USA won World War Two and saved England ?

Dunkirk saved the island nation. Simples. With a Surrendered BEF it would have been politically difficult for Winston to carry on. He would have been usurped.

Dunkirk not the B O B saved Winston even if not of his making.

As for the rest..I go with Kodiak...Britain then would not be defeated...However...Britain could then go another way and the choices would not only be to isolate or
defend. Britain would have done what was best for Britain in such circumstances with no future view to relieving Europe. Britain in a corner would and could make the best deal it coud.l

 

This is unlikely and speculating :

"only" 190000 men (= some 50 % of the BEF) were at Dunkirk .

At the start of the evacuation,,when it was assumed that only 30000 men could be saved,every one (Chamberlain included) was behind Churchill .Britain would continue to fight,till the Germans had advanced from Canterbury to Sutherland .

 

That too is speculation. Thats all any of us can do speculate. Churchill did not have the full support of even his own party at the time never mind the country at large. If bef had surrendered then Britain s people would have had a different outlook on any future fight. The Defence lines of Britain and tank trap islands were manned by the regulars of the BEFas well as HG, but most would have been in the plan of cutting the advance of any breakthru . Without them as the mobile attacking force the Ironside line and subsequent lines could be manned by hg etc but no force would be availble in experience or manning to attack any breakthru points. Men in uniform do bnot an army make. The BEF though small was the fighting element of The British nation at the time. The Canadians etc would prove useful I have no doubt but the army without the returned tip of the sword BEF was just numbers not an army

 

The British plan was always to think in the long term; hold the Nazis at bay long enough for the full resources of the empire to be brought to bear against them. We probably wouldn't have won, but it might well have turned into another Hundred Years War.

 

It is part and parcel of holding the strategic advantage that Suez, Gibraltar, and the UK offered: fighting would always be on the Commonwealth's terms, unless at least one of these points were taken/isolated.

Being able to determine when and where to fight, forces the opponent to defend all, which is a losing strategy.

 

I think the Empire could have given itself a good shot. After all, WW2 put the Empire on its knees, but the empire ended on a high note. That note being, it sacrificed itself to save freedom. And when there was the 1945 Trooping the Color, victory was all the sweeter as for once, the empire felt united. Everyone from Jock and Paddy to Raju and Lee felt British. And they had a right to be.

I think, if the US did not enter, there could have been a peace agreement between the Axis and Britain say '44-'45 then there would only be an eastern front.

 

Why? Why would the commonwealth nations need to seek peace?

 

Indeed, why should Britain seek peace with the Third Reich - ever. Especially why would they enter a peace agreement in '44-'45, after the victory in the Battle for England, after the victory in the Battle for Atlantic, after the victory in the North Africa ...

After the battle for England and the Battle for Moscow, the Nazi victory was virtually impossible, i.e. before the USA entered the war. When the US troops actually stepped on the European soil, Germans have already essentially lost the war against Britain and Russia.

However, I guess I know what LG'96 really meant, but does he really think that England would risk life of a single soldier just to save the Nazis from the Russian vengeance? I cannot imagine England fraternizing with the Nazis.

 

Probably he is not aware that once the war between Britain and Germany did start,it was,from British side,a war which only could end with the total defeat of one of both :a compromise was totally out of the question

 

It's more than that: Hitler could do nothing to force the issue. He completely failed to understand that there was nothing he could do that would bring the Commonwealth to the negotiation table, short of a fantastic scenario where Germany has developed both a atomic weapon, and a reliable delivery system capable of penetrating UK airspace, a V-3.

Not even the Japanese complete conquest of Australia and New Zealand (vastly unlikely) would render the Commonwealth impotent. Canada, India, and the UK would still stand.

 

Invasion of Australia was deemed by Japanese impossible anyway as long as war in China continued and most of Imperial Army tied there. One member of Japanese Imperial Army staff opposed Australia scheme so complately he emphasized his point during a meeting by pointing his cup of tea and saying :

"Consider tea in this cup is amount of our total forces" he poured the tea to map on table and added "See ? It could only cover a certain amount of territory. No more"


It was a vicious circle itself. Chinese Nationalistic Forces could wage war against Japanese as long as they could be supplied from Burma Road and then Hump Air Bridge , both originated from India. Any attempt to cut Burma Road would mean war with British Empire maybe marching all the way to India to capture Hump airfields in Northern India. And as long as China remained unsubdued Japanese expansion was bound to stall at somewhere....I think that alone shows value of India and Allied hold over there..

 

I'm not so sure of that. There's a chance that he could have brought them to the table if he said up front that he was willing to give up most of his conquests in Western Europe. Of course Hitler being Hitler he probably wouldn't even consider that.

 

Very true observation, lwd. I wouldn't count that, however, as 'forcing the issue' or peace on Hitler's terms, which is what Hitler was seeking versus the Commonwealth. His own behaviour had shown him to be completely untrustworthy.

Had he been willing to give up Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, & Holland, he wouldn't be Hitler.

