What if history scenarios

[pugsville]

"the internet existed before the web" is typical pedantry and geek speak. To the general public and the "average voter", the internet was out of reach before the web. The "average person", not a geek, being able to have something is what should be the marker in progress.

yeah if you are nty aware of something it does not exist.

No hold it that isn't true t he world does not go away when you close your eyes,

The question is not when did the internet became apart of everyday life.

It's just being factual. The Internet is not the web.

Back to 1800 and if you have gained enough influence, you might be able to get a better settlement for the people of Europe at the alternate Congress of Vienna after Napoleon's defeat.

What is a better settlement for the people of Europe? (it;s a vague term)

The settlement was driven by power politics and that is not going to be different.

Fears of Russia and France as the possible dominate powers created a situation where other powers were happy to build
Prussia up as a balancing power. The Rhineland and much of Western Germany was seen as dangreous power vacumm. And that a major power was needed to oppose France. And Prussia needed to be stringer to be effective in keeping Russia out of Europe.

Russia was not going to moved from Poland without a war.

An earlier departure where the Hapsburgs somehow swap the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria (they were floating this deal before the Napoleonic wars a couple of times) You could get a fiffernet unifroctaion of Gemrnay maybe Catholic and Protestant states. A more Germanic Austria cooudl be more focused away fromteh Balkans and conceivably cut Hungary loose.

POD: Neville Chamberlain dies of cancer in 1935 rather than 1940?

The Second world war starts in 1938 over Czechoslovakia. With Chamberlain getting on a plan and gpoing to Munich is likely the crisis in 1938 results in war. The Major players had sort of resigned themselves to this before Chamberlain startling direct airplane diplomacy. Baldwin if he had stayed on if Chamberlain had dies was pretty much on the same page of Chamberlain as far as appeasement goes, but would not have gotten on a plane. Chamberlain move was very much a novel and out of the blue move, hard to see another leader making such a move. The Crisis has sort reached an impasse that had everyone sliding into a war very reluctantly (this is why the scenes of cheering when he returned) It's not that Baldwin was anti appeasement or more staunch than Chamberlain just not the sort of guy to take such a radical step as airplane diplomacy.

There no prospect of Churchill being a leader before the war in 1938-39. Badly regarded as dangerous maverick by most of his own party. But I think likely to replace Baldwin once the war really gets going.

Who an early war favors is difficult, yes France and Britian are much more ill prepared, but so is Germany. Without the Czech factors producing some pretty handy tanks, and the last year of production really delivered most of the tanks used in 1940. In 1938 Germany has less than half tanks of 1940 and almosty all of thenm the light pzI and IIs. Half the panzer divsions, and more poorly equiped. the Lufwtaffe was just reciving much of it;s modern aircraft and owudl start much more less effective as well. The Germans really need the 1940 force mix to run a 1940 style "Blitzkrieg" (yes the term is problematic) Belgauim (IIRC) realy dropped it's French allaince after Munich, if they declare war with France and Britian in 1938, opens lines off attack up. (thigh I doubt the allies woudl actually get very far) ifteh Allies can gain the epxerince from some largely ineffective fighting in 1938 they will be no loinger os vuynerbale to theknock out style blow inflicted in 1940. The 1940 result isnlt guarenneteed in 1938. if the Fench and Birtish get the basics toghether the shape of teh war is readically different if France does not fall.

 

[GreyCrow]

The Second world war starts in 1938 over Czechoslovakia. With Chamberlain getting on a plan and gpoing to Munich is likely the crisis in 1938 results in war. The Major players had sort of resigned themselves to this before Chamberlain startling direct airplane diplomacy. Baldwin if he had stayed on if Chamberlain had dies was pretty much on the same page of Chamberlain as far as appeasement goes, but would not have gotten on a plane.

Not sure this plays out like this. You are correct in saying the major players had resigned themselves - so building a war machine was uppermost. England were behind and needed extra time to build numbers and machinery

Chamberlain and Hitler 1938 - The National Archives

After the First World War, the map of Europe was re-drawn and several new countries were formed.

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Although people in Britain were relieved that war had been averted, many now wondered if appeasement was the best decision. They did not think it would stop Hitler, and simply delayed the war, rather than prevented it. Even while Chamberlain was signing the Munich Agreement, he was agreeing a huge increase in spending to increase Britain’s armament in preparation for war. He must have known from the situation outlined to him by General Ismay, that Czechoslovakia was lost, that war was bound to come.

