What'd you think?

I don't know history well enough to answer that. That said, I can't quite understand why I'm posting this.

I think it would be more interesting to think what would have happened if Britain hadn´t declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland.

Hitler´s main target was always the east,he had nothing against other "aryan" countries

A better question: Would WW2 ever have happened if the French tried to liberate the Rhineland from Nazi invasion?

<font color = lightgreen>No. Although Hitler's National Socialists did turn Germany around from being a beaten and broken nation after the Treaty of Versailles they had no long-term goals in place that would have established a lasting societal structure. After some flash-in-the-pan victories the Reich would have collapsed in on itself in less than 10 years.</font>

In my opinion the Germans forfeited any chance of winning the war by not going forward with Operation Zeelöwe after concluding the French campaign. At that time the Royal Navy was weaker than ever after Norwegian setbacks and the Dunkerque evacutation. Furthermore the RN was built and set for blue water combat and not channel patrols. A mere handful of destroyers were in Southampton. The British were rattled. The BEF was still in shambles. I am not saying that an invasion would have been a guaranteed success, but it was certainly a better shot than going against the Russians with the Brits undefeated. However Göring promised that he could bomb Britain to submission without a shred of evidence that such a plan was feasible.
The Germans made numerous mistakes, but the most important is that they went to war prematurely. People often have a vision of Germany being fully prepared for war at 1939, but that is hardly the case. In fact the projected year for war was in the mid 1940'es where the Luftwaffe, Panzer and most importantly the Kriegsmarine would have been fully equiped. The Germans was not in war industry at all even though they started the war. They were still producing volkswagens rather than tanks all the way up to and including 1941. If the Germans had produced the same quantities of tanks and mechanized personel carriers in 1939-1941 as they did in the later years of the war (where they were beginning to suffer from RAF/USAAF bomber attacks) they may have stood a better chance. Meaning they would not have lost quite so fast.
The reason why the Germans penetrated so fast and so deep into Russia during the initial stage of Barbarossa was that the Russian forces were preparing to attack themselves. This is not mere speculation, but backed by evidence*. The date for invasion was 10th of July - just two and a half week after the German attack commenced on June 22nd. So bear no illusions - a German-Soviet war was inevitable.
One of the most fundamental principles of war is that a military operation must identify and maintain one and only one objective. Barbarossa did have such a goal, but the supreme command (mainly Hitler who along with Göring had the skills of a battalion commander) failed to maintain it. The operations in Russia shifted back and forward without maintaining a drive. Suddenly the advance on Moscow is halted to shift army corps down to Ukraine for some encirclement (that failed because the Fallschrimjägers had been burned off at a redundant operation in Crete). Blatant mistakes in a campaign were time was of the essence.
Another crucial error on the German side was a lack of priority to Military Intelligence.

* V. Sukorov, RUSI Journal, June 1985. Second hand quote.

No, Germany's fate is already sealed with the direct involvement of USA. If I was Hitler I would be cursing the japanese for bombing Pearl Habour. Why awake a sleeping giant?

[ 06-29-2005, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Kakero ]

Actually Germany declared war on the US and not vice versa.

Definatly foolish to start a war on two fronts - the concentration of troops on the front lines would have been far more powerful if they were on only one front at a time.

If they had sent the jewish population to the front lines instead of slaughtering them - this would make them look less evil to the rest of the world and still kill them off.

The resources needed to maintain the war could easily have been gotten from the various countries they conquered - they just needed to take it one step at a time rather than all at once.

They would have probably avoided US involvement by not attacking US transports of goods and tourists.

Germany declared war to USA after the bombing of Pearl Habour and after USA declared war to Germany's Axis partner Japan. If the bombing didn't occur. Would Germany have declared war to USA?

[ 06-29-2005, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Kakero ]

Whatever. Germany was NOT bound by its treaty to Japan to declare war on USA if they (Japan) attacked first. Which they did. The reason Hitler declared war on USA? He hated us, and Roosevelt more.

IMO, it's a common knowledge that if A allied with B. When A attack C. C declare war with A. B is now also an enemy of C. If not then why make ally in the first place?

SO, Japan bomb USA ( Pearl Habour ). USA declare war with Japan. Which means USA will fight with Japan. As Japan's ally Germany will declare war with USA. This is part of allying thingie.

[ 06-30-2005, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Kakero ]

You've got to take into account the situation in Japan at the time though, they had no real choice but to attack.

