Can you cite some sources? You've made a lot of interesting claims here, but the backing is basically, "Because I say so."
How would a British and Soviet only war against Germany go
- Thread starter walmart
- Start date
Can you cite some sources? You've made a lot of interesting claims here, but the backing is basically, "Because I say so."
Deleted member 1487
Empra
Banned
Just compare the population and industrial/agricultural capacity of the dominions to the US. Then compare the distance to the Atlantic route.
Neither do I and if the Japanese do behave better in Asia then the British Empire is only at war in Europe/North Africa, that is a significant benefit. I am not convinced that with this advantage the north African campaign will not be over just as quickly as OTL. Secondly Britain is not able to be defeated by Germany, Germany simply can not at any point past the battle of Britain actually win (in the sense of a decisive blow), certainly not without unrestricted submarine warfare and with that a neutral USA is flipping impossible. The actual defeat of the USSR is also very difficult to achieve (unless Hitler gets a political victory by securing massive anti-Stalinist support in the USSR domestic population) But Hitler and the Nazis cant do that they are ideologically incapable. So the remaining allies have 2 scenarios assuming no change in the German government, a long attritional conventional war or a slightly shorter one ended by the eventual success of tube alloys. Neither is easy, but they are both still more likely than a German long term win. Whatever the economic issues facing the UK they are minor compared to the absolute disaster of the NAZI economy.
I'd say an Allied victory, but longer and harder. Lend Lease to the Soviets started in November 1941 if I recall correctly, so that wouldn't necessarily stop; though if the US is pursuing a 'Japan only' strategy, this may reduce a bit after December 1941. Aid to the British will probably be unchanged and can be justified as 'look, they are fighting the Japs too' by Roosevelt.
I'd largely say the Soviets and British are going to win, but it's going to be a 1947 win, with the Soviets on the Rhine and the UK having pulled off a sort of 'OVERLORD/RANKIN' hybrid in 1945 or 1946. Churchill's love of Med strategies probably means Italy still gets invaded (but maybe in 1944) but the British will get a very large shock there and won't have an easy time at all. Doubt they'll get to the Alps by wars end.
If the US, after defeating Japan by early 1945 by invasion, stays active internationally, they're going to get a nasty shock after Europe is resolved in 1947 when they realise the Soviets have taken all OTL countries plus rest of Germany, Finland, Denmark, Austria and Greece. And Yugoslavia is staying FIRMLY in Stalin's grasp. Cold war is going to go very differently with the Soviets controlling all these extra nations.
They continued to do so from c September 1942 to March 1943 in the OTL. There were other lucrative hunting grounds besides the US eastern seaboard. The most renumerative operation was probably Eisbar.
Deleted member 1487
Got a link for Eisbar? I haven't found a Uboat operation based on it. As to the other hunting grounds, numbers wise there were no grounds as lucrative as the US seaboard by mid-1942 and even the US coastal waters dried up. Same with the Caribbean. Without the US entering the war though, the Caribbean and US coast are closed for political reasons. That means the critical Atlantic hunting grounds still open on the way to Britain are too well defended by Coastal Command and convoy escorts, which were finally together properly by late 1941. Further afield in the South Atlantic there was still some hunting grounds available, but only the handful of long range Uboats could hunt there. The August 1942-March 1943 hunting ground was the Mid-Atlantic, which would be closed off thanks to the US security zone they claimed; unless Germany wants to pick a fight with the US, it's closed to Uboats as it was pre-US entry IOTL.
I thought they would have filled in the info by now. I have the book and it is the official British history of merchant shipping during the war, explaining beyond a doubt why the US supplies were the prerequisite to continue the war.A document template, which only includes the text of the Foreword.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 1487
The UK and Soviets don't really have the steam to continue the war into 1947. For the Soviets specifically they'd run out of manpower if they were delayed that long, as it implies a much slower progress in the East, which means the Germans have time to remove populations that were IOTL conscripted into the Red Army to keep their numbers up, plus economic resources that were used to keep the war economy going. As much as the Soviets liked to point to economic numbers 'proving' how little LL actually helped, it is only the territories recovered from 1943 on IOTL that helped provide those numbers. If that recovery is delayed then LL is even more vital than IOTL and the Soviets suffer accordingly by having their economy limited by not having access to the resources of the Donbas (for instance) while the Axis benefit from holding and exploiting it longer. Same with food supply; by denying the Soviets Ukrainian farmland for a year or two longer the Soviets will have problems even with LL.
BlondieBC
Banned
I have extensively posted on this topic, so you can search it, but I can explain the logic and easy to verify facts pretty easily.
Facts:
- UK used max effort to ship supplies IOTL. i.e. There are no significant numbers of merchant ships sitting idle, no easy to implement port efficiency action items undone, etc.
- There also are no large block of idle naval military assets.
- It takes about a half week to a week to unload a ship. Same to load.
- Merchant ships travel at around 10 knots.
So it is pretty clear to see the early restraint in the war is not a financial restraint but hard asset restraint. i.e. Not enough shipping. This always happens in major wars, and we can go into the explanation if needed. So we then look at UK ships loading on the Eastern Seaboard of North America or New Orleans, and we calculate round trip times. We then look at the other major food areas which is Argentina, South Africa, and ANZAC. Calculate the travel time. This will give you the lost shipping capacity and % reduction in imports. Probably around 50% or so for whatever has to be source in non-USA sources. And this obviously has a major impact on the war.
Also, when you calculate, don't let the ships go through the Med since this was not practical.
