Could the UK have defeated the Nazis on its own

[discovery1]

After seeing the sidetracking of "who will America conquer/liberate next" I pose this question in its own forum: Could Europe(probably meaning just the UK) have defeated the Nazis and guarantee a non-Soviet western Europe. Try to keep this country bashing free and try to use documents to back up your opinions.

My opinion: without US aid democracy in Europe would probably be limited to the UK(and Sweden, maybe). I think that the UK could hold out against, but not defeat the nazis(the vast majority of UK fighters in the Battle of Britain were built there, yes?). As evidence I supply this (http://www.onwar.com/articles/f0302.htm) the wartime GDPs of the Axis and Allied powers. Look at the GDPs of the UK, the US, the Germany, and the USSR. You will see why I draw my conclusions.

[PanzerJaeger]

No, it couldnt defeat the Germans, and it surely wouldnt be able to hold out vs the communists, who would have beat the Germans eventually even without US help.

I believe it could have fought off the Nazis and kept its independence, but not the communists, who had their eyes on all of europe.

[meravelha]

Not a snowballs chance.

Next Question:

Would the Soviet Union have won the war even without D-Day?

Though they couldn't have won without US supplies, by spring 1944 the outcome of the war was no longer in doubt.

[Oaty]

Well with less money needed to be spent in the west what could germany have thrown at russia. I have a feeling that either moscow or Stalingrad would have fallen for sure. Was'nt it just east of Stalingrad where all of Russias oil(or most of it) came from. This was hitlers main target anyways and had plans for his Africa core and the troops fighting the Russiains to meet in the rich oil fields of the East. If Staligrad did hold out what stopped Rommel from getting to the rear of the Russian line because without a U.S. threat in north africa there would need to be less reserves in Africa

[lonewolf371]

Britain might have been able to defeat Nazi Germany eventually, recall that 300 years earlier they were in a similar position versus Napoleon and in the end they defeated him as well. US involvement basically sped the process up by a few decades.

Don't forget: Hitler was in the end crazy, Brits are only a little insane. https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Rosacrux]

UK? Win? Against Germany? https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Yeah, right... you heard the other joke with the blonde... https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-clown.gif

Jokes aside, UK didn't stand a chance. If Germany hadn't diverted their powers to East and West, UK would be history since 1941, but little Adolf looked to the Brits as potential allies, while his personal super-enemy was Communism https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

UK lasted because of German stupidity and (secondary) American supplies and support.

If we go further down the road, I do believe Germany would eventually lose to the Soviets anyway (with or without the Americans) and that would've sealed the future of Europe: USSRofWesternEurope https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

WW2 intervention has to be the single action of that ravaging imperialist cowboys (the Merkies https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) that I am greatfull for https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasaryes.gif

[Hetman]

Quote[/b] (lonewolf371 @ July 21 2004,01:01)]Britain might have been able to defeat Nazi Germany eventually, recall that 300 years earlier they were in a similar position versus Napoleon and in the end they defeated him as well. US involvement basically sped the process up by a few decades.

Don't forget: Hitler was in the end crazy, Brits are only a little insane. https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
Napoleon wasn't defeated by British alone.

The UK couldn't stop Hitler alone, and he couldn't probably stop Soviets...

Hetman https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[CBR]

If the UK didnt get any support from the US they couldnt have survived the losses in the Atlantic.

1942 was AFAIK a tough year for Allied shipping. If it hadnt been for the US the UK couldnt have replaced the losses, nor expand the number of escorts and long range aircrafts that turned the tide in early 1943.

Germany wasnt strong enough to invade UK but IMO could have starved them into surrender somewhere between late 42/early 43.

The north African campaign in 1942 would also have been different if the UK had been alone. If Rommel had a bit of luck he could have taken Egypt in late 1942..


CBR

[Leo]

Without US help the UK would soon have sued for peace and Germany would have won the war. The USSR would have never been able to launch any offensive without the vast amount of goods coming from the USA.

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (oaty @ July 20 2004,23:52)]Well with less money needed to be spent in the west what could germany have thrown at russia. I have a feeling that either moscow or Stalingrad would have fallen for sure. Was'nt it just east of Stalingrad where all of Russias oil(or most of it) came from. This was hitlers main target anyways and had plans for his Africa core and the troops fighting the Russiains to meet in the rich oil fields of the East. If Staligrad did hold out what stopped Rommel from getting to the rear of the Russian line because without a U.S. threat in north africa there would need to be less reserves in Africa
m8, the oil came from the nearby and siberia i think not there https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif I think the russians would have held Stalingrad and leningrad anyways even without american support https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[Longshanks]

I don't think the UK could have defeated the Nazis without the US entering the war. Additionally, I believe the UK would have had lost colonial possessions to the Japanese. I don't think the Nazis would have overrun the Soviet Union, but I do not think we would have seen a Communist Europe either. Most likely the war in the East would have ended with the pre-war boundaries, or perhaps some small territorial gains for Germany.

Without the US, WW2 ends with Germany firmly in country of most of Europe, Japan in control of most of Asia, and a cold war between Nazi Germany and commie Russia. The US never emerges from an isolationist shell and becomes a minor player in international politics, while isolated Britain goes into decline.

Eventually the cold war between Germany & Russia probably goes hot, since I imagine achieving "living space" for Germans in the east remains a major goal of the Nazi party. I also imagine the Germans would use nuclear weapons.

[barocca]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ July 21 2004,06:48)]I don't think the UK could have defeated the Nazis without the US entering the war. Additionally, I believe the UK would have had lost colonial possessions to the Japanese. I don't think the Nazis would have overrun the Soviet Union, but I do not think we would have seen a Communist Europe either. Most likely the war in the East would have ended with the pre-war boundaries, or perhaps some small territorial gains for Germany.

Without the US, WW2 ends with Germany firmly in country of most of Europe, Japan in control of most of Asia, and a cold war between Nazi Germany and commie Russia. The US never emerges from an isolationist shell and becomes a minor player in international politics, while isolated Britain goes into decline.

Eventually the cold war between Germany & Russia probably goes hot, since I imagine achieving "living space" for Germans in the east remains a major goal of the Nazi party. I also imagine the Germans would use nuclear weapons.
agree,

a few more notes,

Hitler may or may not have tried to finish off the UK after the war with the USSR settled into a stalemate.
He may have refused peace and starved them of supplies so they would be unable to take offensive action.

An invasion of the UK would have been very costly,
with aircraft that outmatched the luftwaffe and the English army fighting on home soil i think the Nazi's would have paid very dearly for every yard of ground.

Given that the English were quite prepared to face an Invasion, I believe they had a fair chance of stopping any force on, or close to the beach.
Wether they were militarily prepared immediately after the fall of France is another story, but they would have fought fanatically.
The English have never been known to give in to terror tactics, The London blitz made them more determined to resist. Any "terror" tactics employed by a Nazi invasion force would likewise increase determination, rather than lessen it.

Could the UK have retaken Europe? unlikely,
could they have held off an invasion? in 41, 42 or 43? definately,
could they have held out indefinately? unlikely,
once Germany developed nuclear weapons the English would have been forced into the same box the Japanese were and would likely have become a client state, if not a conquered one.

B.

[econ21]

Clearly, the answer is no - I don't see Britain alone being able to mount a D-Day without US support even when, as historically, the Russians were fighting the bulk of the German army. America's contribution was crucial in the air - gaining air superiority and doing significant damage through strategic bombing, at sea in securing supply routes and later providing troop transports, and of course on land in providing well over half the Western Allies army. Whether Russia could have defeated Germany without the US intervening (providing aid and keeping open the Western Front), I don't know - perhaps she could.

If the UK alone means minus US and Russia, I suspect the result would have been a reluctant peace around the end-1940 borders. Germany could over time have developed the air and sea power to cross the channel, but Hitler showed no real enthusiasm for such a costly programme. If Germany and Italy had pressured the British Empire enough - eg taking Egypt - I suspect Britain would have sued for peace and Hitler accepted.

I always liked Churchill's remark on hearing about Pearl Harbour and Germany's declaration of war on America:

"So, we've won after all."

