Mandy Lifeboats Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 hour ago, Captain_Townsend said: Not a chance. Absolute non starter. We hanged some individuals suspected of collaborating with Germany during WW2. we were one of the most stable democracies in Europe in 1939 with a new constitution ratified by referendum in December 1937. We would never, ever have gone to the Axis. I agree. This is a thread to discuss hypothetical scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marka Ragnos Posted February 14 Author VT Supporter Share Posted February 14 (edited) 3 hours ago, osmark86 said: I'm not sure native Americans would agree to this based on historical contact with British settlers. The British Empire has been quite cruel throughout history. But to have been at the scale of the Americans, I dunno you probably have a point there. Colonial America have a metric ****-ton of blood on their hands in relation to the indigenous Americans. It’s almost impossible to imagine how the world would’ve been different had Britain prevented the American revolution or won the war of American American independence. There’s certainly some examples of terrible things done by the British military to the Native Americans, and it’s somewhat hard to not be cynical about some of the “good things” they did, because some of them seem like they were motivated by larger military strategies. But overall, I think the British would have put a stop to the haphazard building of settlements in the New World. Another huge related question is what a British America would’ve done with slavery. I believe the slave trade was outlawed in Britain in 1807. But would that have happened controlled America? Edited February 14 by Marka Ragnos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 We certainly wouldn’t have allowed some pervert to put pineapple on a pizza. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted February 14 VT Supporter Share Posted February 14 What if some bloke hadn't decided to start pulling on a cows tits. Looked at the milk he'd stolen and then thought to himself "I wonder what will happen if I now murder it's calf, slit open its stomach and pour the contents into that milk?" I also wonder why this guy wasn't arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 @Captain_Townsend Perhaps you’d like to explain why you’re posting confused reactions to my posts? I’m always happy to listen to alternate viewpoints if you’ve got counterpoints to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osmark86 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 42 minutes ago, Marka Ragnos said: It’s almost impossible to imagine how the world would’ve been different had Britain prevented the American revolution or won the war of American American independence. There’s certainly some examples of terrible things done by the British military to the Native Americans, and it’s somewhat hard to not be cynical about some of the “good things” they did, because some of them seem like they were motivated by larger military strategies. But overall, I think the British would have put a stop to the haphazard building of settlements in the New World. Another huge related question is what a British America would’ve done with slavery. I believe the slave trade was outlawed in Britain in 1807. But would that have happened controlled America? With how prisons work and how many people are always incarcerated in the USA, even to this day one wonders if we can really argue that slavery was ever truly abolished in America. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 2 hours ago, chrisp65 said: Perhaps slightly more realistically, what if fascist Spain had declared an interest and had actively joined the fight? Always thought it odd they didn’t. That’s a really interesting question. Apparently (again according to Wikipedia) they explored joining the Axis but initially didn’t because they were reliant on imports from the US and they were still rebuilding their military after the civil war. By the time joining became a realistic possibility, the tide had already turned against the Axis so they decided to sit things out. So maybe it wouldn’t have changed too much overall? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marka Ragnos Posted February 14 Author VT Supporter Share Posted February 14 7 hours ago, osmark86 said: With how prisons work and how many people are always incarcerated in the USA, even to this day one wonders if we can really argue that slavery was ever truly abolished in America. Yes. Or in Africa, where it remains rife. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 On 13/02/2024 at 17:46, chrisp65 said: Sir Oswald Mosley (Baronet) was part of the english establishment, supported by Lord Rothermere (The Daily Mail), and headed the British Fascists headquartered in London and estimated to have had tens of thousands of members. Finally got around to watching “Lost film of WWII” that I recorded back in Aug 2022 , and it opens with colour footage of their big march through London in May 39 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 7 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Finally got around to watching “Lost film of WWII” that I recorded back in Aug 2022 , and it opens with colour footage of their big march through London in May 39 Don’t tell me how it ends, I’ve just started watching The World At War documentary series. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboy54 Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 What would have happened if Nazi Germany had defeated Russia in WW2? What would have happened if the US continued to sit on the fence to see how much money they could make out of WW2 before being drawn into war? We would have lost the Battle of Britain if Germany continued to bomb our airfields instead of switching to bombing our cities after we accidentally dropped a bomb on one of theirs Where would the Villa be this season if we had no injuries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 1 hour ago, delboy54 said: We would have lost the Battle of Britain if Germany continued to bomb our airfields instead. This is one of those historical "facts" that is now seen as propaganda. Many say that we were never in danger of losing the Battle of Britain. Our Spitfire production was very good. Most of our pilots that bailed out returned to their units to fight again. Whereas German pilots became POW. Our radar network was superb (for that point in history) and Spitfire production quickly increased to sufficient levels. Had the RAF been in danger of being eradicated they would have moved the airfields from the SE to the NW which would have made them relatively safe. The German decision to switch to bombing cities at night was because they miscalculated the number of fighters we had left. Due to a blunder in paperwork they mistook the number of remaining Spitfires for the number of remaining fighters. That's one hell of a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 5 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: This is one of those historical "facts" that is now seen as propaganda. Many say that we were never in danger of losing the Battle of Britain. Our Spitfire production was very good. Most of our pilots that bailed out returned to their units to fight again. Whereas German pilots became POW. Our radar network