Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We all know how WW II ended, but would be really be like that if not for the U.S. help?

I would say yes. Britain was on it's knees, Soviet Union was rampaged because Stalin killed all great tacticians before the war. Most of Europe was under German rule.
Hitlers biggest mistake was impatience, if he had defeated his enemies one by one we would all today live in one great Reich. He was a fool to attack Soviet Union ( the sheer size of the country was teemed difficult to control and it required a LOT of troops ) and to declare war on America ( because American economy could produce 10 more Sherman's and solders for every killed in action ). And Germans where fools to let Hitler decide military strategy ( like sending German army to Sicily and denying Germans victory at Kursk ).
But even so Germany lost 6,630,000 to 8,680,000, while complete Allied Military casualties vary around 16,000,000.

So what do you think?

I actually blame Hermon Goering. The Battle of Britain was nearly won by the Germans in the early stages of the war and Goering's change of strategy eventually lost it for the Germans. Essentially after the first few weeks / months the Germans had managed to knock out almost very major airfield in southern England, along with nearly destroying the vast majority of the country's airplane factories. It was when Goering changed to civilian bombing and resources were switched from the original venue that the Brits made an amazing and commendable comback that allowed them to get supieror aircraft into the sky and beat the Germans back.

Keep in mind though, a win at the Battle of Britain doesn't necessarily mean anything. Churchill might, and most likely would, have remained totally committed to fighting to the end. A win at the Battle of Britain would only transfer to the Battle of the Chanel, German aircraft v. Royal Navy. If the Navy loses, Germany MIGHT be able to pull off something like operation Sea Lion, but the history on the German's ability to raise a transport flotilla is shaky at best. However, if Jerry jack boots did hit the Isles, that would have been the end of it for Great Britain.

In the end, yes they could have won the war. The could have done so in MANY ways, and remember that they came within inches of conquering Russia. PLaying "what if" history is fun, but in the end its just a game that no one could ever prove.

Germany would have lost, but the whole affair would have been even bloodier. They were small, lacking in strategic resources, and led by unhinged, indecisive madmen. The Soviets would have ground them down eventually. It might even have been more ideal to wait longer to invade from the west, to let both sides wear down, and then steamroll through both the Germans and the Soviets with the new nuclear weapons and a fresh, well supplied military, cutting the Cold War short before it even began.

How do you define a German victory in WW2?

It's impossible to make an estimation of their chances without defining that point.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Germany would have lost, but the whole affair would have been even bloodier. They were small, lacking in strategic resources, and led by unhinged, indecisive madmen. The Soviets would have ground them down eventually. It might even have been more ideal to wait longer to invade from the west, to let both sides wear down, and then steamroll through both the Germans and the Soviets with the new nuclear weapons and a fresh, well supplied military, cutting the Cold War short before it even began.

Dude, Germany had a atom bomb in 1945, several months before America tested theirs. If the Germany had faced each for individually they would won the war. They lost because they fought against 3 superpowers ( Britain, USA, USSR ) in the same time, and sheer number of solders, tanks, artillery and aircraft just overwhelm them. They would only have trouble with USA because US are hard to be attacked even today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:How do you define a German victory in WW2?

It's impossible to make an estimation of their chances without defining that point.

For the Germans to win - defeat every other world power.
My statement is that Germans would won if they only defeat their enemies one by one ( If they attacked Britain in 1942, defeated it and then attack USSR in 1943-44 then defeat it and finally attack USA in 1946-47 and defeated it ).

Define defeat.

The wermacht suffered 80% of its causalities fighting against the Red Army. The U.S. contribution to the defeat of Germany was limited.

Brother Coa wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Germany would have lost, but the whole affair would have been even bloodier. They were small, lacking in strategic resources, and led by unhinged, indecisive madmen. The Soviets would have ground them down eventually. It might even have been more ideal to wait longer to invade from the west, to let both sides wear down, and then steamroll through both the Germans and the Soviets with the new nuclear weapons and a fresh, well supplied military, cutting the Cold War short before it even began.

Dude, Germany had a atom bomb in 1945, several months before America tested theirs. If the Germany had faced each for individually they would won the war. They lost because they fought against 3 superpowers ( Britain, USA, USSR ) in the same time, and sheer number of solders, tanks, artillery and aircraft just overwhelm them. They would only have trouble with USA because US are hard to be attacked even today.