[The_Emperor]

britain probably wouldn't have been able to retake Europe, but Hitler was his own worst enemy by invading Russia.

The Numbers in terms of population ratio were really stacked against the Germans, and even if he somehow managed to conquer it all, I doubt he would have been able to keep hold of it.

It is true his armies were within sight of Moscow, but Napoleon took Moscow and it didn't help him achieve his goal.

At any rate the USSR would have removed Hitler without a D-Day, but it would have been a lot bloodier in the process and their empire probably wouldn't have lasted the full 40 years it did before imploding.

[DemonArchangel]

well, the residents of the USSR would die down to the last man/woman/child whatever trying to stop the germans without American supplies, the UK would have tanked due to their shipping being sunk. and without america, Japan could have invaded through siberia

[Oaty]

Well also if Germany pushed harder would the Russians still had enough time to get there war industries on the other side of the ural mountains. This was a major factor as this allowed the Russians to get there industries in an untouchable spot and with Germany under less resistance on the west they would have had less dificulty pushing east and possibly allow them to get within bombing range opf these industries thus not allowing them to build there high end tanks that helped the russians put the front in there favour

[Inuyasha12]

Okay i guess the answer is no https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

What about russia, would they have won against hitler without american supplies, and involvment against japan.

I think not. If the japanese would have chosen to stay peacefull with the U.S.A. they would attack russia instead of the pacific islands. Russia hemmed in by japanese and german troops would eventually fall. I think germany would have also beaten the UK sooner or later. Then it would be too late for US to enter the war.

If the axis had been a little bit smarter and not fought everyone at once they could have won.

[lonewolf371]

Quote[/b] (DemonArchangel @ July 21 2004,18:33)]well, the residents of the USSR would die down to the last man/woman/child whatever trying to stop the germans without American supplies, the UK would have tanked due to their shipping being sunk. and without america, Japan could have invaded through siberia
I don't think so.

Japan already had a pretty tough war going in China, India, and Australia. They would not have been able to invade the USSR for some time while they struggled to defeat these British colonies. In the mean-time, with the entire Luftwaffe having been thrown at Britain in some sort of mass MTW peasant raid the Allies in Europe could have gained air superiority and eventually push the Germans back.

Also the US was already engaging in a sort of secret war with Germany to protect shipping and had already given a rather large amount of old warships to England.

I answered the question on the basis of whether Europe (the UK) would have been able to defeat Nazi Germany, I said yes because Europe includes the USSR. Therefore, while the UK didn't defeat Napoleon alone, it wouldn't have defeated Hitler alone either.

In the end, as I said before, Hitler's insanity would have defeated him. The fact that he forced his best general to take poison alone proves that he was a self-destructive force. He had plenty of ideas on how to take over a country, but no idea how to govern it.

And of course lastly, the resistance. We have to remember that resistance in almost every nation conquered by Nazi Germany was already off the charts, bombings of military equipment and scuttling of science projects severely hampered the German war effort. Europe as always was largely dependant on supplies and Hitler had few Allies outside Europe willing to provide him with the materials needed to wage a war, similarily with Japan.

[Muneyoshi]

Quote[/b] (lonewolf371 @ July 20 2004,18:01)]Britain might have been able to defeat Nazi Germany eventually, recall that 300 years earlier they were in a similar position versus Napoleon and in the end they defeated him as well. US involvement basically sped the process up by a few decades.
About 150 years actually, but whose counting https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Sorry just had to correct that

[Leo]

Quote[/b] (lonewolf371 @ July 21 2004,08:01)]Britain might have been able to defeat Nazi Germany eventually, recall that 300 years earlier they were in a similar position versus Napoleon and in the end they defeated him as well. US involvement basically sped the process up by a few decades.
Napoleon didn't have a superior air force.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You can't blitzkrieg an island. Nor could Germany invade England without gaining air superiouty first.

UK - and her empire!- vs Germany would probably have ended in a stalemate, since neither could defeat each other. My guess is that it would've turned into a cold war for a few decades, with the third Reich imploding in the end.

That's disregarding the US, USSR, Japan and global developments elsewhere. Which really we can't, off course.

[spmetla]

While many people here believe that the UK would have held out indefinately because of it being an island it would also be the end of it. During the entire war the UK had to import oil, metals, bullets, food, etc from both the US and it's own Empire but without the US it would never had been able to hold out even in 1940. Although most of the planes of the BoB they can't run without fuel and during the tightest pinches of the battle the Brits were counting feul supply in weeks not months. Each tanker of oil that made it past the U boats and past the Stukas over the Channel allowed the UK to hold on a bit more.

Without the lend lease coming in in Sep of 1940 without those 50 destroyers it's reasonable to believe that the UK wouldn't have had the resources to begin a real bombing campaign or have been able to afford sending precious fighters to the mediterrean. Without US destroyers and corvettes to escort those conveys and without the ability to mount a serious bombing campaign against U boat manufacturing the UK would have been starved into submission and seperated from the rest of it's empire. In addition to that the US allowed the Brits to refeul and repair their ships in the US which certainly helped the battle of the atlantic. I'd guess about 1942 that Britain would have finally been long enough cut off from the rest of the world that it wouldn't have the oil to power it's air force or run it's navy. It would probably have just slowly lost it's ability to defend itself from the Luftwaffe and been forced to surrender to Germany.

Now with my guess of 1942 for british surrender what would that mean for the ongoing campaign in Russia? Although I highly doubt that the Germans would ever had been able to completely conquer russia I'm certain that they would at least have taken the The major cities and be able to prevent the Soviets from ever being able to launch a counter offensive. Remeber, with the Luftwaffe able to to swing all those planes from Northern France and Germany along with it's Luftflotten in the Mediterrean I believe it would have been able to retain air superiorty over the Soviets almost indefinetely. And with un interuped manufacture of PzIIIs and PzIVs and later on the Tigers and Panthers they would have enough quality and quantity to prevent a strong soviet counter offensive. Russia would probably have been a battle ground for another 10 years or so or at least long enough before Stalin was lynched or just plain died and the upper echleons of the the Communist party sued for peace or begin interfighting.

http://www.historians.org/projects/GIRoundtable/Lend_Lease/Images/LendLease_Pix5.gif

Link to US help to Soviets:
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/9941_roosevelt.html

Escort Carriers given to Brits:
http://www.ww2pacific.com/brcve.html

Lend lease amounts in Billions of Dollars:
http://www.multied.com/ww2/events/lendlease.html

Ultimate lend lease link site I've seen:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=372591

[lonewolf371]

Sorry my bad about the Napoleon thing, I was thinking 1700's from today. ~:eek:

Of course as always with these "what-if" debates anything could be possible, Britain eventually overthrowing Germany and Germany crushing all resistance. Heck for what we know if the US hadn't entered the war the Irish might have taken over the world with their crazy drunken brawler corps.

Hitler was Germany's greatest weakness and the greatest window through which the Allied forces could have won. If he had been eliminated and some other more able ruler placed in his stead, I believe that Germany might have stood a good chance of winning a massive two-front war.

[BDC]

Without Hitler the whole Nazi cult thing would have broken down and the German people wouldn't have put up with a losing war.

My opinion anyway.

[Ar7]

Let me start off early with Napoleon, saying that UK defeated him alone, it is a quote from the start of this thread, is just insulting to history, Europe countries and especially to Russia and with that to me, since i am a Russian.

Secondly, without the help from US Britain would most likely not survive the early years of war and would fall somewhere around 41-42. If not conquered they would be forced to sign a treaty with the Germans due to lack of every possible resource. England was a heart of a huge colonial empire and highly relied on imported resources, with all sea routes blocked there could be no way they would survive, being as fanatic as they are.

Even without the help from the US ( i find it hard that it was this significant as you all say ) the soviets could have beaten Hitler. At the start of the war the numbers of the soviet army outnumbered Hitler greatly, it also applied to the tanks, planes and other machines. The quality of the machines was great, there was a big problem with the generals and the ability of the soviet troops to use the machines, this was the reason for the losses at the start of a war. It all changed towards the end, since the men got experienced and better generals were appointed.

