/his/fag here. This thread has been done hundreds of times but

File: 1466097625075.jpg (23KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 512x384px

Do americans wear shoes indoors?
Fucking yes.

>>134607340
Maybe. The Battle of Britain was still fought in the air. I think the main thing that would have been disastrous for the Battle of Britain if that happened would be morale.

Germans were still going to be hard pressed to actually take Britain.

>>134607340
Yes, had they stopped all 300,000 British troops from returning home. Then they could have likely pushed for a settlement.

Had they wanted to invade England, eh, probably not possible unless the Germans seized the French navy and merchant marine fleets to ferry troops across.

The British had almost nothing left to fight with after Dunkirk, as it was left on the beaches of surrounding towns.

>inb4 some retard comes in talking about how Hitler was being a "humanitarian" by "letting them go" rather than it being caused by a series of incompetent decisions by the German Command, actions taken by the Allies in holding off the approaching Germans, and other factors which couldn't have been avoided (e.g. environmental)

File: UnitedWeAreStrong_Flicr.com_WarAD.jpg (124KB, 355x500px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 355x500px

The British land forces would have been seriously crippled, but Operation Sealion still would never have happened. The Battle of Britain would still be a British victory and the Royal Navy would be still present.
The biggest change would be Germany would be defeated a few years later. Assuming everything in the East happened the same, by 1943 then the Germans would be falling back and trying to go back on the offensive- and failing.
German cities and industry would still be getting bombed by the RAF and USAAF. D-Day would eventually once the British troop loses at a failed Dunkirk had been built back up and once they were joined by their American and Canadian allies. By that point you may see an occupied France and Western Europe liberated by the UK/US/Canada/Free forces but Germany entirely controlled by the USSR since Zhukov was able to push past Berlin and to the Eastern side of the Siegfried line.
Germany would still suffer a complete defeat but the Soviets would have made more gains before peace was reached.

>>134607340

A few things could have happened;

Churchill would have been ousted, most likely, in favor of someone who would negotiate a peace with Germany.

The United States at the time were already trying to broker peace between Hitler and Britain.

I think a bigger factor would have been less "if Germany had captured the BEF at Dunkirk" but instead "If Hitler had listened to OKW at Dunkirk".

The first thing in that scenario is that the BEF is cut off and taken out of the game.

Secondly, if Hitler had ceded to OKW here and in subsequent campaigns, there are two other major turning points of the war that would have been resolved differently;

1. The defeat of the Soviet Union

OKW had the opportunity and means to defeat Russia very early in the conflict by taking Moscow. Hitler denied them the ability to do this, instead demanding they send forces south to capture the resource supplies, which he said would lead to Moscow crumbling eventually anyway.

2. Repelling the invasion on D-Day. OKW had a very good chance of successfully stopping the landing at Normandy, but Hitler forbid them from engaging, saying Goerring could handle it.

Goerring was the very weak link in the Germany military. Even after Dunkirk, the Battle Of Britain was necessary to make any sort of ground invasion feasible, and he completely fucked that up too.

>>134607848

Germans did seize the French navy (although technically part of the French surrender was that Germany was not supposed to use the navy - but they did later in the war anyway to some extent).

>>134607340
Where British citizens still armed back then?

If yes, then no. If no, then yes.

File: 1487272529162.jpg (53KB, 576x566px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 576x566px

>>134607340
>If the Germans had successfully cut off the evacuation at Dunkirk, would the outcome of WWII been any different?

you fucking idiot, of course

>>134608894

Churchill authorized the use of chemical warfare to protect landing sites.

Germany military also never understood how to correctly deploy amphibious landings. They didn't like water.

File: 1497462685813.jpg (40KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 420x420px

>>134608894
>Where British citizens still armed back then?

yes, the Home Guard but it was mostly old guys.

Hitler would've captured the Brit troops and demanded a peace deal for their return. The Germans kept them alive on the beaches because they were going to go there and snatch them, but they didn't bet on the massive civilian rescue force getting there first.

The outcome of the war would've been VERY different.

File: nazi invasion of britain.jpg (84KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 600x450px

>>134609434

>Implying Hitler didnt let them go back

>>134609896
>if you let your enemies go, you win

>>134607591
whats wrong with wearing Crocs in the house?

File: das boot.jpg (95KB, 1024x551px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1024x551px

>>134609896
>implying that somehow reflects well on Hitler

>>134608887
They didnt seize shit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling_of_the_French_fleet_in_Toulon

File: yellow.jpg (103KB, 700x711px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 700x711px

>>134607340
I saw this film today, and guys, it's not like the British are depicted as super-heroes or some shit, literally the most heroic guy in the whole film is some random [spoiler]pilot[/spoiler], other than that pretty much every Brit is out for himself.

A possible peace settlement.
Most likely though was its impact elsewhere. Those troops were the majority of trained British troops. The equipment could have been replaced easier than 300k trained soldiers. North Africa, Greece and the balkens would have been much different. Italy and Germany may have been able to take the Middle East.