ljadw wrote: ↑
27 Jul 2020 18:33
2) There is no proof that Stalin would have done if there was no Barbarossa what you claim he could/would have done .
WHY would he invade Iran ?
I told you why he'd be interested in the Persian Gulf. Dominating the oil and expanding communism into the Empires, which were decrepit and ripe to fall.
After the choice of Willkie as GOP candidate, war with the US was inevitable : peace draft, 2 ocean navy, LL,...
War between the US and Germany was likely by June 1940. But not inevitable. The most important factor to keeping the US neutral were French independence and Germany being on good terms with the USSR. Both of these things were within Germany's control.
General time was running against Germany, that's why at the end of June Hitler was thinking of Barbarossa in 1940 .
The issue in 1940 was the weakness of the British Empire, not its strength. If Hitler let Stalin alone, then Stalin - by his own letter to Hitler in 1940 - was going to resolve Finland, clarify matters with Japan, and expand southwards into Bulgaria, Turkey and the Persian Gulf. Time was not 'running against' Germany. Either the US came in (in which case time did not matter), or it did not, (in which case time did not matter).
If Germany withdrew from France, a new BEF would land in Normandy and everything would restart : what Germany conquered by force, it had to conserve it by force
Highly amusing. If Germany made peace with France, Germany would retain the Maginot Line and the important fortresses in Belgium. If the British actually did what you suggest - land in Normandy with a BEF - then the German army would erupt from behind the Maginot Line, obliterate the BEF in a swift campaign, then withdraw back to the Maginot Line, all as part of the peace treaty with France.