Even after the huge losses at the beginning of the war the soviets still had a superior army. When the Germans were near Moscow all the important factories and their porduction facilities were already behind the Ural and safe. The Russians even at the critical moments could easily out produce the Germans mainly due to the size of the country and the population and the fact that the Russian war equipment: the tanks, planes etc were very easy to manufacture. While towards the end of the war the Third Reich was running out of steam, Germany was simply too small and just didn't have enough resources or men to continue to fight they way they did at the beginning, they had no way to refill the losses they took at the east.

Also saying that Japan would invade eastern Russian areas if they stayed peaceful with the US is quite wrong. As somebody said earlier Japan was involved in quite a few areas in Asia and attacking eastern Russia would prove of no value, largely due to the fact that those areas have no real economical, military or strategic value.

[lonewolf371]

I did not say that Britain defeated Napoleon, I said that they were in a similar situation, that being all of coninental Europe being dominated by one force, seemingly undefeatable on land but weak at sea. Britain emerged as a victor because the entire continent did not want to be under Napoleon's control and after a long stalemate period revolted, united with other free countries who opposed Napoleon, and drove his forces back to France. You have to admit the two scenarios seem rather similar. At the start of their conquering rampage both Hitler and Napoleon seemed simple upstarts with no potential to forge an empire. They swiftly defeated their enemies, forced them to surrender, and moved on, after which later on those enemies revolted. In addition in both cases, Russia proved to be their ultimate challenge and the ultimate cause of their downfall.

As I see it there are few differences but they can be considered substantial.

1) United States
In the Napoleonic wars no major foreign power arrived to tip the balance in either scale, it was a drawn out conflict between two sides almost entirely defined at the beginning of Napoleon's expansionist policies.

2) U-boats
Napoleon had no means to block UK shipping as the British fleet was superior, in this way Nazi Germany showed greater promise in conquering Europe over France, however this was negated by

3) Hitler
Hitler was an insane dictator, often influenced by fairy tales and false beliefs that he was "superior" or the situation that saved Fredrick II hundreds of years earlier, that is the death of an enemy monarch, would save him. He tried to rewrite history based on the smallest of things, and he was paranoid.

No doubt even had he won WWII, forced all his enemies to surrender and became the undisputed ruler of Europe, he would have probably have shown signs of being psychotic as mentioned earlier. There is no small amount of evidence to support this, Hitler was paranoid, he did execute his own best generals, and most likely by the end of his reign as with those of other paranoid rulers, his chief officials would have been favor-grubbing greedy politicians, through which the empire would fracture on Hitler's death, most likely returning Europe to its post-war state. This has happened with every major empire in history (save perhaps the Rus) that tried to dominate an area with a different culture than its own. That is why many of the nations in Europe today are not too different from their base tribal groups that populated the area before the Roman empire.


I almost feel like I deserved to get flamed for this, if there is any piece of writing on history ever written that is more speculatory I'll have to shoot myself.

[discovery1]

The quality of the machines was great

Uh, I though that, aside from the T34, KV 1, and KV 2(ugliest tank I have ever seen) the quality of Soviet tanks was horrible.

[lonewolf371]

Besides that, I think the KV's were very heavy and expensive. The T-34, which didn't come until some time after the initial German offensive, was much faster and more of a "heavy-medium" type of tank.

[Ar7]

Uh, I though that, aside from the T34, KV 1, and KV 2(ugliest tank I have ever seen) the quality of Soviet tanks was horrible.

There was a pre-war comparison on this. Besically the machines were good, it was the lack of education that wasted them. The goverment did not want to educate the soldiers too much, since they thought they could act against them. It was all because of Stalin living in his illusions and being paranoid.

[spmetla]

Soviet tank technology was actually fairly good at the start of the war. It's the tactics, training, ammunition, and optics that were atrocious, thanks in no small part to Stalins purging of the Red Army during the 20s and 30s. The T-28 was an excellent tank for it's time and even though it was really just a mod Vickers 6 ton it was the best tank during the Spanish civil war and bested any armor but against it in the Winter war and the invasion of poland. The BT series tanks or fast tanks were the primary part of the Soviet tank force during the early stages of Operation Barborossa and were obsolete by that time. The BTs were designed around a modified doctrine used by the British of Infantry tanks and Cruiser tanks, the Soviets sacrificed armor for speed in both versions which is something understandable on the endless steppes of Russia.

The KV series wasn't actually all that good. The KV2 was far to heavy for anything, it was really just a mobile pillbox/gun carriage in it's use. The KV1 series was alright and certainly held their own against any German tanks up to the introduction of the PzIVF2 with the long barreled 75mm gun. The KV1 had problems both mechanically and practically, the early versions didn't allow the commander to be "buttoned down" while the main gun was being fired and the transmission was so faulty that each tank came with a shifting assistor (hammer) to help it into gear when it got stuck. Despite these faults though these along with the early T-34s managed to prevent the germans from taking Moscow, Leningrad, or Stalingrad in the Winter of 41 and caused a halt of any german offensive for miles around them until Stukas or 88 Flaks were brought in to deal with them.

As for Hitler himself, he and Stalin are the wild cards of WWII. They were both paranoid phycos but both could have faired well. Hitler during the early part of the war was actually fairly good, he let the Generals and Admirals run the war, only after the inconclusive year of 1942 did he begin interferring with military operations. He'd interferred in small things earlier but not much. Stalin was the opposite, he started of completely interferring with everything but when Moscow its was being threatened he had the sense to leave the war to the generals. He also had the foresight to move all soviet heavy industry to the Urals almost immediately after the Germans began their invasion.

[gaelic cowboy]

Well if the UK had managed to convince the Ireland to allow them acesss to the flying boat landing area in Foynes the ability to control more effectively the north atlantic anti submarine wise would have being greatly enhanced.
Incidently most Irish artillery was facing north to the border as it was assumed the UK would violate our neutrality to obtain control of certain strategic ports and airfeilds.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It isn't that straightforward though, is it? Several times British and American troops strayed south of the border and instead of being interned (which they should have been) they were returned to the North, so were the Irish that worried about invasion?

I suspect that plans were considered by the British to invade the Eire, but they probably thought that if they couldn't contol the South in 1922, it would be more trouble than it was worth in the 40's. My understanding is that, surprisingly perhaps, given the number of Irish Americans, the USA were more serious about these plans. They had no direct experience of the Troubles in the 20's.

[Blodrast]

ok, my 2 cents ;)

I have to agree with spmetla and Ar7.
The USSR could and would have, in my opinion, defeated Hitler alone well enough.
For this, and many other conclusions, I recommend Viktor Suvorov's books:

1. Cleansing: Why Did Stalin Decapitate His Army? (1999)
2. The Icebreaker (1993)
3. The Last Republic: Why the Soviet Union Lost WWII? (1996)
4. M-Day: When Did World War II Begin? (1996)
5. Suicide: Why Did Hitler Attack the Soviet Union? (Viktor Suvorov, 2000)

Of course, everything is arguable and debatable, and, as
this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Suvorov) wikipedia entry points out, there were/are pro and con groups that probably are still arguing about who's right and who isn't.

They do make for some good lecture, though (if nothing else).
You may of course choose to believe them or not.

The main point is that USSR were strong enough economically to survive and push back the Germans. What they did lack in technology, they made up for in numbers. They had the capabilities to build more tanks in a month than Hitler fielded throughout the entire war. Hitler _had_ occupied most of Europe, but he was stretched waaaaaay too thin. After all, MOST of his lost battles were because of the poor logistics: the war in Africa was lost because of logistics; then he ended up fighting a 3-front war: Western Europe, N Africa, and USSR. He simply did not have the manpower, the economical strength, the communication and transporting infrastructure, to cover all this area, or even the resources.

(USSR's oil fields were also behind Caucasusl Hitler failed to get them. - this in reply to earlier posts).

Afrikakorps were defeated because they simply had no more ammo, provisions, oil, etc, etc.
Same in USSR. What with the winter and poor transportation conditions and possibly poor management of resources, the German troops weren't getting nearly enough supplies and reinforcements.

