BF2S Forums Wwii

germany already devoloped a nucliar weapon

aardfrith wrote:

There is another option that's missing: Britain would have become neutral or possibly shared the world with Japan/Russia/Germany.

Since the air invasion of Britain failed, I doubt Hitler would have gone ahead with any plans he had to invade by sea/ground.  We still had a chain of supplies through Canada and our navy wasn't totally hopeless so we'd never have been completely isolated.  With much of the Empire intact, I think we could have established ourselves as a presence in Africa and possibly increased that amount of ownership therein.

Germany was tied up trying to extend eastwards into Russia and was grinding to a halt in that direction.  Japan could have extended southwards but if the Americas are staying out (barring the Empire nations) there's little point Japan going east and north or west takes them to Russia.  Eventually, I think Germany/Russia/Japan would have ground to a halt and the war would have ended before Germany/Russia had developed atomic weapons.

Ultimately, the world would be divided with much of Europe being owned by the Germans, Asia being divided between Russia (soon to become USSR) and the British Empire, while the Pacific region being dominated by Japan.

Britain was getting it's ass handed to itself by the Luftwaffe, a fact supported as the basis of Lord of the Flies and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe to name two notable examples.  I don't think Britain would have had the luxury of going neutral.  They were fodder.

Last edited by puckmercury (2006-07-11 05:36:02)

Uh......Germany already had most of Africa, which brings me to another point:

People keep on talking about the freed up troops on the Western Front if the US hadn't come in, but I think you'll find the troops freed up wouldn't have been in hugely significant numbers.  What would have been are the Afrika Korps (that's the right spelling isn't it?).  The question, then, is how long Commonwealth forces could have held out in Africa.  My opinion?  Long enough for Russia to turn the tide.  Rommel's supply lines were getting stretched, and the British had fortified positions.  Tobruk was continually a thorn in the German's side, and taking it had proved all but impossible.  Thoughts?

puckmercury wrote:

aardfrith wrote:

There is another option that's missing: Britain would have become neutral or possibly shared the world with Japan/Russia/Germany.

Since the air invasion of Britain failed, I doubt Hitler would have gone ahead with any plans he had to invade by sea/ground.  We still had a chain of supplies through Canada and our navy wasn't totally hopeless so we'd never have been completely isolated.  With much of the Empire intact, I think we could have established ourselves as a presence in Africa and possibly increased that amount of ownership therein.

Germany was tied up trying to extend eastwards into Russia and was grinding to a halt in that direction.  Japan could have extended southwards but if the Americas are staying out (barring the Empire nations) there's little point Japan going east and north or west takes them to Russia.  Eventually, I think Germany/Russia/Japan would have ground to a halt and the war would have ended before Germany/Russia had developed atomic weapons.

Ultimately, the world would be divided with much of Europe being owned by the Germans, Asia being divided between Russia (soon to become USSR) and the British Empire, while the Pacific region being dominated by Japan.

Britain was getting it's ass handed to itself by the Luftwaffe, a fact supported as the basis of Lord of the Flies and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe to name two notable examples.  I don't think Britain would have had the luxury of going neutral.  They were fodder.

I don't think a retelling of the bible with Jesus as a lion can be quoted as gospel truth.  However, our arses weren't being handed to anyone.  In fact, since we developed radar first, we were more than holding our own and, as the Fruitloop said, we won the Battle of Britain.

Of course, if the Germans hadn't switched to London and had continued the hangar raids, the may have won through sheer attrition.

puckmercury wrote:

aardfrith wrote:

There is another option that's missing: Britain would have become neutral or possibly shared the world with Japan/Russia/Germany.

Since the air invasion of Britain failed, I doubt Hitler would have gone ahead with any plans he had to invade by sea/ground.  We still had a chain of supplies through Canada and our navy wasn't totally hopeless so we'd never have been completely isolated.  With much of the Empire intact, I think we could have established ourselves as a presence in Africa and possibly increased that amount of ownership therein.

Germany was tied up trying to extend eastwards into Russia and was grinding to a halt in that direction.  Japan could have extended southwards but if the Americas are staying out (barring the Empire nations) there's little point Japan going east and north or west takes them to Russia.  Eventually, I think Germany/Russia/Japan would have ground to a halt and the war would have ended before Germany/Russia had developed atomic weapons.

Ultimately, the world would be divided with much of Europe being owned by the Germans, Asia being divided between Russia (soon to become USSR) and the British Empire, while the Pacific region being dominated by Japan.

Britain was getting it's ass handed to itself by the Luftwaffe, a fact supported as the basis of Lord of the Flies and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe to name two notable examples.  I don't think Britain would have had the luxury of going neutral.  They were fodder.

Suprise, suprise, an American getting his history knowledge from fiction.  Bet you think Pearl Harbor is factually correct too!

Read this for some much needed education http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_britain

I posted a similar topic but it got closed down for some reason (you're not allowed to post anything that might change US opinion apparently) but basically the British have just as much right to claim that they prevented the US from "speaking German" by winning this key battle (years before the US finally plucked up the courage to join in).  Here it is anyway....

