What if the battle of britain was lost by England

[Chomper98]

One thing that has become something that is less used then the more popular D-day failure type alternate history but more plausible, as D-day simply was the springboard, and of the millions of troops in britain, less then 160,000 landed at D-day, so it would have simply lengthened the war.

But if the gallant RAF lost, then what would have happened. I have studied this and came up with two scenarios, that the Royal Navy obliterated the German invading fleet, or that the germans used the Lufwaffe to distract the navy while the German fleet landed.

Once out of the way of the RN, the British would have been cut down by the Germans as they advanced, though the Germans would also fight the entire free French, Polish, Dutch, Belgian, Norwegian, and Danish forces.

Such a battle could have been anyone's game, but if the Lufwaffe succeeded in crippling the Royal Navy, then they could continuosly pour more and more troops into Britain, eventually ending on sheer numbers.

With the army lost, the navy crippled, and the Air Force obliterated, then only the home guard would stand, but they too would eventually fall. Of course, after that Germany would have to deal with Russia, and if Japan still bombed Pearl Harbor, then also America, though America needed a beach head, perhaps attack Africa and then using that as a springboard for invading britain, all the while the Germans are getting their lines shredded by the Soviets.

Eventually America would invade Italy and defeat Mussolini, then send a force to invade Britain. America would likely win an invasion of Nazi-occupied England, and then the Americans would launch D-day.

After that they would likely advance into the Rhine, and eventually capture all of germany.

This scenario is based on my research on the subject, what are your theories on what would have happened. This is just speculation.

[Kor]

1 think I guess that may have happened, is Japan may not be the only country that the USA used a nuke on.

[Nick22]

you are forgetting that defeating britian would have ended the war- as Russia was not in the war until 1941. if vbbritian falls then the entire calculus changes. with britian out, germany can turn its undivided focus to russia assuming it still invades in june 1941. russia would have felt the combined onslaught of the combined axis powers, alone. one event changed in history, changes everything.  while the Us was the most powerful country in the wiorld, defeating 3 powerful countries on its own would have been a very tall task. what helped the allies win is that it was the work of several powerful countries. d-day could not have been attempted without the planning and assistence of britian, so it doesnt fail, no , it isnt even attempted.

[Chomper98]

you are forgetting that defeating britian would have ended the war- as Russia was not in the war until 1941. if vbbritian falls then the entire calculus changes. with britian out, germany can turn its undivided focus to russia assuming it still invades in june 1941. russia would have felt the combined onslaught of the combined axis powers, alone. one event changed in history, changes everything.  while the Us was the most powerful country in the wiorld, defeating 3 powerful countries on its own would have been a very tall task. what helped the allies win is that it was the work of several powerful countries. d-day could not have been attempted without the planning and assistence of britian, so it doesnt fail, no , it isnt even attempted.

That is why I speculated that. But my research has led me to this conclusion: Japan would have eventually been defeated IF Russia had not been already crushed. Also, the Russians outnumbered the Germans five to one, but if the Japanese helped then even the Red Army might not stop them. However, despite an Axis victory, America would still stand, and America's powerful navy might fail, and Germany could use Russia to cross into Alaska and invade the U.S while Japan might invade from California. But if the Americans put up a good fight and managed to hold out long enough for their industry and man power to take effect, then Germany and Japan would lose by sheer numbers, and we have to take into account the losses suffered, even if Germany defeated Russia, then likely atleast half a million of their army would have likely been killed. Also, America would be fighting for its home soil, and they would fight back with extreme prejudice, the Americans might also volunteer by the millions, also, the Americans would be dealing with an overextended German and Japanese force. In the end, America would likely win, by a similar way Russia did. It would have been long and bloody, but the U.S. may have pulled through.

[f-22 "raptor" ace]

Actually America probably would have fallen if that happened chomper98.  Cause Germany and Japan would have had the resources and the manpower to take the US on and win.

[Chomper98]

Actually America probably would have fallen if that happened chomper98.  Cause Germany and Japan would have had the resources and the manpower to take the US on and win.

But occupying Russia and Europe aswell as much of asia would overextend the Germans and Japanese, possibly to the point of the peoples rebelling.

[f-22 "raptor" ace]

Actually America probably would have fallen if that happened chomper98.  Cause Germany and Japan would have had the resources and the manpower to take the US on and win.

