Could the Nazis have really starved the UK?

Geon

Donor
Of U-Boats and Codes

I'd like to pursue a "what if" I don't think has been discussed here yet.

Suppose the UK didn't get the lucky break of having the Polish code breakers crack the Enigma code? Enigma allowed the UK to be able turn around the Battle of the Atlantic according to many historians. So assume no Enigma code. In addition to building more subs as suggested by others on this thread would this have been sufficient to allow Germany to win the Battle of the Atlantic?

Remember, even with the U.S. on its side the first year they were allied, 1942, was almost a total disaster in the Atlantic for the Allies. How much more would it have been if Enigma had been unavailable?

One other thought, there's been a lot of talk here about food. However, what about raw materials: oil, manganese, tungsten, rubber, and other such materials? How long would Britain's war industries have been able to continue if there was less of these materials. Remember, that by the end of 1942 Britain had lost many of the sources for these materials in the Pacific.

Geon
 
I'd like to pursue a "what if" I don't think has been discussed here yet.

Suppose the UK didn't get the lucky break of having the Polish code breakers crack the Enigma code? Enigma allowed the UK to be able turn around the Battle of the Atlantic according to many historians. So assume no Enigma code. In addition to building more subs as suggested by others on this thread would this have been sufficient to allow Germany to win the Battle of the Atlantic?

Remember, even with the U.S. on its side the first year they were allied, 1942, was almost a total disaster in the Atlantic for the Allies. How much more would it have been if Enigma had been unavailable?

One other thought, there's been a lot of talk here about food. However, what about raw materials: oil, manganese, tungsten, rubber, and other such materials? How long would Britain's war industries have been able to continue if there was less of these materials. Remember, that by the end of 1942 Britain had lost many of the sources for these materials in the Pacific.

Geon

I remember reading a short story on that once, it ended with a mushroom cloud over Berlin in 1945. Wasn't very plausible but quite good nonetheless.
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
Right lets start at the beginning and work are way through.

Could Germany have starved Britain into submission in WWII? Answer YES.

The big question is how and when the POD would have to be to achieve this?

As it was, there was no way given the forces available to Germany that she could have achieved this aim. At no time did the Germans come close to successfully blockading Britain during WWII. Nor should American help be overrated, it wasn’t needed for Britain to survive; it was needed for Britain to persecute the war to a successful concussion.

So rationing, rationing of food in Britain falls into three phases, 1940 to 1945, 1945 to 1948/9, 1948/9 to 1954. The reasons why food and other stuff were rationed varied. During the first phase it was to ensure an equitable distribution of food to the population, reduce imports so freeing shipping space for war goods, and reducing foreign expenditure. During the second phase, the ending of Lend Lease, and the requirement to help feed the starving millions in Europe saw bread rationed for the only time, it wasn’t ever rationed during the war. There was also a world wide shortage of shipping, and ships from foreign fleets that had been available to Britain weren’t anymore. The last phase, this was as much to do with the continuing balance of payments problems, and the desire of some socialists in government as anything else.

In regard to oil, pre war and right up until America’s entry in to the war, Britain didn’t rely on America for oil imports. It was far cheaper to bring it in from the Middle East, Far East, Caribbean and South American oilfields that she owned, than it was to import it from America. Nor was Britain 100% reliant on imported oil. There were onshore oilfields in Britain, along with oil-sands, and coal to oil plants. In regard to other vital supplies, they mostly came from ether the British Empire or South America. Britain wasn’t reliant on the USA for very much, and could in a pinch have done without.

So as already been said here, there is much common myth about the Battle of the Atlantic, the reality is far different, and in many was far more interesting.
 
So as already been said here, there is much common myth about the Battle of the Atlantic, the reality is far different, and in many was far more interesting.

It is interesting, its so complex that when you get your head around a good chunk of it you feel like you actually acheived something.
 
Just a thought, how far up-river could Type VII U-boats (assuming they'd be the first anti-shipping U-boat deployed) come? Could Germany potentially have built them up rivers, disguised them as large river craft and then run them down to the sea, and fooled the British like that?
 
Just a thought, how far up-river could Type VII U-boats (assuming they'd be the first anti-shipping U-boat deployed) come? Could Germany potentially have built them up rivers, disguised them as large river craft and then run them down to the sea, and fooled the British like that?

You need quite a large and complex shipyard to build a submarine not sure that could be disguised. The Germans did build the later classes of boat in sections and bring them down river on barges for final assembly at traditional shipyards but that was a disaster. With different engineering firms building the sections when it came to join them together they often didnt fit and needed so much remedial work the boats took longer to build than if they had been built the traditional way. The problems could have been solved but not in the time available.

Germanys problem wasnt so much the lack of boats but the lack of crews. There is no way Doenitz could have got 100 boats at sea early in the war he simply didnt have the trained men. For example a submarine captain usually needs at least 5 years of training going up through the ranks before he is considered good enough to take charge, sub captains are rare beasts maybe 1 in a 1000 are good enough to make the grade.
 
