A WW2 alternative Question.

[TWking]

Olafson............

[Noodlenrice]

How do i change my vote to the last choice?

[Oakenshield]

That being said, the Germans never considered a sea-born invasion of British mainland. They lacked the equipment for that.

The Germans did consider a sea-born invasion of the UK, as part of Operation Sea Lion, they actually made quite detailed plans for it.

In the end of the day, without a safe base of operations (i.e. the UK) for the USA to launch a campaign against the Germans, it would of been very unlikey that they would of joined the war in Europe as launching an invasion from across the Atlantic would of been impossible.

What if the germans put huuuge sails on Britain and sailed their whole army into the direction of the USA to invade them?

Why didn't they think of that? 

[Duuring]

That being said, the Germans never considered a sea-born invasion of British mainland. They lacked the equipment for that.

The Germans did consider a sea-born invasion of the UK, as part of Operation Sea Lion, they actually made quite detailed plans for it.

Plans yes, but no equipment. They had to confiscate thousands of river barges to transport the troops. 'Nuff said.

[TheBoberton]

Plans yes, but no equipment. They had to confiscate thousands of river barges to transport the troops. 'Nuff said.

The Allies practically had to do the same during the Dunkirk fiasco, so that doesn't say much for moving large numbers of troops. Heavier equipment may have been a problem, but had the Germans been able to immediately gain air superiority, and follow the Allies after they pulled out of France, I doubt heavy weapons would have been necessary at all.

[Duuring]

Plans yes, but no equipment. They had to confiscate thousands of river barges to transport the troops. 'Nuff said.

The Allies practically had to do the same during the Dunkirk fiasco, so that doesn't say much for moving large numbers of troops.

Yes it does. The Dunkirk campaign was a retreat, not an attack.

[Archduke Sven]

Plans yes, but no equipment. They had to confiscate thousands of river barges to transport the troops. 'Nuff said.

The Allies practically had to do the same during the Dunkirk fiasco, so that doesn't say much for moving large numbers of troops. Heavier equipment may have been a problem, but had the Germans been able to immediately gain air superiority, and follow the Allies after they pulled out of France, I doubt heavy weapons would have been necessary at all.

Are you forgetting that Germany's air force was the most depleted combat arm after the French campaign? The Dutch alone shot down a quarter of it.

It was anyones game at the start as Britain still had a decent quantity of Airplanes at that point, they were still able to match the Germans, and they had the advantage of fighting in their airzone.

[TheBoberton]

Yes it does. The Dunkirk campaign was a retreat, not an attack.

And that changes.. what, exactly?

The retreat at Dunkirk was done under fire, just as a landing in Britain would have been. Further, assuming that the Germans had air superiority, any real resistance on the beaches that would prevent a landing would be bombed out of existence.

Unlike France in 1944, Britain did not have a giant wall of machine-guns and minefields on their shores. A landing (With proper air cover) would have been a cakewalk compared to any other landing during the war.

Are you forgetting that Germany's air force was the most depleted combat arm after the French campaign? The Dutch alone shot down a quarter of it.

It was anyones game at the start as Britain still had a decent quantity of Airplanes at that point, they were still able to match the Germans, and they had the advantage of fighting in their airzone.

Which is why the invasion did not happen. I am working under the assumption that the one thing that would allow the invasion to happen had occurred. Without air superiority, there is no invasion, because it would have been suicide, especially with a lack of dedicated landing craft.

[Friedrich]

You can turn it as you like it, but Japan had allready 1940 and before the plan to start a war against USA.

[Prince_Eugen]

Invasion couldnt happen because Hitler planned on invansion in USSR. However USSR had a plan on invasion to Germany in 1942, but that plan turned in a wasted paper after first shot.

You can turn it as you like it, but Japan had allready 1940 and before the plan to start a war against USA.

They hadnt such plans, Japanese feared the economical powers of USA and GB, also the admiral Esida Dzengo as well as all fleet commanders were against axis (fleet had a lot of power in that Japan). But the fact of trade and supply decrease from that countries played great part in Japanese war escalation. They wasted time in China, had problems in Indochina, and finnaly failed on first attemps to take Holland East-Indies.

[Completenoob]

Yes it does. The Dunkirk campaign was a retreat, not an attack.

One could easily just cross the English Channel with tons of rowboats and do it perfectly fine as long as it's as functionally unopposed. Since even in 1944 aside from Omaha, almost every landing was mostly unopposed until they got past the beach just a wee bit further inland it is not out of the question such thing would be definitely within realm of possibility. Just audacious move by the end of the day. Of course presuming they would have been able to prevent Royal Navy from interfering with the landings is bigger stretch compared to the RAF, not to mention the inevitable supply bottleneck issue and relatively rapid rate of defence buildup in fear of the invasion.

(Presuming other things in UK would have rolled as they did while we presume RAF was temporarily knocked out and RN would have been unable to intervene properly by some stroke of impossible luck.)

[Turin Turambar]

I think, Germany would never have invaded the British Isles, because we did not want to fight against England.

Germany tried to make peace.

[Norman_the_Owl]

If Britain had been invaded (assuming the Germans had the logistics to do so), it's likely the USA would have remained neutral. We need to remember that the US was still being wracked by the Depression and many were against involvement in another European war, especially after World War I (the "Great War").

Well, the depression was ending, if not over, by mid/late 1940 because of the ramp up for wartime started by the president.

[Norman_the_Owl]

Carefully ignoring the fact the USA had stood and watched how the Japanese had attacked Russia, China and the British, French and Dutch indies. The only country not yet invaded by ground forces was Australia. When would the USA have finally decided to join the war on their own? Late 1942? Early '43? Is there really a way to tell IF they would have even joined? I don't think the American populace would have supported a war to support a Britain in shatters and a USSR that was being completely nailed.

The Japanese launched their invasion of the British French and Dutch indies on December eighth, 1941.

We were actively opposing the Japanese was in china throughout the mid 1930's.

And the USSR wouldn't have been completely 'nailed' by any account

[Duuring]

The USSR would never have made it without US support. Unlike what most people think, the Soviet army was on breaking point even after they had won Stalingrad.