Which Allied power did Nazi Germany have a better chance against solo?

Which Allied power did Nazi Germany have a better chance against solo?

  • USSR

    Votes: 149 77.2%
  • US/Britain

    Votes: 22 11.4%
  • Germany has an equal chance at defeating either of them if they fought them solo

    Votes: 22 11.4%

  • Total voters
    193

nbcman

Donor
He was half correct - look up the May crisis between Chamberlain and Churchill

Yes there was a crisis for a day until Chamberlain agreed with Churchill that there would not be an acceptable offer from Germany.

So you mean to say that when the US/Britain tell their populations that there is nothing they can do to liberate Europe - except bombing - to remain behind the war effort? Seriously?

And for the most part, the British and Americans did that IOTL. The British had no hope of re-entering Europe for years and kept fighting. The US had no hope for invading Europe for at least 2 years after they were attacked and kept fighting. It will now take a 1-2 years longer.

He was the main innitiator of everything - and he moved faster and far more agressive than any other president would have.

So yeah with his death there is room for negotiations.

What about other presidents who acted aggressively in foreign affairs such as Jackson, Madison, Polk, and TR? FDR was not unique and there is no guarantee that his successor would not stay in the war.
 
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/..._EN&a=http://m.forbes.ru/article.php?id=55689
I'm not seeing anything supporting what you're claiming. They had bottomed out in terms of gold by the late 1920s and started producing a few hundred tons of gold between 1928-1941, saying they produced about 700 tons of gold between those years, not that they saved them, in fact probably spent them because their revenue during the 1930s due to trade was hundreds of millions of rubles less than anticipated. Then it says Soviet gold stocks were refilled AFTER WW2 by confiscation and reparations, while expanding production in Siberia; during the war production had been shut down.

https://translate.google.com/transl...expert.ru/zolotoi-zapas-sssr.html&prev=search


Later it mentions the 2800 tons pre- war then only 2500 tons in 1953 upon Stalin's death, despite confiscation and reparations. No sourcing though, just claims.
2500 after Great patriotic war, paying for some of the supplies etc. Seems like claim they had nothing is just the claim.
 
Look up how close pedestal was.

Also:

During the Battle of Dunkirk, many Allied ships were lost to Ju 87 attacks. The French destroyer Adroit was sunk on 21 May 1940, followed by the paddle steamer Crested Eagle on 28 May. The British destroyer HMS Grenade was sunk on 29 May and several other vessels damaged by Stuka attack. By 29 May, the Allies had lost 31 vessels sunk and 11 damaged.[103] In total, 89 merchantmen (of 126,518 grt) were lost, and the Royal Navy lost 29 of its 40 destroyers used in the battle (8 sunk, 23 damaged and out of service)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87

I may be wrong but I don't think that the Royal Navy would be going into battle in paddle steamers...

Also, 8 + 23 doesn't equal 29...
 
Next to no mistakes? Germany made a LOT of mistakes in the 39-42 period.
Well engaging in the BoB maybe.

And who is this magic man who will replace Churchill and continue the war?
Don't know, but I doubt you'd be able to find more than one or two, and none in positions of actual power, that would be willing to negotiate, too much bad blood.

Under the right circumstances - yes they will
This ain't one of those situations.

Sigh - the facilities were maxed out OTL - because of different priorities - this is an ATL with different priorities.
No, they were maxed out, to build more stuff they need more facilities, and

Actually they need a continued bombing campaign - they had enough aircraft - they just need to keept it up without relocating forces every few months - and with enough reinforcements that can keep up their strenght.
Pedestal happened when the Nazis were on strength in the Med, to do any better they'd either have to take over even more airbases from the Italians, or build more airbases. And Malta still matters not much, the facilities in Libya were real limiter.
 
Well engaging in the BoB maybe.

Don't know, but I doubt you'd be able to find more than one or two, and none in positions of actual power, that would be willing to negotiate, too much bad blood.

Halifax was willing to talk, he did an end run around Churchill to open up a dialog through Sweden in 1940. Would the cabinet have gone along would depend a great deal on what Germany asked for.

Michael
 
Halifax was willing to talk, he did an end run around Churchill to open up a dialog through Sweden in 1940. Would the cabinet have gone along would depend a great deal on what Germany asked for.

Even Halifax was thinking of a peace of Amiens where Britain spends a year getting it's affairs in order and then re-enters the war.

Whether Chamberlain, Churchill or Halifax is in charge doesn't change the basic problem for Germany in 1940 - that of Hitler having already drained the allies well of trust dry.
 
Look up how close pedestal was.