This argument is contradicted by reality. Google "the neutrality acts".

Actually it doesn't. The 1939 Neutrality Act (which repealed the previous two as well) only said that war materials had to be paid for in cash and then carried by the reciepent. Even then, it seems it was being ignored as repeated German attacks on US ships in 1941 meant that Roosevelt allowed US ships to sink German and Italian ones in the Atlantic in September 1941. Once US ships start crossing the Atlantic in large numbers again (which I believe was after March 1941, if they ever stopped), Germany has got to start sinking them for the blockade to be effective. This however makes it basically inevitable that something will happen that draws the USA into war, even without Pearl Harbour. Once that happens, the way the Battle of the Atlantic is going to end is certain.

Germany therefore has at most, about nine months to starve Britain of resources. It took the United States Navy at least two years to do the same to Japan, with a much weaker opposing fleet, and even then it took the atomic bombs to push them over the edge. Therefore with the resources they had in the Second World War, Germany could not have blockaded Britain into submission
 
Actually it doesn't. The 1939 Neutrality Act (which repealed the previous two as well) only said that war materials had to be paid for in cash and then carried by the reciepent. Even then, it seems it was being ignored as repeated German attacks on US ships in 1941 meant that Roosevelt allowed US ships to sink German and Italian ones in the Atlantic in September 1941. Once US ships start crossing the Atlantic in large numbers again (which I believe was after March 1941, if they ever stopped), Germany has got to start sinking them for the blockade to be effective. This however makes it basically inevitable that something will happen that draws the USA into war, even without Pearl Harbour. Once that happens, the way the Battle of the Atlantic is going to end is certain.

Germany therefore has at most, about nine months to starve Britain of resources. It took the United States Navy at least two years to do the same to Japan, with a much weaker opposing fleet, and even then it took the atomic bombs to push them over the edge. Therefore with the resources they had in the Second World War, Germany could not have blockaded Britain into submission

Doenitz's own estimate was that even AFTER strangling the UK Atlantic shipping it would take another 12 months before Britain would sue for peace.
 

Deleted member 1487

In regard to oil, pre war and right up until America’s entry in to the war, Britain didn’t rely on America for oil imports. It was far cheaper to bring it in from the Middle East, Far East, Caribbean and South American oilfields that she owned, than it was to import it from America. Nor was Britain 100% reliant on imported oil. There were onshore oilfields in Britain, along with oil-sands, and coal to oil plants. In regard to other vital supplies, they mostly came from ether the British Empire or South America. Britain wasn’t reliant on the USA for very much, and could in a pinch have done without.

Domestic oil production was minimal. Britain was far behind in coal to oil conversions and domestic sources were no where near levels that could sustain her if even 50% of imports were cut off.
It was a critical vulnerability, especially as only tankers, not general cargo ships, could carry oil.

But Uboats alone were not the answer. Bombing British ports (only 3 were capable of handling the volumes necessary besides London: Liverpool, Glasgow, and the Bristol area) both due to port capacity and rail links to the rest of the country, mining them, and having merchant raiders backed up by landbased recon aircraft and naval bombers could make things very hazardous for Britain.
 
But Uboats alone were not the answer. Bombing British ports (only 3 were capable of handling the volumes necessary besides London: Liverpool, Glasgow, and the Bristol area) both due to port capacity and rail links to the rest of the country, mining them, and having merchant raiders backed up by landbased recon aircraft and naval bombers could make things very hazardous for Britain.
Well yes, but a Germany that has all these large bombers (four engined I presume if you want to hit Glasgow) and long ranged naval recon/bombers (also four engined if you want the range) and additional merchant raiders is a Germany that has given up quite a lot elsewhere.

Indeed perhaps the Army and land based air force are weakened to such an extent they cannot win the Battle of France, at which point alt-hist threads ask 'Could Germany have won in France if the Nazis hadn't wasted so much resources on a naval war that never happened?'.
 
Political Responses

While some posters have quite correctly been looking at British military counter measures what would be the political response to the Germans building up a force of circa 300 U-Boats in breach of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement? Could this mean a Great Britian who recognises the more immediate German threat & does not sell Czechoslovakia out at Munich completely changing WWII?
 

Deleted member 1487

Well yes, but a Germany that has all these large bombers (four engined I presume if you want to hit Glasgow) and long ranged naval recon/bombers (also four engined if you want the range) and additional merchant raiders is a Germany that has given up quite a lot elsewhere.

Indeed perhaps the Army and land based air force are weakened to such an extent they cannot win the Battle of France, at which point alt-hist threads ask 'Could Germany have won in France if the Nazis hadn't wasted so much resources on a naval war that never happened?'.

