Date Posted:18:48:24 06/04/07 Mon Author: Paul_G Author Host/IP: c-68-83-87-141.hsd1.de.comcast.net / 68.83.87.141 Subject: Re: Britain standing alone vs Germany who wins WW2 In reply to:
Abdullah
's message, "Re: Britain standing alone vs Germany who wins WW2" on 08:53:38 06/04/07 Mon
>1. Battle of Britain - won without support - OK some
>Irish, Polish, Czech and commonwealth fighters.
>2. Bismarck & Tirpitz destroyed without any support.
>3. Complete destruction of the French fleet.
>4. Nearly complete destruction of the Italian fleet.
>
>Well, outnumbered, outgunned, old technology but the
>Brits win! Because: Much much much better
>intelligence, more intelligent and and the prophet on
>their sides (Winston Churchill). Please we should not
>forget: The Brits knew nearly EVERY move of the
>Germans.
Of course, the code breaking was MAJOR. But none of those other listed engagements were really war-winning strokes though, not in the same way that Stalingrad was for example. The Tirpitz was used as a decoy and I think the Bismarck sinking was lucky - that torpedo hit on her rudder which eventually caused her destruction was no less than a miracle. I think what you'd have to look at is:
North Africa was won mainly because the Germans could not supply their troops - because the British never really lost control of the Mediteranean. And even then it was a close thing. But what if the Germans were able to provide more resources to supplying those troops, and protecting those supply routes? Without the war in Russia... if I was the Germans and I felt that an invasion of Britain was not imminent, I would have concentrated on North Africa. This extra support might have also made the Italian Armed forces more useful than they were. I'd have gone after British shipping with all those land-based aircraft that would have been fighting Russia.
How important was the Atlantic to Germany anyway? Most German supply lines, other than the African front, would not have been affected by a blockade. The Third Reich was consolidated in Europe, and didn't have as have much to lose at sea as the British Empire did.
I dunno... I believe that other than the Battle of Britain, the war performance of early war Britain wasn't much more effective than early war France. I do think the British performance would have gotten better as the war went on, but I don't think they could have held off that kind of disparity of resources. Don't forget that even before America entered the war, they still sent a good many needed supplies to the UK.