Might want to check your facts there. The Germans ALMOST had an atom bomb, right up until the point where a few Norwegian commandos sunk a barge carrying all the the heavy water the Germans had made up until that point in time. Considering it took years to make that stuff, the raid effectively ended German nuclear ambitions for the time being.

Also, Germany have many chances to win the war but botched up on a good number. The war against the USSR could have, and in all honesty, should have been won. It was the foolishness of Hitler and his inability to trust his "elitist" generals that lost him the war in the east, along with other contributing factors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don't get me wrong though, still glad they lost in the east. A win against the USSR would have almost perfectly secured a German victory in WWII. By victory I mean the surrender of G.B. and a truce with the U.S.

Assuming that Germany had not attacked the USSR and instead had focused on fighting the European powers I think they would eventually have gone on to invade mainland UK (assuming as mentioned above that they had not started bombing our cities instead of our airfields/factories/etc) and our overseas territories.

However, I think it would have been a long and bloody campaign (given that we would not just surrender like the French).

Though as KK says, you need to define what you mean by "winning" or "losing" to then see how possible it may or may not have been.

olympia wrote:The wermacht suffered 80% of its causalities fighting against the Red Army. The U.S. contribution to the defeat of Germany was limited.

This.

The answer is No, the War was already turning against Germany when the US finally decided to get in on the action.
But I will say that though they were late to the fight, the supplies to the Allies were invaluable.

SilverMK2 wrote:However, I think it would have been a long and bloody campaign (given that we would not just surrender like the French).

The government may have surrendered but many of the French people never surrendered.
Similarly the Polish, though their government never surrendered they didn't exactly have time to either.

So if Germany had concentrated on Western Europe and not bothered with Russia, they would have conquered everything but they would have a hard time controlling it.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:

olympia wrote:The wermacht suffered 80% of its causalities fighting against the Red Army. The U.S. contribution to the defeat of Germany was limited.

This.

The answer is No, the War was already turning against Germany when the US finally decided to get in on the action.
But I will say that though they were late to the fight, the supplies to the Allies were invaluable.

SilverMK2 wrote:However, I think it would have been a long and bloody campaign (given that we would not just surrender like the French).

The government may have surrendered but many of the French people never surrendered.
Similarly the Polish, though their government never surrendered they didn't exactly have time to either.

So if Germany had concentrated on Western Europe and not bothered with Russia, they would have conquered everything but they would have a hard time controlling it.

Ehh, that's easy to say but there is a reason why the Germans decided to move against Russia when they did. The loss of the Battle of Britain totally stonewalled the Germans. Lacking a navy OR complete air superiority, an invasion of the British Isles was utterly impossible.

The Germans moved against the Russians at perhaps the best possible time they could. Stalin was not interested in sitting on his lorels for an indefinate period of time and most likely would have eventually invaded NAZI Germany, especially if their efforts against Britain continued to the stonewalled. The Germans pushed when the Red Army was at its weakest and did I fine job whipping the Russians all the way to Moscow, the problem is that the Germans spread their forces far too thin. Hitler insisted that his army be divided into three major groups, Armee Gruppe North, Center, and South, evenly spreading his troops, for the most part, across all territories. His goal was to capture all three Soviet linchpins at once, Stalingrad, Moscow, and Leningrad.

The OKW, the German High Command, advised Hitler against this course of action, citing that the fall of just one of the three linchpins would be more than enough to finish off the Russians. Stalingrad was a major rail center that, if taken, would have given a well reinforced German army the ability to cut off the valuable and utterly necessary Baku oilfields. Moscow was also a major rail center and its capture would have effectively split the Red Army in two, leaving the north virtually cut off from all supplies and ripe for total destruction.

Hitler got greedy, he wanted it all and, as such, he lost out. It could be argued that a more concentrated effort against Stalingrad or Moscow, in combination with the revoking of orders such as the Commissar Order, would have done a great deal to help the Germans.

Another interesting avenue is that of the local population. During the first few weeks of Barbarossa the Germans were hailed as liberators by the Russian people. The Germans had removed the vicious, mass murdering, regime of the USSR and were supposed to be their saviors. NAZI ideology, orders from the top on how to treat the Russian people, and SS exterminator brigades that followed the Wehrmacht like vultures all combined to isolate the Russian people and eventually turn them against the Wehrmacht. Partisan activity was a serious thorn in the side of the German army and the support of the locals could have gone a long way to helping out.

