I'm referring to questions like this one, which I did my best to fix. In its original form, its thrust was how would the world have been different in Germany had chosen not to fight Britain, minimizing conflict with that country, and deployed the "saved" resources to Operation Barbarossa.

That is too speculative, and far-reaching a question for most people's tastes, including mine. But there was the germ of a good question here, IMHO. I edited the question so that its new gist was "what were the potential "savings" from not actively fighting Britain?" (My answer: most of the 1887 fighters and bombers actually lost on the battle of Britain, plus additional aircraft that could have been built if Germany hadn't built the battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz. Germany could have conducted Operation Barbarossa with double (or more) the aircraft than she actually deployed.

At one level, I don't want to get into "what if" scenarios. On the other hand, I don't mind exploring the factual bases of these scenarios (as opposed to the possible outcomes.) That's because these factual bases are fraught with "potentialities" that underlie the actual results, and I want to know about these potentialities in evaluating what actually happened.

Is it possible to fix counterfactual questions in a manner such as described above and focusing them on the underlying facts?


It's possible to salvage them somewhat, as you've demonstrated. But I suspect such questions should get closed as off topic regardless for not being about history. Consider how, even after your edit, it's still not a good question in my view because any answer invites further "what if?" questions that rapidly devolve into yet more fiction and spherical cows in a vacuum.

"Germany could have saved and built lots of aircraft that it could have used on the East font!" But whether Germany is committed or not, the UK had no intent to stop fighting, and the more intense bombing raids would likely have rendered the point moot. Plus D-Day might have occurred much earlier had German forces been tied up further East or South-East.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .