As the Allies found it difficult to get through Italy, getting through Greece would be a challenge as well.
One thing also- even if Britain had been invaded and Germany had control of the British Isles (possibly excluding Northen Ireland) the UK had already made plans to continue fighting from Canada. They had transferred the gold reserves there and had made arrangements for the Navy to go there. I have no idea how successful this would have ended up. Scotland and Wales would have been difficult to conquer.
Anyway, there would still be the problem of Northern ireland. It would seem that could be made a fall back position if the Germans had made any sort of inroad into the main island. of course, all of the British Industry would then be lost.
Yeah, this hasn’t received enough emphasis, apparently. The Luftwaffe had no commitments in the East at this time and made an all-out effort against Britain. Radar was a decisive advantage for the RAF; the Germans were amazed at how many fighters the British had, but it wasn’t so much vast numbers they were seeing, it was the British system of radar and ground control enabling them to mass the fighters at key points that effectively multiplied the RAF. The German thought process went something like this: “They can’t have known we were coming…and if they have this many fighters here, they must have this many fighters patrolling everywhere else too, because otherwise statistically we’d hit an undefended spot sooner or later. That’s too many fighters; we’re losing.”
The defeat at Pearl came in spite of radar, which the Americans did not make essential to their defense system, or even trust.
It’s true that sometimes the British had to rush to meet incoming Germans that radar had detected, but it’s a mischaracterization to imply that radar wasn’t a huge help to their war effort.
I have to agree with Sailboat. Radar in respect to the UK was not the problem- it could detect aircraft. However it was in its early stages and the attacks in the channel were not all that far from the Luftwaffe airfields in France. It wasn’t that aircraft incoming were not detected, it was more that at that time (late 1940) there was insufficient time to get the fighters airborne and directed. It was deliberate to not have standing air patrols and conserve as many fighters as possible (losses had been heavy during the battle of France).
As important as radar was the British system of radio direction finding (High Frequency Direction Finding –“Huff-Duff”). This detects radio transmissions, and where they are coming from. If at least 2 or 3 stations hear the same transmission, they can locate the source pretty accurately. And the British had stations across southern England & Northern Ireland. (They also had them in Scotland, Iceland, & Canada, which was very helpful against German submarines.)
But most important was the system. These British stations worked together, reporting their ‘hearings’ to a central office, where they were coordinated and the results quickly communicated to British Navy & RAF defenders.
This radio detection system was probably even more important than radar, especially early on, when radar was not widely distributed and shorter range.
And it worked even when the radio transmissions were in code – they didn’t have to understand the messages – just that they were not ours, and then where they were located was enough information.
German forces never seemed to learn the value of radio silence. (Perhaps their political philosophy demanded the tight central control, and thus frequent reporting to headquarters.)
The required sighting reports from German U-boats were a great help to convoy defenders. As were the transmissions of the German Air Force. I have read stories of defenders in the Battle of Britain being able to hear German pilots talking with the airport tower at France airfields as they taxied for takeoff on a bombing raid to England. That certainly would allow the British to predict their arrival time!
"If Japan was still in the war, they’d have to be brought up from India or Iran into the Russian territory "
No, I do not mean invading over land from India or Iran. I mean invading by sea from Alaska or Seattle to somewhere in Kamchatka. There are obvious logistical difficulties in getting from the landing area to the front, but the invasion would be launched from the USA proper, the ideal staging area. While the landing zone would be difficult in terms of geography, there would be negligible resistance, allowing huge amounts of material to be landed.
If one argues that the Germans would have guarded the entire Russian eastern coast, then this would eliminate the advantages of no eastern front… they would have large numbers of troops deployed 5000 miles deep in occupied territory, accessible only by land through that occupied territory. Conversely, the invading force need only travel 1800 miles by sea from Seattle or 70 to a few hundred miles from Alaska, or some combination of these.
Air support would be possible from the continental US and Canada, making interference by the Japanese navy unattractive.
Difficult? Imagine trying to invade the US by landing an army group in Alaska, supplying them, and advancing them down through the Yukon, with American and Commonwealth naval forces attacking your supply transports. That would be the equivalent of attacking Germany through Kamchatka.