There's a lot that they don't teach you in history, and you have to look around for better accounts of the past, history is, as it always has been, writen by the victor.

You've just got to find the losers side to the story, was more to japans attack than a simple act of agression, it was an act of desperation, had it worked as planned things would have gone very diffrently.

Well the peculiar thing is that the Axis was not a true alliance. Japan didn't declare war on Russia either remember. They were not obliged to as Germany attacked first.
Germany declared war on their own accord and faced the consequences. Perhaps Hitler was swayed by the reasonable initial sinkings from u-boats into thinking that transport of troops across the Atlantic impossible. Naturally he was wrong.

The Axis was poor at coordinating their efforts. The Germans had excellent naval radar, but the Japanese had none! All those mighty ships and they were dependable on visual ranging equipment. Since we are playing with history one could also ask how things had fared if the Japanese capital ships had radar systems of similar quality to Bismark.

The basic history everyone gets taught hardly shows the entire picture. To truly understand even a part of that picture you need to read more in depth research than just "A short history of nearly everything" or your average history school book.

The 'treaty' between Japan and Germany wasn't the same treaty as the treaties we saw in the years before World War I. They weren't bound together by mutual obligations, not in the slightest. I think it's safe to say Hitler's warmachine paid little or no attention to what happened with Hirohito in Asia.

I wondered how long it would take you to find this thread Link. Hope I haven't made any blatant mistakes this time [img]smile.gif[/img] . And I have read more than just a couple of mainstream books on the subject.

I disagree with the fact that when the US entered germnay was doomed. If Russia could have beedn captured, Germany could have rivaled the power of the US, and it is questionable whether the US could have sustained a naval war on two fronts. Additionally, they would have developed the A-bomb first. So i think Russia is the true key question. And i believe that had Hitler not acted as he had in Stalingrad there would have been a good chance that they would have succeded. I believe the answers then is yes, Hitler would have won, or at least have conlcuded some kind of peace maybe? I haven't studied any theoretical figures on this so it is really just idle and uniformed specualation :D

Aragorn1 I'll support you with some information. First of all it wasn't Stalingrad. That was part of the 1942 campaign and at that time it was in my humble opinion a question about how long it would take to defeat Germany. A fighting retreat would have made Germany able to fight on for many years. Also many months worth of production was tossed away in Kursk. One can say that Stalingrad made sure that the Germans would never ever be able to win the war and Kursk made sure that they would loose completely.
To me any chance of winning the Russian campaign was in 1941. Guderian WAS within striking distance of Moscow with little opposition in his way when he was redirected in an attempt to close the Smolensk pocket - an undertaking that failed to succeed. Moscow is an important hub in Russia. Lines of communication and transport quite literally ran through the city. If the Germans had captured and secured the city it would have made military operations much easier to conduct - not to mention the enormous impact it would have had on morale on both sides.
Wether Russia would indeed have collapsed as a result of loosing Moscow is a matter of debate, but one thing is certain - the Germans could never hope to win if they did not capture the city.

EDIT: Removed the word "factual". Upon revision I must admit the information is highly speculative.

[ 06-30-2005, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: mad=dog ]

No, you have to understand that the Japanese in that time period didn't exactly have their heads on straight. They were the first to use the kamikazi pilots, they were responsible for the Rape of Nanking during their war with China where they actually had contests to see who could behead the most civilians. It was an act of agression.

Now, given the fact that the reason behind it was that the US cut of their oil supply I believe it was, I still think that since they were at war with another country, they could've put off bombing Pearl Harbor and bringing a super power into the war.

Your sense of humour is appalling, mad=dog, as is your historical knowledge. In fact, I think I'm going to report your post because of all that ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I know you've read more than one book on the subject, so rest assured, I won't flame you for being a total nitwit. It just irritates me to see all these people who think they know a great deal about a subject without actually doing so. And that's not the worse part: when you try to convince them that it's actually slightly (*cough*understatement*cough*) different than they think it is, they usually disregard it.

The pain! The humiliation! The endless frustration! ;)

[ 06-30-2005, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: Link ]

It was not my intention to insult you Link. My pardons. My question was in earnest. I would like to have obvious mistakes corrected.

I was looking at the loser point of view. If you didn't read ealier I've said that If I were Hitler I would be cursing the japanese for bombing pearl habour.