Keep in mind, as I said before, this is all "what if" history and is by no means hold any real water. No one can, or will ever, know how events could have unfolded.

Not to mention that the war was economically crippling Germany. Europe's recovery after the war was very much funded by the American dollar, in order to maintain a level of order and military efficiency capable of fending off the USSR for any length of time, the US would have to actively aid the Germans. Although, considering the animosity between the USA and USSR that built up, they may have. But if Germany was a potential rival superpower, maybe the US would side with the Soviets until they were gone. Personally, I think they would have.

Regardless of whether the US did or did not enter the war, the war in Europe was always going to be won or lost on the Eastern Front. If it could be somehow shown that US support or aid helped stave Russia from defeat, then a victory in Germany's favour is more likely if the US did not become involved.

Though Brother Coa's idea that Germany would then go on to invade the US mainland is pretty ridiculous. Even in a 'what if' fun and games look at history, Germany could hardly look at that sort of expansion by 1946. And it would be interesting to see how if there would still be the Pacific front to account for. Regardless of the situation in Germany, the US was about to explode into its full military potential.

Manstein wrote:
Might want to check your facts there. The Germans ALMOST had an atom bomb, right up until the point where a few Norwegian commandos sunk a barge carrying all the the heavy water the Germans had made up until that point in time. Considering it took years to make that stuff, the raid effectively ended German nuclear ambitions for the time being.

The evidence in the last several years proves that on some island on the north of county, in March 1945, Germany tested atomic bomb, and it was successful test. The only thing that they didn't have is time. And that happened after British commandos sink the ship carrying heavy water.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:
The answer is No, the War was already turning against Germany when the US finally decided to get in on the action.
But I will say that though they were late to the fight, the supplies to the Allies were invaluable.

Correct, U.S. have already sending ammunition and equipment to both Soviets and the British. After that the USA simply overrun the Germans with manpower and equipment.
Also the Soviets have done the same in 1944.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Define defeat.

Capitulation of Great Britain, USSR and USA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manstein wrote:
The Germans moved against the Russians at perhaps the best possible time they could. Stalin was not interested in sitting on his lorels for an indefinate period of time and most likely would have eventually invaded NAZI Germany, especially if their efforts against Britain continued to the stonewalled. The Germans pushed when the Red Army was at its weakest and did I fine job whipping the Russians all the way to Moscow, the problem is that the Germans spread their forces far too thin. Hitler insisted that his army be divided into three major groups, Armee Gruppe North, Center, and South, evenly spreading his troops, for the most part, across all territories. His goal was to capture all three Soviet linchpins at once, Stalingrad, Moscow, and Leningrad.

That is what I am saying. If they attacked USSR later with full force they would won. There is no way to conquer the state that size with "only" 3.000.000+ men. Soviets could easily stretch their forces to breaking point and then initiate raids. Not to mention that German tanks where breaking in the winter time. And Stalin wouldn't attack Germany in the next several years, we can see that by his reaction day before the invasion. He didn't listen his spies telling him that the Hitler would attack, he said that that is impossible because they where buddies. He still didn't believe even when Germans attack USSR.

Manstein wrote:
Keep in mind, as I said before, this is all "what if" history and is by no means hold any real water. No one can, or will ever, know how events could have unfolded.

True, but one thing is for certain. We would all live under the German Reich if Hitler did won the war.

Brother Coa wrote:]

Kilkrazy wrote:Define defeat.

Capitulation of Great Britain, USSR and USA.

That last one is a bit much to ask for. Short of a sci-fi portal opening over North Carolina, how do you expect the German Reich to transport a sizeable enough force over the Atlantic? Conquering Europe would by itself by a remarkable feat.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:]

Kilkrazy wrote:Define defeat.

Capitulation of Great Britain, USSR and USA.

That last one is a bit much to ask for. Short of a sci-fi portal opening over North Carolina, how do you expect the German Reich to transport a sizeable enough force over the Atlantic? Conquering Europe would by itself by a remarkable feat.

They just needed time, they would probably attack American mainland in middle '50. Ever played "Freedom Fighter"? The Soviets there used submarines, ships, Aircraft carriers and loads of gak to attack American mainland. And they would probably attack Canada and allied themselves with Mexico ( like Germany in WW 1 tried).