Also:

During the Battle of Dunkirk, many Allied ships were lost to Ju 87 attacks. The French destroyer Adroit was sunk on 21 May 1940, followed by the paddle steamer Crested Eagle on 28 May. The British destroyer HMS Grenade was sunk on 29 May and several other vessels damaged by Stuka attack. By 29 May, the Allies had lost 31 vessels sunk and 11 damaged.[103] In total, 89 merchantmen (of 126,518 grt) were lost, and the Royal Navy lost 29 of its 40 destroyers used in the battle (8 sunk, 23 damaged and out of service)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87

I smell wet salty cat... something like 200 craft were sunk/damaged overall
 
Halifax was willing to talk, he did an end run around Churchill to open up a dialog through Sweden in 1940. Would the cabinet have gone along would depend a great deal on what Germany asked for.
Seems weird to me, since he was less trusting of Hitler than Chamberlain had been, and more willing to support rearmament, and then he goes and pulls a cowardly move like that?

I smell wet salty cat... something like 200 craft were sunk/damaged overall
The destroyers were mostly sunk in or near harbour, and only 4 were lost to air attack (plus 1 French), and several took the Germans several goes to actually sink. This was not a demonstration of overwhelming superiority on the part of the Luftwaffe.
 
It was probably those same ships that mostly got sunk, but I'll bet most of them were in or near ports, and virtually none had any AA weapons mounted.
 
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/..._EN&a=http://m.forbes.ru/article.php?id=55689
I'm not seeing anything supporting what you're claiming. They had bottomed out in terms of gold by the late 1920s and started producing a few hundred tons of gold between 1928-1941, saying they produced about 700 tons of gold between those years, not that they saved them, in fact probably spent them because their revenue during the 1930s due to trade was hundreds of millions of rubles less than anticipated. Then it says Soviet gold stocks were refilled AFTER WW2 by confiscation and reparations, while expanding production in Siberia; during the war production had been shut down.

https://translate.google.com/transl...expert.ru/zolotoi-zapas-sssr.html&prev=search


Later it mentions the 2800 tons pre- war then only 2500 tons in 1953 upon Stalin's death, despite confiscation and reparations. No sourcing though, just claims.
Also same article mentions that after going downhill after 1928 Stalin targeted Soviet Union to become largest producer in gold in world but Union didn't manage that with production some 320 t a year. (CIA estimates from late 40-ties early 50-ties is going around these numbers too if I remember correctly). CIA however estimates that during WWII and shortly after production declined. They speculate that reason could menpower and material shortages as well as using up available mines while neglecting search and opening for new ones.
 
My two pence worth (or cents, € or $)

Ah yes and the Germans cant retaliate against Britain - and even if they could the British would not fear and their hearts would not weaver - very dramatic.



USA! USA! USA! "Waves flag"

ATL Trueman might be - since the war will have become much much less popular in ATL.

Seriously you make the mistake of comparing OTL where everything went quite well for the Allies post mid 42 - to this much much more darker ATL where the Allies would be experiencing one setback after another for years.
I think both yourself and some of those responding to you have wandered from the intention of the OP question. Which was, IF Nazi Germany somehow was able to fight a one front war, would it have been better able to defeat the USSR or the UK (backed by the USA) ?

FWIW I agree with the majority that Nazi Germany could just possibly have defeated the USSR had the latter fought alone without LL or other aid. Its chances depend on the POD that allows such an event. A harsh victors peace imposed on the UK in July 1940 is highly improbable but not ASB. The British elite could panic post Fall of France and accept harsh terms, though not with Churchill in charge! Though even then Germany would need to retain some forces in the West against "Perfidious Albion" rearming, maybe secretly in the Dominions! A "White Peace" sometime after the BOB but before Barbarossa is plausible IMHO, again provided Churchill and his faction aren't in power. Though the same applies in spades regarding a British stab in the back! I might try to war game either of these scenarios sometime and report the results as my first attempt at an ATL here.

As to whether Nazi Germany could ignore the USSR and defeat the Brotish Commonwealth and Empire fighting with US backing in the degree given in OTl. Very implausible IMHO. Germany is simply out produced by the UK/US combination. It might do a bit better than iOTL with a concentration on U-boats and the Mediterranean. But it can't weaken the Eastern Front too much and the logistics for a Med. strategy simply suck.

Likeliest result IMHO is either a stalemate until the UK/US develop nuclear weapons or Stalin decides it's time to launch a reverse Barbarossa. See the novel Icebreaker for an example of what could happen.

Calbear's Anglo-American Nazi War deals with one scenario with a Reich victory in the East while at war with the UK/US. Even that doesn't end well for Germany. (Massive understatement)

" Amateurs (soldiers) talk tactics. Professionals talk logistics" IMHO Geo-political Strategists should talk Economics and Finance.

Hmm, think I'll adopt that as my sig. Once I bother to do one.

:)
 
Top