I have a serious intellectual question.

[violet lightning]

If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia or started the Battle of Britain (the precurser to Operation Sea Lion-the German invasion of Britain) he might have acheived "victory" by keeping what he had conquered up until then. (virtually all of Europe, North Africa, etc) Hitler didn't relish invading Britain, so its possible that they might have reached an agreement or stalemate at least.
After Dunkirk, the Brits and Allies (before the US joined) were pretty beaten up. (But of course not defeated)

[smc]

Originally Posted by violet lightning

If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia or started the Battle of Britain (the precurser to Operation Sea Lion-the German invasion of Britain) he might have acheived "victory" by keeping what he had conquered up until then. (virtually all of Europe, North Africa, etc) Hitler didn't relish invading Britain, so its possible that they might have reached an agreement or stalemate at least.
After Dunkirk, the Brits and Allies (before the US joined) were pretty beaten up. (But of course not defeated)

Now we are getting into a different realm: how is "victory" defined by the different players.

I believe that for Hitler, despite that he "didn't relish invading Britain," victory was defined by domination and colonization that extended far beyond what he "had conquered up until then."

[tslust]

Originally Posted by violet lightning

If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia or started the Battle of Britain (the precurser to Operation Sea Lion-the German invasion of Britain) he might have acheived "victory" by keeping what he had conquered up until then. (virtually all of Europe, North Africa, etc) Hitler didn't relish invading Britain, so its possible that they might have reached an agreement or stalemate at least.
After Dunkirk, the Brits and Allies (before the US joined) were pretty beaten up. (But of course not defeated)

As long as Churchill was Prime Minister, it is hard to conceive of Britian negotiating anything with Hitler. In fact Hitler had hoped that the British would've sued for peace after the fall of France. However with the U-boat campaign in the Atlantic, the British were nearly brought to their knees. At one point, even with rationing, they were down to just three months of food left.

While all this was going on, the "Phony War', the fall of France, the Battle of Britian, Hitler and Stalin had a 10 year non-aggression pact that (on the surface) Stalin had no intention of breaking. In some schools of thought along with sketchy evidence, the Soviets were planning and preparing an invasion of Germany. Therefore, according to them, Operation Barbarossa was a pre-emptive attack.

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

... While all this was going on, the "Phony War', the fall of France, the Battle of Britian, Hitler and Stalin had a 10 year non-aggression pact that (on the surface) Stalin had no intention of breaking. In some schools of thought along with sketchy evidence, the Soviets were planning and preparing an invasion of Germany. Therefore, according to them, Operation Barbarossa was a pre-emptive attack.

I think that Stalin's theory of "socialism in one country" precludes that he would have invaded Germany. Everything he did -- from the non-aggression pact with Hitler to the betrayal of the Spanish Republic -- was done in the context of the practical application of that theory. It is where "peaceful coexistence" comes from. Trotsky's book The Revolution Betrayed, published in 1937, is a remarkable scientific analysis of Stalin's theory and how it spelled the ultimate end of the Soviet Union.