 

Well if he offered them they would be his terms and any Commonwealth leader would have a hard time not comming to the bargaining table with them. But even if he was capable of offering him as you point out he would have had to do a lot to insure an agreement was reached due to his reputation. It would also be admitting that he hadn't and couldn't defeat them. Not sure whether giving up the territory or that would be the hardest for him (although I don't think he was capable of either so it's debateble if one would be harder than the other). Certainly getting into a war which you have no means of forcing to the conclusion you wish is not the halmark of a great leader in my book.

 

Hitler usually worked with assumption , sometimes (especially in political diplomatic sense in earlier years of war) right but mostly (especialy militarily ) wrong. One of his wrong assumptions was Britain would fold in , accept defeat once Germany got over Western Europe (Scandinavia , Netherlands , France ) because wel..because it was supposed to this way and only route to get next chapter in the scenario he had written , created then obsessed in his head for so long. It was also supposed to way for Germany in Great War once they occupied and defeated France , Britain would lose its only major continental ally and they would fold in. I am always in the mind set that previous historical incidents , trends , examples always create referances for leader to follow in their future decisions. Hitler was fighting a rebound , a rematch , a continuation of WWI , I think he never ceased to be a Austrian Corporal in trenches and guys like that were brainwashed after four years on front about victory of Germany , how Germans would be victorious , supposed to be victorious , should be victorious etc....Victory definition: Invasion of Netherlands , Benelux but most importantly that old Enemy France...Once they were done with it was supposed to be over. They couldn't think or did not see necessary to think beyond.

Someone should have given Adolf a history of Napoleonic Wars when Britain fought for 20 years against best military force of world of era (France) when latter occupied entire Europe including Netherlands which put Britain at odds with France at first place. Occupation of Northern France and Netherlands territory by a militant dominant force was unacceptable for British since 16th Century Spanish Armada times. It would be like pointing a gun to British isles especially in age of strategic military aviation. And for Hitler quitting conquered territory was unacceptable no matter how many "appeals to reason" he made (revisionists love to point that speech of his on July 1940 to point how humanitarian Hitler was actually and how misunderstood he was. That radio speech was simply aimed to force British goverment and people to accept new dominant status of Germany over Europe and accept his conquests as a pre condition) All prestige and powerful leader image aside he needed them to threaten UK and France to keep them in line at least short term before he started his actual crusade in East to gain his Lebensraum. He couldn't give up Czechslovakia he needed its minerals and weapons industry. He couldn't give up Poland because it was a part of his Lebensraum and he needed Polish territory to launch invasion of Russia to gain more Living Space. He needed Western Europe to exploit and give more German economic political domination but more over to eliminate any threat from West while he was fighting in East. At the other hand Churchill put down to King of Sweden who was asking for a negotiated peace at June 1940 very blunty that "Germany should display assurances not with words but with actions that he would guarantee freedom of occupied countries like Poland Norway Denmark France etc territories before such peace feelings were to be considered"

One a Bohemian Corporal who in a few weeks gained everything he precondioned for during trench warfare 20 years ago like a spoiled child instantly got all of his Christmas presents for next future decades and did not see other side or his side of view other than extreme idelogy. Other is a stubborn Tory who seeks his hour of destiny and who refuses to accept that his team lost the game and pointing out this just a primary match not final match in league. I really do not see any common ground for peace in summer 1940

 

I've heard that Hilter actually attempted many times to get America to join his cause. But due to the American oil embargo on Japan, they had no choice but to Attack, because the oil a fuel was necessary for their war on China. And Hitler was a strong ally of Herihito, so he felt it was the best course of action. So my question is what would have happened if the US had joined Hitler's Reich, with say a promise of economic liberation and maybe prime middle-eastern oil country. And by the way one of the major factors in Russia pushing Germany back was a very harsh winter, not the physical might of the Hammer and sickle. Many more Germans died of hypothermia then bullets during that time. Also England did not give the US the jet/ rocket engine it was Warner Von Braun a German scientist on the V-2 rocket project that left to America and did major work on the Manhattan project with Oppenheimer and Einstein. Witch I may imply that the Germans were way more advanced then the Rest of the world at the time. Heck even now American and English Machine guns today are modeled after the MG-2, one of the most feared infantry weapons of the time. And finally they were master's of psychologically induced fear. For example the JU-87s dive bombing noise is still feared by those English still alive from that time, if played.

 

As I look at my discussion I seem partially keen on Germany. To set this straight I'm not a Nazi and grandfather was in the Western front during the war, and I'm sure he's rolling over in his grave right now but to have a true discussion someone has to play devils advocate.

 

I've seen nothing that indicated that Hitler was trying to get the US as an ally. Britain yes but not the US. Can you point to any sources for this?

 

Sure I'll try to validate this.

 

Ok I was a little mislead by a letter to Roosevelt, Hitler had written in response to his call for world disarmament speech in 1935. When Hitler was just chancellor. I apologize for the misconception.