Family & Relationships8 mins ago
Germany or Russia
Every now and then i come across people who say that if we were invaded in 1944 "We'd all be speaking German now." However, I reckon that even if we had been invaded, sooner or later the soviets would have rolled over europe,and as a consequence we'd have been part of a pan-europe soviet union. Until the U.S. started nuking the hell out of us that is. What do you lot think?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by spiff. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
For a start, spiff, Britain was not likely to be invaded in 1944. By then we (I'm British) were winning the war. 1940 was far more possible. Yes, it is generally accepted that if Hitler could have got his army across the Channel in 1940, and kept the necessary resupply going, we might well have lost.
Hitler had a non-aggression pact with Stalin, but neither intended to keep it. Hitler would have been able to apply his full force to his 1941 invasion of Russia, but I don't think he could have conquered that vast country. He could have held part of it, but my guess is that the Russians would have come back at him from remote bases in Siberia and finally driven him out. Whether they would have rolled right across Europe is another question. One can only surmise.
Once Britain fell the USA would have felt no need to involve itself in Europe and would have stayed isolationist. They would have fought Japan across the Pacific after Pearl Harbor in December 1941, but would probably have left Germany/Russia/Europe to sort itself out.
Others may have different opinions. Let's hear them!
It's usually Americans who say that we should be eternally grateful to them for helping spearhead the invasion easwards form Normandy in 1944 as - otherwise - we Brits would be speaking German.
We certainly should be grateful for what they did, but not in a linguistic sense. But for the Allied advance, the Russians would almost certainly have defeated Germany and there was little to stop them pressing on westwards and into Britain. So, Russian was always a more probable alternative language for us than German.
What always makes me laugh about the matter is the fact that - but for the major part the British played in the early settlement of North America - they would probably now have been speaking Dutch or...heaven forfend...French! Basically, I think they owe us more linguistically than we owe them.
I thinke we would still be speaking English. As Hitler always said Britain is not Germanys natural enemy. Britain would have surrendered and left Germany to concentrate on Russia, we would have carried on more or less as normal.
If the Russians had successfully invaded we would still be speaking English. For 50 years Russia controlled Eastern Europe and those subjugated countries didn't lose their ethnic languages.
We must not forget that the Germans had not only the worlds leading scientists on rocket development, but also an advanced nuclear program. Within a few years they would have developed a nuclear ICBM coupled with the will to use it. Game over.
Also, let us remember that Germany declared war on America, not the other way round.
In addition, we cannot factor in the possibility of someone who as not crazy replacing Hitler and initiating a coherent military strategy.
If Germany had invaded the UK, and if the USSR had swept across Western Europe, then eventually the USA would have invaded and liberated Western Europe. The Iron Curtain may have been a bit further west, by the eventual outcome would have been mostly the same.
The idea of "everybody speaking German" (or Russian, or whatever) is of course a euphemism. When one country invades or dominates another country, it hardly ever results in the population being forced to change their language.
I wonder if Hitler would have declared war on the US if Britain had fallen. Did he do it because he was crazy, or because the US was starting to side openly with Britain against Germany, or because his Axis partner, Japan, had opened the war against America for the Pacific region by attacking at Pearl Harbor?
I have heard that the Nazi nuclear programme had taken some wrong turnings and was actually a long way from success. Hitler's other weapons devised by his admittedly brilliant scientists would not have been enough to defeat the huge targets of the USA and Soviet Russia.
Replacing Hitler by someone sane and more able would have prolonged the struggle, but in my view would not have pulled a German victory out of the hat. The factors that made German victory impossible were the size and industrial muscle of the USA and the vastness and huge population of Russia.
I don't think the USA would have intervened in a Russian-dominated Europe. They only squared up to Russia because they were already involved in Europe by the war against Germany. If they hadn't been, any intervention would have had to be by invasion, and why on earth would they want to start another war by doing that?
Don't forget the swedes we would have come for your rescue, we may have been neutral but unofficially we were allied partners, in the final stages of the war we were about to liberate our fellow scandinavian countries, Denmark and Norway but the need didn't rise, But we helped the finnish chase ofr the remaining german renegades. We also had airports prepared for american bombers and an industry not destroyed by the war ready to pupm out supplies. It wouldn't be the first time sweden comes and would conquer Europe, Normandy was a viking settlement and during the 30:th year war in 16 hundreds Sweden held a big part of the Baltic, Finland, Polandand northern germany.And I would say that if Germany had taken the Uk the US wouldn't have invaded Europe
(Part 1) First Hitler and the Nazis did not invade Britain in 1940 because they were not able, not because they chose not to. Even had the Nazis won the Battle of Britain (air war) instead of achieving a draw they did not have the naval capability to move their troops across the channel to defeat for a second time the British troops they allowed to escape at Dunkirk. Since only geography saved them from the fate of France, complete and utter defeat at the hands of the Nazis, the hypothetical of what would have happened had the Nazis and British engaged on English soil is quite clear. Second what is also equally clear is that the United States would not have become entangled in the European war without coming to the Aid of our 2nd oldest Ally. Notice we did not aid our oldest ally France since they did not benefit from favorable geography and there was no point in liberation efforts after the surrender. The logistics of an amphibious assault across the Atlantic would have been quite impossible. Finally Hitler's irritation with the Roosevelt Administration also would not have occurred without the United States meddling and siding with Great Britain. There would have been no war in the West. Without the United States having to place and give priority to an Atlantic fleet would have made a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor very unlikely, never mind the fact the Japanese would had a free hand to help themselves to the raw materials they needed from the defeated European powers possessions in Asia.
(Part 2) As for a Nazis Communist struggle Hitler's quote when he launched Operation Barbarosa would have been true, the whole world would have held their breath as the Nazis and Soviets slugged it out. No U.S. involvement would have occurred. Maybe the Japanese would have attacked the Soviets in the East which might have given the Nazis. Remember the Japanese were still smarting from their quick defeat at the hands of the Soviets in Mongolia but with the Soviets locked in a life and death struggle in the West they might have seized the opportunity to get revenge and seize some territory. The vast population, natural resources, (always underestimated) industrial production, and determination to win (defend Mother Russia) would have been very difficult to overcome even by a Nazi Army not under the control of an evil raving Madman like Hitler and his unholy Nazi henchmen. Actually the best thing the Nazis had going for them is that Russia was under the control of an evil, paranoid, Madman Stalin. If the Soviets as Stalin had contemplated did not surrender and make huge concessions the final factor that might have determined the victor between these two Juggernauts might very well have been the Atom bomb. The Nazis were not very far from an Atom bomb even with the heavy Allied bombing. It was a WWII-Cold war Myth that the Nazis were years away from developing an Atom bomb. Without the bombing they would have dropped the bomb on the Soviets by 1945. Whether it was Gorky, Moscow, or Kiev would be the only question and determined by who was doing better the Nazis or Communist. The Japanese if they entered the war would have used biological weapons on the Soviets by 1944 depending on the status of the war. The Soviets would have never developed the Atom bomb since they stole it from the United States which without the war would not have developed one and would not have mobilized for war.
1 to 10 of 10
