If Johnson and Jeffries had fought close to their primes...

An active but tiny German bund. And the American ambassador's opinion was in the minority.

...Aside from the widely prevalent anti-Nazi sentiment that you've denied existed, the huge amounts of money that the US was pumping into the UK through Lend-Lease (with little hope of getting back), and the fact that they were already waging an undeclared war against German submarines?

They were a couple years late in entering both conflicts. That has little to do with the question of whether they'd involve themselves after 1941, which the evidence suggests they would.

 

Whenever Mendoza personally attacks a historical figure you like, have this tendency to follow his lead and attack "his" historical figures just as unfairly.

Just about every head of state from Sargon of Akkad onward has cheated on his wife (except Richard Nixon).

Churchill joked about his drinking issues, but remained an amazing statesman who held back the Nazis. FDR cheated on his wife and brought the US into the war against Germany (while he had polio).

Who cares about all this prurient stuff? Honestly?

 

The RN was one of the major factors.

But if you're saying that the Germans would have won without the RN, then you're incorrect. Again, the British army ran wargames on this. The Germans didn't have the sealift capability to invade mainland Britain against the British army's opposition. That's just a matter of historical record.

In 1941/2? No. If it lasts until 1947 or 1948 like some are suggesting, then it might.

Where did I say that Vegetarian would be used in the UK? That would be suicidally stupid.

It would have been used (or threatened) against Germany if worst came to worst.

The Ukrainians got kicked around a lot by the Germans as well, which weakened the goodwill they'd garnered by "liberating" the Ukraine.

That many Ukrainians collaborated is true. That they were one of the groups targeted for eventual extermination is also true.

Those Ukrainian guards would have manned the extermination camps until there were no more Slavs from other areas of the former USSR, and then the Germans would have put them through as well.

 

Either a coup happens, or the German resistance stops being useless for once and kills Hitler, or Hitler sinks further into his amphetamine-and-powdered-bull's-testicles-fueled fugue and the generals run the war eventually anyway.

Giving the Germans better production means that they've got a couple more years before they collapse.

D-Day affects the Eastern Front indirectly. If, as you argue, the British won't be able to make a D-Day landing, that frees up troops from France and reduces the expense of building the Atlantic Wall.

I'm not talking about outproducing them, though. In fact, I took great pains to point out that Germany wouldn't have been outproducing both of them. Even equaling Russia's output probably would have been sufficient.

Again, I think part of the problem is that we're working from different sources that focused on different aspects of the conflict.

The fuel ration's still an issue, yes. Probably the biggest one they'll have to deal with. Even that will be reduced, though, without a gigantic bombing campaign.

They won't be stuck and freezing in Russia forever. Hitler can whine and cry about standing and dying like Germans all he likes. The Russians will push the Germans back eventually, and the front will stabilize closer to Germany

Likewise. :good

 

Whence the desperation, though? Britain isn't falling to Germany with the Germans and Russians beating each other up in the East.

It's not a question of insensitivity so much as something that the independence movement could cause serious problems for mass conscription in India.

Speer (as Minister of Armaments, who knew what he was talking about), Overy (who looked into the issue), and the Allies' own postwar bombing survey all disagree with this.

Yeah, some factories could be reassembled after a couple weeks of delay. That does not mean that the bombing -- and Germany's responses to it -- did not severely harm the production effort.

A second front without American manpower against some of the worst defensive terrain they could have picked, and no American generals pushing against Churchill's delusional belief that Italy was the Axis's "soft underbelly".

This, I think, is the salient point.

The Soviets who pushed the Germans back in 1943/44 were moving on Lend-Lease stuff. Without that, Russian weapons production falls to compensate for their need for logistical stuff.