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 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.

[Rosacrux]

UK? Win? Against Germany?

Yeah, right... you heard the other joke with the blonde...

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

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

WW2 intervention has to be the single action of that ravaging imperialist cowboys (the Merkies ) that I am greatfull for

[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.

Napoleon wasn't defeated by British alone.

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

Hetman

[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 I think the russians would have held Stalingrad and leningrad anyways even without american support

[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

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

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.



Link to US help to Soviets:
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/...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.

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.

[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.