 

[pugsville]

Not sure this plays out like this. You are correct in saying the major players had resigned themselves - so building a war machine was uppermost. England were behind and needed extra time to build numbers and machinery

Chamberlain and Hitler 1938 - The National Archives

After the First World War, the map of Europe was re-drawn and several new countries were formed.

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Although people in Britain were relieved that war had been averted, many now wondered if appeasement was the best decision. They did not think it would stop Hitler, and simply delayed the war, rather than prevented it. Even while Chamberlain was signing the Munich Agreement, he was agreeing a huge increase in spending to increase Britain’s armament in preparation for war. He must have known from the situation outlined to him by General Ismay, that Czechoslovakia was lost, that war was bound to come.

Yes no one particularity wanted a large war right away in 1938. Even hawks wanted time to re-arm and Chamberlain did take significant re-armament steps. I think Chamberlain was still hopping for peace, but prudently re-arming as he was increasingly dubious of Hitler. But Chamberlain felt a moral duty to try every little chance of avoiding a major war, even if it was a slim one. He and many others thought a major war would be horrific with many civilian dead, the horror of aerial bombing was widespread. Even if the Munich agreement was likely to fail, even a small chance of peace he felt duty bound to pursue it. Whlle other British leaders were in broad agreement with Chamberlain, he felt this moral horror of war and responsibility for a possible more deeply, that he had to do everything possible to avoid one.

But before Chamberlain got on a plane things had reached an impasse. Britain and France has agreed to fight.However reluctantly And personally I find it hard to see anything changing hrough normal diplomatic channels.Hitler was making demands, Britain and France has decided to fight rather than simply concede. Though that is more or less what they did in the end, but it was through the window dressing of Chamberlain going on a airplane diplomacy. Munich was much less probable as a solution without that. And Chamberlain getting on aircraft and going to Germany was extraordinary something that Baldwin or simialr leader would not have done.

My view is that without the reset and personal diplomacy the normal channels had reached a situation were the only way out of war was major public climb down and massive loss of face by one side, and that neither side was going to just concede. It was more they were trapped by the framework of diplomacy rather than Hitler or the British wanting the war (Well a large onem, Hitler was fine with a small war Germ,any V Czechoslovakia). The British were willing to sell out the Czechs, but they wanted some window dressing rather than an outright naked concession, which was just too tough to publicly accept. The British wanted a fig life for their abandonment of the Czechs, and Hitler was not going to give it to them. It may seem strange as thingt o go to war over but about mind sets and conventions/form. It's just not the done thing old man. .

Others may have a different view.

 

[Blue1980]

Yes no one particularity wanted a large war right away in 1938. Even hawks wanted time to re-arm and Chamberlain did take significant re-armament steps. I think Chamberlain was still hopping for peace, but prudently re-arming as he was increasingly dubious of Hitler. But Chamberlain felt a moral duty to try every little chance of avoiding a major war, even if it was a slim one. He and many others thought a major war would be horrific with many civilian dead, the horror of aerial bombing was widespread. Even if the Munich agreement was likely to fail, even a small chance of peace he felt duty bound to pursue it. Whlle other British leaders were in broad agreement with Chamberlain, he felt this moral horror of war and responsibility for a possible more deeply, that he had to do everything possible to avoid one.

But before Chamberlain got on a plane things had reached an impasse. Britain and France has agreed to fight.However reluctantly And personally I find it hard to see anything changing hrough normal diplomatic channels.Hitler was making demands, Britain and France has decided to fight rather than simply concede. Though that is more or less what they did in the end, but it was through the window dressing of Chamberlain going on a airplane diplomacy. Munich was much less probable as a solution without that. And Chamberlain getting on aircraft and going to Germany was extraordinary something that Baldwin or simialr leader would not have done.

My view is that without the reset and personal diplomacy the normal channels had reached a situation were the only way out of war was major public climb down and massive loss of face by one side, and that neither side was going to just concede. It was more they were trapped by the framework of diplomacy rather than Hitler or the British wanting the war (Well a large onem, Hitler was fine with a small war Germ,any V Czechoslovakia). The British were willing to sell out the Czechs, but they wanted some window dressing rather than an outright naked concession, which was just too tough to publicly accept. The British wanted a fig life for their abandonment of the Czechs, and Hitler was not going to give it to them. It may seem strange as thingt o go to war over but about mind sets and conventions/form. It's just not the done thing old man. .

