Challenge: British Defeat WW2
- Thread starter Sol Invictus
- Start date
BlairWitch749
Banned
Not par say. Britain by late 1944 was out of infantry replacements... they hadn't really been defeated they just had too many committments and were anxious not to bankrupt themselves of blood and treasure if possible. A more successful performance by the Germans could bring about the end of replacements perhaps a year earlier and it could lead to a white peace
Manstein changes the world explored the necessary steps to defeat Russia without a dramatic change in the Reich's war economy (the defeat of Russia made the defeat of Britain inevitable as Eurofed mentioned) 
[/QUOTE]
So if America is in the war Britain can still lose provided Russia loses. I don't see how that is possible. Once America enters the war, Britain becomes the world's largest aircraft carrier and troop transport/bunks.
[/QUOTE]So if America is in the war Britain can still lose provided Russia loses. I don't see how that is possible. Once America enters the war, Britain becomes the world's largest aircraft carrier and troop transport/bunks.
No invasion of Greece and a more conservative and defensive Battle of Britain would have allowed Barbarossa to start in May and succeed, and Russia might largely out of the war by '43 at which point resources can be redirected either to some sort of Sealion operation or more likely defeating the British in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. If America is somehow kept out of the war, perhaps by Hitler condemning Pearl Harbor, Britain would have no chance at holding it's colonies there. With firm control of Russian and Middle-Eastern fuel supplies, and a Luftwaffe that can successfully defend the Continental Europe, Germany would have the resource base to defend its position indefinitely and Britain, with no possibility of final victory, would eventually sue for peace.
*sigh*
barabarossa was delayed by the weather conditions.
The tripartite pact comitted Italy and germany to declare war on the US once Japan had.
Do you realise just how much further those middle-east fuel supplies are from cairo??
Why does US L-L miraculously stop to Russia, it started well before the USA was at war?
Eurofed
Banned
Japan had already broken the alliance pledge when it refused to declare war to Russia after Barbarossa. What goes around, comes around. Hitler and Mussolini delcared war out of megalomanic undervaluation of the American war potential and overvalution of the benefits that unrestricted submarine warfare could bring against Britain. A wiser strategic counsel should have led them to the realization that America ought to be kept out of the war in Europe at all costs.
Nowhere further enough that the Italo-Germans can't reach them, if the Germans throw the bulk of their potential here, and the Italians get some decent doctrine and equipment, before or after Barbarossa. The Axis would have a very good logistics hub in Alexanderia, and can grab others in Palestine and Lebanon/Syria as they advance. And if Vichy can be convinced to cooperate and open up the Syrian ports and airfields before the philo-Axis Iraqi government is overthrown by the British, the distance to cover is short before Syria and Iraq can be secured, the British in Palestine trapped into a strategic vice, and the philo-Axis governments in Iraq and Iran buttressed against British offensives.
The Congress and the American people were no lovers of Bolshevik Russia and Land-Lease was controversial enough as it was, and enlarging it to Russia even more controversial. If the Axis assumes a defensive stance against Britain in Europe and the Atlantic, only going on the offensive in Africa, no BoB and no u-boats, and makes public offers of a white peace, Britain shall not register as deadly threatened to many Americans, and giving Land-Lease to it shall be even more politically controversial, in the face of widespread isolationaist opinion. In these conditions, it may be safely assumed that some Land-Lease to Britain would still be approved, but the much more controversial one to Russia would not. Roosevelt had only so much political capital to spend on his internationalist policies.
Last edited:
BlairWitch749
Banned
Manstein changes the world explored the necessary steps to defeat Russia without a dramatic change in the Reich's war economy (the defeat of Russia made the defeat of Britain inevitable as Eurofed mentioned)
So if America is in the war Britain can still lose provided Russia loses. I don't see how that is possible. Once America enters the war, Britain becomes the world's largest aircraft carrier and troop transport/bunks.[/QUOTE]
America plus Britain equals at most 100 divisions of varying quality (they actually deployed much less than this i believe even if you counted the Italian theater is was still only about 70 at the high point)
German army without being involved in Russia or facing the threat thereof 200 divisions including the might of the entire German flak and tank force.
given the number of natural river obstacles between Normandy/Pas de Calais and the German border bloody stalemate would be almost inevitable
BlairWitch749
Banned
You have to understand the morale factor... most people in Britain had seen the effects of the Great War... the Somme .... losing 1,000,000 sons for a war that they honestly couldn't say they got much out of except unlimited war debts.
When the second Aleimein started looking like it was going poorly (over 10,000 casualties in the first week) or Normandy started to be a stalemate or the disaster in Singapore there was a decent portion of the British populace that compared these disasters to WW1 and support for the war was nowhere near unanimous.
The political infighting was a lot like the attacks on the Iraq war ie Aleimein is like the Somme... Iraq is like Vietnam
There were no confidence votes against Churchill and there were members of parliament and British society who saw communism as more of a threat or just wanted peace at all costs.
Would crossing the canal make the British accept peace? Maybe depending on strategic situation elsewhere
Would the Soviets falling apart make the British accept peace? Undoubetly yes. Even with the Americans on board the British army wasn't large enough to destroy the German army and certainly not willing to pay the price of the millions of casualties that would be required
When the second Aleimein started looking like it was going poorly (over 10,000 casualties in the first week) or Normandy started to be a stalemate or the disaster in Singapore there was a decent portion of the British populace that compared these disasters to WW1 and support for the war was nowhere near unanimous.
The political infighting was a lot like the attacks on the Iraq war ie Aleimein is like the Somme... Iraq is like Vietnam
There were no confidence votes against Churchill and there were members of parliament and British society who saw communism as more of a threat or just wanted peace at all costs.
Would crossing the canal make the British accept peace? Maybe depending on strategic situation elsewhere
Would the Soviets falling apart make the British accept peace? Undoubetly yes. Even with the Americans on board the British army wasn't large enough to destroy the German army and certainly not willing to pay the price of the millions of casualties that would be required
You have me on Ignore, eh lothaw?
Er, apparently subconsciously.
There were several ballots cast during the convention. Wilkie rode an incredible wave of momentum to secure the nomination, but Taft nearly got enough votes during a couple of the earlier ballots. It's not inconcievable at all Senator Taft could have won the nomination. His Isolationalist views, at the time, were quite popular.