[removed]

This is still just nostalgia baiting.

No British government was going to make peace with Hitler on any terms that made Britain second fiddle to Germany. No Greater Germany, no Lebenstraum, no colonial concessions. Any of these would mean Britain being eclipsed as the leading superpower in Europe.

Pretty sure there were some cases where hitler wasn’t trying to force submission. In the period before the blitz I remember reading hitler wanted to end the war in the west so he could focus on the east. Then the blitz was an attempt to force that submission when England didn’t do it on their own

Ehh.... Italy didn't have a border with the USSR (I know, it was really Poland, but still), so that's pretty different.

[removed]

You get your entire knowledge of history from call of duty, don't you

How many US troops were at Sword, Gold, and Juno beaches at Normandy? How many RAF personnel were lost over Europe during the bombing campaigns? How many RN personnel were lost in the Battle of the Atlantic?
That's just three examples. Yes, the US participated in all of them, but so did the British. To only give them credit where they did something alone is just... willfully ignorant and asinine.

The British most certainly did not "[sit] out the war", and saying as much is a grave disservice to the millions of British and Commonwealth citizens who fought and died against the Nazis, military or civilian.

[removed]

Probably not.

This kind of did happen for the Pacific theater and the US just refused any peace deal short of total surrender.

In Europe, Nazi Germany tried to open negotiations with Britain after conquering France, but were just told no. Maybe if Germany laid out some wild offers like de-occupying France and making an anti-Soviet alliance, there could be a ghost of a chance. But that would dive into some wild alternate history.

[deleted]

Sure, but there weren't any Soviets knocking on their border either though.

I think this would be a great question for r/AskHistorians

They would give a comprehensive answer there.

From what I've read even if Rommel took Egypt and then Iran the oilfields there wouldn't be ready for years. Presumably the same in Iraq.

Yeah. You would need an entire philosophical retooling in order to have them take different actions. Otherwise they wouldn’t be the Nazis as we know them.

When the Battle of Britain began, the Luftwaffe focused exclusively on the RAF, hitting airbases, shooting down aircraft, knocking out air defenses, basically trying to gain air superiority. The RAF was pushed to the breaking point, and it wasn’t until Bomber Command struck Berlin that Hitler changed priorities from striking military targets to bombing London on a daily and nightly basis. This is when the Luftwaffe lost the battle. They had almost gained air superiority and had to throw it away to strike at civilian targets.

It's worth noting that the VVS still lost less airmen than the IJA, and the otherwise outdated I-16 fighter was a good match against Japanese planes since it's light armament could still damage the lightly armoured IJA planes, and it was just as maneuverable.

[removed]

Mel Brook's "History of the World, Part 1".

Just because Poland keeps getting conquered doesn't mean they were rolling out the red carpet for Germany and Russia in 1939.

Good point. Japan already had Manchuria set up as a puppet for themselves in 1936.

China got a lot of arms sent to them. If Japan hadn't been so ruthless, they probably would haven't been sent so many.

Some folks know how to deal with bullies.

It's just unfortunate that it's incredibly difficult for them to stop treating everyone that way once the bully has been beaten.

Well, it would be harsh to leave Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland fighting alone. Though they would have the commonwealth to help.

That's forcing submission. The question asks more of a ,"yep, that's enough Europe..."

"unconditional Surrender" was the term first stated by Roosevelt in 1943 for the end of the war, which somewhat bothered Churchill due to lack of wiggle room, as he mentions in his memoirs. In retrospect Roosevelt's unconditional surrender might have been a mastercraft in shaping the 20th Century.

I highly doubt the Chinese would’ve willingly rolled over and accepted Japanese occupation. The Western colonial powers had been repeatedly humiliating them for a century, the British especially, pushing drugs on them so the British could sustain their local and national economy. The two Opium Wars were fought for this reason. And then Japan and China fight for Korea, which had always been in the Chinese sphere of influence, and when Japan won, the other nations began raping their country even more. The last Emperor lost his reign, a new leader became a tyrannical despot, warlords ruled the country and did their own thing, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong had their political and military battles, and most of Eastern China was a war-torn or corrupt mess. The Japanese just stepped in and played whoever would let them have their territorial conquests. Would the Chinese accept Japanese rule? Only at gunpoint, and only because the Japanese were strong enough and terrible enough to enforce it. Most of the Japanese war crimes were committed in this country because they adopted Western ideas of racism and applied it to the Chinese. It’s a complicated situation, and those Chinese that bowed to Japan did so for power, wealth, security, or because they had no choice, and Japan brutally oppressed them anyways.