Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not just the army but how many naval vessels, aircraft and tanks did they have ? By they I mean
Germany
Japan
Italy
USSR
UK
France
USA
Is google not your friend?
I don't understand how France was defeated so quickly; they were very harsh toward Germany after World War 1 and were prepared for German expansion but still lost.
Not just the army but how many naval vessels, aircraft and tanks did they have ? By they I mean
Germany
Japan
Italy
USSR
UK
France
USA
They put most of their effort into the Maginot Line and Germany went around it.
I don't understand how France was defeated so quickly; they were very harsh toward Germany after World War 1 and were prepared for German expansion but still lost.
I don't agree Britain would have lost against the Germans: both HM Navy and the RAF would have beat back any sort of invasion.
How can you go around it ?
At their largest point? Or in total? Or at commencement or completion of hostilities?
Sorry for answering a question with a question, but that makes a considerable difference to what you're asking.
Size isn't everything. France lost for a variety of reasons, but the biggest is that they concentrated the forces in the wrong place and were outflanked by the Germans from an unexpected direction.I don't understand how France was defeated so quickly; they were very harsh toward Germany after World War 1 and were prepared for German expansion but still lost.
I don't agree Britain would have lost against the Germans: both HM Navy and the RAF would have beat back any sort of invasion.
All of them really; I want to see a forces comparison.
People say the Germans lost because they invaded Russia in the Winter but if I'm not mistaken, they took over parts of Russia and the Russians themselves sustained heavy casualties.
People also say the Germans would have beat Britain had there not been America. I disagree: while Britain may not have been able to liberate her allies from Nazi control, she had a very powerful navy and airforce which would have repelled German invasion.
Besides, the Russians took care of most of the German troops so a 2 pronged attack of Britain and Russia would have defeated the Germans
All of them really; I want to see a forces comparison.
People say the Germans lost because they invaded Russia in the Winter but if I'm not mistaken, they took over parts of Russia and the Russians themselves sustained heavy casualties.
People also say the Germans would have beat Britain had there not been America. I disagree: while Britain may not have been able to liberate her allies from Nazi control, she had a very powerful navy and airforce which would have repelled German invasion.
Besides, the Russians took care of most of the German troops so a 2 pronged attack of Britain and Russia would have defeated the Germans
Size isn't everything. France lost for a variety of reasons, but the biggest is that they concentrated the forces in the wrong place and were outflanked by the Germans from an unexpected direction.
As for whether or not Britain would have eventually lost, these hypotheticals are largely meaningless, because we can really only discuss what actually DID happen, as it happened. That said, if the UK had not received the support of the allies, eventually they likely would have been invaded and overrun eventually, but exactly how that would have played out we can't know.
disagree all you want, like I said earlier "things would have been different if things were different" discussions are fairly pointless.I disagree that we (Britain) would have been invaded by Germany had it not been for USA: maybe we would not have been able to liberate Europe but I'm sure we would have been able to repel any invasion and the Germans would have just given up. The Royal Navy and the RAF were extremely powerful and second only to the USA.
I disagree that we (Britain) would have been invaded by Germany had it not been for USA: maybe we would not have been able to liberate Europe but I'm sure we would have been able to repel any invasion and the Germans would have just given up. The Royal Navy and the RAF were extremely powerful and second only to the USA.
It was Guderian and his panzer tactics. Blitzkrieg. It worked on Poland and Russia too.I don't understand how France was defeated so quickly; they were very harsh toward Germany after World War 1 and were prepared for German expansion but still lost.
The Battle of Britain was what led to the cancelation of Operation Sealion. Hitler wanter air superiority, and Georing couldn't make it happen.I don't agree Britain would have lost against the Germans: both HM Navy and the RAF would have beat back any sort of invasion.
Hitler had no patience at all. He had a peace with Russia in 1940 and Stalin was happy about that. Hitler could have kept bleeding England in definitely. Sink cargo ships. Keep the pressure on the RAF. The big error is that Germany changed their focus of attack from the RAF airbases to the cities and manufacturing. That gave the RAF time to breathe and rebuild, and then beat the Luftwaffe. That was a blunder.If it was just Germany vs. Britain, and assuming Germany didn't have to worry about Russia or America getting involved, then they would have had all the resources and industries of continental Europe at their disposal. If Russia and all its resources were under German control, they would likely be able to build up an even more powerful air force and navy. That's all a lot of "what if," but within a few years, they might have built up a strong enough force to invade Britain.