Hitler's air force could have won a pivotal World War II battle if it had attacked earlier and changed tactics, a study says. Between May and October 1940, the German Luftwaffe fought British-led fighter pilots – including Australians – over the skies of southern England in the Battle of Britain.
In either case, with Britain defeated, American entry into the war against Germany would have become even less likely and German forces would have been free to throw more resources into the invasion of the Soviet Union, perhaps leading to a different outcome in that theatre.
Germany's failure to defeat the RAF and secure control of the skies over southern England made invasion all but impossible. British victory in the Battle of Britain was decisive, but ultimately defensive in nature – in avoiding defeat, Britain secured one of its most significant victories of the Second World War.
The decisive factors were British capability and determination, but German mistakes, before and during the battle, contributed significantly to the outcome. German rearmament was forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I, but aircraft development continued under the guise of civil aviation.
No. If Germany for whatever reason decides to not invade the USSR the struggle with Britan would have dragged one for several years. Sure Britan would continue its blockade of Germany, but unlike the previous world war, Germany has accses to all of western and northern europe.
In September 1939 the Allies, namely Great Britain, France, and Poland, were together superior in industrial resources, population, and military manpower, but the German military, or Wehrmacht, because of its armament, training, doctrine, discipline, and fighting spirit, was the most efficient and effective fighting ...
It was short of modern weapons such as tanks. Due to the impact of the Ten Year Rule, the British armaments industry had shrunk. This meant that when rearmament began it would take time to set up the factories and design the weapons required.
Even with everything noted above, Germany and its European partners could have still won the war were it not for Germany's declaration of war on the United States on December 11, 1941. It was really the only time Nazi Germany had actually declared war on an enemy, and it needed not to have happened.
For reasons that are still uncertain, Hitler never ordered the invasion. One theory is that a neutral Switzerland would have been useful to hide Nazi gold and to serve as a refuge for war criminals in case of defeat. This may also explain Germany's continued recognition of Switzerland's neutrality.
The only way an army can invade Britain is by crossing the English Channel towards its south. And that in itself is a daunting task, thanks to the treacherous waters and the steep White Cliffs of Dover. This was proved during World War II when none of the Nazis could subdue the British Isle.
Both Germany and the United States caught up with and overtook Britain in terms of aggregate labor productivity largely by shifting resources out of agriculture and improving their relative productivity position in services rather than by improving their position in manufacturing.
The UK and France are probably similar in terms of both military power and soft power. Germany is more powerful economically and is increasing in soft power. As an alliance, working together, they could be formidable and an agent for global progress (e.g. climate change).
No surrender
But to Germany's surprise, Britain, although apparently defeated and certainly painfully exposed and isolated, did not surrender. It did not even seek to come to terms with Germany.
The saving of the British empire by the USA is an extremely complicated matter, largely because it generally wasn't saved by the USA, but partially destroyed by it in the long term. Ultimately, the allies and axis were in a stalemate, and the USA broke that stalemate.
You must be wondering how close did Germany come to winning WW2 if it didn't surrender. Was there even the slightest possibility of Germany winning the war? The answer is no. By the time Germany surrendered, Soviet forces had already invaded the majority of the country.
Logic says that the most likely result of the RAF losing the battle would be a cessation of hostilities. The Germans could not have invaded, they would never have got past the Navy. The RAF would remain in being as only 2 Groups were actively opposed to the Luftwaffe during the battle.
But by a combination of its geopolitical location in the Scandinavian Peninsula, realpolitik maneuvering during an unpredictable course of events, and a dedicated military build-up after 1942, Sweden kept its official neutrality status throughout the war.
Much of the reason for Spanish reluctance to join the war was due to Spain's reliance on imports from the United States. Spain also was still recovering from its civil war and Franco knew his armed forces would not be able to defend the Canary Islands and Spanish Morocco from a British attack.
If Germany should decide to invade Sweden, the result would indeed be a costly victory for Hitler because of Germany8s great dependence on exports of Swedish iron ore. Thus the Swedes had in their economy their best weapon against German attack.
Isolationists believed that World War II was ultimately a dispute between foreign nations and that the United States had no good reason to get involved. The best policy, they claimed, was for the United States to build up its own defenses and avoid antagonizing either side.
Even if the United States had wanted to enter the war, its military force was simply not ready. Facing off against millions of Germans, the American military was only about 100,000 strong without a draft. To enter the European crisis would likely mean a complete decimation of America's forces.
WW2 Japanese soldiers were terrified of U.S. Marines because their officers told them they would be eaten if they surrendered.
British political, economic, social and cultural influences dramatically shaped and created significant changes globally. However, as other nations industrialized and social and political changes took place in the Empire, the idea of colonization and imperialism fell out of favour.
The Soviet Union showed it could be done. The T-34, produced in 1940, was arguably the best tank of the war. From the very start, the T-34 achieved that crucial balance between armour, firepower and mobility that eluded British tank designers for so long.
Many people, however, view Dunkirk as a failure because, although many thousands of soldiers were saved to fight again, an incredible amount of supplies were left behind and could be used by the Germans.