Others may have a different view.

It is seen that Chamberlain was biding for more time, so Britain and other allies would be more ready when the inevitable came, but it also gave the Germans extra time to strengthen.

It is also worth noting that in 1938, the first world war had only ended 20 years earlier, which when you think about it in todays terms, its less than the time which has elapsed from 9/11 until now, so very much in the public conciousness of how bad war is, so the general public consensus was to avoid war at all costs.

History has shown appeasing bullies/tyrants/dictators never works, and that avoding conflct at all costs initially can actually lead to more destruction and lives lost, which was the case with WWII.

 

[Blue1980]

yeah if you are nty aware of something it does not exist.

No hold it that isn't true t he world does not go away when you close your eyes,

The question is not when did the internet became apart of everyday life.

It's just being factual. The Internet is not the web.



What is a better settlement for the people of Europe? (it;s a vague term)

The settlement was driven by power politics and that is not going to be different.

Fears of Russia and France as the possible dominate powers created a situation where other powers were happy to build
Prussia up as a balancing power. The Rhineland and much of Western Germany was seen as dangreous power vacumm. And that a major power was needed to oppose France. And Prussia needed to be stringer to be effective in keeping Russia out of Europe.

Russia was not going to moved from Poland without a war.

An earlier departure where the Hapsburgs somehow swap the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria (they were floating this deal before the Napoleonic wars a couple of times) You could get a fiffernet unifroctaion of Gemrnay maybe Catholic and Protestant states. A more Germanic Austria cooudl be more focused away fromteh Balkans and conceivably cut Hungary loose.





The Second world war starts in 1938 over Czechoslovakia. With Chamberlain getting on a plan and gpoing to Munich is likely the crisis in 1938 results in war. The Major players had sort of resigned themselves to this before Chamberlain startling direct airplane diplomacy. Baldwin if he had stayed on if Chamberlain had dies was pretty much on the same page of Chamberlain as far as appeasement goes, but would not have gotten on a plane. Chamberlain move was very much a novel and out of the blue move, hard to see another leader making such a move. The Crisis has sort reached an impasse that had everyone sliding into a war very reluctantly (this is why the scenes of cheering when he returned) It's not that Baldwin was anti appeasement or more staunch than Chamberlain just not the sort of guy to take such a radical step as airplane diplomacy.

There no prospect of Churchill being a leader before the war in 1938-39. Badly regarded as dangerous maverick by most of his own party. But I think likely to replace Baldwin once the war really gets going.

Who an early war favors is difficult, yes France and Britian are much more ill prepared, but so is Germany. Without the Czech factors producing some pretty handy tanks, and the last year of production really delivered most of the tanks used in 1940. In 1938 Germany has less than half tanks of 1940 and almosty all of thenm the light pzI and IIs. Half the panzer divsions, and more poorly equiped. the Lufwtaffe was just reciving much of it;s modern aircraft and owudl start much more less effective as well. The Germans really need the 1940 force mix to run a 1940 style "Blitzkrieg" (yes the term is problematic) Belgauim (IIRC) realy dropped it's French allaince after Munich, if they declare war with France and Britian in 1938, opens lines off attack up. (thigh I doubt the allies woudl actually get very far) ifteh Allies can gain the epxerince from some largely ineffective fighting in 1938 they will be no loinger os vuynerbale to theknock out style blow inflicted in 1940. The 1940 result isnlt guarenneteed in 1938. if the Fench and Birtish get the basics toghether the shape of teh war is readically different if France does not fall.

I guess the other variable about the war starting in 1938 is how it would of influenced what was going on in the Pacific with Japan, also if it would of prevented millions of holocaust deaths (as death camps would of been found earlier), and if the US would of got involved earlier.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

I guess the other variable about the war starting in 1938 is how it would of influenced what was going on in the Pacific with Japan, also if it would of prevented millions of holocaust deaths (as death camps would of been found earlier), and if the US would of got involved earlier.

DOn't think so, fairly certain that the allies were aware of the camps and what was happening, they couldn't do much about it though.

 

[pugsville]

It is seen that Chamberlain was biding for more time, so Britain and other allies would be more ready when the inevitable came, but it also gave the Germans extra time to strengthen.