Occupying Europe combined with the Nazi mentality did not fare all that well for the Germans either. Sure, _theoretically_ they had access to all the occupied countries' resources and manpower, but:
- they couldn't use the resources as much as they would have liked because of the continuous sabotages and such. There were resistance movements in most (if not all) occupied countries. Of course those movements alone could not push the Germans out of the country, but they could harass them constantly, force them to keep significant occupation forces committed away from the front lines, and cause significant economical damages (sabotages).
- their manpower was stretched too thin as well. Partly, this was because of their silly Arian ideology: they wouldn't enlist "Untermensch", which is what they called non-Arian races.
Of all the "tolerated", or accepted races (e.g. Germanic, Scandinavian, latin), a lot of the forcefully recruited men were reluctant, deserted a lot, and were poorly equipped. Sure, the Soviets didn't have much better morale (they weren't all happy to fight Stalin's war), but keep in mind they were much better motivated by 2-3 decades of indoctrination, and by fear, which the under-occupation peoples did not have.

Well, the arguments can go on and on and on, and there are certainly some questions that we'll probably never know the answer to (was Stalin planning an invasion of Europe ? apparently so; why _did_ Hitler turn to USSR when he wasn't done in Europe or Africa ? did Stalin bait Hitler, provoking him into declaring war (remember they were _allies_; they had split Poland between them a couple of year earlier); and many more, along with a bunch of really controversial actions (if not downright stupid) both Stalin and Hitler did.

But this has been a long post anyway, and I don't want you to fall asleep.

[Don Corleone]

I'm moving a post over from the tavern that discusses my views, even though they're not quite directly targeted at the question on this thread:

I believe the point Goofball is trying to make, and correct me if I'm wrong, was that this notion that Europe was being overrun left and right in 1942 and that we single-handedly saved them, while it makes for nice John Wayne movies, leaves a few choice details out.

Yes, the Nazi regime had occupied almost all of mainland Europe. What they didn't take of Scandinavia (Sweden) was pretty much on board with their policies anyways (sorry, I have to call them as I see them). The French, Greeks, Danes and Norwegians did offer resistance, sure, but while it was heroic and commendable, they just didn't have the capability to seriuosly injure the Nazi war machine.

That being said, while yes, we played a key role, it's very short sighted to ignore the contributions of the Canadians, the Russians (yes, they started on the wrong side, but hey, they saw the light) and all of the resistance groups. We did a great service to Europe in WWII, but they likewise did a great service to us. It's insulting to our former allies to suggest they played little to no role and that it was a mano-a-mano slugfest between us and Hitler.

All of this still leaves a big gap and I've saved the best for last. If you ever want a lesson on heroism, courage and determination, you should read some of the accounts of what was going on in Fortress Britannia during those 6 years (including the 2 we weren't helping them). Their shipping was being constricted by Nazi wolfpacks operating out of Norway, Britany and Ireland (translation, they had the Brits surrounded). They took pounding after pounding, beating after beating. At times they actually encouraged the Luftwaffe to bomb population centers and toughed it out so that the RAF fields were safe. They played to Hitler's ego and they won, but they paid a terrible, awful price. Civilian casualties were at levels previously unheard of. Churchill's speeches weren't just good chat, it was the words of a great leader telling his people they had two options, fight or die. They did both, but in the end, they came up victorious. Think Leonidas at Thermopylae. I know that sounds dramatic, but the UK had no reason to believe we would finally ride out of our own fortress and come to their aid until we finally did. I know it's a popular joke about the French would be speaking German now if it wasn't for us, and perhaps that's true. But trust me, if Britain had fallen before we had gotten into the war, we would have been too.

[gaelic cowboy]

It isn't that straightforward though, is it? Several times British and American troops strayed south of the border and instead of being interned (which they should have been) they were returned to the North, so were the Irish that worried about invasion?

I suspect that plans were considered by the British to invade the Eire, but they probably thought that if they couldn't contol the South in 1922, it would be more trouble than it was worth in the 40's. My understanding is that, surprisingly perhaps, given the number of Irish Americans, the USA were more serious about these plans. They had no direct experience of the Troubles in the 20's.

Correct De Valera pursued a policy of shall we say official neutrality while quietly lending a hand to England in a subtle way ie any info gained about german nationals or agents in Ireland was passed on to the UK. Incidently a nice factoid for you all the weather forecast predicting good weather on D Day was from the Belmullet weather station in my native Mayo. Any allied troops accidently landing on Irish soil with very little fuss found themselves back in the north soon enough. Thankfully both our countries were spared invasion whatever about England we had little chance I'm afraid.

[Don Corleone]

I don't think UK could have defeated the Nazis. I'm not sure how much longer they could have held out, the Nazis were really starting to cut into their shipping and if the US followed a strict neutrality policy, ala Sweden, I believe the UK would have been a non-player by late 1942, not for lack of trying.

Interesting question about Soviet Union and whether they would have been able to defeat the Nazis on their own. I'd have to go back and do some serious analyses on just how many men/tanks/guns etc were tied up in North Africa and also how bad the logistics of transporting them there from Europe slowed Hitler down.

An interesting thought that doesn't get covered much... by 1941 most Germans realized they had unelashed a monster and there's some evidence that there were some early assination attempts even before the Germans got stymied. The drug Hitler was feeding the people was victory, and if he had to deprive them of it for a while (UK holes up and is a minor victory, but they haven't overrun the island, things drag out out on the Steppes) I wonder how long popular opinion would have kept the Third Reich in power. I mean, don't get me wrong, the Nazis wrote the book on counter-insurgency tactics, those people were governed harshly, but a war machine like that... even a soft rebellion (production slows, recruiting slows, generals start making 'mistakes') could have had big consequences.

Personally, at the end of it all, I believe that if the US didn't enter the war when it did, Rommell would have fortified Normandy and Brittany against UK and then just proceeded to periodically bomb them to keep them soft, let the wolfpacks do their work. I can't imagine the UK invading Europe in light of that. The Nazis then would have been free to shift multiple divsions and air wings over to the Eastern front. I think it would have been really rough, and the steamroller ride would have been over, but in the end, I think the USSR would have fallen. So much of the industrial production in the USSR was in Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states, they never would have been able to keep up. I can even imagine the Germans falling back but destroying all those facilities, only to reinvade 6 months later. After USSR was finished, Hitler would have pressed into China from the NW to help the Japanese.

Does anyone know if Hitler had ever arranged an agreement with the Japanese regarding the Berring Straits? Eventually, Canada and the US would have been dealt with and there's only way into North America, especially given naval capablities back then.... through Alaska. Maybe they would have fought each other over who would get North America? ~;)

[spmetla]

Diverting abit again let me touch a bit on the Soviets.

I firmly believe that the Germans could never have conquered and occupied the entire USSR, it's not just theory its a logistical impossibity but I do believe it would be possible for them to take everything up the Ural Mts. Here's why:

The Communist party was fairly tight knit but it was also a very competitive organization. If Stalin were to lose the major cities then I believe he would be promptly done away with. He was certainly disliked by the Army officer corps and almost all intellectuals not to mention by several of the top leaders of the Communist party.

The Communist party of the Soviets was an Urban based party. In the countryside their support was out of support for Russia not communism. According to the accounts Col Hans von Luck, a german Recon Officer when the Germans invaded the USSR in the countryside they would occasionaly come across the odd hamlet or village that didn't even know that the Czar had been killed all those years ago. Also like most farmers the people in the country side were religeous people and the communist party's forbiding of religeous practice was a major cause for lack of support in rural areas, Stalin later caught on to this and allowed the churches to be reopened for the duration of the war.

Although all Soviet industry was promptly moved to the Ural Mts it was not up to full capacity until late 1942, up to this point the Soviets were using primarily outdated tanks from the 30s and lend lease tanks that the Brits and Americans could spare, primarily MatildaIIs and later on American Sherman tanks.
Tank productions: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Soviet%20tank%20production%20during%20World%20War%20II

Aircraft production: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/WW2%20aircraft%20production

If the Germans had been able to divert the majority of their western and mediterrean Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht forces by early to mid 1942 they would probably have been able to get just enough man power there just early enough to capture Leningrad or Stalingrad I firmly believe that the rest of European Russia would have fallen.

