaster. The Royal Navy would have slaughtered all those wallowing Rhine barges in the Channel.
The best way to get a reaction on the AlternateHistory.net website (which is the best location to discuss alternate history) is to mention Sealion, or as they call it The Unmentionable Sea Mammal due to the number of new people who think that the operation was viable.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Atleast hitler would of kept the Windows8 start menu
edit on 27-10-2013 by Blowback because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageman
 


Love this thread - so interesting

Star and flag - and do you know anything about slapton sands?
Also remember the witches who also saved Britain in her darkest hour





new topics
 
61
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join