Chamberlain, British and French leaders were very conscious of the their lack of armament and the slow pace of their re-armament programs. They were painfully aware of their own shortfalls. They also had over estimation German forces. German armament still had some weaknesses in 1938, almost no medium tanks and not many modern aircraft in service. late 1939/1940 turned out to be optimal time. After that Allied armaments woudl have quickly gone ahead. (especially if France does not fall)

1939 Germans aircraft production - 9,295 British 7,940 french 3,163
1940 German 10,826 British 15,049, French 2,000.

And Czech production was pretty important in early war for the Germans.

I think 1938 with hindisght the Germans were critically short of medium tanks and modern aircraft that were so effective in 1940, but Chamberlain did not have the luxury of hindsight nor even good information.

It is also worth noting that in 1938, the first world war had only ended 20 years earlier, which when you think about it in todays terms, its less than the time which has elapsed from 9/11 until now, so very much in the public conciousness of how bad war is, so the general public consensus was to avoid war at all costs.

The British public was opinion was changing, but in 1938 it was quite adverse to war.

History has shown appeasing bullies/tyrants/dictators never works, and that avoding conflct at all costs initially can actually lead to more destruction and lives lost, which was the case with WWII.

I agree but it;s not always obivious the time and hindsight make things easy. Some Bullies/tyrants/dictators can make somewhat honest bargains. IMHO Hitler had showed his colors by this stage, but he was pretty strange creature and very alien to someone like Chamberlain. There was belief that it was pissible that very large cvivilan deaths from aerial bombing were likely. Chemberlain was told that up 150,000 in first two weeks as worst case planning thing. And the Air defences were very skecthy at this stage, AA guns, Radar, Fighters were all being rushed and a year made a lot of difference is this preparedness.

I with Machiavelli, there's no avoiding trouble.

 

[pugsville]

I guess the other variable about the war starting in 1938 is how it would of influenced what was going on in the Pacific with Japan, also if it would of prevented millions of holocaust deaths (as death camps would of been found earlier), and if the US would of got involved earlier.

Lot of variables hard to say. Perhaps German lack the tip of spear tabks abd aircaft they had in 1940 and France survives which readically reshapes teh war. Italy stays out, Japan stays out of indo china perhaps Russia never gets involved.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

A neutral Italy likely keeps Libya long term as the mass settlement program continues and then all that lovely oil is discovered. to forestall any "but what about Nasser. Arab guerillas" yadda yadda, Fascist Italy will be a lot more ruthless and brutal than the western democracies ever could. See also: how Indonesia broke the back of Fretilin in 1977-79 and even killed the most important East Timorese national hero.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

DOn't think so, fairly certain that the allies were aware of the camps and what was happening, they couldn't do much about it though.

By 1941, when Lubitsch filmed this (later damned for "bad taste") scene, the camps were a topical-humor target:

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

I kind of wonder about a hung parliament at the 1935 British general election with the old Liberal Party then being able to hold considerable influence in the 1935-39 period.

 

[pugsville]

I kind of wonder about a hung parliament at the 1935 British general election with the old Liberal Party then being able to hold considerable influence in the 1935-39 period.

The Liberal party just was not a significant factor going back to 1918, less than 20% of the votes. And the Golden age of theliberal party was before major franchise reform in 1918 the size of the electorate had more or less trebled. The Rise of Labour as more working class people got the vote and the great depression it's hard to see the liberals remaining as the second party,.

There wads a National Government in 1931-1940 which contained Conservatives as well as "National Liberals" and "National Labour". This joining that National government really weakened those who did. . And the Liberals were split by Lloyd George in the 1922 election, which really finished them as a major forces. The Problems of the Liberal party go back a fair way, to be enough tomake a hung parliment the liberals neede to get 6 times the vote they actullay got. It's a big ask.

In 1935 the Liberals hot 6.7 % pf the vote 21 seats the National government got 51.8 and 428 out of 616 seats, the National government needs to loss another 121 seats.

In 1940 Labour and Liberals joined the National Government,

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

Wendell Wilkie would have made a fine US president. Better than Field of Roses in some way. Wilkie might have allowed the Hearst papers and the NYT to publicise the information the Allies were getting about just what was really happening in the camps.

