How much of our modern consensus of the inevitability of Allied victory in WWII is due to information after the fact?

[durante]

he's pointing out that to defeat Germany, Britain will have to:

invade the continent with enough men to defeat the Nazi armies.

This will take a huge, mega effort that Britain has no means of doing without America footing the bill. It is probably impossible even with American financing

Germany doesn't need to invade Britain. By the time something like Sealion becomes possible, it has long since become unnecessary: Britain will collapse from the lack of imports

Totally false, as the British Empire is not in the dire economic straits the Nazis are in.

Britain just needs to outlast the crumbling façade of a state that is the Nazi Empire.

For people that think Britain couldnt win on her own:

What do you think the GDP and population of the empire were in 1939?

Hint: bigger than the Soviet Union and Germany combined

 

[Count of Crisco]

Totally false, as the British Empire is not in the dire economic straits the Nazis are in.

Britain just needs to outlast the crumbling façade of a state that is the Nazi Empire.

For people that think Britain couldnt win on her own:

What do you think the GDP and population of the empire were in 1939?

Hint: bigger than the Soviet Union and Germany combined

Yeah. Though to be clear long term the British empire is doomed. It just cannot sustain itself in the face of rising nationalism in the colonies, backlash against harsh policies, economic decline relative to other powers, and several poor decisions by the British government. But the British empire could on its own fight Hitlers Germany in economic terms and win 9/10 without outside intervention for either side.

 

[Post]

Perhaps bot Britain's atomic program wasn't really advanced

Germany would have won the Battle of the Atlantic if she wasn't mired in the Soviet Union and America wasn't footing the bills. Just the aircraft lost in Russia would have been enough to cripple British imports

Britain adopts the only strategy possible after France falls: try and holdiut untill someone else joins the fight.

It works because of America and the Soviets but Britain isnt winning on her own

Apart from that even without US support for the British the Germana aren't likely to win the BotA, it's extremely hard to get the US to not support the British at all ater the fall of France. This is because it worried the US voters and the majority wanted to support the UK. I've posted Gallup polls about this in earlier threads.

WW2: What could the British do if the USSR was defeated and the US remained neutral?

In this scenario the US doesn't enter WW2 and the Germans reach the Ural mountains. This leaves the UK as the only enemy of the Reich. Can the British do anything in this scenario? Would they accept peace or just keep fighting in Africa and maybe harass the Kriegsmarine. I imagine the Germans...

www.alternatehistory.com

But not his reelection, with a war going on in Europe. And an isolationist would have an uphill struggle in 1940 (if France falls). Because there was wide support for supporting the UK and France even before the fall of France, and after the fall of France that support only grew.

I posted results of Gallup polls of 1940 on these (or similar) subject here, and here.

A note on US public opinion on peace terms in 1940

I'm not speculating on how likely it is that a British government (even led by Halifax) would make peace on such terms in 1940--but if it did, a substantial number of Americans (I'm not sure how many Britons..) would say it was doing the right thing (though it must be remembered that this poll...

www.alternatehistory.com

In the last one there's a poll about how people felt about the chances of the UK winning the war (taken in october 1940): 63%.

 

[durante]

Yeah. Though to be clear long term the British empire is doomed. It just cannot sustain itself in the face of rising nationalism in the colonies, backlash against harsh policies, economic decline relative to other powers, and several poor decisions by the British government. But the British empire could on its own fight Hitlers Germany in economic terms and win 9/10 without outside intervention for either side.

I dont know about "doomed" seeing as the Commonwealth is currently growing and CANZUK seems within the realm of possibility, but the Empire was certainly due for a massive change

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

The Commonwealth is a grouping of sovereign states that holds meetings plus sporting and cultural activities. No material advantage is derived by the UK from the group. Unlike the Empire.

CANZUK is unlikely to mean anything other than additional competition for British farmers.

 

[Casting Crown]

Everything.

Why do you think the man in the high castle was written and sold well.

A few reasons one, books and ideas about that were creative and new, no one spent time thinking about things like that, or if they did they certainly didn't sit down and churn something out. Most of us were directly or indirectly inspired, but now there's a lot more of us thinking about that, hense this place.

So the unique combination of unknown first and oh back to the topic, every bit of it.

They literally had no idea if we just cut off Japan's fuel supply, Germany's too.

Hell with Germany just deprive them of their very first Czech gains.

See, WW2 averted in Europe.

But they didn't know that.

They Soviets could be all the way to Paris, Stalin himself probably didn't even realize was a force he was commanding or he wouldn't have stopped going.

 

[Glenn239]

. But the British empire could on its own fight Hitlers Germany in economic terms and win 9/10 without outside intervention for either side.

The British Empire had virtually no chance of winning WW2 under those conditions.

 

[Count of Crisco]

The British Empire had virtually no chance of winning WW2 under those conditions.