It was an act of desperation indeed. However, if the US carrier were present at Pearl Habour when the bombing occur OR Japan also uses land based assault ( sending troops ) to add to their suprise air attack things would be different.

Since my history books were printed in chinese. It's clearly printed there as "tong meng". Which has the similar meaning an alliance that work side by side. A blatant translation mistake perhaps? hmm...

Anyway, Japan did not declare war with Russia. But did this stopped Russia from " swallowing " a few japanese northern islands towards the end of the war?

When Germany finally ' fallen ' ( I blatantly used the word fallen ). A small sub and it's crew bound for japan surrendered to the ally. Inside it was some materials that could have been used to develop the A bomb. Maybe Hitler decides to give a little help to their oriental ally?

First thing first, how many population does US had compared to Germany at that time? Second thing, how are the industries in US compared to Germany? Third thing, Germany produced their war machines in quality instead of quantity compared to US who produces their war machines in quantity. Germany only changes their production from quality to quantity during final few years of war but this has come too late. So, I believe that US had the upper hand of superior numbers.

US war machine produced - Germany's
5 - 2
10 - 4
15 - 6
20 - 8
So in the end who would have won?

The japanese only resort to using kamikaze pilots in 1944 ( If i still remember it ). So which mean they aren't entirely not having their head straight. The nanjing masscare was a result of hatred from the japanese towards the chinese ( The japanese for centuries had always wanted to show that they are superior to chinese.

Hmm...have I open war on all front? Just like Germany did? LOL! :D

I see my sense of humour isn't as good as it used to be. There was no offense taken from your words! I was kidding!! [img]smile.gif[/img]

On top of that, trust me when I say that with my 20 years of so-called wisdom I am hardly a historical know-it-all. I'm a padawan myself, young grasshopper ;)

As noted, the Axis pact bound the signatories to declare war on any nation that attacked the other signatories. It was far from a full-fledged alliance. As for the atomic bomb, Germany was nowhere near to making one work. Maybe -just maybe - if they had conquered the USSR and threw a full effort into it, they could have had a bomb by 1948.

Interesting discussion. I fancy that I know a thing or two about WW2, but I did not actually know that Russia had a planned attack date. You wouldn't think so, considering how under-equipped their overall infantry was in the early 40's. I also heard about that sub carrying nuclear information to Japan after the fall of Germany, Kakero. I'd like to read some correspondence between Germany and Japan, Germany and Italy, and Germany and Finland to get a better idea of the nature Axis alliance.

If you're talking about modern military interventionism, that's an interesting question. Especially since national socialism, IMO, is best examined from a social perspective, one that points towards the punishing Treaty of Versailles as a catalyst for the rise of Nazi Germany. France, amongst the victors of WW1 and signatories/host of that treaty, could be argued to be partially responsible for the events leading to WW2.

But it seems France was preparing to keep the world out rather than intervene. The Maginot line and the focus on defensive (unfortunately for them, rather immobile) tactics serve as examples through that ill-fated 1940 campaign. Also recall that, generally speaking (excuse the simplification), WW1 marked the end of the 'Age of Imperialism'. From that point European powers would shrink in territory, access to resources, and thus political influence eroded somewhat. France had its own problems, and may have been said to have been consolidating its former power in the time between ww1 and 2. It does make me wonder if France could have pulled it off if they struck early though. Now that I think about it, that makes me wonder if Britain would have ever declared war on Germany in that case.

Oh well, speculation is just so...speculative [img]smile.gif[/img]

I think the notion that Russia was planning a pre-emptive attack on Germany is definitely debatable (if not dubious), the general historical stance is that she was working hard to avoid being attacked (including sending gifts to germany), and there are sound strategic reasons for Germany to look east. A second hand report of attack would make me dig deeper, but is nothing close to proof on its own.

As far as the eventual outcome of the war if the Germans had not invaded Russia, I think the Germans (Hitler) had decided that he needed to invade russia eventually. They NEEDED the raw materials (oil especially) that was one of their main reasons for invading Russia. Invading Britain brought them niether land nor resources, it's only value was strategic, and I think they underestimated its strategic value. I think it would have improved their chances of a successful campaign if they had avoided a two front war and eliminated Britain as a staging ground for Allied forces (Air as much if not more than ground). If they could have rapidly defeated Britain (risky) they could have taken the Brits out of the war to free forces for a more powerful thrust into Russia at a later date, and the motherland would have been fairly safe from air attack for the remainder of the war.