And to help back up my theory check this page out:
http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html
Scroll down, it has a whole bunch of useful statistics. Using this site you can really see some of the economics of the war.

[Ironside]

What they didn't take of Scandinavia (Sweden) was pretty much on board with their policies anyways (sorry, I have to call them as I see them).

I have to comment on that. Sweden was not on board with the nazis policies! What Sweden did during WW2 was keeping themself out of the war, by a strict neutrality, although they was forced to do some concessions by the Nazis in the beginning of the war, they was never supporting them. Instead they supported (in secret) the resistance in Norway, Denmark and in the Baltic states, and they broke thier strict neutrality in the allies favor quite frequntly after 1943.

Sweden special position was because of the iron. To have the mines safe and unsabotaged was probably the main reason why Germany never invaded Sweden, but is probably one of the main reasons why they invaded Norway.
Notice that Sweden wasn't the only source of iron for the Germans and if the mines was destroyed, the Germans could simply increase thier mining from inside the Riech, so it would been damaging, but not essential.

And Sweden was the only nation that focused on saving Jews during the war, while the allies thought it was best to save the Jews by ending their war as quickly as possible. The Swedish goverment did shut up about the holocast for the population during the war though.

You can argue that the Swedes should join the allies on a moral basis, but for what? The most dangerous time (for an invasion) for the Swedes was 1940-1942, before the holocast was known for most people and the Swedes army sucked during this time, making an occupation most certain or in the best case an economical collaps, considering that alot of products had to be imported (like coal). And that for a war that most Swedes didn't support?

But you're right that the Swedes didn't do much to help Britain early in the war, and wouldn't do it unless the war changed. It's called survival tactics.

[spmetla]

With the Soviets to the East and the Nazis to the West and South who would honestly expect Sweden to risk it's destruction in a war against either of these juggernauts, especially in the early years of the war.

If the Swedes had joined the war in the Early part of the war then they would probably have been conquered like the rest of Europe and then they'd jsut serve as another staging area for the Germans to intercept convoys to Russia while supplying them with even more steel and manufacturing capablities.

[CrackedAxe]

Nope the UK could not have done it. Thanks to Chamberlains pre-war appeasement approach to Hitler, Nazi Germany was free to gather a massive military machine while the UK buried its head in the sand, beleiving war could be avoided through diplomacy, and didn't arm itself to the huge degree needed. Consider what happened to the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk.

Germany was still doomed though, without intervention from the US. It never recovered from the disastrous invasion of the USSR, and had no hope of defending against the soviets counter invasion. Even if it had been able to pull extra divisions away from France and 'Fortress Europe' to meet them, The Soviets offensive at this point was probably pretty much unstoppable.

[fenir]

Hmmmm Ok all this informatiion is freely available if you request it from the national records of each country.
This has also been thrashed to heck.

1. The GDP figures that where orginally posted have been long ago been declared invalid, as the UK was the only western nation to actually achieve full national war mobility. That is it quit nearly ever industry to concentrate on war production. No other nation, not even Germany was able to achieve this. The only other country was the USSR. USSR also produced more tanks than the USA, and under more extreme conditions. And with a 1/4 of the GDP, don't figure does it. whereas germany produce only a 1/4 of the USSR prodcution, yet was kicking the **** outa them.


2, it also does not take into account the rest of the British empire, see the national archives in the UK. Or the Overseas terrorities of the other nations.
Remember after the Germans had taken the rest of France, (vichy France), the overseas territories delcared themselves Free French, bringing Huge resources to the allied side. and Large amounts of Troops and material.

3. You have also not included, GDP's of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, The Indian Empire and the rest of the empire.
Also not included is the British and Canadian governments setting up of production in canada, while tens of thousands left USA to work in Canada's new production facilities. Or the Americans that also travelled to the UK to fight in the British Forces or work in it's factories.

4. The British Commonwealth and Empire also controled the whole middle east after 1941. So nearly all the oil was in allied hands. Where is the GDP representing this?

5. by 1941 The Nazis knew there oil was running out, that is also true that the main German/Italian oil supplies from Hungary and Rumania had all but been used up by 1944, hence the conversion to Coal derived products. By 1945 the Russians arriving in these countries, the oil fields where more or less capped and declared empty, they remain that way today. Hence both Countries are net improters of Oil.

NOTE: The UK alone depended upon the sea for ~60 million tons of imports per annum, Excluding Oil Products, and had ~22 million tons of merchant shipping.

Also, pre war requirements worked out that to survive a total war, Britian would have to (excluding Oil products) have ~47 millions tons per annum of imports, however in 1942 Britian Survived, and was winning on ~22.9 million tons and ~10.7 million tons of Oil Products. Far less than any other nation. Hence the effectiveness of a wartime total mobility. Hence born the concept of " Total War", yes that is what it is called.

6. Germans Worked out that they would need ~350 U-Boats to defeat the British in the Atlantic. And have to sink ~750,000 Tons of Shipping per month to achieve this out come. They started the war with only 57 U-boats.
The highest they ever got was in April to June 1942, a 3 month period, when 2.2 millions tons of All allied shipping was sunk, that includes a feeding feast on unprotected USA shipping, espeically coastal shipping.
And that still fell short of the required total. By this stage the british yards where well and truely out stripping the Losses, and U-boat losses where very high, so high the production of the u-boats could not replace them.
Hence the ratio that for ever 5 U-boat seaman, 4 died.
By this time the British merchant fleet had grown even beyond it's prewar tonnage, can't remember the amount though. Then Add to that the French, Dutch, USA, Norwegian, and Greek, being the Biggest merchant navies.

7. By ~oct 1941 the British Shipping yards where producing so much shipping that they had actually outstripped the u-boat tonnage lost.
In other words the British where beating them at there own game. Also the amount of Frigates and destoryers being produced far out stripped U-boat production. And the U-boats by mid to late 1941 where being hunted extensively.
In fact the number of U-boats killed compared to tonnage sunk was climbing alarmingly, as the German production and high command (OKW)records show.

8. By ~1942 even the Germans had admitted they had failed in their objective.

9. The Uk sent a huge amount of it's war capacity to the USSR, long before the USA got into the mess. Thats a lot. The whole empire also sent food, so USSR could release more men to fight.

10.Sweden, from the records, the German high Command Considered Sweden to be too high a cost to take, because of it's high standing army and complusory conscription that had been going for years. They had Sweden in a postion where they had no place to go, so it was not like she was a huge threat, as Swedish forces where Defensive in nature. Therefore could not threaten the Axis at all.

11. all this is open public knowledge, it doesn't need to come from a opinion book. As most books these days are opinions rather than fact.
If you want to check any of this???? Go to your local university, join up, and do a micro finch request of different countries data and records, most, if not all, is now open to everyone as a matter of public domain.
Also note, Websites are hardly what most would call, informative, and espeically not concise.

Some thoughts only.
Would the USSR have beaten Hitler if the USA had not come into the war? maybe, mabye not. We don't know, because there are to many factors to consider, to many things that would have changed if it did not happen.
Would the allies with out the USA have had the strenght to happen upon a D-Day in 1944? I personally don't thing so.
Would the allies have eventually beaten Hitler? In my personal opinion, yes I believe they would have, it would have taken a lot more lives, and a lot more time, but yes it would have happened eventually. based on the data that we have today. Hind sight is a wonderful thing.

Japan however posses another problem, the Japanese Knew they could not take European Asian territory without having a confrontation with the USA, as showen by the USA's diplomatic missions regarding Japanese postions in French Indo-China, so regardless of the circumstances any action by the Japanese, this would have brought the USA into the war. As it would threaten the USA's sphere of Influence. And left them In a very dangerous pridictament within the Philipines.
But who does the world owe for there freedoms from the 2nd world war? The USA? The British? Most say the UK,( most outside the USA that is), as they carried the world on there shoulders for 3 years before the USA came in.
Alot say the USSR, because she carried the greatest blunt of the war on it's people, and it's country.
I would say every single person that got out there and did some fighting, some little bit of help, even just by giving a peice of bread to hungary allied solider, or, simply worked their hearts out to give their and other troops the best equipment they could. Or even just buying war bonds to help their and others countries.
The world owes it's freedoms to each other, for standing up against an enemy who sort to impose upon us, their thoughts on what they decided was right, instead of asking us.
Kinda makes us think of today doesn't it? Appleasement again, that every western country has been involved in, at the expense of their own people.
We, this generation, owe the last generation a great debt. Even for all the stupid things that happened to cuase the leed up to the war.