Also, the only thing worse than the Red Cross's complete and utter failure to protect 1.5 million children from being murdered by the Germans is the past 80 years that they have spent pretending that that failure never happened.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

Island in the Sea of Time scenario: The entirety of the Lusophone area across the globe sent from from April 1st, 1985 to April, 1st, 1938?

 

[Baggins15]

Considering Dutch sailors stumbled across Western Australia in the early 17th century, what if the Dutch East India Company had seen some merit in setting up a colony there, most likely serving as a resupply port along the lines of South Africa?

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

fictional/reality warp what if: Every planet destroyed or devastated by Palpatine and his goons such as Alderaan, Caamas, Mandalore et al, suddenly reappears, the planets and their populations completely unharmed, just as Luke is speaking the words "Your Highness" in Return of the Jedi.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

WI: The weather over Denmark and Norway had turned worse, much worse, for some, possibly several, weeks just after Hitler attacks and he can't just back down?

 

[Happy Mastenator]

When it comes to Hitler the big what if, is what if he didn't launch Operation Barbarossa. If he had just concentrated on knocking out the UK.

If he could have got across the channel he would have swept them out, removed the US's ability to launch into Europe and then strengthened his eastern border for when Russia attacked.

 

[pugsville]

When it comes to Hitler the big what if, is what if he didn't launch Operation Barbarossa. If he had just concentrated on knocking out the UK.

If he could have got across the channel he would have swept them out, removed the US's ability to launch into Europe and then strengthened his eastern border for when Russia attacked.

Well For Hitler Russia was always the main game. That were always wanted to go.

How could Hitler possible get across the channel?

Operation sealion in 1940 was a horrible improvised plan full of bad ideas and improvisations. But there no real clear alterniatives. River barges, being towed in 17 km convoys s that took gours to get out of the ports and atravel at 5-7 knots.

It;s hard to see the Germans loading a force superior to the British army even if things went right for them.

 

[Present Not Past]

When it comes to Hitler the big what if, is what if he didn't launch Operation Barbarossa. If he had just concentrated on knocking out the UK.

If he could have got across the channel he would have swept them out, removed the US's ability to launch into Europe and then strengthened his eastern border for when Russia attacked.

The Battle of Britain was Germany’s attempt to invade Great Britain.
It failed. Germany couldn’t invade Britain without air superiority.
So Germany turned it’s gaze to the Soviet Union, a nation it deeply distrusted.

 

[Present Not Past]

When it comes to Hitler the big what if, is what if he didn't launch Operation Barbarossa. If he had just concentrated on knocking out the UK.

If he could have got across the channel he would have swept them out, removed the US's ability to launch into Europe and then strengthened his eastern border for when Russia attacked.

The Germans weren’t even at war with the US when they conducted Operation Sealion or Barbarossa.
So it’s stupid to think what if.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Well For Hitler Russia was always the main game. That were always wanted to go.

How could Hitler possible get across the channel?

Operation sealion in 1940 was a horrible improvised plan full of bad ideas and improvisations. But there no real clear alterniatives. River barges, being towed in 17 km convoys s that took gours to get out of the ports and atravel at 5-7 knots.

It;s hard to see the Germans loading a force superior to the British army even if things went right for them.

The Battle of Britain was Germany’s attempt to invade Great Britain.
It failed. Germany couldn’t invade Britain without air superiority.
So Germany turned it’s gaze to the Soviet Union, a nation it deeply distrusted.

The Germans weren’t even at war with the US when they conducted Operation Sealion or Barbarossa.
So it’s stupid to think what if.

Ok. A bit going on here.

1. I’m aware for history and what happened.

2. The Battle of Britain was going ok till they changed focus and went the blitz rather than focusing on airfields and industrial areas.

3. Getting across the channel would have been very very difficult. But as per history what ifs if they’d continued on as per point 2 and gotten across would have beat Britain.

4. I’m aware the us weren’t in the war at the start of the Battle of Britain but they kept Britain supplied and then the Britian eventually became the launching pad back into mainland Europe.

5. Germany always did want the space if current say ukraine and near by, and we’re very very anti communist so confrontation was inevitable. Question is whether they’d have gotten in the s**t in winter as they tried to knock Russia out if they weren’t worried about having two fronts.

6. The sheer capacity of Russia to build machinery and supply men might it might not have mattered. All of Europe might have been communist if britian has been knocked out. They might have been able to out produce Germany and take them out by themselves.