With the British island unavailable as a staging point for Allied troops, an Allied invasion of Europe via France would not have been possible... leaving the Med as the only likely venue, improving the Axis defensive posture later in the war.

Of course the real question IMO is this ... could Germany have taken Britain at all? I have my doubts. The channel would be a very tough obstacle for a German force to overcome, and the British navy was nothing to scoff at during that period (not by any stretch, they were the largest naval force in the world at the time), while the German Navy was incomplete (thanks to the early attack as mentioned earlier). Personally I don't think they'd have pulled it off at all, and they'd have needed to do it quick enough to avoid facing a Britain that was being strengthened by US forces on the ground after our entry into the war. I don't think Germany would have had a chance in hell of landing against a combined British/US force (JMO).

Even if they had somehow blitzkreig'd accross the channel and through the island, another thing to consider would be the need to maintain security in conquered lands. The French had an active resistance and I think it likely that the British resistance would have been even more active. How many troops would it take to secure Britain against a large insurgency... a LOT... so perhaps the final result would have been no different had Germany taken Britain before attacking Russia, but IMO it certainly would have been more costly for the allies had it gone down this way.

Well if we start @ 1 Sep 39 we see the Wehrmacht running a blitzkrieg through Poland, total control, use of resouces, and the last resistance failing 6 Oct 39. Do not forget about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which puts Soviet forces invading Poland from the East middle of September.

This brings France and UK into the treaty bound agreement. Which they basically sat on their laurals beleiving this to be a phony war.

The winter war is very important, because this puts Soviet forces invading Finland November of 39.

September of 40 brings us to the Tripartite Pact, where the 3 name themselves as the Axis. Soviet Russia is still non-agressive towards Germany under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

April of 40 brings us to Operation Weserbung, which is the German invasion of Denmark and Norway, by June Germans have control. May has France and the low countries are invaded. All kinds of mishaps, evacuations etc. Bottom line, Germany is again victorious.

Still in June of 1940 the Soviet Union occupied Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and annexed Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina from Romania.

Now it gets a little tricky. We are now faced with the assualt titled Battle of Britan, which was a long and drwan out failure. But, also, Italy invades Greece, but cannot hold the counter attack. First victory by the aliies.

Also, President Roosevelt is chomping at the bit to enter, but is or thinks he is not supported by the American people.

1941 brings the politics to Yugo, then the coup, then the invasion and fall of Yugo, by the Germans. Hitler is faced with a tactical decision, and makes a devastating Airborne raid into Crete which devastates the Allies, and secures the Southern flank, while renforcing the axis Italians there.

Also 1941 brings us to what could be considered the biggest mistake of the war. Operation Barbarossa. This operation brings the full weight and bearing of the German Axis into the mainland of Russia. Why? Why? Why? Anyhow, Russia does not take to kindly to this and moves from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, to what is known as The Eastern Front, aka the Great Patriotic War. Remember Russia is in the mist of full battle with Finland, and is not only caught off-guard, but by surprise.

7 December 1941, irregardless of what the real intelligence was, was made to be, or what was released to public knowledge, Japan launced an assualt against the US at Pearl Harbor. What was thought to be the entire 7th fleet at port was only enough war ships to create enough public outcry to allow President Roosevelt to invoke the war powers and declare war against Japan. But the final twist goes back to Europe. Hitler declares war against the US on 11 Dec 1941. This was not an obligation, it was more of a hope, or a prayer, that Japan would provide support and launch an attack against the Soviets. As we know, Japan did not attack, fearful of what they failed to do at Pearl, they went into preperation for the insuing battle of the Pacific. But, more importantly, this decision also allowed President Roosevelt to declare war on Germany unchallenged in Congress.

1942 brings us The battle of Stalingrad which brought urban warfare to the front, and now the Germans are the ones mired. Probably the real turning point of the war.

1943 brings us to the 'Mother of all tank battles' the Battle of Kursk! The first Soviet counter attack, or aka: Counter-Offensive, as they drove, then routed the Germans.

1944 brings us to D-day, minor axis surrenders, Soviet-Finland armistice, and the Ardennes offensive, where movies make heros out of warriors. And TV becomes a brotherhood for shows, Battle of the Bulge, is the true grit of a soldier fighting to maintain, and one who is fighting to keep his country. The Germans retreat back into Germany.

