World War II: Germany vs Britain (minus USA)

[icelord]

But the USA had nothing to do with the cracking of Enigma (don't believe Hollywood), so that wouldn't have been affected by the USA being neutral.

I know, should have elaberated more.
The british had the advantage of superior intelligence over Germany. Most German agents were identified before the outbreak of the war, although they some in ways were able to slip through detection, only to be caught later on.
SIS had hundreds of Agents in Germany, and were laying lies and false info for the German forces and its leaders, about Britains situation and its force numbers as well as morale. The german Abwehrs incompetance was too good to be true, and it was not until the Engima was cracked by Dilly Knox, Chief Cryptographer at Bletchly Park Cypher HQ. At First SIS thought they were being played, but Abwehr really were that stupid and incompetant that no matter what their agents said, it was lapped up, and their agents were easily turned double in no time. -see, no USA help in screwing over old jerry.
Britain had something the US didn't, Intelligence and it was this that helped all sides, especially D-Day.
The US could not have done anything if invading without being slaughtered and the British could do little in invading without US. The Role of both led to the Downfall of Hitlers Nazi Germany, each was as vital as the other, no matter what is said, US would have been pushing shit up hill with the British, and the Brits would have been riding it to nowhere without the US.

Firstly, the UK never faced Fortress Europe alone. There were also India (which could have contributed more, if the British governments attitude had been different), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, several West Indian territories, much of Africa . . . plus countries which weren't colonies or dominions but tied in by British economic interests. The contribution of that lot was immense, both in manpower & materials.

Poland too, Polish pilots flew for the RAF in Battle of Britain as well as Commonwealth nations. I think ANZAC pilots had the most Aces over everyone else...woot!
As said, if Hitler had of kept going for the Airfields, nothing would have stopped a German Invasion, as Goering had this task before any land forces moved, and they were in France preparing. But RAF launched a daring raid on Berlin, which enraged hitler to order the desruction of British Cities, leading to the sacrafice of Civilians for the rest of the Nation, not a great outcome, but they died for their country.

 

[riksavage]

Stopping an invasion

The Royal Navy remained a vital factor in deterring any invasion, 30 British destroyers to Germanys nine covering the English Channel alone, backed up by the home fleet (Germany’s capital ships where either sunk or confined to port by the end of 42). The UK also had the advantage of radar and sonar, which in the case of the latter was beginning to tip the balance when combined with more efficient tactics, depth charges etc.

As early as December 1941 characters such as Captain Johnnie Walker, RN where already applying revised techniques to defeat the U-Boat threat. In a single engagement while escorting convoy HG-76, Walker's group sank 4 U-boats U-131 (Baumann), U-434 (Heyda), U-574 (Gengelbach) and U-567 (Endrass) for the loss of one escort carrier and 2 ships sunk. This is considered by many to be the first real convoy escort victory of the war . Unless Germany gained the supremacy of the sea then an invasion of England remained impossible.

Germany remained the supreme power on land, whilst the UK continued to rule the waves. Sooner or later the US would have to have picked sides. Germany would not have continued to tolerate the US supplying the UK and Commonwealth with raw materials or munitions. Sooner or later she would have repeated the same mistake as WWI and torpedoed a US non-combatant. The idea of a restricted, as apposed to an unrestricted, submarine warfare campaign was never considered by Hitler and his Naval Chiefs of Staff.

 

[icelord]

Also the attack on a US Navy ship(unsure of name) escorting the fleet from new york helped congress minds in declaring war. They say this was the intent of roosevelt, a sacrafice for the greater good, hidden in a minor escort fleet.
Plus the whole Japan attack and Germany declaring war afterwards may have something to do with it.

 

[swerve]

Poland too, Polish pilots flew for the RAF in Battle of Britain as well as Commonwealth nations.

Yes, and for the most part they were pretty good. But a few Polish pilots & a few thousand Polish soldiers, however brave & skilful, weren't significant. They had to be equipped & fed by the UK. The Commonwealth was able to supply millions of troops (about 4 million at the peak, compared to a peak British strength of a little over 5 million), armed a fair proportion of them, supplied the UK with raw materials for British industry to arm & equip the rest, & a lot of British troops, & fed quite a lot of the British population. That was what I meant.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Also the attack on a US Navy ship(unsure of name) escorting the fleet from new york helped congress minds in declaring war.

