Germany could not win ww2?

[Post]

No Churchill doesn't automatically mean the UK surrenders. Chamberlain declared war when Germany invaded Poland. In may 1940 Churchill became PM because parliament wanted someone who would fight on.

No FDR doesn't automatically mean a more isolationist US. After the invasion of Poland and the fall of France, the US voters were very worried about nazi-Germany and supported the support of the UK, even if it would risk war. Nazi-Germany ruling Europe is not good for the US. I'm very doubtful about the chances of an isolationist winning the 1940 elections.

So no, the nazi's wouldn't automatically win if these two died in the 1930s. It may improve their chances.

 

[FREDWASTAKEN]

No Churchill doesn't automatically mean the UK surrenders. Chamberlain declared war when Germany invaded Poland. In may 1940 Churchill became PM because parliament wanted someone who would fight on.

No FDR doesn't automatically mean a more isolationist US. After the invasion of Poland and the fall of France, the US voters were very worried about nazi-Germany and supported the support of the UK, even if it would risk war. Nazi-Germany ruling Europe is not good for the US. I'm very doubtful about the chances of an isolationist winning the 1940 elections.

So no, the nazi's wouldn't automatically win if these two died in the 1930s. It may improve their chances.

Ok no isolationist america but an america still suffering from the great depression and then going interventionist?

And even if they go interventionist, I think they would take a defensive stance rather than aggressive

Yes but after the Germans smashed them in n dunkirk with no Churchill to rally every british man Oswald Mosley and his british fascists may have a higher chance of gaining popularity(and may collaborate with the germans to overthrow parliament if they dont surrender)

and now with luffwaffe bombing their cities,
German U-boats sinking trade convoys thus starving the island, with no man to rally anyone and with america weak still suffering from 1929,

What choice do you have?

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

Neither the bombing if British cities nor the losses of merchant ships in 1940 and 1941 were on a scale sufficient to force the UK and the Empire to surrender.

Painful but not overwhelming. Mosley was a busted flush and actually not pro-German by then. There were some prominent Tories that might have urged the government to arrange a ceasefire and peace settlement but not an outright surrender.

Chamberlain was ill by May 1940 and would have been replaced by someone then. <s> (Asquith)</s> Attlee and Labour made that a condition of joining in a National Government. Eden is a possibility as he could have been the leader of the anti-Appeasenent faction without Churchill.

Churchill was a great war leader, though flawed in many other ways . But not irreplaceable.

 

[FREDWASTAKEN]

Neither the bombing if British cities nor the losses of merchant ships in 1940 and 1941 were on a scale sufficient to force the UK and the Empire to surrender.

Painful but not overwhelming. Mosley was a busted flush and actually not pro-German by then. There were some prominent Tories that might have urged the government to arrange a ceasefire and peace settlement but not an outright surrender.

Chamberlain was ill by May 1940 and would have been replaced by someone then. Asquith and Labour made that a condition of joining in a National Government. Eden is a possibility as he could have been the leader of the anti-Appeasenent faction without Churchill.

Churchill was a great war leader, though flawed in many other ways . But not irreplaceable.

About that argument i kinda saw in a video about how the axis would win


Btw here is it.

 

[jamesownz]

About that argument i kinda saw in a video about how the axis would win


Btw here is it.

This was entertaining but very silly.

Hitler living in London?
Nazis get an A-Bomb in a month?

Invading Canada and the USA?

 

[FREDWASTAKEN]

This was entertaining but very silly.

Hitler living in London?
Nazis get an A-Bomb in a month?

Invading Canada and the USA?

Its not like i think everything in this scenario is right I was saying is that the answer to that guy's argument is there like how britain can surrender

 

[Post]

Its not like i think everything in this scenario is right I was saying is that the answer to that guy's argument is there like how britain can surrender

Uh, no. The British go into exile in Canada at the 4th of June 1940. WTF?! Why?Then he's starting about a succesful Sealion. Which apparantly is succesful because the Germans surprised the British by ignoring the peace treaty.
That's just utter rubbish, and a waste of my time.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Neither the bombing if British cities nor the losses of merchant ships in 1940 and 1941 were on a scale sufficient to force the UK and the Empire to surrender.

Painful but not overwhelming. Mosley was a busted flush and actually not pro-German by then. There were some prominent Tories that might have urged the government to arrange a ceasefire and peace settlement but not an outright surrender.

Chamberlain was ill by May 1940 and would have been replaced by someone then. Asquith and Labour made that a condition of joining in a National Government. Eden is a possibility as he could have been the leader of the anti-Appeasenent faction without Churchill.

Churchill was a great war leader, though flawed in many other ways . But not irreplaceable.

Agree with all of the above, although assume you mean Attlee, not Asquith.

Not sure about Eden. It seems that Chamberlain had spotted a flaw in his facade after manoeuvering him out of the government, reckoned he had his measure, and that would have passed through the Conservative Party's upper echelons. Struggling to think of another Tory who could take over if not Halifax.

 

[Garrison]

Uh, no. The British go into exile in Canada at the 4th of June 1940. WTF?! Why?Then he's starting about a succesful Sealion. Which apparantly is succesful because the Germans surprised the British by ignoring the peace treaty.
That's just utter rubbish, and a waste of my time.