Brother Coa wrote:We all know how WW II ended, but would be really be like that if not for the U.S. help?

I would say yes. Britain was on it's knees, Soviet Union was rampaged because Stalin killed all great tacticians before the war. Most of Europe was under German rule.
Hitlers biggest mistake was impatience, if he had defeated his enemies one by one we would all today live in one great Reich. He was a fool to attack Soviet Union ( the sheer size of the country was teemed difficult to control and it required a LOT of troops ) and to declare war on America ( because American economy could produce 10 more Sherman's and solders for every killed in action ). And Germans where fools to let Hitler decide military strategy ( like sending German army to Sicily and denying Germans victory at Kursk ).
But even so Germany lost 6,630,000 to 8,680,000, while complete Allied Military casualties vary around 16,000,000.

So what do you think?

Britain on its knees?I think not my friend we were dominating the skies over our territory and giving jerry what for at the same time.The yanks only came aboard when a bunch of drunken jap pilots tried parking on the wrong frigate's. what?

Brother Coa wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:]

Kilkrazy wrote:Define defeat.

Capitulation of Great Britain, USSR and USA.

That last one is a bit much to ask for. Short of a sci-fi portal opening over North Carolina, how do you expect the German Reich to transport a sizeable enough force over the Atlantic? Conquering Europe would by itself by a remarkable feat.

They just needed time, they would probably attack American mainland in middle '50. Ever played "Freedom Fighter"? The Soviets there used submarines, ships, Aircraft carriers and loads of gak to attack American mainland. And they would probably attack Canada and allied themselves with Mexico ( like Germany in WW 1 tried).

Yeah. But then that would be WWIII, wouldn't it? Or at least a seperate war of some sort.

Furthermore, the friendliness of Canada, being part of the Commonwealth, would depend heavily on how the Colonies reacted to any eventual defeat to the British Isles. Churchill gave the impression that a result similar to Vichy France (where grudging co-operation existed) would be unnacceptable, yet that tune may change if Nazi Jackboots came parading through the streets of London.

The evidence in the last several years proves that on some island on the north of county, in March 1945, Germany tested atomic bomb, and it was successful test. The only thing that they didn't have is time. And that happened after British commandos sink the ship carrying heavy water.

Although I have yet to receive a PhD, I am an active historian of WWII and have worked under several very well known WWII history professors. If there was evidence that the Germans tested an A-Bomb, which I am certain they did not, I would have heard about it.

It sounds to me like you are picking up on some History Chanel speculation nonsense. As such, I shall repeat, the German Atomic Program ended with the destruction of their only source of heavy water was destroyed. To speculate that the Germans tested a working atomic bomb is pure and utter nonsense and unless you can whip up some concrete evidence, which I know you can't (unless you stumbled upon some super secret Reich portfolios that the C.I.A. has been hiding for 60+ years), you should lay that conspiracy theory to rest.

As to the utter foolishness of Germany invading the U.S.A.... I think you might be too interested in those fun, yet silly, video games that have NAZIs storming 1950s New York city. Hitler and the NAZIs wern't interested in some sort of video-gamesque global domination scenario, it would have been utterly impossible. NAZI ideology was limited to and pertained only to the expansion of German Lebensraum in the east. Hitler didn't even want to go to war with Britain, not only because they were powerful, but because he respected and liked the British Empire. The NAZIs though the Slavs were an inferior race whose land and resources really belonged to the Aryan Germans.

If, for some reason, the Germans, and I really should say the NAZIs, had won the war, they would have been content AND had their hands full building the east into their own paradise. The NAZIs would have, most likely, never invaded the U.S. and would have been content with a white peace with G.B. Once again, speculation on that subject is stuff that is best left for video games and novels, not real historical discussion.

P.S. If you are going to try and cite some half-done OKW report on "how to invade America" that won't fly as real. Every major country has a contingency plan for an invasion of everyone. Somewhere in the Pentagon there are papers that detail how the U.S. would conquer Canada, as well as any other country in the world.

Manstein wrote:Somewhere in the Pentagon there are papers that detail how the U.S. would conquer Canada...

Ask them nicely for it, they're too polite to refuse. Politeness: Kryptonite for Canadians.