It was the Ruben James, dont ask me how i know that.

 

[.pt]

Swerve,
Ok i believe you on the armament cycles, and that had its importance on the tempo choosed to start the war, but nevertheless, look at what happened.
I don´t know the exact numbers, but the german army by using superior tactics, training and some weapons systems, quickly defeated belgium, holland and france. Nevermind if the French and the british had superior numbers in manpower, or tanks or airplanes. They didn´t use them efectively, relied on old supositions on where and how the Germans would strike, couldn´t develop countertactics in time for the Blitzkrieg that engulfed them in little time. The use of armor with infantry and aviation in a well coordinated effort, completely took the allies by shock and surprise. Also, the biggest mistake they did was to just let hitler go trough Poland, and not strike immediatly. It was the only time that Germanys western border was left virtually undefended , and they just sat and waited (the "guerre de drole"?).
Also numbers by themselves mean nothing. i don´t know the exact qualitative diferences between the French/british/army and the German army Infantry equipment/arms, or tanks, but i do know that in aviation terms, at the time the Luftwaffe was far superior to its French and British equivalents, not only in airplanes (ME109,Heinkel11, etc), but also in pilots with experience and tactics, learned in the spanish civil war.
But my point remains. Despite armament cycles, and tempos the Germans did achieve most of their early goals in WWII, without entering full war production until 1943, at a time that the war was already lost, but not very aparent.
regards.
.pt

 

[.pt]

Regarding The Reuben james affair.
To be honest, before the US entered WWII, there are historical reports, that in some ocasions in 1941, USNavy destroyers atacked German U-boats, without themselves being engaged by U-boats earlier.
Also, if my memory does not fail me, i remenber to have read in some book, that, sometime in late 1940/1941, there was a directive for USnavy vessels to escort convoys further into the Atlantic than usual and provide some assistance to RN, all this way before December 1941. Sly old Roosevelt.
.pt

 

[Manfred]

Hell, getting pretty far from the original thread... so, let me take it a little farther-

IF France had any backbone at all in 1939, the second World War would never have happened. A full-scale invasion with 50 divisions in mid-September would have overwhelmed German Defensise in the West in a matter of days. The British navy and Air Force could have savaged any number of high-value targets before the Luftwaffe could have been transfered at airfields in the west. Of all the "what ifs", I consider this one to be the show-stopper. Of course, this did not happen, and the reason it did not is because the European governments of 1939 were much as they are today... spineless and self-centered.

How about this for a 'what if'; AMerican neutrality in todays world!

Why not abandon a world to its own devices? why not sever all diplomatic ties to everyone, cease oil imports and turn to alternte fuels now, and cease imports from China that eliminate native prodution? Why not leave the Jihad to run wild across Asia, Europe and Africa? Let them engulf the whole mess, and in turn they will be over-run by a new, hungry China. America could be super-Switzerland, as we were during the Napoleonic wars, and reap enourmous profits.

After all, if the world blames us for everything, why bother to do anything at all? :nutkick

 

[Waylander]

You have no idea of economical processes, don't you?

 

[.pt]

Manfred,

I agree with the first part of your post, except for that last remark about European Governments. 1939 was something, today is very different.

As for the second part, the what if america stayed completely neutral, on the economical front waylander said it all, on the political, diplomatical, and military front the results would be disastrous. USA would loose all its influence on world events and policy, shatering alliances and becoming very much isolated and vulnerable to atack in a few years. As for the pseudo threat of Chinese or Muslin takeover of other parts of the globe, eventually they would set their eyes on US, and then what? you would fight them alone? That is only postponing the problem, not solving it. As for the Switzerland bit, let me tell you. Switzerland´s neutrality worked fine until WWII, because of their terrain wich makes invasion a dificult proposition, and because in WWII, it suited the parties that they stayed neutral. Today, that may not be so. If a big, organized army, tried to take switzerland, they probably would succeed. At a great cost, for sure, but it´s not impossible.
And i don´t remember USA extensive land and marine borders being framed by mountains as big as the alps.
.pt

 

[Waylander]

And also remember that Switzerland is completely implemented into the world economy and has strong ties to the EU and also participates in multinational peacekeeping missions like in the Kosovo.

