Even if Hitler could've beaten Britain--which was just barely possible in 1940, and not possible at all in 1941--that's a far cry from being able to cross the Atlantic ocean and invade the United States. Invading a country, occupying it, and governing it are rather different animals.

Ever hear of Rommel? If Hitler had won the war in Europe, he'd have brought the US to its knees. It might have taken time, but he would have done so. The America's would have stood alone against the rest of the world. And there's this little thing called oil. Had Hitler invaded Britain, this board would be written in German. Hello? :eyebrow:

1940 Britain was a country with almost no tanks, nearly no artillery, and few guns. It still had an air force and a navy.

But a navy without air cover could never defend against Stuka dive bombers - as was proven time and time again. This is why Hitler only needed to conquer the RAF. Churchill understood this quite well. The only reason the channel was an obstacle to Germany was that Germany could not and did not conquer the RAF.

Eventually, Britain would rearm. Their armies lost most everything in Dunkirk except men. Once those men could be rearmed, then Britain would again become a military power. America was so essential to Britain. Both the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic were examples of Britain on the ropes and about to go down. It is an extraordinary story of history. One that every educated person should appreciate not just in the story, but the whys behind why Britain came so close to being conquered.

Germany had already massed sufficient forces to successfully invade Britain in summer or fall 1940. The Royal Navy could only stop that invasion IF the RAF could protect the navy. Britain came that close to being conquered.

Churchill understated it when he said something to the effect of, "At no time in history did so many owe so much to so few.” Only one class of military weapon kept Britain from being conquered in 1940. The RAF saved Britain's ass - completely. It was a desperate battle.

Forget Rommel. That's like saying Patton alone conquered Germany. Rommel was only one piece of a very crowded gameboard. To cite Rommel as significant is to be manipulated by both historical myths and propaganda of that time.

Yes, I've heard of Rommel...he's the fellow who was soundly whipped by the supposedly impotent British in North Africa, prior to being "suicided" by his own superiors. From the sound of it, you imagine him as some sort of demigod.

There was no reason for America to "stand against" anyone in the world; our geography enables us not to be concerned with whether the 'right people' are ruling other countries or not, and all we have to do is recognize it. Indeed, we are just about the only country on earth that is in, or has ever been in, that position. Instead we fritter this gift away with all our stupid hand-wringing over whether one gang of tyrants is going to beat another gang of tyrants. Well, we deserve what we get...

The superiority of the U.S to Vietnam in 1965 and Iraq in 2003 is incalculably greater than the superiority of Germany to Britain in 1940. Yet we subdued neither.

If you define occupation of the capital city as victory, there is a slim chance Hitler could've achieved it--and even this vanished after Barbarossa. However, in the long run occupied territories tend to be a thorn in one's side.

And the idea that German troops were ever going to land in Boston and rape everyone's sister is too neurotic to bother refuting.

Complete nonsense. America was not a nation dependent on foreign trade even if Germany had the resources for a blockade. The American red-neck is fully capable of running an effective guerilla campaign. Like djacq75 said the Russian and German tyrannies should have been allowed to bleed each other out until their people rose up. If we had allowed that to happen our present course of democratic fascism could have been averted.

I cite Rommel because he managed to take quite a bit of territory in northern Africa - places where there is this little thing called oil. Had Germany gained control over the oil producing countries of the region, the US would eventually have been brought to its knees. Not right away, of course, but ultimately. I was not saying that Rommel could have invaded the US or anything like that. Actually, Rommel WAS a very good general and tactician, however. He tried to kill Hitler at the end, if you'll recall. I was always sort of fond of him - for a Nazi General, that is.

I think Germany would have beaten Russia if it hadn't had to worry about the British and American forces. Germany's problem was that it was fighting a war on two fronts. If the US had stayed out of the conflict, Britain would have gone under. The Germans were quite efficient at disposing of those who disagreed with them. A significant portion of those killed in the death camps were Russian prisoners of war. The US would have been isolated in a world where two enemies - Germany and Japan - controlled all the rest.

