I think we would have won in the end, provided we would have had the intestinal fortitude to keep up the fight. But it would likely have been at the price of having Europe devastated by nuclear weapons sometime around 1946, unless Hitler's regime had imploded before then. CES
----- Original Message ----- From: paul Sparling <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:19:55 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Re: When did the tide turn? Respectfully, I think Stan is wrong. If Hitler had won the battle of Moscow he might have been able to build up an Atlantic wall so strong that Europe might not have been able to be invaded, but the defeat of Britain is another matter. First, it required air supremacy - something he was unable to establish in 1940/41, and it required local naval supremacy. Even then, an attack on Britain on a necessarily narrow front would not have been a sure thing. Look at what the Allies had to accomplish before they attempted an invasion the other way which took until June 1944.->1) absolute air supremacy 2) absolute naval supremacy 3) a major clandestine diversionary operation fooling the Germans on where the attack was to be, and 4) they had to even bring their own harbours with them.(Mulberry harbours).How could a an invasion of Britain on a narrow front be a small matter when an invasion of Europe on a wide front be histories' most major undertaking. Even without the assistance of the United States it isn't a given that Hitler could have invaded Britain in 1942 when he failed in his attempts previously. He could not have fully won the war without invading and defeating Britain, who also at least had Canada, NZ, and Australia and the rest of the British Empire/Commonwealth on their side. How things would have played out if Hitler had an impregnable Atlantic wall in 1942 and a defeated Russia, and a neutral United States is something to debate. Even then, my feeling is that Hitler's regime would have eventually imploded from within Europe, with the air assistance of Britain and the help of the underground. Eventually Hitler was destined to do something that would do him in as the forces of good were stronger than him. And our side had Churchill who rallied those forces for good.. Paul Sparling . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carey Stronach" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Re: When did the tide turn? I think Stan has it right. Hitler's last chance to win the war was the Battle of Moscow. If the Soviet Union had collapsed in the fall of 1941, Hitler would have been able to throw his full force on Britain in the spring of 1942. With Germany and Japan together controlling the entire Eurasian land mass, what could Britain have done to stop him? I suspect that even if Hitler had not declared war on the USA in December 1941, it would have become inevitable in the following weeks. CES ----- Original Message ----- From: Stan A. Orchard <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:37:41 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Re: When did the tide turn? I think that Churchill probably felt that the turning points of WWII were: a) his ascendancy to Prime Minister, e.g. "I felt as if I was walking with destiny..."; and, b) Hitler's declaration of war against the United States after the bombing of Pearl Harbour. Churchill may have slept the sleep of the saved and thankful after being informed of Pearl Harbour, but what if Hitler had not declared war on the US? It seems to me that Adolf Hitler should be credited with precipitating many of the 'turning points' that ultimately turned in the Allies favour by virtue of his erratic and often bizarrely irrational thinking and absolute control over military strategy. He wasn't just a sociopathic megalomaniac. He was a monumental nut job who might have had many more military successes if he hadn't been so fundamentally idiotic. Stan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Major McKinley" <[email protected]> To: "ChurchillChat" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:16 AM Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: When did the tide turn? Here's an interesting article I read recently on the fantastic HistoryNet.com website, publishers of various history magazines. What Was the Turning Point of World War II? http://www.historynet.com/what-was-the-turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm Not exactly your question, but it goes with it. I was surprised nobody cited the Battle of Britain as the war's turning point. I think it's part of the historian bias against the Western Powers and feeling that with all the blood spilled in the East, that Russia deserves the title. But without Britain holding on, there would have been no aid to the Soviets and no victory at Stalingrad. Since Churchill said, "Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war," I'd argue that's what started lifting spirits, although there was much hard fighting ahead. The failure to sweep the RAF from the skies forced the Germans to postpone Operation Sea Lion indefinitely. Although people continued predicting swift victory throughout the later years, Churchill warned it would be a long slog and managed to predict the war's end correctly much farther out down the line. (I don't have the exact details handy, if anyone wants to add them.) On Aug 2, 10:52 pm, EvanQ <[email protected]> wrote: > When did people in England feel that World War II had turned in the > Allies' favor? I'm reading the Official Biography, and the Documents and > yes, all the footnotes. What I wonder about is the people who had > survived the Great War and died during WWII. Some of them would have died > with England hanging on by a thread, and others with the feeling that > England would eventually triumph again. What date/year/battle would that > have been? > > Also, I've been struck by the number of people who were very anti-Winston > in the post World War I years, but who served in his Government during > WWII. Can anyone point me to a book or article discussing this? > > Thanks, > > Evan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat?hl=en.