But occupying Russia and Europe aswell as much of asia would overextend the Germans and Japanese, possibly to the point of the peoples rebelling.

they would have the resources of those countries as well and don't forget there were people who helped the occupying forces.

and they probably would have rebuilt their forces before attacking america. and don't forget america would probably still be isolationist a bit. that is if we assume japan still attacks pearl harbor in 1941. if not the american public would have been against war. also with Britain under German control we must assume most of the empire would also fall under axis control. and without Britain there would be no resistance movements since they were all supplied by Britain.

[Malte279]

Thing is that with what if scenarios it doesn't usually work out plausibly for such large scale events like the Battle of Britain (unlike in case of such singular events like an assassination plot or the like) to just end out differently without a wider scope of circumstances to be differed as well.
British production of fighter planes in summer 1940 was almost twice as high as the German production of fighters, so the relatively small numerical superiority of German fighter planes at the beginning of the battle (not counting in the bombers here) ceased relatively soon. More importantly the fighting took place over British soil, so a Royal Air Force pilot bailing out of a damaged plane or crashlanding could return to service the next day (if unwounded), while Luftwaffe pilots would in that case end up as POWs there (I have known one pilot to whom exactly that happened) by which the Luftwaffe lost many pilots of a combat experience the value of which cannot be put down in numbers. A major factor was also that the German Messerschmitt Bf 109E had fuel for only round about 20 minutes above British soil (no drop tanks available at the time) which meant that it was sufficient for British fighters to keep the German fighters occupied for a while to ensure for them to run out of fuel thereby forcing them to head home and becomming easy targets in the process. The other German main fighter, the two engined Messerschmitt Bf 110 did not suffer from the range problem as much, but she was easy prey to the much more manouverable British Spitfires and Hurricanes. As a consequence Bf 110 pilots resorted to forming a circle (sometimes called "carousel" by them) with each plane protecting the one in front and eliminating the "dead" angle below which the rear gunner of the Bf 110 couldn't reach. While this made survival of the Bf 110 crews more likely, it also eliminated them from their main task, the protection of the bombers.
The success of D-Day four years later was only possible through extremely extensive preparations and sometimes painful experiences (landing at Dieppe, invasion of Sicily, Operation Avalanche, Tiger Exercise etc.), a huge deception (Operation Fortitude) to maintain the element of surprise, the majority of the German troops being in Russia, and last but not least a superiority in material and numbers that by far exceeded the superiority in material and numbers which the Germans had over Great Britain in late 1940. With Winston Churchill the British had a premier at the time who left no doubt about the fact that he would not give up (speech before the house of commons on June 4th):

We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender...

And who also managed to inspire the British at a time when a collapse of the political will and fighting spirit could have been the main danger while the actual military success of an invasion of Great Britian would have been extremely unlikely (unlike the carefully planned and long prepared operation overlord operation Seelˆwe, the German plan for an invasion of Great Britain was sort of improvised quickly).
As for scenarios of a successful German and / or Japanese invasion of the US mainland I must say (and no offense whatsoever is intended here) that these scenarios are absurd. The supply lines for an invasion of the US mainland would have been many thousands of miles long. The same is true of course for some of the island hopping invasions the US undertook in the pacific, but it is a huge difference whether the target of such an invasion is a small island of limited forces and often cut from the own supply routes or a huge continent with hundret millions of people on it. None such invasion has taken place in the war and it would have been more devastating than an invasion of Japan would have become (which again is much smaller in terms of distances and had been bombed for almost two years already with strategic bombers to which neither Germany nor Japan had any equivalent). Also the assumption of Germany just occupying the rest of the world seems to be based on the idea that once the government is out the people of the occupied territory would have all just collaborated and supported the Axis war efforts rather than starting the kind of partisan warfare that we did see even in the much smaller regions which have actually been occupied by the axis powers (and while British support was a helpful factor for this, it was not a precondition. There was not so much British support for the partisans on the Balkan for example as there was in the regions closer to Great Britain. Nonetheless the partisan war on the Balkan was likely the one most draining to the Germans (and responded to in the most brutal and inhumane fashion)).
While an invasion of Great Britain might have been successful, albeit under circumstances so different from the historical facts that the resulting scenario leaves very little but a few names to be maintained as "historical" a successful invasion of the US in WW2 would require circumstances so differently that the result would really maintain nothing historical at all but rather resemble a science fiction story about super-strength and technologically far advanced alliens invading the planet earth.