1945 Brings us to bear. The Red Army is on the move, all the way into Berlin in fact, and the Allies are preparing for the meeting and the Yalta conference.

Also, with the surrender of Germany, the Soviets declare war on Japan, and invaded Manchuria as their part in Operation August Storm. After Tokoyo was firebombed, and Japan did not surrender, the US went to phase two, and dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima, still Japan did not yield, that brings us to the "Fat Man" and Nagasaki.

So, in essence, the probable answer is yes!
But, more importanly, WHY did Hitler sucker punch Stalin?

I disagree, Thoran, it is fairly clear that the Soviets were planning a pre-emptive attack on Germany. Consider that about 90% of the Soviet Army was near the Soviet border. The Soviets had to rebuild their army almost from scratch after the first few months of Operation Barbarossa (German invasion), losing 4 million soldiers to casaulties and captured in a matter of weeks. Also consider Stalin's lack of commands and indeed, of public visibility, in the first week of the German invasion. It is widely accepted among military scholars that Stalin suffered a nervous breakdown because of his inability to fathom that Hitler struck first. Stalin was much impressed with his own intelligence and cunning compared the rest of the world ("egomaniac" does not begin to describe his neuroses), and it was more than his psyche could handle.

Getting back to the original issue, the question of whether the Allies would have won WWII if Hitler had not "ticked off" Stalin is fundamentally flawed. The Non-Aggression Pact was never more than a convenience to either side; it ensured the security of one border for an indeterminate length of time, providing Hitler the security to act aggressively, and Stalin the time the Soviets needed to build their military-industrial output - the division of Poland was a nice bonus for each of them.

There were two real reasons Germany and the USSR signed the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact. First, both sides wished to buy time. Neither was suitably ready for war with each other (and Germany was not expecting a declaration of war by the Western powers following their invasion of Poland, in light of their success in Czechoslovakia), which is why the secret part of the agreement provided for the peaceful division of Poland between the two powers. Second, their historical relationship (beginning in the mid-1930s) grew out of the industrial and trade-related constraints on both powers - on the Germans because of the Versailles Treaty, and on the Soviets because they couldn't trade or otherwise acquire military materiel and expertise from wary European powers.

Previous to the Non-Aggression Pact, the Soviets provided tank testing areas, land for chemical and munitions plants forbidden under the Versailles Treaty, and raw materials in exchange for organizational and logistical advice (recall that 90% of the Soviet general staff had been purged, along with the majority of effective officers) and military technology (plans for tanks and subs). This co-operation was flawed (money issues, trust issues in the withholding of certain designs, industrial efficiency), but provided the basis for negotiations and continued recognition of commonality of interests.

Realistically, the ideology of the Nazis and the Soviets almost "fated" the countries to fight. Any reading of the diseased ramblings of Mein Kampf will indicate the absolute hatred and disdain felt by Hitler toward an "inferior race", the Slavs (the dominant ethnic group in Soviet Russia). Additionally, the Nazi policy of lebenschraum ("living space" for the supposedly superior Aryan race) explicitly mentioned the Slavs as a group that must give up much of their land to the Aryans. The Soviets trusted no one, not even themselves, and were certainly aware of Hitler's aspirations. Moreover, Stalin & Co had their own ideas about world domination.

Therefore, Hitler and Stalin "ticking off" each other was a foregone conclusion. If you wish to speculate on the importance of the timing of the official breach between them, go ahead. ;)

A quick note on my qualifications to pontificate - I graduated two years ago in Modern European History "with distinction" (defined as GPA over 6.0, a B+; was actually closer to 7.5, in my case). I've taken several courses focusing entirely on World War II, its causes, politics, economics, impact, etc. I also wrote a 20 page full research paper in a seminar course on Weimar & Nazi Germany on Nazi-Soviet co-operation prior to the signing of the Non-Aggression Pact. The paper got an A+, and is one of the best pieces of work I've ever written. I would be pleased to provide a copy of the paper and bibliography via email attachment if anyone cares to PM me about it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 07-01-2005, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Aerich ]

Stalin was not planning a preemptive strike, since that he did not believe in the first place that hitler will dare to attack him. What he planned was a war on hitler probably in autumn of 1941.

Proofs: Enourmous forces near the border.
preparation of plakates, slogans etcetera prior to 22 of juny. The famous plakate-Mother land calls (rodina mat zovet) went public in the entire russia within 2 days after 22.6.
preparation of russsian -german "dialouge books" of the following content:
"where are oil fields"
"where is the nearest water supply"
"you drink first"
"where are nearest german forces".

