2 ms·

...practically impossible. Germany had taken the entire continent. The British only held on as long as they did because we were happy to lose so many cargo shi

...practically impossible. Germany had taken the entire continent. The British only held on as long as they did because we were happy to lose so many cargo ships to U-boats. Without our massive support they would have followed the French example, and that would have been the right decision. The war would have been over much sooner. In that case FDR probably wouldn't have baited Japan into their calamitous mistake either. Would that have been a bad result? Probably! The Holocaust alone disqualified the German polity from any authority whatsoever, and they got up to all sorts of other evil shit besides. The point is that this hypothetical Big European War would have lasted less time than WWII and therefore it's possible that fewer people would have died. Unless you're talking about... I meant the election promises, but I suppose the Republicans at the time also wanted war because money. These things aren't decided by the plebes...

CapricornNoble 7y ago
1. The Brits were never going to surrender. The Germans had no capacity to invade the UK's Home Islands. They completely lacked the necessary amphibious shipping to carry an invasion force, nor could they deal with the Royal Navy. 2. The German endgame was always conquest in the East, so even if the Brits DID throw in the towel the conflict wouldn't have ended. On the Eastern Front, the Germans were overstretching their offensive capabilities and logistics barely 6 months into the war (hence why they failed to take Moscow). Pivoting additional forces freed up from containing the British Empire wouldn't have helped Germany's logistical problems, so they wouldn't have forced a surrender on the Soviets like they wanted in any circumstance. I highly recommend reading Wages of Destruction. For a more accessible study of WW2, check out "Military History Visualized", an Austrian military historian on Youtube who uses a LOT of primary sources. [1]https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy-ebook/dp/B008DR6YXO https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Eco... [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnPo7V03nbY&list=PLv0uEimc-uN9D_d2ZQxVmIpGNh4DUBVms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnPo7V03nbY&list=PLv0uEimc-u...

CapricornNoble 7y ago

1. The Brits were never going to surrender. The Germans had no capacity to invade the UK's Home Islands. They completely lacked the necessary amphibious shipping to carry an invasion force, nor could they deal with the Royal Navy. 2. The German endgame was always conquest in the East, so even if the Brits DID throw in the towel the conflict wouldn't have ended. On the Eastern Front, the Germans were overstretching their offensive capabilities and logistics barely 6 months into the war (hence why they failed to take Moscow). Pivoting additional forces freed up from containing the British Empire wouldn't have helped Germany's logistical problems, so they wouldn't have forced a surrender on the Soviets like they wanted in any circumstance. I highly recommend reading Wages of Destruction. For a more accessible study of WW2, check out "Military History Visualized", an Austrian military historian on Youtube who uses a LOT of primary sources. [1]https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy-ebook/dp/B008DR6YXO https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Eco... [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnPo7V03nbY&list=PLv0uEimc-uN9D_d2ZQxVmIpGNh4DUBVms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnPo7V03nbY&list=PLv0uEimc-u...