If the gloves come off because of Britain starting up operation vegetarian, what was the size and nature of the German, Soviet and British chemical and biological weapon stockpiles?
Germany had 70,000 tons of a very persistent mustard gas:If the gloves come off because of Britain starting up operation vegetarian, what was the size and nature of the German, Soviet and British chemical and biological weapon stockpiles?
Most of the sulfur mustard agent found in Germany after World War II was dumped into the Baltic Sea. Between 1966 and 2002, fishermen have found about 700 chemical weapons in the region of Bornholm, most of which contain sulfur mustard. One of the more frequently dumped weapons was the "Sprühbüchse 37" (SprüBü37, Spray Can 37, 1937 being the year of its fielding with the German Army). These weapons contain sulfur mustard mixed with a thickener, which gives it a tar-like viscosity. When the content of the SprüBü37 comes in contact with water, only the sulfur mustard in the outer layers of the lumps of viscous mustard hydrolyzes, leaving behind amber-colored residues that still contain most of the active sulfur mustard. On mechanically breaking these lumps, e.g., with the drag board of a fishing net or by the human hand, the enclosed sulfur mustard is still as active as it had been at the time the weapon was dumped. These lumps, when washed ashore, can be mistaken for amber, which can lead to severe health problems.
In 1943 Germany produced more than in 1942 despite holding less territory. In 1944 Germany produced more than in 1943 despite holding less territory. There were problems with the German economy (mainly the lack of resources) however the main reason Germany lost was because it fought just to many enemies at once. Remove the Allied powerhouse USA from the equation and the chances of a German victory skyrocket, while the chances for a half-victory through stalemate become allmost 100%.However as I recall, Tooze's Wages of Destruction effectively implies that Germany had lost the war at the start because its economy was weak.
In 1940 Britain had a population of 48.3 million people. US LL supplied 4 million tons of food in the 1941-1943 period - enough to feed around 3.3 million Britons every year. The average received calories for the UK were 2750 calories/day, which for most was just enough to hold their weight. So without LL food 45 million Britons have to reduce their daily calorie intake by 190 calories in order to feed the 3.3 million which were fed by LL in OTL. If you take 380 calories less than your body requires, you loose around 0.1 kilograms of body mass. Now lets run through the numbers:Also Edgerton in Britain's War Machine touches on the possibility of USSR/British Empire being able to defeat Germany without active USA participation....
So the British are starving and dying from the lack of food from late 1941 onwards.
Their report and its conclusion – that Britain could stay fighting fit even if all food imports were lost – was circulated to government departments.
No; see Widdowson and McCance
I'd like to see where you're getting that stat about British steel production; from what I've seeing they produced much less than Germany. If anything they imported US steel. Higher numbers for Britain probably include imperial production.I love how the Soviets and British apparently can't mobilize nearly as much as the rackshamble Nazi economy. Britain alone produced as much steel as Germany. And a 2500 Calorie diet isn't going to starve literally anyone to death. That's 700 above my maintenance level and I am 5'8".
The problem is the bottleneck of shipping. But luckily this thread isn't about if Lend-Lease didn't happen, it's about if America didn't join the war. And if America didn't join the war, it would actually ramp up LL. The Soviets would be in Paris and the Brits in Milan by summer 1946. America would be pumping out Liberty ships and giving them to the British for free. They would be sending track for the British and Indians to build through Persia. They would be sending tens of thousands of trucks and thousands of tons of machinery for building war machines. Hell they would send more steel to Britain and the USSR than Germany could produce entirely.
I'd like to see where you're getting that stat about British steel production; from what I've seeing they produced much less than Germany. If anything they imported US steel. Higher numbers for Britain probably include imperial production.
China produces 10x more steel than the US; therefore China is 10x stronger than the US?Britain alone produced as much steel as Germany.
Correction: 1800 calories is the maintenance level for you if you sit on your ass all day doing an office job. With just moderate activity you would require 2600 calories to maintain weight. However the millions of soldiers in training, factory workers, farmers, nurses, ship crews, construction workers, repair crews ect ect need in excess of 3000 some even in excess of 4000 calories to maintain weight and health.And a 2500 Calorie diet isn't going to starve literally anyone to death. That's 700 above my maintenance level and I am 5'8".
Actually we are dealing with both scenarios here.But luckily this thread isn't about if Lend-Lease didn't happen, it's about if America didn't join the war.
DebatableAnd if America didn't join the war, it would actually ramp up LL.
Debatable. Even with LL the British still have sever manpower shortages limiting the size of their army, without the US air force helping them they still could loose the air war in 1944. As for the Soviets, they would be facing much stronger German formations/better defensive positions than OTL, and Roosevelt still dies in April 1945 and Truman would cancel LL right away. So even WITH LL the Germans might manage to pull of a stalemate depending on how far the Soviets stand from Berlin when Roosevelt dies.The Soviets would be in Paris and the Brits in Milan by summer 1946.
Debatable, also British manpower shortages, also what about the lack of escort? The US can give Britain 10 000 Liberty ships for free, if they arent escorted they will all be sunk within a few years.America would be pumping out Liberty ships and giving them to the British for free.