Considering the rest of the original comment, the part that is summarised here, says that all the British had to do is outlast the Germans. Which isn't a hard thing to do as the German economy was an insult to the term, then it's very likely they win.

But go on and say that the Germans would invade the UK and the British would crumple like paper.

 

[TDM]

The question is could the resources the Reich spent in North Africa IOTL be enough to turn the tide in the war against the USSR if Hitler decided to not help Mussolini in Africa?

A lot of the problems the German had in the USSR will not be solved by more of X and Y, in fact more of X & Y could make some of the issues worse in specific ways. You have to move it about, you have to keep it supplied and so on.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

T

Yeah. Though to be clear long term the British empire is doomed. It just cannot sustain itself in the face of rising nationalism in the colonies, backlash against harsh policies, economic decline relative to other powers, and several poor decisions by the British government. But the British empire could on its own fight Hitlers Germany in economic terms and win 9/10 without outside intervention for either side.

That was on the cards regardless of the criminal maniacs in Berlin, Rome and Tokyo.

 

[David Flin]

A lot of the problems the German had in the USSR will not be solved by more of X and Y, in fact more of X & Y could make some of the issues worse in specific ways. You have to move it about, you have to keep it supplied and so on.

It depends on the resources taken from North Africa used in Barbarossa. More trucks would help (assuming fuel for them can be found). More tanks and men and planes are just a resource sink. They weren't short of these - it was keeping them supplied at the sharp end.

However, logistics is not "sexy", and there was no glory in shifting stuff from A to B when compared to leading assaults and winning battles. The generals from the latter could (and did) always complain about shortages of supplies of all kinds, but no-one ever seemed to twig that maybe having someone arrange transport of supplies of all kinds would help much.

Germany needed more Berthiers, not more Napoleons. But the Napoleon type was the type to get the plaudits and the glory and the promotions.

 

[TDM]

I've argued for that point for years.

North Africa was a sideshow of a sideshow.

Mussolini was getting his ass kicked by the Greeks and rather than simply tell him to pull back and we'll grab the Med in due course, Hitler had to go to his Bro's aid. Bad led to worse. Enormous losses for the Axis.

German KIA weren't horrible, at least compared to what was to come, close to the Polish Campaign, but it cost them an Army Group worth of PoW, (plus the quarter million or so Italian troops taken prisoner) 888 single seat fighter, 112 twin seaters, 734 bomber and ~320 transport aircraft, hundreds of tanks and thousands of trucks. Including Italian losses the Axis lost 70,000+ trucks in North Africa and Italy's motorized/mechanized forces were simply obliterated, as was the majority of their air power.

Imagine the Eastern Front with 200K+ more German troops, a couple thousand more combat aircraft and even 20,000 extra trucks, even without the Italians. Get them on line and you can add at least 500,000 troops, the aforementioned 70,000 trucks, a total of 3,000 armored vehicles (lots of them tankettes, but a 7.92mm machine gun that go 25 miles an hour is better than no machine gun a'tall) and few thousand more combat aircraft (against the better MiGs not so good; against Il-15 and Il-16, well lets talk stranger).

Italy my have been a junior partner but it was still an ally which made it's own decisions based on it's own goals not Hitler's. Why would the Italians go all in in the USSR when Germany refused to help them with their own goals much closer to home? Italy didn't join in with France until it was almost all over and that was a neighbor.

An extra 200k Germans in Barbarossa would have been approx an extra 5-6% of starting strength so I don't think they'll be that relevent

Don't get me wrong more trucks more planes yes that will help, but the list of issues the Germans faced in the USSR is far longer than just needing a couple thousand more planes. Not forgetting that all those committed, spent & lost resources in N. Africa etc were lost over an almost 3 year period and would not be available all at once for a beefed up Barbarossa


Although again just saying all Italian Trucks and Tanks etc lost in North Africa would go to the USSR campaign is an assumption especially as the Italians viewed N.Africa as their new empire and was will be more OK with manning it and supplying it than some bit of the USSR for their allies benefit.

 

[TDM]

It depends on the resources taken from North Africa used in Barbarossa. More trucks would help (assuming fuel for them can be found). More tanks and men and planes are just a resource sink. They weren't short of these - it was keeping them supplied at the sharp end.

However, logistics is not "sexy", and there was no glory in shifting stuff from A to B when compared to leading assaults and winning battles. The generals from the latter could (and did) always complain about shortages of supplies of all kinds, but no-one ever seemed to twig that maybe having someone arrange transport of supplies of all kinds would help much.

Germany needed more Berthiers, not more Napoleons. But the Napoleon type was the type to get the plaudits and the glory and the promotions.

Yep

In July 1941 the axis already had a million more personal in theater than the Red army in western Russia, so I don't get this idea that an extra 100-200k will make the difference. And if it hasn't made the difference quickly then it's certainly not going to make the difference later when the Red army fully gets going.

