Yo Beck grow a brain

Yes.

Our continued support of the UK and the USSR kept you two afloat, to say nothing of the massive military contributions that actually ended the war. The Russians didn't even have a serious strategic bomber capability and you required constant resupply.

Not this shit again.....

Just say, "radar" and, "team effort", and then admit German V2s would've literally nuked you into submission by around 1945 without US intervention and we'll call it even.

I don't think Beck is correct because ultimately the US would have joined the war anyway. FDR had steered us on that course already and far before Pearl Harbor we were neutral in name only.

That being said, if the US had truly remained neutral and didn't play the role of Arsenal of Democracy, that might have made enough of a difference.

The options you get there are either a Eurasian Reich or a Warsaw Block up to the English Channel. Britain simply didn't have the manpower to kick either one of those factions out of mainland Europe.

Another interesting scenario would have been no Barbarossa - a Reich that hunkered down over an occupied West Europe. Eventually there would have been a war with the Soviets, but the technological race there in many ways would have favored the Germans. Indeed, that might have been a nuclear war in the early 50s.

Luckily for everyone, those scenarios didn't come to pass.

If the US was completely neutral, Germany might have pulled it off. Luckily that didn't happen either. Can you imagine how insufferable Packard would be now?

What, history?

I can't help it if they don't teach it properly in Europe.

I can't really be the only one who sees this thread title and thinks of this picture, can I?

Listen, you aren't listening to me. I said, if he were to focus his war on ONE front. Given time, the Brits would have capitulated, especially if he had better intelligence and captured their forces at Dunkirk. There were ALOT of ways that Hitler could have held Europe and eventually rebuilt and THEN blown a huge load all over Stalin's face. You are also correct about FDR. He had been feeding Brits supplies since the war's onset, but it took a spark to get the country behind him for war, and that came from Japan, not so much Germany. I'm merely saying that a German defeat was not as inevitable as many of you all think.

Lethesoda, I'm disappointed. I thought you wuved me.

A bit of a simplification......

In reality the Luftwaffe was fucking up the RAF until Hitler stupidly changed the targets from RAF bases, radar bases, docks and plane manufacturers to the cities.

Had Hitler let the German air force continue to pound RAF sites you guys would have been invaded eventually. You were taking losses left and right.

And don't put down the German Navy. They could have swamped the English channel with subs and given the Royal Navy a severe beating.

To me Hitler should have ignored his generals who wanted him to wait while they took care of the RAF before invading. He should have just gone and done it. After Dunkirk the Brits weren't going to be able to stop the Germans and the RAF would be severely outnumbered anyway.

I like this statement.

I know. It explains SOOO well why everyone else on Earth is so dumb.

The first part I concur with.

However, there was no way the Germans could have launched a credible invasion without air superiority, because the Kreigsmarine was dwarfed by the Royal Navy. The U-Boats would have been at an enormous disadvantage in the cramped and shallow confines of the English Channel, and the German surface fleet was not able to contend with the British Home Fleet in any meaningful way.

Remember, Dornitz was promised that war with the UK wouldn't happen prior to 1943. Plan Z, the German naval build up, was just barely begun when WWII did break out, as Hitler seriously misjudged the UK's willingness to to go to war over Poland.

While the Nazis were successful in invading Norway, they suffered significant losses among their screening forces, all of which would have been vital in Sea Lion.

The Bismark might have been available (it was commissioned Aug 1940) but the Tirpitz certainly wouldn't have been. That means you have one battleship and two battle cruisers. In the Home Fleet and North Atlantic the British had 6 battleships, 2 battlecruiser, four carriers and outnumbered the Kreigsmarine in Cruisers and Destroyers 4-1. And in that you'd need to not only gain short term superiority, but keep the approaches open indefinitely for resupply.

It just wasn't going to happen without air superiority, and even then it might have been prohibitive.