Lanius

Am I that autistic?

<:yes:632180248833949706>

Thanks.

No problem

@httphey yes, it is

@Deleted User 1) Without Lend-Lease, Britain would have starved and not been able to manufacture enough planes for the Battle of Britain.
2) Without Churchill, and with a more reasonable leader, Britain would have made peace with Germany and as a result would have kept their empire and have remained more powerful than they became after the war because of Churchill's insane bloodlust.
3) There were talks to get the Soviets to join the Axis war effort, but they demanded too much of Europe. Had they not, the Soviets would have attacked British India and started a revolution there, which would have greatly weakened Britain.
4) Had Italy not invaded Greece, Germany would not need to tie down resources and manpower there, thus Operation Barbarossa would have started in the spring when it was supposed to and would have been a lot more successful.
5) Without Lend-Lease, the Soviets would have been unable to manufacture enough guns or tanks for their army and wo hi old have starved to death as well.
6) There were peace negotiations throughout the war, any one of them could have been successful had cooler heads prevailed.
7) Germany could have not had a literal double agent be the one trying to persuade Spain to join the war prior to Hitler's meetings with Franco.
8) Hitler could have just accepted Franco's (outrageous) demands to join the war anyway as that would have closed Gibraltar for Britain.
9) Germany could have simply not declared war on the US. Yes it would have violated their alliance with Japan, but it would have also taken away the US's excuse to get directly involved in the European war.
10) Hitler could have tried to get Japan to invade the USSR rather than the European and American holdings in the Pacific.

A lot of these aren't weren't in Germany's control, yes, but that doesn't mean they weren't close to winning.

I think Churchill's actions were justified at the time

They made sense

Obviously the end result was bad, but saying it was blood lust or something was dumb. If you put yourself in Britain's shoes in 1940, losing WW2 would seem a surer way to lose the Empire. We won WW1 and that fucked over our empire, so losing another war after that embarassment?

They weren't justified

He appealed to war industrialists

Firstly, who do you refer to? Secondly, Hitler did that as well.

Krupp?

What's the issue there?

@Deleted User

@Deleted User

I'm referring to the investors that wished to continue the war

Aka war profiteers

Germany didn't have those forms of industrialists, since ownership and management worked differently at the time

@Vlaaaad also, throwing insults at pagans won't change their mind

@Deleted User Why did you @ me

Also it wasn't a good idea, the war effort was sustained purely on loans from the US

After 1940

The empire died out either way

It would have survived, though in a reduced state probably, had Britain made peace in 1940

@Deleted User ok so? Think about the commonly held beliefs after WW2 about Britain's participation. We thought we were great after the war and that's what Churchill wanted.

We lost the empire because of labour

Aka jews

Churchill could have maybe kept the empire intact if he remained PM after the war but even then Britain would not have been a world power and the war they waged to keep the balance of power in Europe would have still completely thrown off the balance of power in Europe

@Deleted User exactly. Churchill thought he would stay PM. How could he not? After doing such a thing? Lloyd George fucked up in WW1 but he stayed in, so why didn't Churchill? Hmmm.

Churchill had little to do witht he actual declaration of war

And he himself I don't think cared about the balance of power

He should have had the foresight to see that the real threat was communism and that running your war effort off of loans and being otherwise broke is not a good idea

Firstly, he needed to run the war effort somehow and secondly he saw the Soviets as a threat it's just the Americans wouldn't support the plan to attack them.

Yeah after 4 years of war the American public was not too keen on a war with a country they had just allied with

Can't blame them

@Deleted User 1) Britain was a global empire that could easly survived without a lend lease, not to mention they already had a massive air force and navy.
2) yes but Churchill was still in power, its very to say you could win a war of you cahnge historical events, ISIS would conquer the world too if 95% of the population converted to Islam
3) The reds needed to be crushed not allied with, and besides it would be a false alliance, the Soviets would invade when they saw their chance
4) The resources spent in Greece would have not been enough to stop the Soviet onslaugth
5) Again the American lend lease war minor to the soviets, it helped but it wasnt crucial for the war, and what lind of navy did you expect Germany to build ? They couldnt even compete with Britain, what males you think they could stand up to the combined naval power of France, the UK, and the US ? They couldnt, even if they spent all their efforts into it
6) Peace would never come as long as the allied leadership remained
7) Spain would NEVER join the war as long as Franco was in power, their country was in no position to go to war after the civil war ended, half of the country wanted the regime overthrown, and there was alot of infigthing withing the Nationalists
8) Read the previous point
9) What makes you think the US would stay neutral, they were a capitalist oligarchy already supporting Britain and the rest of the allies
10) Yes because an invasion of Siberia from a nation in desperate need of fuel is such an amazing idea, it wouldnt go badly at all

Too many factors needed to be changed

To the point where it becomes more fiction than reality