Germany could never have beat England

Well they did manage to bomb London and with France beaten down and no war in the east things might have looked different.

And Britain managed to bomb Berlin. Quite a lot more than the Germans bombed London. Turns out strategic bombing is actually very ineffective at causing countries to collapse on its own.

If Germany wants to knock out the UK, a bigger Blitz isn't going to do it, and in any case they shot their bolt in the autumn of 1940. They'd need to either invade or to blockade out the overseas imports that Britain depended on, but neither option were realistically within the reach of Germany.

>Or people saying this are..

who?
Who are you talking to?
Just showing up out of nowhere with this laundry list of nonsense...?
Get a grip, here's a revelation pal, no one else can read your thoughts, there isn't some grand audience eagerly awaiting to debate you on your personal paranoia.

they can't fight each other forever someone is going to win in as time passes and without a russian campaign the brits would've folded in the end

>they can't fight each other forever

Why not?

>someone is going to win in as time passes

Why?

>and without a russian campaign the brits would've folded in the end

Why?

yes

If they could have, why didn't they accomplish even 1 of these most crucial objectives?

they absolutely could have successfully invaded england after dunkirk, but hitler thought he could talk england into joining the war on his side.

somewhat misleading statistics, as most of the allied bombs landed miles away from their targets and either hit civilians or hit nothing. the allied bombing campaigns were of little consequence militarily

why, history happened the way it did for a reason

Hitler could have done all of that if he wasn't such a good person.

British aircraft production outpaced German production every single month of the battle of britain.

The RN very quickly learned proper ASW and submarines lost their efficacy quite quickly after 1941 despite how many Germany threw at the Atlantic. Of the 900+ built over the course of the war more than 700 were built in 1942-45 and only 1/4 actually survived the war.

...

Not sure there's enough hyperbole there to satirise dumb opinions, somebody at some point on Veeky Forums has probably earnestly suggested something so stupid.

Yes, with that sealift they didn't have and the air superiority they didn't have and the battle for France still ongoing.

As opposed to the German bombing which wasn't any better? All those blown up hop fields, oh teh noes, what ever shall Britain do?

>Im going for running today
>at the end of the day:I wonder what would have happened if I invested my energy into something else
?? Are you this stupid?

German U-boat attacks on British shipping could have conceivably brought Britain to the point of capitulation as starvation & material shortages would have made it impossible for them to prosecute the war. That is until the US joined in the conflict.

Not really, no.

jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/236/251

Put simply, people don't realize how little impact the u-boat attacks did to the British war economy. Sure they sank a lot of tonnage, but the UK was actually self-sufficient agriculturally, if you were willing to eat potato every day, and while a lot of cargo ships were sunk, most of the needs of the British war industry was met because they could outsurce high bulk cargoes in need of refinement (usually ores of various sorts) to be smelted outside the UK (usually in the U.S.) before running the submarine gauntlet.

Furthermore, ability to upscale U-boat attacks was not something that would increase linearly. U-boats are something of the insurgents of the seas. They can't fight regular naval forces and win, they have to hope for unguarded merchant ships. As the war went on, British convoying efforts were more and more successful, especially since they could cover a huge chunk of the Atlantic with airpower that Germany couldn't really do the same, for lack of airbases.

There was a point in the battle of the Atlantic where U-boats were sinking more Allied tonnage than could be replaced with new ships which represented an existential threat to Britain's ability to sustain itself if it continued. Obviously it didn't but that's not to say it couldn't. A scenario with a US president less intent on shoring up Britain with loans & material could have conceivably seen a successful U-boat strategy against Britain.

>if they didn't invade the soviet union

then Stalin would have invaded Europe.

Best Germany could have done was to agree peace deal with Britain after Dunkirk and try and feed a home grown Natsoc french regime. Germany never truly took advantage of the almost intact french war machine they captured.

Could have maybe then beaten the USSR if they were smart (i.e. not hitler)

This. People casting these scenarios always act as if Stalin didn't exist.

The fuck are you even trying to say, /pol/tard?
He obviously didn't achieve any of those goals.

Oh look, it's a brit trying to polish the rust on his significance