Also, thanks for that post, it was informed, well-worded, and interesting.

Manstein wrote:

The evidence in the last several years proves that on some island on the north of county, in March 1945, Germany tested atomic bomb, and it was successful test. The only thing that they didn't have is time. And that happened after British commandos sink the ship carrying heavy water.

Although I have yet to receive a PhD, I am an active historian of WWII and have worked under several very well known WWII history professors. If there was evidence that the Germans tested an A-Bomb, which I am certain they did not, I would have heard about it.

It sounds to me like you are picking up on some History Chanel speculation nonsense. As such, I shall repeat, the German Atomic Program ended with the destruction of their only source of heavy water was destroyed. To speculate that the Germans tested a working atomic bomb is pure and utter nonsense and unless you can whip up some concrete evidence, which I know you can't (unless you stumbled upon some super secret Reich portfolios that the C.I.A. has been hiding for 60+ years), you should lay that conspiracy theory to rest.

As to the utter foolishness of Germany invading the U.S.A.... I think you might be too interested in those fun, yet silly, video games that have NAZIs storming 1950s New York city. Hitler and the NAZIs wern't interested in some sort of video-gamesque global domination scenario, it would have been utterly impossible. NAZI ideology was limited to and pertained only to the expansion of German Lebensraum in the east. Hitler didn't even want to go to war with Britain, not only because they were powerful, but because he respected and liked the British Empire. The NAZIs though the Slavs were an inferior race whose land and resources really belonged to the Aryan Germans.

If, for some reason, the Germans, and I really should say the NAZIs, had won the war, they would have been content AND had their hands full building the east into their own paradise. The NAZIs would have, most likely, never invaded the U.S. and would have been content with a white peace with G.B. Once again, speculation on that subject is stuff that is best left for video games and novels, not real historical discussion.

P.S. If you are going to try and cite some half-done OKW report on "how to invade America" that won't fly as real. Every major country has a contingency plan for an invasion of everyone. Somewhere in the Pentagon there are papers that detail how the U.S. would conquer Canada, as well as any other country in the world.

As for the German Atomic bomb I agree, I watch a series called "Hitler's atom bomb" and I remember that they talk with some German who tells them the whole story about that. But if you believe that this is conspiracy as Americans using Tesla prints to finish the Atomic bomb then we shell live it to rest.

And why do you think that Germany wouldn't invade USA if Hitler controlled much of Asia, Africa and whole Europe? As much as Hitler had respect for USA and British empire his obsession was still the world domination. I am pretty sure that he would invade it in some point after he conquered much of British empire and USSR. And he would have Japan as an ally, an Japan already have in plan to control the pacific.

P.S. Why would USA attack Canada? Aren't the allies?

Brother Coa wrote:

As for the German Atomic bomb I agree, I watch a series called "Hitler's atom bomb" and I remember that they talk with some German who tells them the whole story about that. But if you believe that this is conspiracy as Americans using Tesla prints to finish the Atomic bomb then we shell live it to rest.

Plans to do things and actually doing them are different. The Germans were still interested in the bomb, but the loss of the absolutely vital ingredient that was heavy water set their program back many many years. Not to mention the lost of interest that OKW had after the whole affair.

It is a conspiracy as far as it is utterly based on speculation and has not one, single, half charred, fragment of a document that could even hint at proof that the Germans test an atomic bomb.

Brother Coa wrote:
And why do you think that Germany wouldn't invade USA if Hitler controlled much of Asia, Africa and whole Europe? As much as Hitler had respect for USA and British empire his obsession was still the world domination. I am pretty sure that he would invade it in some point after he conquered much of British empire and USSR. And he would have Japan as an ally, an Japan already have in plan to control the pacific.

See my above post. As easy as it is for Americans to envision that Hitler, "the ultimate evil," wanted to conquer the world, he didn't. NAZI ideology was based around the German race and the destruction of the Jews. In this wacky scenario in which Hitler wins the war, a hefty chunk, if not most of the world's Jews would have been dead, and the NAZI want for Lebensraum would have been satisfied. The NAZIs would have had absolutely nothing to gain but everything to lose in an invasion of America, especially if there had been a white peace. O... and yeah... they would have to play a costly catch-up game in the way of building a functioning naval fleet, something that takes decades of concentrated manufacturing. Such cost would have been an impossible weight on a war ravaged Germany. You have to remember that invading Russia to get its resources is not like playing D&D, where at the end you find a pot of gold to go buy your next cool magical item. You have massive infrastructure, labor, and organizational requirements to even THINK about beginning to extract those resources. Rebuilding Germany, starving out the Russians (an actual plan that called for the mass starvation of millions of Russians), then moving in and rebuilding ALL of EASTERN EUROPE, would have taken decades at best... and that's assuming the NAZI economy didn't collapse for other reasons.

