Recent comments in /f/history

LordMayorOfCologne t1_j7mqrmp wrote

Reply to Would the Allies have kept fighting if the axis powers stopped? by Techno-87

Historical records show that the answer to your question is a definitive no. As discussed in Michael Thomsett's book, The German Opposition to Hitler, diplomat Ulrich von Hassell contacted British citizen James Lonsdale-Bryans, with an offer in 1940. Due to Londsale-Bryans' relationship with Edward Wood, it got to the highest levels of government. The offer was that if there was a successful coup of Hitler then Germany would be allowed to keep Austria, Poland, and the Sudetenland.

That offer was quickly shutdown and not taken seriously as means for peace.

1

Stormfists t1_j7mqkfo wrote

Reply to comment by cancerballs69420 in Would the Allies have kept fighting if the axis powers stopped? by Techno-87

And he almost won. The RAF was on the brink of collapse when Hitler ordered the blitz to be reduced significantly. A lot of experts say that another 4 months of massive bombardment would have eventually crippled Britain's air defences and meant a land invasion was potentially possible, supported by massive air drops.

6

the_better_twin t1_j7mqdmp wrote

Reply to comment by Cetun in Would the Allies have kept fighting if the axis powers stopped? by Techno-87

Well before the US joined the war, Britains army was focused on the Mediterranean, mostly north Africa (because of the oil) and Greece/ Malta to secure the passage of their fleet. They were also involved in campaigns in east Africa against Italy though. The air force was obviously preoccupied by the Battle of Britain so a full scale assault on Europe at this time would have been a ridiculous undertaking, nevertheless, the defeat of the Luftwaffe, meant that the invasion of a German occupied Europe was now a possibility.

Now we get onto when the US joined the war. When pearl harbor happened, you might also be unaware, that Japan simultaneously attacked the British in East Asia, for example in Burma. It was British troops who eventually repelled these gains the Japanese had made.

Meanwhile in Europe, Britain and the Commonwealth were landing troops on three beaches alongside their American allies, defeating Germany's best General in the deserts of North Africa, landing almost as many troops in Italy as the US did, and more.

British scientists were contributing to the Manhattan project (and were subsequently stabbed in the back when the US refused to share the outcomes with their ally but anyway...) and British intelligence was shared from bletchley park to the US and the soviets which undoubtedly helped win the war.

We could get into little things like British engines in American planes but now I feel like I'm being petty. The point is the war truly was an allied effort and to dismiss the contributions of anyone is just naive.

Also for the record when I say British I mean British and Commonwealth. It truly was a world war, soldiers from India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, Nepal and many many other countries fought and died to stop the biggest maniac the world has seen. It certainly was not a team America film.

2

SigerMakkerMeget t1_j7mq8c3 wrote

Reply to comment by cancerballs69420 in Would the Allies have kept fighting if the axis powers stopped? by Techno-87

The blitz was intended to force the RAF to fight the Luftwaffe, in the hopes of destroying it. That would have given Germany free reign over the English Channel, opening a route for a naval invasion.

But since Germany couldnt break the RAF, there would be air cover for the Royal Navy, making an invasion utter suicide.

4

kawhi_2020 t1_j7moz3y wrote

Reply to comment by cancerballs69420 in Would the Allies have kept fighting if the axis powers stopped? by Techno-87

His highest priority was the preservation of the British Empire. The whole Mediterranean campaign from North Africa to Italy was about British control of the routes to India, not about defeating Germany. Churchill wanted US-UK joint attack to go through the Balkans and try to hit Germany from the southeast to get there before the Soviets did. America had to negotiate to attack Italy instead, which was not strategically relevant to the main war.

It was also Churchill's decision to continue exporting food from India to build stockpiles while people in India starved to death. There wasn't a food shortage in Britain but he helped make one in India.

He deserves credit for the things he did like keeping Britain engaged but he did not "nail' the whole thing. He made plenty of mistakes and oversights.

64

MisterBadGuy159 t1_j7moygu wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Would the Allies have kept fighting if the axis powers stopped? by Techno-87

There's an account that Admiral Yamamoto, who led the attack on Pearl Harbor, told his higher-ups that he could guarantee six months where he could actually take home victories, and if the war went on past that, they were screwed. Six months to the day after Pearl Harbor, Japan lost four fleet carriers at the battle of Midway.

10

nineandaquarter t1_j7mnysl wrote

Reply to comment by elbapo in Best condensed history works? by SintagmaNominalMan

Great book! Worth buying and reading more than once. There's a fair bit of non-human history (e.g., a good chunk on geology and the politics of the science societies).

His other book "At Home" is more human-y with a focus on residential life over the centuries.

6