was superb (for that point in history) and Spitfire production quickly increased to sufficient levels. Had the RAF been in danger of being eradicated they would have moved the airfields from the SE to the NW which would have made them relatively safe. The German decision to switch to bombing cities at night was because they miscalculated the number of fighters we had left. Due to a blunder in paperwork they mistook the number of remaining Spitfires for the number of remaining fighters. That's one hell of a mistake. So what we’re actually saying, is what would have happened if ze Germans had had access to excel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 15 Moderator Share Posted February 15 18 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: So what we’re actually saying, is what would have happened if ze Germans had had access to excel? And didn’t put Zer Dido Hardingstfurher in charge of it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osmark86 Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 11 hours ago, Marka Ragnos said: “Gen Z’ers have it considerably harder than preceding Gens.” Hang on. No, they don’t. Who made that claim? Either way I'm sure the class of 1346 begs to differ. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 6 minutes ago, bickster said: And didn’t put Zer Dido Hardingstfurher in charge of it Now there’s a name that quietly slipped from the spotlight when they really shouldn’t have. There has been so much stuff piled on stuff and the public memory will be massively swung by whatever’s in the news in the month before an election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: This is one of those historical "facts" that is now seen as propaganda. Many say that we were never in danger of losing the Battle of Britain. Our Spitfire production was very good. Most of our pilots that bailed out returned to their units to fight again. Whereas German pilots became POW. Our radar network was superb (for that point in history) and Spitfire production quickly increased to sufficient levels. Had the RAF been in danger of being eradicated they would have moved the airfields from the SE to the NW which would have made them relatively safe. The German decision to switch to bombing cities at night was because they miscalculated the number of fighters we had left. Due to a blunder in paperwork they mistook the number of remaining Spitfires for the number of remaining fighters. That's one hell of a mistake. Was it a paperwork blunder? I thought they just didn't have decent intel on the RAF. The Germans were famously bad at spying on Britain - I think there's some stupid fact like literally every single German spy sent to Britain was immediately picked up by MI5, because they nabbed one of the first ones to land and turned him into a double agent. So they ended up with advance warning of every new agent the Germans sent over and it all turned into a bit of a clown show. In terms of actually tracking the number of planes shot down from Luftwaffe reports - that's also surprisingly hard to do, as pilots would usually exaggerate the number of enemies they'd shot down. It wasn't necessarily intentional, it's just in the chaos of a dogfight there'd often be multiple pilots attacking the same target and when they saw it explode they'd all think "great, I got a kill" and you'd end up with one kill being reported as two or three different kills. That's why Britain ended up having to put spotters on the ground to watch the dogfights and make sure the numbers being reported were as accurate as possible. Edited February 15 by Panto_Villan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 15 VT Supporter Share Posted February 15 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: Was it a paperwork blunder? I thought they just didn't have decent intel on the RAF. The Germans were famously bad at spying on Britain - I think there's some stupid fact like literally every single German spy sent to Britain was immediately picked up by MI5, because they nabbed one of the first ones to land and turned him into a double agent. So they ended up with advance warning of every new agent the Germans sent over and it all turned into a bit of a clown show. In terms of actually tracking the number of planes shot down from Luftwaffe reports - that's also surprisingly hard to do, as pilots would usually exaggerate the number of enemies they'd shot down. It wasn't necessarily intentional, it's just in the chaos of a dogfight there'd often be multiple pilots attacking the same target and when they saw it explode they'd all think "great, I got a kill" and you'd end up with one kill being reported as two or three different kills. That's why Britain ended up having to put spotters on the ground to watch the dogfights and make sure the numbers being reported were as accurate as possible. Britain intelligence had the entire German spy network in their pocket, virtually from day one - right to the very top, as the head of the Abwehr, Admiral Canaris, was effectively working against the Nazis. For example, in connection with the speculations upthread about Spain, Hitler sent Canaris to try and persuade Franco to join in, but he did the exact opposite, and advised him to stay out - which he did. In the end, Canaris was rumbled, and paid with his life. Edited February 15 by mjmooney 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboy54 Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: This is one of those historical "facts" that is now seen as propaganda. Many say that we were never in danger of losing the Battle of Britain. Our Spitfire production was very good. Most of our pilots that bailed out returned to their units to fight again. Whereas German pilots became POW. Our radar network was superb (for that point in history) and Spitfire production quickly increased to sufficient levels. Had the RAF been in danger of being eradicated they would have moved the airfields from the SE to the NW which would have made them relatively safe. The German decision to switch to bombing cities at night was because they miscalculated the number of fighters we had left. Due to a blunder in paperwork they mistook the number of remaining Spitfires for the number of remaining fighters. That's one hell of a mistake. At the risk of straying off topic... Not sure about this as propaganda I will need to do some research...Hitler did mention in a speech about if one bomb falls on Berlin then thousands will fall on London Issue with moving spitfire bases further away from the South coast would have been inviting the Germans to fly over much of Southern England instead of tackling them on the coast and over the channel before they reached London What was the fuel range of a Spitfire?, if they were based in Manchester (the NW) its a lot further to fly to the Channel/Southern England to head off the Luftwaffe, and wasn't the amount of ammo that a Spitfire could carry limited to a few seconds burst before having to land and re ammo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marka Ragnos Posted February 15 Author VT Supporter Share Posted February 15 5 hours ago, osmark86 said: Who made that claim? Either way I'm sure the class of 1346 begs to differ. Misposted -- is that a word? -- in this forum. Was supposed to be in Unpopular Opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts