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.

[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.