For more information on the German war economy, reference Adam Tooze's "Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the NAZI Economy."

To summarize, the NAZIs only cared about building their Aryan paradise, not spreading that idea of paradise to all corners of the world, or occupying it for that matter. Even if they did want to "conquer the world" they would have been in no shape to do so for decades after the conquering of Russia. A Russian capitulation would have... MAYBE, seen a change of Government in G.B. which would have lead to a peace, the re-establishment of Edward VII on the Throne, and a Labour government, not some NAZI puppet.

EDIT: Germany would not have seized G.B.s colonies, it would have been logistically and politically impossible. Chances are G.B.'s Empire would have just fallen apart, but it COULD have stayed together, but still would have been under British rule.

Brother Coa wrote:
P.S. Why would USA attack Canada? Aren't the allies?

The innocence of youth... so sweet.

Brother Coa wrote:]

Kilkrazy wrote:Define defeat.

Capitulation of Great Britain, USSR and USA.

That last one is a bit much to ask for. Short of a sci-fi portal opening over North Carolina, how do you expect the German Reich to transport a sizeable enough force over the Atlantic? Conquering Europe would by itself by a remarkable feat.

Considering Chuchill's attitude i doubt the Empire would have surrendered...
That said a German occupation of Britian wouldn't have been too easy either...

Manstein wrote:I actually blame Hermon Goering. The Battle of Britain was nearly won by the Germans in the early stages of the war and Goering's change of strategy eventually lost it for the Germans. Essentially after the first few weeks / months the Germans had managed to knock out almost very major airfield in southern England, along with nearly destroying the vast majority of the country's airplane factories. It was when Goering changed to civilian bombing and resources were switched from the original venue that the Brits made an amazing and commendable comback that allowed them to get supieror aircraft into the sky and beat the Germans back.

Keep in mind though, a win at the Battle of Britain doesn't necessarily mean anything. Churchill might, and most likely would, have remained totally committed to fighting to the end. A win at the Battle of Britain would only transfer to the Battle of the Chanel, German aircraft v. Royal Navy. If the Navy loses, Germany MIGHT be able to pull off something like operation Sea Lion, but the history on the German's ability to raise a transport flotilla is shaky at best. However, if Jerry jack boots did hit the Isles, that would have been the end of it for Great Britain..

Then why blame him if this strategy (not actually his strategy, but never mind that) made no difference to the outcome. Destroying more of 11 Group's airfields changes nothing.

I'm not aware of any aircraft factories that were destroyed, although many were damaged. Loss of aircraft production was never the primary problem for the RAF. If German troops had landed successfully that would be no guarantee of victory. All reasonable projections suggest that Sealion would have been a failure.

George Spiggott wrote:

Manstein wrote:I actually blame Hermon Goering. The Battle of Britain was nearly won by the Germans in the early stages of the war and Goering's change of strategy eventually lost it for the Germans. Essentially after the first few weeks / months the Germans had managed to knock out almost very major airfield in southern England, along with nearly destroying the vast majority of the country's airplane factories. It was when Goering changed to civilian bombing and resources were switched from the original venue that the Brits made an amazing and commendable comback that allowed them to get supieror aircraft into the sky and beat the Germans back.

Keep in mind though, a win at the Battle of Britain doesn't necessarily mean anything. Churchill might, and most likely would, have remained totally committed to fighting to the end. A win at the Battle of Britain would only transfer to the Battle of the Chanel, German aircraft v. Royal Navy. If the Navy loses, Germany MIGHT be able to pull off something like operation Sea Lion, but the history on the German's ability to raise a transport flotilla is shaky at best. However, if Jerry jack boots did hit the Isles, that would have been the end of it for Great Britain..

Then why blame him if this strategy (not actually his strategy, but never mind that) made no difference to the outcome. Destroying more of 11 Group's airfields changes nothing.