 

[Manfred]

Yeah, it would be tough for America to be economicaly isolated, but not impossible. The will is not there, but one Islamic nuke exploding within our borders could change that overnight.

Relax, folks, just taking another point to an absurd end... but how many absurd ideas became reality before anyone was ready to deal with it? North Korean Nukes come to mind...

 

[Waylander]

You just have not enough and not the right resources on the north american continent not to talk of all the small and big things you are importing.
And the only thing that keeps US economy from collapsing are foreign investments or why do you think your economy works even with a big negative trade balance?

But I agree that this is really off-topic.

 

[LancerMc]

Currently there is now way the U.S. could be economically independent from the rest of the world. Our economy relies too much on the source of foriegn oil and energy. I would think our industrial base could produce all the luxury items and food goods for our country if ever forced too. Raw materials for the production of certain goods would be okay for a short period but there a number of materials the U.S. is low in so many items would become to expensive after that for most Americans to buy.

I think more then likely the U.S. would become isolationist's again, by having a place in the world economy, but not being involved politically or socially. It's not like some countries wouldn't mind that now.

 

[.pt]

The problem with that scenario, is that, not only US citizens would have to pay the economical price, but at this stage, it would probably mean in a few years a political/military problem, due to expansionist countries and having a power vacum in the world for some time.
It ´s a legitimate reasoning, and if US Citizens truly wish it, well they have the power to elect officials that translate that will to reality. Just don´t go complaining of the results.
As for the criticism of US actions troughout the world, altough sometimes they may be, or seem unfair, to US citizens, it ´s only natural, since you are currently the only Superpower in the world, and are at the height of your influence in world affairs. So other countries, and their citizens are always tempted to throw a rock at you, with reason, or not.
My view is that, the USA and its policy, with all its defaults and shortcomings, still is the best around, albeit i think perhaps you are doing some major errors, in some countries.
I very much prefer US being the world super power, than any other contender at the moment, such as Russia or China, whose regimes and way of thinking i do not like. That doesn´t mean i won´t criticize the US administration in some matters, whenever i feel i should.
Opinion of an European.
.pt

 

[Waylander]

Great post!
Hits the point!!!

 

[Manfred]

Agreed, I have nothing to add.

 

[Rich]

I thought the title of this thread included "minus the USA"?

 

[Manfred]

Whoops!

You'r right, Rich, went way out there for a while. I think that in a War without the US involved, Axis victory in WW2 would have been inevitable.

Why? Something that a lot of people seem to forget about; The Emipre of Japan.

Without American support, Nationalist China (the ones that were actualy fighting the Japanese) would have collapsed. If the Japanese would have respected American Neutrality, they would have had no diffuculty over-running Dutch and British colonies, perhaps even taking over large parts of India.

With all of China under their control, they would have had a broad front to threaten the Soviet Union from. If they timed it right, and IF they had recovered thier nerve after Zhukov had mauled them in Mongolia (summer of 1939) Siberia might have been theirs for the taking.

After that, who knows? Would they have turned on America? Or, would they have fallen to squabbling over the fruits of victory? I think WW3 would have followed very quickly, and it would have been even more inhuman.

 

[Rich]

Actually Manfred I was referring to "why every International thread eventually degrades into a bitch session against my country"? Or at the least, and no matter what subject the thread was intended for, ends up becoming centered on America.

You'r right, Rich, went way out there for a while. I think that in a War without the US involved, Axis victory in WW2 would have been inevitable.

The topic on its own was fascinating on its own power without the world community weighing in on current world events and "The Great Satan". Let me ask you this. If America during WW-ll would have only been involved economically would Britain and Russia have lost the war? I guess you could add China to that.

First off Hitler failed both to invade England and to get to Moscow without US involvement so its hard to argue that Germany would have succeeded over time. Succeeded maybe to get an eventual peace with acceptable territorial gains. But "winning"?? Difficult to imagine.