Huh? Glasgow was bombed OTL intermittently. The Ju88 could each it with 2/3rds full war load. Hell the Ju88 could and did bomb Scapa Flow!
Germany could have afforded quite a bit more if it changed its priorities (like no West Wall or Tirpitz and Bismarck) and improved its muddled administration, which created terrible inefficiencies that lead directly to Speer being able to build 4x the weapons in 1944 from the same resource and industrial base as in 1940. OTL the germans built more than 1000 four engined bombers during the war, but poor technical leadership prevented it from being operational in 1941.

The resources were there, but the leadership prevented it from being properly utilized. A POD with Goering dead and Wever alive could have allowed for all of this to work.


While some posters have quite correctly been looking at British military counter measures what would be the political response to the Germans building up a force of circa 300 U-Boats in breach of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement? Could this mean a Great Britian who recognises the more immediate German threat & does not sell Czechoslovakia out at Munich completely changing WWII?
300 Uboats in 1939 is unrealistic in the extreme, but 100 ocean going Uboats is possible. Remember too that the British were extremely over confident in 1939 about their ASDIC units and assumed that their current escort assets were more than enough to handle 200 German subs. Not only that but OTL when the Germans called off the naval treaty and started a crash program to build Uboats the British didn't start to build any more escorts until war was declared 6 months later.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Since Admiral Jellicoe was dead before WWII started, he certainly can't comment on the war itself.

The German Admiralty in WWII was simply wrong. They never got close to starving Britain. They calculated they needed to sink 700,000 tons of shipping every month consistently - which they did maybe once or twice.

You may want to read Britain's War Machine by David Edgerton. It shows what Britain's food supply was like. When I get back home, I'll post specific data from it. Basically, Britain doubled its domestic production of cereals and increased that of fruits and vegetables. Britain's diet did decrease from prewar levels, but those were already much higher than Germany's before the war (Britain per capita consumed about 1/3 more meat than Germany did). It eliminated waste and luxuries by changing to more nutritionally beneficial food (like whole wheat bread instead of white bread). The basic necessities to live (cereals, fruits, vegetables) were never rationed. They were plentiful. The only thing rationed were luxury foods or items that made them taste better, but even here rationing was only done to insure a generous supply for everyone - not because the availability of the items were drastically reduced. That only happned with sugar, hardly an item needed to prevent starvation. And of course, the overseas British soldier ate even better.

So when evaluating the actual baseline of history, Britain was never in any actual danger of being starved. So what about alternates?

Obviously Britain did import some food - typically things that made eating enjoyable - but there were still some wheat and other fundamental items still being shipped. Obviously these are somewhat vulnerable. But it would take an insanely huge increase in U-Boat successes to "starve" Britain. The British ate far better than anyone in occupied Europe or in the Soviet Union. There is a huge amount of slack that's available.

Furthermore, something like 90% of convoys were never attacked by U-Boats. Even those convoys that were attacked kept average losses to 10% or less. Something like 1% of ships were sunk during the war. This is an extremely low number compared to the worst numbers in WWI (like 25%+ of all North Atlantic shipping in the first few months of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917). This is not a good baseline to achieve losses large enough to starve Britain. People can survive without lots of meat or sugar if necessary.

And of course, this doesn't take into account how much more Britain (or possibly even Ireland next door) might boost agricultural production in response if absolutely needed.

Can the Germans improve their naval war effort? Of course. Can they increase tonnage lost and put a real fight for the Royal Navy? Yes. Can they divert resources going elsewhere and impact the war effort? Yes. Can they "starve" Britain? No, not realistically speaking. They might be able to reduce Britain to eating as bad as the French did during the war.

The Germans were losing the tonnage war. Technological advances in favor of ASW advanced faster those favoring submarine warfare. Improved sonar and radar, Huff Duff, Very Long Range (VLR) aircraft, and new weapons like the hedgehog and squid were added to the arsenal. Improvements to submarines were far less. Plus the British were routinely reading the German naval codes.

Increased domestic production of essentials, decrease in food imports, switching to food importing from "essential" to "luxury" foods, the very low baseline of German success during WWII, and increasing Allied ASW tactics and technology all point that the German ability to "starve" Britain is extremely, extremely low. It is not an option I consider to be realistic.

Please reread my post. I am quoting Jellicoe to show the UK can starve if it does not import food.

The German Admirals were right in the goal they desired, but lack the means to achieve it. Yes, it did not happen in OTL, but this is an ATL. I clearly stated the USA and the USSR were not in the war, and Germany put its full weight on the UK.

When you quote your food figures, be sure to give the UK sustained food production capacity without the importation of fertilizer or the use of farm equipment using petroleum. In a successful merchant war against the UK, these are also not available. You keep talking about not rationing in OTL. To discuss an ATL, you need to discuss what would be available in the ATL.

Germany could win the war. It was possible, but it is a multi-year war.
 
Top