I'm not aware of any aircraft factories that were destroyed, although many were damaged. Loss of aircraft production was never the primary problem for the RAF. If German troops had landed successfully that would be no guarantee of victory. All reasonable projections suggest that Sealion would have been a failure.

Goering may not have invented civilian bombing, but he was certainly behind the Luftwaffe's decision to change to that style of warfare. Also, I said that the strategy COULD have meant something else. "What if" history is a massive tangle of possibilities, could beens, and just generally incalcuable yet fun to ponder nonsense.

To make my original statement more concise: If the Luftwaffe would have continued its bombing patterns in such a way so to continue to render the massive effectiveness of south England's airfields void, as well as continued its effective bombardment of British aircraft manufacturing facilities (the actual, literal, destruction of any heavy industry plant is close to impossible. The buildings might get burned but nothing short of a direct hit is going to destroy heavy machinery), the chances of a German victory over G.B. would have greatly improved.

There is still no guarantee that Sea Lion would have worked, as you said, but Luftwaffe air superiority would have made the operation feasible, instead of impossible. Also keep in mind that Sea Lion was still half baked at the time it was pigeon holed. Rolling out a half backed plan and "proving" it would or would not work is one thing, but examining the texts and saying that, based on what was written, it would have been a failure is walking on shaky ground. Then again, this is "what if" history, all of it is shaky ground. Remember that the glaring success that was 1939-1940 for the Germans was based on a backup plan presented by.... yes... Erich von Manstein after the actual German plan was thought captured when a German aircraft crashed in Belgium containing the details on the whole thing. Its all shaky stuff, its all "what if" history, anything could have happened and... back to the point... a win at the Battle of Britain would have greatly increased chances of German success in later ventures.

As for an actual invasion of Britain, the problem for examining this goes hand in hand with whether or not the Germans could have actively, policed and secured supply routes (if they could even muster the ships) across the chanel. If the Luftwaffe was somehow powerful enough to drive off the Royal Navy, and Grand Admiral Raeder was able to wave a magic wand to make several hundred supply ships appear at Caen, the Wehrmacht would have MOST LIKELY, been able to easily defeat the forces that Britain had on the island, which were miniscule. I am not totally up to date on the numbers but I would be surprised if the Brits could have mustered anything close to Corps level. But that's all a mute point. Jack boots on the Isles wern't supposed to be about total occupation, they were about getting the British Government to sack Churchill, put Edward VII back on the Throne, and accept a truce; not some video game NAZI nightmare with swastikas draped from Big Ben.

At any rate... Mr. Spiggott, I think we can both agree that a win at the BoB didn't guarantee anything, but it would have greatly furthered NAZI odds at victory over Britain.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Define capitulation of Great Britain.

Define the terms and also specify whether the rest of the Empire and dominions would be expected to follow suit.

Well, conquering of British isles and then dissolution of British empire. Or simply conquering of all it's territories.
Take India for example, they would surly use the situation and declare independence from British empire if Britain where to fall under German Reich.

And why do you think that Nazi Germany invsion of USA was impossible if they where to defeat Britain and USSR?
How would you then imagine USSR invasion of the USA in Cold War era?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manstein wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:
P.S. Why would USA attack Canada? Aren't the allies?

The innocence of youth... so sweet.

Still don't get you. In the same logic France would attack Germany, no matter they are in the heart of EU.

And why do you think that invasion of USA is impossible?

And why do you think Hitler would stop conquering the world after he defeated USSR and Britain?

Without North American logistics and combatants then it could very well sway the outcome of WW2. They had the infrastructure and location that made a huge difference in the war effort.

But the USSR was by far the biggest roadblock to Germany's potential victory.

Manstein wrote:As for an actual invasion of Britain, the problem for examining this goes hand in hand with whether or not the Germans could have actively, policed and secured supply routes (if they could even muster the ships) across the chanel.

Securing the channel is one of the 'impossible' situations, even with aircraft to spare the Royay Navy (home fleet) outnumbers the German Kriegsmarine by 10 to one or more, the Kreigsmarine has no capital ships at at all to counter the RN's ships. In addition ships from the colonies would continue to return once the signal of an attack had been given. By September (When the Luftwaffe's tactical change occurred) the weather and tides are beginning to turn. Time is against an attack in autumn 1940.

The Rothschilds would've won regardless.