swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,982
- Jun 25, 2013
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A more likely recipe for success would be the replacement of Churchill with a more compliant individual. Had the RAF lost air superiority over southeast England during the early phase of the Battle of Britain, it's possible that a vote of no confidence in Churchill's leadership at that early stage might have resulted in a more appeasement-focused government that was willing to make a deal with Hitler. That would give Hitler precisely what he wanted - a single-front war against the USSR. There would be no threat from the US because of the lack of operating bases near Europe and history would be very different...with no need for the German military to invade the UK (at least not in an opposed sense).
It was one thing for the Germans to rely on the French Vichy government
View attachment 470075
As Vichy France was pretty much surrounded by the Axis or friends of the Axis. Not to mention the Germans had occupied most of the industrial (but not all) areas of France. Trusting the British without an occupying force with the British sea lines of communication uncut would have been a really dumb idea.
I'm sure the occupation would be no more than the brutal occupations through out Europe.
Well the Channel Islands were occupied during the war. It was a grim time for the Islanders which changed strangely from occupation to siege after D Day.I'm sure the occupation would be no more than the brutal occupations through out Europe.
Well the Channel Islands were occupied during the war. It was a grim time for the Islanders which changed strangely from occupation to siege after D Day.
I'm sure there is the odd thread or two on here trying to prove Britain did indeed lose the Battle of Britain !
Yep thems the ones, they are next to the "Nazis were really the good guys" threadsProbably with the ones saying the Holocaust didn't happen.
I'm sure there is the odd thread or two on here trying to prove Britain did indeed lose the Battle of Britain !
I would say that less than 1% of the UK population understand the relationship between the UK and the Channel Islands, I just read about it a few months ago , two crown dependencies and a Bailiwick. While there was a threat of invasion the Germans were almost friendly for propaganda purposes. On such small islands resistance of any serious kind but also as the war went against Germany the threat of reprisals became less too.Neglecting the rather confusing (to a USian) relationship between the government of the UK and the Channel Islands, I believe the residents of them were basically told to keep their heads down and not cause trouble (iirc, they weren't under control of Parliament, so the PM couldn't order them about). The German Army had a well-known and well-earned reputation for being more than ruthless against resistance.
I Understand and totally Agree a draw was all we needed to get through to the next roundWell, you could argue that we didn't win it in a literal sense, but by not losing we won anyway...if you know what I mean
Cheers
Steve