We could what if all we like, what if the Anti-war demostrators had not been listened to, and france and the British Empire had started to Rearm earlier? What if the polictical left had not sort to allow Hitler to reoccipe the Rhine? What if the allies had not given in to Hitler and handed the Czech's over? Mind u ~25-30% of Czechslovkia was German.

What if Wilson had actually had a real look at the new Countries they made after the 1st World war, that was a main cause of the 2nd world war?
Rumania got translavania, which was Hungarian, or the large amounts of Hungarians left out of their own Country in Czehslovakia, ~ 15 - 20% by redrawing Countries boundries, or the Rumanians left out of their country, in Moldavia. Lots of reasons to go to war there? It's like removing California, and giving it to Mexico.
Or the real Problem, The large German populations In modern Solevnia, Czechslovkia, and Poland, and even France. (around Strasbourg, lots of them, they are still today about 1.9 Million of them). They speak what the french call Alsatian. Yes, like the Dog. Otherwise known as German Shepard.

Anyway just some food for thought, and some information.

fenir
have a nice day. ~:cheers:

[ShadesPanther]

Very well witten fenir.

I do believe that the Allies would have won, eventually. But there are alot of factors that could make either side win.
eg. If Germany reached the Caucaus oilfields would that have made the war effort different. But, It probaly would be set on fire unless the Germans surprised them. It really is hard to say. But really When the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain Britain was safe from invasion.

There are some very key moments during the war. eg. When the British routed the Italians in 1940, They could have marched on to Tripoli and completely knocked the Italians out of North Africa as they had no troops there, only fragmented, retreating, demoralised men. Rommel would not have been sent or if he was would a much larger German force be sent?

[English assassin]

As an aside, I'm glad Fenrir made the point about the percentage of production devoted to war material. I've always thought it very interesting that the Nazi German republic had to devote fair more of its production to civilian goods than the democratic UK. I saw another set of figures that showed that after seven months of war (which is to say before anything except the Poland campaign) the UK achieved a percentage of GDP devoted to war production that the Germans did not match until 1944.

This suggests to me that the populations of both the UK, and indeed the USSR, were much more motivated to win the war than the German population.

I can't add anything nearly as well reasoned as the posts above on the main subject of the thread, so I will simply say without arguing the points that I do not think the Germans could ever have defeated the Russians, that I am sure they could not have invaded the UK, and that without the US as at least a friendly neutral providing shiioping and supplies on easy terms the UK would not have been able to amass the supplies, oil etc for any offensive operations in continental Europe, and would have been in serious trouble in the middle east.

[ShadesPanther]

I believe the introduction of Women workers is quite important. With a bit of training and a short period of time they could equal the production of men but also more men are available to fight.

The Nazis believed that women were best at the home so they used men Aand this only really changed late in the war with the introduction of some women workers and alot of slave labour

[Lonewarrior]

Not in a million years

[eadeater]

Well, this is an interesting debate. As someone said, Britain had all of its colonies working for it, and they controlled all the oil in the Middle East and so on, but Britain is an island, so without the threat of the USA entering the war because of the submarine campaign, the Nazis would've simply cut off all imports to Britain, and then the planes would run out of fuel, the soldiers would run out of bullets, the factories would run out of raw materials etc. and the Germans could fairly easily take over Britain. This would happen especially quickly in Hitler had not declared war on the USSR. If Hitler had not fought the Russians (which is an entirely hypothetical concept as he would've attacked the Russians anyway because that was one of his major objectives - "lebensraum" in the east) then he concentrated all his aerial and naval forces on destroying Britain, and if it was blockaded, then he would certainly be successful.
As fot the side debate going on about whether the Russians would've beaten Hitler on their own, I think it is fair to say that they certainly would've. Hitler made one major, crucial error when invading the Russians - he was very harsh on the local population, especially in Soviet held countries such as Poland, where the local people, the peasant population, even in Russia, saw the Soviets as oppressors and the Nazis as liberators. Howeverm when Hitler ordered executions of whole villages, and transported hundreds of thousands of people to concentraion camps, Stalin rallied the nation behind him, and to the Russians, WWII is not know as that, it's known as the Great Patriotic War, because the Nazis became a completely villified personification of evil, and that is why people were so willing to die for Stalin - the hatred for Fascism and Nazism was rooted into the mentality of every individual. The Nazis, however, were nowhere near as motivated. They were fighting on foreign soil, for unclear purpoises, suffering severe casualties, being hampered by partizans disrupting supply lines, it was very cold and they were dying of it. In some places (especially Leningrad) the fuel froze in the German tanks (no lie). So the Russians were certainly infinately better motivated to fight - and by the later years - their safe industry in the Urals was hugely outproducing the Germans. Essentially, Hitler's armies were only prepared for the Blitzkrieg (lightning war) that he employed, but when the war with the Soviet Union dragged on for years, the weakness of the Nazis began to show - they simply couldn't keep up with the strains of war; they lacked natural resources and people to fill the gaps. They began to recruit very young and very old men into the army, as well as soldiers from conquered countries (eg. Estonia, Poland, Romania etc.). This obviously weakened them, and after 1943, the Nazis grew weaker with every day, whereas the Russians grew stronger.
It is, nonetheless, very difficult to gauge how well the Soviets would've faired against Hitler if Britain did not oppose him. If the Allies did not bomb his factories and cities, if he had been allowed to take over north Africe and the Middle East, then he would've certainly been in a much stronger position that he actually was, but at the same time, garrisonind these places would've been an extra resource drain - and it is nearly impossible to predict whether it would be worth it for him.
Essentially, history is a subject where one cannot answer a question begging with "What if..." but one can do his best to try and guess at what could've been and what is more likely.

[Papewaio]

Germany certainly had an advantage against Britain alone.

The colonies certainly where behind Britain in a major way... New Zealand had over 50% GDP on the war effort and about 10% of the population served in the forces.

If it was Germany vs British Empire (Japan staying in China) then it would have been hard on the British as it was more spread out. However without having to fight the Japanese it would have allowed the massive British Navy to concentrate in the long term on the Germans. Also more colonial forces could have been devoted to the North African campaign with no Japanese threat.

The issue is though if Germany was solely against the British and concentrated its forces on military targets it could have isolated the British islands and destroyed any effective air cover. This would have then meant all the navy would have to defend against airplanes around Britain. So the British would have lost their airbases then their ports and then their fleet that remained behind. This would have made it relatively easy for the Germans to mount an invasion, all it would take would be the fleet to carry the men across... maybe massive support by paratroopers.

[Tribesman]

What if some of the other Fascist dictatorships had joined with Hitler ?
If Gibraltar was lost and Spanish or Portugese bases were openly available to the German and Italian naval and air forces then Britains links with the majority of its empire would have been impossible to maintain .
Back to subject . Britain may well have held out , but would have been financially ruined and lost her Empire , whereas victory brought financial ruin and loss of Empire , (though in truth it was WW I which bankrupted Britain) .
She would not have been able to defeat Germany militarily by herself in my opinion.
BTW ; Gaelic Cowboy , De Valera did facilitate British requests concerning anti-submarine patrols by flying boats operating out of the six counties , he designated an international air corridor so that the aircraft would not have to fly round Donegal to reach their patrol areas .

[gaelic cowboy]

BTW ; Gaelic Cowboy , De Valera did facilitate British requests concerning anti-submarine patrols by flying boats operating out of the six counties , he designated an international air corridor so that the aircraft would not have to fly round Donegal to reach their patrol areas .