From the link above
"Overall, the Battle of Britain was a stalemate for both the Germans and the British, but it dramatically raised the morale of the Allied forces. The Battle of Britain marked the first time that the Nazis were stopped and that air superiority became clearly seen as the key to the war. Though the battle was small in the number of combatants and casualties, had the Germans triumphed the war would have taken a very different path. The British victory marked the first failure of Hitler's war machine. It also began to encourage a shift in U.S. opinion at a time when many people from the U.S. believed that the U.K. could not survive, a view promoted by Joseph Kennedy, the U.S. ambassador in London and father of John F. Kennedy, the future President of the United States. American opinion at this time was not particularly supportive of the U.K. (who was a major trading competitor), and was strongly against involvement in a European war.

Both sides in the battle made exaggerated claims of numbers of enemy aircraft shot down. In general, claims were two to three times the actual numbers, due to confusion in the whirling air battles. However, post-war analysis of records has shown that between July and September the RAF claimed over 2,698 kills for 1,023 fighter aircraft lost to all causes, while the Luftwaffe claimed 3,198 RAF aircraft downed for losses of 1,887, of which 873 were fighters. To the RAF figure should be added an additional 376 Bomber Command and 148 Coastal Command aircraft that conducted vital bombing, mining and reconnaissance operations in defense of the country.

Modern military historians have sometimes suggested the battle was unwinnable for the Luftwaffe. Their numerical majority was not sufficient to achieve superiority. Dowding's and Park's strategy of choosing when to engage the enemy whilst maintaining a coherent force was totally vindicated. By contrast Goering's strategy was shown to be confused in its aims. He had expected a replay of prior air engagements such as those in Poland, where a short battle ended with complete control of the air as the German ground forces overran enemy airfields. His forces can be considered to have achieved air superiority over some parts of Southern England early in the battle for a limited time, but without any clear plan as to what to do next, this temporary advantage was soon lost. One reason the Battle of Britain has had such an influence on later air defence theory is that the key questions of what air superiority and control meant were first addressed in it. Dowding, in effect, wrote the first text-book on this subject.

'What If' historians have also considered what might have happened if the Battle of Britain had been lost by the British. If Leigh-Mallory's 'Big Wing' tactics had been used, for instance, this could well have happened. If the defeat of the RAF had led to a successful invasion, it is likely that Germany would have been able to defeat Russia rapidly, and establish a European hegemony. The USA would not have entered the war in such a circumstance, and would later have been very vulnerable to some of the advanced weapons which the Germans were starting to develop at this time.

Most important, the end of the Battle of Britain allowed the UK to rebuild its military forces and establish itself as an Allied stronghold. Britain later served as a base from which Operation Overlord, aka the Battle of Normandy, was launched against Nazi forces in Europe."

In short, every battle was important and the Americans have no right claiming they won the war anymore than the British have the right to claim it, or the Russians, or the Australians etc

Man, some people have no concept of TEAMWORK!!!!!!!!!

P.S The funniest thing about this is if you ask most of the "you'd be speaking German" brigade who their favourite sports team is, and the accuse said team of being a one-man team they would harp on all day about how important every player in a team is.........

Hey, EstebanRay, Russians and British and Americans may have equal claim, but I think we can all agree that Australians were the real reason.  I mean, I didn't include them in the poll because I figured it was a no-brainer................

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Suprise, suprise, an American getting his history knowledge from fiction.  Bet you think Pearl Harbor is factually correct too!


In short, every battle was important and the Americans have no right claiming they won the war anymore than the British have the right to claim it, or the Russians, or the Australians etc

Man, some people have no concept of TEAMWORK!!!!!!!!!

P.S The funniest thing about this is if you ask most of the "you'd be speaking German" brigade who their favourite sports team is, and the accuse said team of being a one-man team they would harp on all day about how important every player in a team is.........

Let me reiterate since our friends accross the pond seem to have missed the main stab of my point.  I was addressing Europe and Europe alone.  Furthermore, I was not ever intending to state or imply that America won the war.  The movie Pearl Harbor was only loosely fact at best.  The two novels I mentioned were mentioned as their premise was based on a factual event.  The subsequent events in the books have nothing to do with either this topic or my post.  As I stated, clearly, it is the premise I was addressing.  The premise of fictional books usually has a basis in reality anyway.  Let me clarify, I said BASIS, not 100% historical reference.

So, are we clear?  Any others care to attack excerpts of a post out of context and then claim it as the basis and core of a  post?

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

puckmercury wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Suprise, suprise, an American getting his history knowledge from fiction.  Bet you think Pearl Harbor is factually correct too!


In short, every battle was important and the Americans have no right claiming they won the war anymore than the British have the right to claim it, or the Russians, or the Australians etc

Man, some people have no concept of TEAMWORK!!!!!!!!!