Neither country may have had any interest in invading this one - it would have been a formidable task, I agree. But the resulting geopolitick would have meant that the US would have become a seriously weakened nation and not the world power it is today. IMO.

1. To a person of humane and decent instincts, it's better to be a weak power at peace than a great nation at war.

2. That Germany and Japan were our enemies was largely our decision. They would've preferred to live and let live, as far as the United States was concerned. (Pearl Harbor was not the bolt out of the clear blue we like to imagine it was.)

3. The U.S., Mexico, and Venezuela produced all the oil we needed. We would not have been able to live like hogs, perhaps, but that is not to be confused with a threat to our national existence.

4. Partly because of the Axis defeat, within 35 years the U.S. was "isolated" by hostile Communist or radical governments in the USSR, China, and most of the Third World. Yet we somehow made it, against an enemy even more ruthless than the Axis Powers. To say we could not have survived an Axis victory ignores the fact that we survived something worse.

If I'm not mistaken the US was still a net exporter of oil when WWII came along and we have vast reserves to this day.(I couldn't find the import numbers to balance that chart since apparently the gov has only tracked that since 1949.) The Japanese were p.o.ed, in part, because we cut off our exports of aviation fuel to them. What I believe we're witnessing in this thread is the remnants of the old propaganda campaigns about the dire threat our enemies posed. These campaigns are pernicious, just ask G W Bush now that his paranoia campaign just bit him on the ass over the port sale.

OK, I'll admit that the US would not have been brought to its knees. And, yes, I am aware that back then the US was a net exporter of oil. I am such an old dinosaur that I'll be contributing to the oil fields one day soon myself. Why, I remember when gasoline was 22 cents a gallon, you young whippersnappers! I also remember the price shock of the oil embargo back in the early 70's. We are certainly not a net exporter of oil now, and he who controls the world's petroleum supply, controls the world. If Hitler had been able to secure the Mid East petroleum supply for Germany, that nation would definately have quite a bit of leverage at this point. I guess I am mostly pissed about the stupid war we are currently fighting which seems to have no real basis other than to give us a foothold in the Middle East oil fields. I imagine that had Hitler managed to take all of Europe and Russia, the same uneasy stance as we had during the cold war with the USSR would have been the most likely result.

In other words, after 400,000 dead and who knows how many more maimed, we ended up with just about what we would've ended up with anyway. Thank you for getting it! :lol:

Your praise of Rommel are both accurate and worthy of the man. Furthermore, his objective was Suez. This would have caused major fuel and supply problems for Britain as well as another Dunkirk type defeat. Rommel did amazing things with virtually little material. He was not defeated (actually he was removed before the defeat) until the US and British put him into a squeeze from both east and west.

Don't forget for a minute why the US was so soundly defeated in their first major African battle.

How did Montgomery defeat Rommel? Montgomery had more materials, men, and supplies. Therefore Montgomergy simply kept shifting his attack so that Rommel had to run here and there. Rommel had too few resources. And yet still Rommel did amazing things in his defense - by doing things offensive. British forces would suddenly discover that Rommel was completely behind them.

You have drawn conclusions without first learning underlying facts. In Vietnam, without a strategic objection and with Generals (Westmoreland) who literally violated well proven principles of war, wll of course a major military (US) would be defeated. That has nothing to due with German operations in 1940 Britain.

Meanwhile, look who is not winning the "Mission Accomplished" war. Again the example does not prove your point once we apply necessary details.

Meanwhile, I don't have a clue as to why you mention Germans invading Boston. I intentionally avoided the whole topic because the number of variable make any reasoning nothing more than personal biases speculation.

The one thing we do know is that without an RAF, Germany had sufficient resources, weapon superiority, and intent (the strategic objectives) to successfully invade Britain. Without the RAF, Britain just could not have stopped a 1940 cross channel invasion.

Errrr... You're leaving out one minor detail - the 6 million killed in the death camps. Hell alone knows what that number might have been had Hitler conquered Britain and Russia both. :eyebrow:

Never lose sight of a strategic objective. Kudos to Griff for the reminder.