That is pretty much the moment at which you dismiss any Germany wins scenario. The reality is that if the Germans prevent Operation Dynamo then there is a very slender chance that the British might be open to a political settlement. However given that the British didn't expect much from Dynamo and that Hitler would doubtless demand terms based on his own distorted view of Britain and the empire that chance is incredibly slender. Beyond that greater German success at Dunkirk does not translate into making Sealion possible, the Luftwaffe is simply ill-equipped for dealing with an airforce it can't catch on the ground, which up until the Summer of 1940 had been the Luftwaffe's preferred tactic for dealing with enemy airforces, and there is an utter lack of means for a German amphibious assault. At the same time the U-Boat force had some spectacular successes but never came close to cutting off British maritime shipping.

As far as the USA goes the last thing they are going to want is Nazi Germany gaining hegemony over Europe. Isolationism is one one thing, committing geo-political suicide by simply letting the Nazi's win is quite another.

 

[Resurgam]

As far as the USA goes the last thing they are going to want is Nazi Germany gaining hegemony over Europe. Isolationism is one one thing, committing geo-political suicide by simply letting the Nazi's win is quite another.

Waaaaaay back in 2016, there was a guy who posted a Notler leading Notzis to victory over Europe - including Sealion - and getting support because he refused to commit atrocities in the East and didn't let the SS go after the Jews.

No, really.

Anyway... I bring this up because I made this exact point to the poster and he said "but trade and rebuilding Europe, so they would let it happen."

He was set upon by a bear soon after, if you know what I mean...

 

[NoMommsen]

Its not like i think everything in this scenario is right I was saying is that the answer to that guy's argument is there like how britain can surrender

Despite the somewhat ... "distinguished" style of that piece of ... fictional art (???) IMHO it's rather a question of what - aside the possible accident death of Churchill - this guy actually got "right".

 

[CalBear]

About that argument i kinda saw in a video about how the axis would win


Btw here is it.

STOP.

If you can't actually discuss the issue, don't post videos of questionable scholarship instead.

 

[Resurgam]

STOP.

If you can't actually discuss the issue, don't post videos of questionable scholarship instead.

I actually find the video unwatchable for another reason: the soft, slow voice with a ton of vocal clicks and pops induced a toe-curling attack of misophonia.

Was there anything especially egregious in the video?

 

[CalBear]

I actually find the video unwatchable for another reason: the soft, slow voice with a ton of vocal clicks and pops induced a toe-curling attack of misophonia.

Was there anything especially egregious in the video?

Egregious?

Not really. Just another example of half informed BS being presented in a video. Waste of time mostly.

 

[Luciano7477]

Do not just post youtube links, especially when they are below the quality that History Channel would accept.

Thanks.

Hello my friend. So, this channel is very good, I'm subscribed for a lot, and the video proposes precisely the topic that this forum debates, in addition to the fact that the owner of this channel knows this forum.

And the theme of the video is directly related with this thread.

If you didn’t like the video, I’m interested in your opinion and would like to hear your assessment of the video’s points explaining why the scenario proposed in the video is invalid.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

Hello my friend. So, this channel is very good, I'm subscribed for a lot, and the video proposes precisely the topic that this forum debates, in addition to the fact that the owner of this channel knows this forum.

And the theme of the video is directly related with this thread.

If you didn’t like the video, I’m interested in your opinion and would like to hear your assessment of the video’s points explaining why the scenario proposed in the video is invalid.

You can't just throw out videos in answer to questions, especially with, as was noted, the usual quality of alternative history videos. IE most of them are poorly researched and trope heavy.

 

[Luciano7477]

You can't just throw out videos in answer to questions, especially as was noted, the usual quality of alternative history videos. IE most of them are poorly researched and trope heavy.

Well, I created the thread, I'm continuing my work, the video was directly related with my thread, and you can't determine the quality of the video if you don't watched.

If i'm puting a link here, its because I watched the entire video, and and posted here to create a discussion, and top the members argue about what is said in the video.

And if you affirm that alternative history channels as default do not have quality, so according to your logic this forum would not have quality either, as it is directed to this theme.

Besides, as we are debating a science, because history is a science, and alternative history is a part of history, I must put the sources of what I stated here.

 

[tomo pauk]

I don't know what's the fuss. For the Germans to win, it just requires the British leadership to be comprised by dumb and cowardly people.

Simple, really.

 

[CalBear]

Hello my friend. So, this channel is very good, I'm subscribed for a lot, and the video proposes precisely the topic that this forum debates, in addition to the fact that the owner of this channel knows this forum.

And the theme of the video is directly related with this thread.

If you didn’t like the video, I’m interested in your opinion and would like to hear your assessment of the video’s points explaining why the scenario proposed in the video is invalid.

I am happy that you find the You tube channel enjoyable. Doesn't matter in the cotext of this Board. It is completely unreasonable to expect members to have two watch 10-30 minutes of video to take part in a test based discussion board thread. Moreover, many members access the Board from locations where they are prohibited or unable to access video.

As far as liking or not likely the video, I have no idea. I'm not going to dedicated 10-30 minutes to watching it simply because you posted it.

You have been placed on notice regarding posting video instead of comments. I recommend you heed that notice.

 

[Luciano7477]

I am happy that you find the You tube channel enjoyable. Doesn't matter in the cotext of this Board. It is completely unreasonable to expect members to have two watch 10-30 minutes of video to take part in a test based discussion board thread. Moreover, many members access the Board from locations where they are prohibited or unable to access video.

As far as liking or not likely the video, I have no idea. I'm not going to dedicated 10-30 minutes to watching it simply because you posted it.

You have been placed on notice regarding posting video instead of comments. I recommend you heed that notice.

I didn't force anyone to watch the video, the member watches the video if he wants, I only used it to complement the discussion, it's not of "vital importance" to the discussion.

Very unlikely this video of these will be blocked in any country, unless you live in China

What notice?