Yeah but Foynes was the really strategic one no coincidence it is the same county as shannon. Lough Erne was where the flying boats were kept but it was a far inferior setup to what could have being achieved at Foynes. Heh sneaky oul Dev another FFer on the fence back the allies but trying to tell everyone at home were neutral sound familar Tribesman yeah good ol Bert.

[fenir]

Eadeater;
1. I Think my previous posting has all but refuted your claims to the "cut off concept" you mention in your post.
All the facts I have entered are able to be easily checked, espeically if you live in London.
The Submarine campaign you mention, failed. the Nazi High command even admitted it. You don't start something with 57 Submarines when you know you need ~350. Remember a lot of those Submarines they started with might have also been only Coastal. Not true u-boats that we tend to think of, eg: Das unter see VII class. I can't remember off hand.

2. The Campaign needed to sink ~750,000 tons of British Shipping per Month!
They never achieved it. This was based on the pre war tonnage of ~22 million tons of British Shipping.
When you add the British, and all the other merchant Marines together, they actually needed to sink something Closer to ~1,250,000 tons per month.
Which they got no were near.

3. The Campaign to cut Britian off failed before the attack on the USSR. I have already showen this.

4. Tribesman, The Portugese have been a British Ally since ~1515AD, it is the oldest continous alliance in the world.
They where openly supporting Britian, with out actually declaring war, i suspect because of General Franco next Door.
But that aside, General Franco had no interest in going to war, as Spain had just suffered a "huge" civil war, that only ended in 1939. They lost alot of people, and their whole country was in ruins. They where far from a threat, and if they had offered bases to the axis, then they themselves would therefore be an extension of Hitlers new Realm. Something that Franco was loth to do, as he was still trying to consolidate his rule in spain, remember spain was still hugely divided, and the civil war had only been over for 6 months or less at the out break of war.
The guy did have the sense to refuse even German and Italian, support and equipment after the Civil war ended, as he feared a nazi inspired take over attempt. Which in the context of the time was probably very real.

5. Papewaio



The issue is though if Germany was solely against the British and concentrated its forces on military targets it could have isolated the British islands and destroyed any effective air cover. This would have then meant all the navy would have to defend against airplanes around Britain. So the British would have lost their airbases then their ports and then their fleet that remained behind. This would have made it relatively easy for the Germans to mount an invasion, all it would take would be the fleet to carry the men across... maybe massive support by paratroopers.


Let me try and answer if you may?

one the isolation never happened, because the germans never had the strenght, that i have already showen.

However, After the defeat in France, Hitler had hoped, and approached the British, to sue for peace on very favourable terms.
As always, once you anger the Anglo-Celtics, it's very had to get them to back down from a fight.

Now some back ground.....
France 1940.
Germans,
~136 Divisions, including 10 new panzer divisions.(concentrated armour).
~2,500 tanks....remembering that the PZkpfw IV had only been out for a short period, and only had a 28.5 calibre 75mm, so it was useless against the British Matilda II, French Char 1 Bis, and Somua s35. And they where only in very limited numers.
3,000 Aircraft. of all types.

French, British, Belgium, Dutch. (The Allies).
~137 Divisions, (94 French, 12 British, 22 Belgium, 9 Dutch). Remember, the British where only nation in the world to have a totally mechanised Army in 1940.
~3,000 Tanks.
~1,800 Aircraft of all types.

NOTE: Another miss Conception, People say the British started the Bombing of Cities, tell that to the Polish in Warsaw, Lodz, etc.., tell that to Rotterdam, etc.... It was Hitler, as he thought by scaring the populus, Governments would sue for peace. Didn't work.

Now we know what happened here, but what is interesting, is how much got away.
Most people seem to think the Germans had it all one way. Sorry, you're wrong. The British Matildas, beat the heck outa Rommel. The French Chars and S35's gave the nazi's a very big fright. They would actually have to bring 88mm Flak guns up to deal with the Matildas, etc... This happened quite a bit, hence the new panzer IV models within ~5 months, and the up gunned pzfKw III with the new 50mm.
And the Hurricanes and D520's of the French, were a scourge on German Aircraft.

Dunkirk, ~338,226 British and French Soliders Evacuated from here, ~110,000 French, and nearly all the British BEF had been taken off.

Now the figures above, are the most often quoted ones, but lets work out what got away from the nazi war machine?

3,000 Taken off at Valery-en-Caux, June 12.
11,000 at Le harve, June 13
30,000 Taken off at Cherbourg June 15-18.
21,000 taken off St. Malo june 16-17.
32,000 taken off at Brest, June 16-17 (port destoryed by allies retreating, French Fleet Sails to Britian, then some to North Africa, some went direct).
57,000 taken off at St. Nazaire, June 16-19.
190,000 taken off at Bayonne, June 19. (also included in this total are Free Polish).
Also an unspecficed amount at Marseilles in the Mediterranean.

Now lets total this.

~682,000 Troops. They also go off alot of equipment.
This is with out all the Different naval vessels and assorted Forces from all the other contries of Europe that had arrived, or where arriving, or to arrive.
Also all the merchant Marines were directed by their respective Governments to head for Britian. Britians merchant marine near Doubled over night, (another factor Hitler Forgot to include)

Now several important facts, RAF still intact. RN, at full strenght, also the largest and most powerful navy in the world, (for still a couple more years.)

Then we can add to this, the oppsite of Hitlers Atlantic Wall, the huge coastal defences of the Southern UK.
On top of this, The entire East Coast of the UK was mined. I mean it was Heavily mined. No shipping here at all. It was also banned.
After Dunkirk, the South Coast became the same. Beach Mining the normal, also only a few areas of southern England are able to support an amphibious assult.

Ok the Ball game.
16th of July 1940, Hitler Orders the Loose waffle, (luftwaffe) to "overpower" the British RAF, in readiness for Operation Sealion. The invasion of the British Iles.

Now lets look at it in the context of the information we have at hand today. Because we can see both sides, as in 1940, they only got to see one side, and guess the rest.

The Losse waffle was actually ill prepared to meet with this new directive.
1. German aircraft, lacked the sufficient range or bomb carrying capicity to mount a major campaign, over a hostile territory, against a well armed adversary.
German Airman, also lacked experiance of this kind of campaign, and most Important! German Fighters lacked range!
German Fighter range was so short, they could only cover a small portion of Southern England, and only for a short time.

(So any bomber outside fighter escourt range, was dog meat. EG: the Losses where so large, that the Germans switched to night bombing British cities The Loose waffle dropped 35,000 tons of bombs, and it cost the Germans 650 Aircraft. A HUGE amount of Aircraft and crews).


This one Key thing, of limited range, allowed the RAF to train, regroup unhindered in the north and northwest, in relative safety.
This is borne out in the ariel combat areas, have a look some time, all the fighting was over the fighter command areas, of A, B, C, D, while a very small amount happened upon areas Z, E, F, Y, and W.
For those that don't have access to this information, it is the areas' covering...
1st Area.
Kent, Surry. Sussex, Hampshire.
2nd area,
Norfolk, Hertfordshire, London, Dorst, Devon, Cornwall, Somerset, up to around Britol.

As you look at this on the map, that is a very small area.
Now the RAF knew this, that is why they trained and regrouped just outside of range, and where they could still defend the southern coast.
The British also had several other facts hugely in favour.

1. Radar, no one knew what it was back then, but they knew the British had it.

2. No other nation Germany had faced so far, had a comprehensive air defence organisation.

3. British Fighter units, had very fast monplanes. most other nations didn't. And they had them in large numbers. The French didn't have many at all. In fact the British Supplied the French with Hurricanes during the battle of France.

4. Every time a German was Shot down, they became a POW. Every time a British Fighter was shot down, they where usually home for tea that evening, and then back in a new Aircraft the following day.( that is providing they survived being shot down, but it was the rule more than the exception, hence the joke of it). The German pilots actually use it as their excuse to Hitler.

5. Hurricane, first went into production Oct 1937.

6. Spitfire in June 1936.

7. Outbreak of war, 497 Hurricanes had been delivered to the RAF, and 310 Spitfires.

8. In the battle of France the loose waffle actually suffered quite badly. So much so that only ~700 German Fighters could be mustered for the july start of the battle fo Britian,, (remember the bf 110 was also still in this total, as it was still considered a fighter by the Germans). That was less than the Combined Hurricanes, Spitfires, and Defiants of the RAF by just a little.
The RAF actually had more fighter aircraft than the Germans, but lacked pilots.