So to more general analysis. Without the USA, the UK will never be strong enough to attack northern France in a D-Day. And with 50% less resources, we have to have much more frugal, wise military commanders. So we start cancelling operations, reducing troops strengths, and the like. So it is pretty easy to bound out a England that is safe due to Germany's lack of a surface fleet. Easy to see UK can supply Egypt. Easy to see UK is too weak to support embargo on Japan. We can debate some second front like invasion of Norway or invasion of NW Africa. Likely indecisive Egypt campaign
So then we get into the much murkier area. With Germany being having more free resource and a pressing need in breaking Soviet army, what happens. Lot of room to debate here, but not so much room on the supply situation for UK.
Indeed. It would be helpful to cite some reliable information to support this claim of fact. At this point its still not clear if the difference between Britains gold & Dollar reserves & its imperial Sterling economy are understood. I suspect there is also 'The Allies Cant Do Anything Different' fallacy under lying the thinking.
A document template, which only includes the text of the Foreword.
I think the link is a suggestion folks read some decent sources, like HyperWar. Not that I've seen much in there that supports the argument in contention here. HyperWar is a hell of a effort, but it barely cuts the surface in so many respects. I'd turn to Ellis 'Brute Force' as a starting point for understanding a small bit about the military/industrial situation of Germany circa 1942.
When the nazi leaders found they were in a long war they made a effort to change economic/industrial/military policy or strategy to deal with it. If Britain and the USSR find a strategy based on the US participation is no longer viable both are going to alter their actions in multiple ways to deal with the problem.
Based on what I've read the USSR could be knocked out. There is a bit of mystery to how bad the situation in the USSR was at it's lowers point. It was certainly bad, but a lot of this is overplayed to present the USSR as the saviour. Ignoring that the US contribution in aid is estimated at supplying about 200 divisions with the necessary provisions to fight. That loss on the Eastern Front, could set the whole Allied war effort.
At the same time, the British might be in a different position due to the lack of aid from America. As brought up in many SeaLion threads the British were planning their mobilisation with the thought that the US would support this in some way. Without this we'd likely see a very different build up. By 1942 we can still envision several million British & Commonwealth troops on the British Isles. The real issue without the US support is whether the Allies could still stage D-Day and I don't think they could. At least not for another year, then you gotta start wondering about the situation in Asia.
Though with all of this, you've got to know a bit more about why the US stays out. The US has a vested interest in keeping Europe stable after WWI, so any PoD that keeps the US from even sending aid, is likely going to cause a very different WWII.
At the same time, the British might be in a different position due to the lack of aid from America. As brought up in many SeaLion threads the British were planning their mobilisation with the thought that the US would support this in some way. Without this we'd likely see a very different build up. By 1942 we can still envision several million British & Commonwealth troops on the British Isles. The real issue without the US support is whether the Allies could still stage D-Day and I don't think they could. At least not for another year, then you gotta start wondering about the situation in Asia.
Though with all of this, you've got to know a bit more about why the US stays out. The US has a vested interest in keeping Europe stable after WWI, so any PoD that keeps the US from even sending aid, is likely going to cause a very different WWII.
I was referring to U-boat operations around the Cape of Good Hope in the fall of '42, one of the greatest u-boat successes of the war.
More Type IXs became available by 1942-43, and there were milk cow uboats to support operations in distant waters.
An unfavourable peace treaty they were correct in predicting they would be able to tear up in short order, albeit for different reasons.
Deleted member 1487
Got a link with info? I can't find anything about this
There are only about 20 in mid-1942
My source is Blair's Hitler's U-boat War Vol. 2.
I'm sure there were more by the start of '43 and the spring. Of course in the OTL they suffered high losses by then but if they had faced only British resources and were used mainly against unescorted vessels in peripheral areas (instead of against convoys) they probably still could've achieved a lot after "Black May" in the OTL.
Empra
Banned
And I say so because I know the numbers. LL delivered 6.2 million tons of American food to the UK. Enough to feed roughly 4.5 million Britons from mid 1941 to mid 1945. Considered that even Australia received LL food OTL, the Dominions could supply at best 10-20% of this number. That means the British Isles are slowly starved into compromise without LL. And this is "just" food. The absence of iron ore, steel, fuel, coal, aluminum, ect would be equally disastrous. 30 million Australians, Canadians, South Africans and New Zealanders simply can't compensate for the absence of 130 million Americans! It is baffling that for some this stands to discussion. The Dominions OTL were allready at maximum. To suggest they could have done much more is absurd.
WW2 required a titanic effort of the "Big Three" in order to win and it wasnt an easy victory. Yet if we remove the most important player that supplied 1/3 of this coalitions population and half its industrial/agricultural capacity some people still claim that the "big two" still win, it just takes a few days longer. This claim shows such a level of ignorance about this time period, LL especially, that its baffling.
No LL for Britain? No problem! The Dominions can jump in! Doesnt matter that the distance to South Africa is twice and to Australia/New Zeeland 4-5 times greater than the Atlantic route! The 30 million people of the Dominions will produce as much food/products as the 130 million Americans, im sure of it! After all OTL the Dominions were only at 10% of their maximum capacity! The British Chief of Staffs concluding that they couldnt continue the war without US support were clearly out of their minds!
Not enough food or resources? Oh dont be silly, the British dont need such things! Even if they cant do anything they just have to hold out untill the mighty Soviet Union defeats Germany! The Soviets dont need food or resources as well! Remember the famine they had in 1946/47 that killed between 1-2 million people OTL? Well without LL this famine will hapen in 1943/44, but the Soviets will still prevail!
Despite the absence of 50% of "their" aluminium, 40% of "their" copper, 8000 LL tractors, 12 000 LL tanks, 25 000 LL aircraft, 400 000 trucks and jeeps, despite Zhukov,Khrushchev and even Stalin admitting that without LL they would have been screwed, the Soviet economy will never ever collapse and the Soviets will never ever compromise; even when their only "ally" is just sitting around letting them do 99% of all the work.
Last edited:
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.