There are numerous proofs of the incoming war.
To these who wish to read furter on the subject i recommend victor suvorov's books, and after you have read them (just for getting a more balanced opinion) read mark solonin book "22 of juny, or when did the great patriotic war begin?".

I think the only one suprised in the whole of Stavka was Mashall Stalin, who seemed to have buried his head in the sand and refused to believe the inevitable German attack was imminent.

First thing first, how many population does US had compared to Germany at that time? Second thing, how are the industries in US compared to Germany? Third thing, Germany produced their war machines in quality instead of quantity compared to US who produces their war machines in quantity. Germany only changes their production from quality to quantity during final few years of war but this has come too late. So, I believe that US had the upper hand of superior numbers.

US war machine produced - Germany's
5 - 2
10 - 4
15 - 6
20 - 8
So in the end who would have won?

</font>[/QUOTE]These figures are really irrelvant to the hypothetical situation. IF Germany had sole contorl of Europe, access to all her resources, the oil in the Caucuses, the various countries' industrial infrastructure etc, it is entirely possible that Germany could out strip the US, particulalry as the US industry did not have a focus war materials. In fact, the amazing ability of Germany to increase capacity when they finally accepted total war was necessary, given the fact there access to supplies from captured teritories was rapidly diminuating, show tat it COULD indeed be possible. Given the superior nature of German, and indeed what would, given the scenario, be captured Russian designs, may have meant that a huge advantage was not necessary. Tigers, King Tigers etc could take out many more of the inferior Western Allies' tanks, and with the increase production capacity they MAY have been able to supply them with the labour-intensive parts they needed.

[ 07-01-2005, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: Aragorn1 ]

Your words work wonders, now understand what you have written. IF Hitler WOULD NOT have invaded Russia, would the Axis have won WWII? We cannot answer that yes or no, but many probable conclusions would lead to a probable yes.

For years we have been stationed on the ground in Korea, but we have not attacked the North. We were there to prevent the North from walking into the South. Even if I have a non-aggression pact with you, don't think I'm going to strip my borders and allow you or anybody else to freely stroll down my alley. If the Soviets did not protect their borders, Moscow would have surely fallen under Operation Barbarossa, and then we would have had another outcome.

Erm... you do not put yuor army's near the border in order to protect it. you do it if you want to attack. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Where would you suggest they position their armies to protect their borders? It is entirely logical, especially given the length of time it takes for a Russian army to mobilise, given her vast size.

You put it 100 km from the border (in russia it is piece of cake to do it due to the vast space available). Besides in 22.6 the russian army was almost completely mobilized; otherwise it is very hard to explain her great loses. ;)

I don't think Stalin had much love for the Allies during WW2.

Had Germany concentrated their forces on one border, Britain would not have survived.

The US would have still defeated Japan, that was a non-issue, but who would the USSR had alied with at that point. I don't think either the USSR or the US wanted anything to do with "A War in Europe" and neither would have gotten involved.

Myself, I would think an alliance between the USSR and Germany would have happened, but it wouldn't be long before they turned on each other.

Regardless of who came out on top, the US sealed the deal with the advent of the H-bomb.

Moot point....would Germany have lasted as long in different theatres having concentrated their forces on a single border?

If not who is to say Britain would not have survived?

Moot point....would Germany have lasted as long in different theatres having concentrated their forces on a single border?

If not who is to say Britain would not have survived? </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not sure if Germany would have needed to concentrate in other theatres immediately if they hadn't tried to go for the USSR. It was initially a "European War," so once Britain was gone Hitler could have played nice until his forces were better prepared. With more time, Germany's rocket program would have made a huge impact (no pun intended)

Who can say for sure whether Britain would have gone down? Being a British citizen, I'd like to think not, but it sure didn't look good. England was throwing everything they had at Germany but Hitler was arrogant to the point, he felt he didn't need to focus 100% on the Brits.

Moot point....would Germany have lasted as long in different theatres having concentrated their forces on a single border?

If not who is to say Britain would not have survived? </font>[/QUOTE]Who can say for sure whether Britain would have gone down? </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for answering my point for me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Isn't this whole thread a "what if?" [img]smile.gif[/img]

Once britain was gone hitler would have been dead meat. Stalin would have attacked him, regardless of Hitlers behaviour.