9. In mid to late 1940 lord Beaverbrook, minister for Aircraft Production, would "bully" quite literally, the Factories to produce more. And by mid to late 1940 British Aircraft production for hurricanes and Spitfires, were being produced at ~400 per month. As opposed to German production of Fighters at (usually less than) ~200 per month. This is only an average, as german fighter production actually steadily decreased between July 1940 to decemeber 1940, to less than 100 per month.

10. During the Battle of Britian, RAF fighter Command, actually increased in numbers, while the loose waffle declined in numbers.
To give an exmaple, in july 1940, the loose waffle could field ~700 fighters, by 1st of October, they had only 275. The Ju87, was considered so vulnerable that it was withdrawn a month before hand. because of the losses it had sustained.
From July 1940 to 1st october 1940, the RAF lost 915 Aircraft of all types, the Loose waffle lost 1733 of all types. It was after this, that Hitler order the attention be turned to the USSR, and Operation Sealion, was postponed indefinitly.

11. Another famous folly by the Loose waffle high command. Their "intelligence" reported to Hitler in August 1940 that the task of Destorying the RAF was almost Complete, well, we know from the information we have, that it wasn't so.
British Fighter strenght had actually increased ~20% over that period, while the losse waffle had decreased by a slightly greater percentage.

12. most people seem to think of the Loose waffle coming in and hitting RAF bases all the time, and the RAF simply defending, but they also hit german bases, espeically the loose waffle bases in France and the low Countries during this period as well. So it was back and forth for both sides. It was so bad for the germans that they sent their fighters off to fields, to setup make shift Fighter bases.

13. So you would send paratroopers in aircraft, against an RAF that was stronger than your own air force, and hope they got through? I think the paratroopers would have called in sick that day.
Besides, have a look at the history of the paratroopers, can't remember how to spell it, I think it's flugsjager. They were still in there infancy, and still training, if i remember correctly, they only had a few at this stage of the war, it was another year before Paratrooper were available to Hitler in any number, remember when they took eben Fort and the canals, there wasn't that many of them, thats what made it such a feat.

14. Another key factor everyone seems to forget, the Germans had no naval presence of note. You stated that their fleet would carry them across? What fleet? From memory they had 10 ships greater than destroyer? Thats less than the Home Fleet battleship contingent, with out the Cruisers and destroyers, and then part of the French Fleet, the Dutch and Belgium Fleet ships. Also some Norwegian and Danish, and Polish Ships.
Lets say that during the battle of Britian, August 1940, Hitler believed the loose waffle intelligence, and choose to attack.

Lets see what they would have faced in this decesion.

They would not have had air domination. In fact they where weaker, while the RAF was stronger. They had no navy to support a landing, and suppress the Coastal battries of 15in, 12in, 8in, 4.7in, etc... guns. Or to destory the pill boxs, and coastal defences, the Railway guns guarding the Southern coast, and no mine sweepers to get rid of the mines in the English Channel. Even without the RAF, to me that wasn't looking good.

The RN, RAF all watched for the attack Grouping, and for the concentration of the limited naval units.
Therefore enabling them to bring the Battleships of the home fleet into play.
It would have taken the Germans ~4 to 6 hours to cross the English Channel in the first wave. Remember landing caft are slow, and the English Channel is to shallow close to shore to allow ships. And taking a port directly was out of the question, as the defences would get them, 10-15 miles out.

Thats enough time to bring the Home Fleet into the English Channel and Destroy the invasion before it got to British Soil.

IF, this didn't happen, then with out a shadow of a doubt, the coastal battries would have had a field day. And the Germans a Blood bath.

For an example, have a look at the cost of attacking in June 1944. Look at what was needed D-Day to kill the Defences to get men and material ashore. A hell of a lot! and we still got creamed in some areas.
And they wer'ent even facing a Navy, let alone a navy with lots of battleships, Crusiers...etc with lots of big guns.
Infact they faced no navy! The Atlantic wall had even been neglected, thinking the allies couldn't get in there anyway, and still, look at what it cost?

This is another simple calculation nearly everyone forgets. Britian had a very heavily defended Southern coast. Go and have a look around Dover castle, and along that Coast even today all the way to Cornwall. Even after they have destroyed and taken away alot of the Defenses, there is still a lot there. Have a look at the old gun Emplacement maps. Remember it was every now and again, that British Coastal batteries would open up on Germans in France, 23 miles away! With a 15in Coastal gun.(note: they never did hit anything that was worth much anyway, but still, a bit of fun. Also use Rail guns)

And if you think Germany would have got heavy Equipment over to support their attack, you should have another look at what they had. The largest panzer going over would have been a panzer II in the first wave. The British would have been able to throw grenades at it to kill it.

The Germans in 1940 had no such man power, or equipment, to invaded a Island nation. As von Rundstadt said, in lay mans terms, it was a freckin joke.

Cut Britian off?

Invade Britian?

Have a look at what it takes to mount an invasion by sea against prepared fortifications of the kind the British had. Then Factor in just how tenious the English, Scottish and Irish actually are. Then factor in a RAF gaining strenght, and stronger than the Loose waffle, and then add the RN with it's fleet on the ready.
It was an impossible task.
Sorry but I agree with Von Rundstadt on this, it was bollocks.

~:cheers:

PS: Sorry no over whelming facts today, it's nearly all by memory, i just couldn't sleep.

fenir

[gaelic cowboy]

Excellant post ~:cheers: thank god we never had to find out really if UK could have done it alone two heads and all that. ~;)

[Tribesman]

Fenir ; . It was only a "what if " post , thanks for addressing it though . But as an after thought , the Regia Marina covertly operated out of Spain in their attacks on Gibraltar and the Vichy French overflew parts of Spain when they bombed Gibraltar as well , both violations of Francos' neutrality .

[gaelic cowboy]

Winks and nods all round so it seems in wartime Dev catches pilots who misteriously end up in the north. The US ships weapons on boats to england Franco pretends not to see enemy plane and soldiers operating on his own turf. Stalin and Hitler agree not to kill each other and divide europe together while crossing their fingers behind their backs. The Japanese want to observe all the forms of some kind of 19 century war code inform the enemy blah blah yet behave like animals on local populations winks and nods.

[Bob the Insane]

Great post Fenir, I was looking for those naval figures myself fort the battle of the Atlantic... The impact of the wolfpacks was always over played, basically as stated there where too few u-boats and too many ships to sink.

I am british, half English and half Irish and ex-British Army, so I guess that makes me a little patriotic but I am not daft, defending our island was one thing, defeating the Nazi's in europe was something else entirely...

The primary reasoning for us in the UK selling our souls to our american cousins was to win against germany, not just to hold our little island safe and this is because Churchill knew in the long term we were not safe even if we prevented them invaiding... He made a speach about how we could only ignore what happened in europe if we found someway of towing our island some 5000 miles to the west which is as true today. There was either victory or defeat, no middleground, anything but total victory was a defeat... So even during the Battle of Britain the emphasis was to recuit the USA into freeing europe from occupation and how it was in the USA's own interests...

[English assassin]

Picking up on Fenrir's post, there is a very good recent book on the Battle of Britain called, IIRC, The Most Dangerous Enemy. Anyone who believes the myth that the Battle of Britain was won by luck and a few public schoolboys in spitfires should check it out. Its excellently researched, and sets out, in very convincing detail, exactly how and why the South and East of England happened to have the greatest concentration of the most modern fighters, deployed by the only modern fighter control system. As the author remarks, the Luftwaffe, conceived really as flying artillery for the German army rather than as a means to win air superiority, was being asked to take on the most formidable air defence network ever created.

His assessment is that it is completely impossible the Germans could ever have got air superiority, let alone been able to cross the channel, and that this was down to sheer efficiency and good planning by the British. Contrary to our usual image of Hugh Grant bumbling idiots.