From a history-based point of view the question would be more interesting under which different circumstances the battle of Britain might have worked out differently rather than asking for the consequences of a different outcome without considering the necessarily different preconditions first.

[jansenov]

Ah, the fall of Britain. An ASB (Alien Space Bats) event, but I'll tag along.

The fall of Britain would have meant the complete pacification of the Western front. Therefore, Germany's could pursue its masterplan with impunity, that is the conquest of Poland and the USSR, killing most of their population and replacing them with Germans. In Mein Kampf, Hitler said he expected a population of 250 million Germans by the end of the century.

With its Western flank secure, Germany woud have a considerably greater chance of defeating the USSR. Although, the fall of Britain would likely be a wake-up call and the USSR could have been better prepared.

An Axis-dominated Eurasia would be very likely. In order for the USA to survive, it would have to make sure that its navy could deny the Axis access to the Americas. In the short term, it would be doable. In the long term, however, the combined might of the world's largest continent (and probably Africa to boot) would become overwhelming. The USA's only chance for long-term survival would be to develop nuclear weapons.

Actually, if it can have nukes AND balistic missiles in time, the USA could defeat the Axis and become the world's only relevant military power. In this case, the systematic genocide that the Axis powers would likely commit on the peoples of Eurasia would make sure that Americans feel no reservations at using everything at their disposal.

In any case, the fall of Britain would make WW2 far bloodier. In any case many more Poles, Ukrainians, Russians and Chinese would die, and it is likely that many more Germans, Japans, Italians, Brits and Americans would die as well.

[jansenov]

While I agree with the post I made above, I'm not proud of it because it is embarrasingly vague.

I don't think that, even with all of Eurasia under them, the Axis would have the strength to invade the USA directly. I was thinking about a scenario where several years after the fall of the USSR, the Axis destroys the U.S. Navy in a war of attrition and lands in South America, preferably in Brazil or Colombia, who would put a much weaker resistance than the USA. There the Axis will build a great land force, pile up as many supplies as possible and then move north.

This too is an incredibly difficult and incredibly bloody scenario, but I think it has a greater chance of success than a direct invasion.

[Chomper98]

The most plausible scenario I can come up with is this: Germany wins the Battle of Britain, and prepares to launch an invasion, fortunatley the navy led by the good ol' Hood crushes the German invasion force, so Germany must now turn to cutting Britain's supply lines with whatever they have left, likely, the Lufwaffe keeps bombing British industrial targets to prevent the rebuilding of the RAF, and Germany's commerce raiders would continue attacking the British convoys, while the Lufwaffe would likely turn to the British navy, they would do a Pearl-Harbor style attack on the British naval bases and then, with much of the navy in tatters, the Germans could send another fleet led by Bismarck and Tirpitz to land.

They would likely bombard a british port until it surrendered, and then they would land troops in it. Afterwards, they could continuously ferry troops across while the Lufwaffe does its job. Britain was a sea power, not a land power, so it would have likely been defeated by mid 1941 in this strategy.

Afterwards, the Germans could turn to the eastern front, and send most of their available army to attack the Russians. With more troops available, then perhaps Barbarossa could be successful, though it was really Hitler's decision that Guderian's panzers assist the army in taking Kiev that saved Moscow, if that didn't happen, then Moscow would have fallen and perhaps Stalin, like Hitler, would commit suicide in his bunker.

With Russia neutralized, then Germany would indeed be victorious, and they would likely assist Japan in its war against China. But still, there would be one thorn in the side of the Axis.

Hitler felt that America was the most dangerous of the three possible enemies he could face, coupled with its vast manpower reserves, strong navy, and industry, then a fight between the two would have been disastrous.

Even if America had a small army, they always have raised enormous armies when needed, in the civil war their small army went to 2 million strong in the entire war, with 500,000 at the beginning, at the same time, in World War I, they went from 28,000 to 3 million.

So if America faced Germany, then it would have been a fight that was anyones game, plus, Canada and many other nations would rally behind the US to defend themselves, and the combined might of that might be enough to defeat even the Nazis.