Plus while I can see why the Italians were happy to risk their trucks etc in the sands of their new N.African empire, are they going to be so keen to ship them all off to Russia to sink up their axles in mud and then freeze tight more for Hitlers benefit than their own?


There's a bit of an argument that somehow you can put all resources from all Axis nations in a big pot and have Berlin decide were it will all go. But Italy's not going to mass mobilize 500k men and all their tanks and planes and trucks into the USSR just because Hitler demands it, any more than Germany would launch a Barbarossa sized invasion of North Africa to carve out Il Duce's new Roman empire.

Not only did the Axis not operate in sync like the allies did (OK like the Wallies did), but the Axis were trying to achieve their own specific conquest goals as well.

Look at what happened in Aug 43, Mussolini was publicly unpopular and overthrown, not sure he's going to be more popular after sending off hundreds of thousands of Italians to die in Russia and after not even making a fight of N.Africa and keeping the new empire because Hitler says "no we're doing the Bolsheviks".

 

[Glenn239]

For people that think Britain couldnt win on her own:

What do you think the GDP and population of the empire were in 1939?

The GDP of most of the overseas Empire was buried in subsistence economies and of no practical use to fighting a world war. (Canada, Australia, New Zealand excepted, of course). The populations of these lands were also extremely poor, mostly illiterate, and not suitable to replacing the missing 34 million Soviet troops should these sit out the war. India contributed the most number of troops, peaking at 2.5 million, which was not enough to do much beyond the Indian Ocean.

 

[Glenn239]

Considering the rest of the original comment, the part that is summarised here, says that all the British had to do is outlast the Germans. Which isn't a hard thing to do as the German economy was an insult to the term, then it's very likely they win.

But go on and say that the Germans would invade the UK and the British would crumple like paper.

I don't think the German economy would collapse. Nor do I think the Empire helps the British much, (anyone thinking that the British can exploit India to this degree need to account for the fact that Stalin will want to turn India communist and overthrow British rule here and everywhere in the Empire).

I suppose if the American poured in huge amounts of money and equipment, this could keep the British going into the late 1940's, but what would be the point?

 

[Post]

It depends on the resources taken from North Africa used in Barbarossa. More trucks would help (assuming fuel for them can be found).

That's what I thought to, when I mentioned it recently in another thread, I got this reply:

That's something I thought too but I understand that after Rommel's initial equipment load for the DAK, many/most of the transport vehicles used to support him in tbe Benghazi Handicap were captured British ones. I'll have to check again how significant this was.

There could be a bit more fuel I suppose without shipments to North Africa.

So I'm not sure if abandoning the NA theatre would really help the Wehrmacht in Russia.

 

[Garrison]

Also there's the flip side to Germany not supporting Italy in North Africa. it almost certainly means the British finish off Libya a year to eighteen months sooner, which leaves a lot of men and materiel looking for a target. Also how far does Germany not helping the Italians go? Does it cover Greece? Sicily? The entire Med would be wide open and without German intervention it might really be 'the soft underbelly'.

 

[Fulton 44]

The sitzkrieg with the UK scenario would probably not have much effect on the Eastern Front in 1941. Assuming that the Italians can be persuaded not to precipitate a conflict with the UK, the primary differences would be - 1. diversion of resources from the Med front to the Eastern Front, 2. less submarine construction, 3. less need for defending coastal areas, 4. less damage from bombing and fewer resources devoted to defense against bombing, 5. more possible support from Finland and conceivably Turkey, and 6. possibly an earlier start due to the absence of the Balkan diversion (I am not sure about this - there are arguments that an earlier start was impossible due to weather conditions and I haven't evaluated those arguments).
In 1941, I don't think that the USSR got much lend lease but I may be wrong.
So, the Axis might do a little better but the logistical barriers would still be formidable.
1941 probably plays out roughly the same.
By 1942, however, differences would appear (assuming that the sitzkrieg continued): 1. considerably more Axis resources on the Eastern Front, and 2. considerably less Lend Lease. So we might wind up with a quicker attack on Stalingrad, more success in the direction of Baku, and possibly the surrender of Leningrad. Also the flanks of the Stalingrad salient might be better defended. Logistics might be eased by domination of the Black Sea.
So we possibly start to have a different war on the Eastern Front.

 

[Workable Goblin]

considerably less Lend Lease

Would there necessarily be less Lend-Lease? Certainly from the British perspective now they are not using up their own materiel fighting the Italians and Germans in Africa, so they can afford to send more to the Soviets.

 

[Post]

The issue I have with the Sitzkrieg idea is that you have to convince:
1) Hitler not to attack the UK;
2) Göring that the Luftwaffe cannot bomb the British into surrendering;
3) Raeder and Dönitz that the Kriegsmarine (the U-boats) cannot starve the British into surrender.

And doing that while the UK tries to attack Germany with their bombers.

I think it's only a little more plausible than a succesful Sealion.