P.S The funniest thing about this is if you ask most of the "you'd be speaking German" brigade who their favourite sports team is, and the accuse said team of being a one-man team they would harp on all day about how important every player in a team is.........

Let me reiterate since our friends accross the pond seem to have missed the main stab of my point.  I was addressing Europe and Europe alone.  Furthermore, I was not ever intending to state or imply that America won the war.  The movie Pearl Harbor was only loosely fact at best.  The two novels I mentioned were mentioned as their premise was based on a factual event.  The subsequent events in the books have nothing to do with either this topic or my post.  As I stated, clearly, it is the premise I was addressing.  The premise of fictional books usually has a basis in reality anyway.  Let me clarify, I said BASIS, not 100% historical reference.

So, are we clear?  Any others care to attack excerpts of a post out of context and then claim it as the basis and core of a  post?

OK I'll answer the incident in your original post.   You said that "the Britsh were having their asses handed to them on a plate" by the Germans and you were basing this on the sub plot of a fictional book.   Indeed, Children were moved away from London during the war because they're children!.   If you were living in an age where you had kids in the Capital city of a country under attack by another country that was not too far away and coukld strike you easily, I think you would move your kids to a safer part of the country too wouldn't you?  Note, it was mostly children that were moved and they were moved to another part of Britain (not another country).

I think you are assuming that Britain had all the sophisticated radar and monitoring systems we have nowadays.  In truth, it was extremely hard to stop a German war plan coming over and dropping a bomb on London as radar wasn't fully developed and functional.  If Canada wanted to do the same thing to the US it would have been the same.

Learn some history before making uneducated posts......

I have quite a grasp of history, I would ask that you read posts and ask questions before assuming and jumping to incorrect conclusions.  I am basing nothing on the plots of fictional books.  Nothing.at.all.  I wasn't saying you screwed up, I wasn't saying you should have been doing better.  You were against overwhelming odds against a superior military force.  The fact that the last time England fell to a foreign invader was in 1066 (to maintain this trend, you clip the wings of the ravens at court, as legend states that when the ravens leave you will fall again) is quite a testament to the British itself.  It makes perfect sense that the children were sent elsewhere, and as I SAID EARLIER, it was quite the humanitarian act.

As for assumptions of technology?  I make no assumptions and assume you had no RADAR.  Hell, we HAD RADAR (capitalized because it's an acronym, not because I'm yelling) and look what happened at Pearl Harbor?  We blatantly ignored the new technology as we couldn't believe what it was trying to tell us.

The ONLY reason I brought up two fictional books was because truth is stranger than fiction.  In that vein, most fictional books get their premise from common and dominating themes from real life.  I assumed that was common knowledge, my apologies.  To that end, these two very popular and widely known books both used that real life premise as their beginning.  This speaks volumes of the real life events' impacts on society and the world culture.  I specifically addressed this post before any of this side track began by saying that I only referenced these books for that end and not for their fantastical plot lines past the prologue.

As for US plucking up the courage to join the war, it had nothing to do with courage and everything to do with the fact that we were plunged deep into isolationism after the FIRST world war we ventured over in.  We simply wanted to stick our head in the sand and pretend it didn't involve us.  Folley to be sure, but not cowardice.  Our president was actively campaigning to involve us in the war Lend/Lease act to name but one example of this), which is the genesis of many a conspiracy theory surrounding the fact that every carrier was out of port during the attack on Pearl Harbor.  We weren't afraid, we just didn't think it would affect us as a society.  Where is YOUR sense of teamwork or historical accuracy my friend?

So, before you try to flame me or my post on an out of context element or on some aspect you think you derive from an unwritten subtext, stop and think or just ask.  I have nothing but respect for the British people, but I don't let that respect blind me to historical fact or global trends.

Last edited by puckmercury (2006-07-11 06:41:37)

Major Payne wrote:

wow stop the long stories they are to boring

too boring

puckmercury wrote:

As for US plucking up the courage to join the war, it had nothing to do with courage and everything to do with the fact that we were plunged deep into isolationism after the FIRST world war we ventured over in.  We simply wanted to stick our head in the sand and pretend it didn't involve us.  Folley to be sure, but not cowardice.  Our president was actively campaigning to involve us in the war Lend/Lease act to name but one example of this), which is the genesis of many a conspiracy theory surrounding the fact that every carrier was out of port during the attack on Pearl Harbor.  We weren't afraid, we just didn't think it would affect us as a society.  Where is YOUR sense of teamwork or historical accuracy my friend?

You might want to check out the financial records for the US government when it came to investment in Europe during the 1940s.  The amount spend on all the Europeans countries had slumped or talied off, except for one country.  Germany!!!!  The US were pumping $s into that country at the time (not war related BTW but infrastructure etc) and THAT was the reason the US didnt want to join.  Because it had good relations with the Nazi regime and were investing money in their country.

As for Pearl Harbor, you'd be hard pressed to find a historian that didn't think the event was in the very least, encouraged to happen by the US government.  It was the only way to get the American people onside after years of US opposition to the war.

The definitive source of Wwii information