7. Again this is a what if thread. Not a well that’s not what happened so you’re wrong thread.

 

[pugsville]

Ok. A bit going on here.

1. I’m aware for history and what happened.

2. The Battle of Britain was going ok till they changed focus and went the blitz rather than focusing on airfields and industrial areas.

No, at no stage was the battle of Britain going well for the Luftwaffe. They were always losing of relative scale. The RAF was getting stronger throughout the battle getting more aircraft and pilots in., as opposed to the Lufwaffe losing more aircraft and pilots getting weaker.

The Germrans had poor intellgence, did not understand the British air defence system, and consistenly misjudged the State of the RAF. BrItsh intellgence was closer to the truth (while iocver estimating losses, they alos over estimnate German production and strat numbers so it sort of baanced)

It was hardly unlikely regardless of statics that enough damage could be done to the RAF. IT was short period, air attrition is slow process (and teh Gemrans were losing that war of attrition). The level of lossoses just was not enough to totally suppress the RAF in thet ime period,. which always had the option of withdrawing north out of range and not engaging. The RAF could control how much it committed and when.

3. Getting across the channel would have been very very difficult. But as per history what ifs if they’d continued on as per point 2 and gotten across would have beat Britain.

The Royal Navy was significant threat the really would be struggled to be stopped, the Kreigmarine was just pitiful. The number of escorts was very small teh convoys very large 17km long. They were to guided by placing bouys ahead of the invasion convoys.

The Germans were to cross with merchants ships and River barges. Most of them unpowered and under tow. Much off them varly sea worthy. A storm and it would be over. Teh crews were beabrley trained,. They had no decent information on the landing sites, these convoys would take many (10 in some cases) hours to assemble outside their ports (many of ports had very narrow harbour exists) then along voyage 12-17 hours,. And then landing via some very improvised measures, relaying on the river barges to unload ships as ligter, and they were only to be reflosted when beached by teh tide. Extremely slow 3 days to unload the first wave (including the 17,000 horses) and the 2 weeks to get the second wave in. It was treacle, using methods which the troops had not even trained with. They could bnot get enough seaman with dea experince or training even after taking crews form active service warships.

Submarines were watching the invasion ports and could travel faster underwater than the river barge convoys could on the surface.. They were 350 patrol vessels (mainly purpose built admiralty armed trawlers) in the channel and north sea every night searching a grid.

The British do not need to sink everything just scattering abnd delaying would have a pretty heavy effect. Naval gunfire support was to be regualr field guns on wooden platforms without any stabilization or training.

The Airlift capacity had been reduced by significant losses in Netherlands,.

The Luftwaffe had not much experince at anti ship operations at this time in the war (and destroyes at Dunkirk is reidly different from oeprtaing at high sea in open waters) Effectiveness

There were wide range of night time attacks the British could undertake, submarines, motor torpedo boats, destroyers, (some equipped with radar) let alone the big ships. And swordfish were trianed in night opertaions. Remeber the German invasion fleet needed 3 says and nights anchored to unload the first wave. And those ship sand barages were needed for the second wave. The British would know exactly were they would be and they had pitiful escorts.

4. I’m aware the us weren’t in the war at the start of the Battle of Britain but they kept Britain supplied and then the Britian eventually became the launching pad back into mainland Europe.

5. Germany always did want the space if current say ukraine and near by, and we’re very very anti communist so confrontation was inevitable. Question is whether they’d have gotten in the s**t in winter as they tried to knock Russia out if they weren’t worried about having two fronts.

6. The sheer capacity of Russia to build machinery and supply men might it might not have mattered. All of Europe might have been communist if britian has been knocked out. They might have been able to out produce Germany and take them out by themselves.

7. Again this is a what if thread. Not a well that’s not what happened so you’re wrong thread.

What if requires a How. You can;t just say alein space bats. Germans did not have mnore resources it could effectively devote to attacking Britin in 1940. And it could not produce more in teh short term. And by 1941 the odds are so much worse.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

The Brit’s only started producing more aircraft than they were losing when the Germans focused on the blitz. In retaliation for the Brit’s bombing Berlin.

Obviously the navy was the key factor. They needed to knock out the airforce to have any chance of getting a corridor across the channel. That never happened, but it could have if things broke different. It’s certainly not an alien space bats proposition.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

If Hitler - post Poland but pre D/N is hands-off of military matters he doesn't understand or have skil in - how does it play out?