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