OTL American personell did the most work in Persia; tracks without a workforce to install them dont mean much.They would be sending track for the British and Indians to build through Persia.
Germany produced something around 250 million metric tons of steel during the war, the UK/USSR received around 15 million tons from the US. So how exactly are the Americans going to deliver 16-17x more steel than OTL?They would be sending tens of thousands of trucks and thousands of tons of machinery for building war machines. Hell they would send more steel to Britain and the USSR than Germany could produce entirely.
So you just made things up. Germany in 1929 was beset by the Great Depression and withdrawal of US loans, the tariffs erected against her in the 1920s, and were still recovering from the economic disaster of the early to mid-1920s while France ran the Saarland and Poland had taken Upper Silesia. Germany of 1941 controlled all their 1914 territory plus Austria, the Sudetenland, and Luxembourg among other areas, so experienced a VASTLY higher output than they were capable of in 1929. During WW2 they were well behind what Germany was turning out. UK steel imports were a function of being unable to produce more due to the huge problems within their own steel industry, which drove them out of production post-WW2. The UK's GDP during WW2 was highly dependent on US and Imperial imports and without that would have collapsed given how resource poor the British Isles were in terms of the demands of modern industry. UK production and pilot training was massively boosted by the US and the empire, both of which sent exports to Britain and trained British pilots in the Americas.I couldn't find specific numbers for the 30s or 40s for some reason. My numbers were from 1929, which is admittedly outdated, but only a couple million tons behind the German 1939 numbers, which were much higher than German 1929 numbers. The UK imported steel from the US because it had such a huge manufacturing industry their own domestic steel production couldn't keep up. The UK's GDP during WWII, although smaller than Germany's, was not significantly smaller, especially considering they weren't losing a major part of it in the fields of the USSR. It was a peer economy to Germany by itself, much like the Soviet Union was. Germany has the advantage of interior lines and the exploitation of Poland, the Low Countries, and France, but even then it couldn't match UK airplane production or pilot training by itself.
I love how the Soviets and British apparently can't mobilize nearly as much as the rackshamble Nazi economy. Britain alone produced as much steel as Germany. And a 2500 Calorie diet isn't going to starve literally anyone to death. That's 700 above my maintenance level and I am 5'8".
The problem is the bottleneck of shipping. But luckily this thread isn't about if Lend-Lease didn't happen, it's about if America didn't join the war. And if America didn't join the war, it would actually ramp up LL. The Soviets would be in Paris and the Brits in Milan by summer 1946. America would be pumping out Liberty ships and giving them to the British for free. They would be sending track for the British and Indians to build through Persia. They would be sending tens of thousands of trucks and thousands of tons of machinery for building war machines. Hell they would send more steel to Britain and the USSR than Germany could produce entirely.
There was USW within the declared war zone around Britain. With the US 'neutral' it was only within their declared protection zone that were protected totally, while outside the protection and war zone cruiser rules applied. As it was US merchant shipping was being sunk under USW and the US response was to arm merchant shipping, not declare war.lets be clear lend lease started before the USA was in the war why would it suddenly stop just because the USA did not declare war? Secondly if there is no USA in the war then there cant be unrestricted submarine warfare, and its extremely unlikely that there is a war in Asia at all. In these circumstances its Germany that's fighting a 2 or 3 theatre war not the allies in these circumstances It does not seem to me that the supposed resource issues are as stacked in Germany's favour as some might think.
All of your figures and arguments are very convincing. However as I recall, Tooze's Wages of Destruction effectively implies that Germany had lost the war at the start because its economy was weak. Unfortunately I cannot immediately check this because I am not at home but I would be interested in your view. Also Edgerton in Britain's War Machine touches on the possibility of USSR/British Empire being able to defeat Germany without active USA participation....but it is merely an aside not fully expanded upon.
Not sure why no PH stops the US joining the war. Pretty soon a U-Boat is gonna take a shot at a major US warship, or something similar, and the US is in the war.
You need a MUCH bigger POD than "avoid Pearl Harbor."
Alternatively, I'm not sure how PH is avoided without the Japanese somehow behaving differently in Asia which seems unlikely.
And I say so because I know the numbers.
(snip)
"I'm right because I say I'm right," isn't convincing in a debate, so again, can you provide your sources? I'm not a big WW2 buff, so sources are pretty valuable for me.
I noticed both thing too, and totally agree with you. There's no reason to suspect the LL would be different from OTL. Which means 1942 will go largely as it did in OTL.I notice OP has stepped out.
I also notice we're back to the old 'No Lend Lease - UK and USSR are definitely SCREWED', even though the (admittedly light on detail) scenario has a December 1941 POD, during which LL is already active to both the Soviet Union and the UK.
I mean, come on. The chances of the US just stopping all aid, and even denying cash and carry is pretty much nil, yet this seems to be a regular answer here.
Let's put some realism into things.
The chances of the US providing LL for years yet never entering the war is pretty much nil, yet this is considered more realistic than the US stopping to supply the British after they run out of cash... Also see the thread title. It say UK/USSR war only - not UK/USSR war with American support.The chances of the US just stopping all aid, and even denying cash and carry is pretty much nil, yet this seems to be a regular answer here.Let's put some realism into things.