Date Posted:05:24:31 06/09/07 Sat Author: Carl Author Host/IP: 222-152-165-105.jetstream.xtra.co.nz / 222.152.165.105 Subject: Re: Britain standing alone vs Germany who wins WW2 In reply to:
Paul_G
's message, "Re: Britain standing alone vs Germany who wins WW2" on 17:41:06 06/03/07 Sun
Now you're crazy. Britain was not getting its butt kicked in the early war, the British didn't actually wait to see how they'd fare on their own after the French surrendered, they just decided to withdraw from the continent. However during their retreat to Dunkirk, they won basically every battle on the way there and caused so much damage to the German tanks that Germany stopped sending Panzers in agains the British because they were losing far too many and couldn't maintain an effective army if the loses continued. German commentaries at the time stated they were glad the British weren't going forwards because they'd have been losing territory fast. Admitedly there were set backs in Africa, but the African war would have gone the same way it went anyway with eventual British victory. The U boat strangle hold was more myth than fact. Less than 1% of allied shipping was sunk by u boats, the threat they posed was inflated, Britain wouldn't have any worry continuing with that loss rate. However, when saying Britain alone, are you including countries that identified themselves as British at the time like NZ, Canada and Australia? Canada would have industrialised much more than it did if America hadn't entered the war, the war would have been longer too, so Canada would have been contributing a lot of heavy arms by the end ie tanks and planes. NZ and Australia would have continued sending men and producing small arms and logistics equipment. And don't forget that the British Expeditionary Force that went to the continent was not by any means Britain's entire army. It wasn't even Britain's entire regular/standing army. It was a tiny army that did brilliantly in all engagements right up to Dunkirk.
An invasion of GB wouldn't have been possible given the RAF defences, after the battle of Britain the luftwaffe was almost shattered and never regrew to its former might. An extended air war with Britain would have ended with the luftwaffe having nothing left to fling against the UK. The german's had too insufficient a surface fleet to be able to clear the path for landing ships to get to UK beaches, the Royal Navy which mostly stayed put during the war out of air raids way, would have been deployed and the air cover of the day would have been in the hands of the British not the Germans. Facing the British fleets and airforce would not have gone well, they wouldn't have made it close enough to even get a handful of men onto British soil.
The probable outcome would have been Germany conditionally surrendering before any forces made it to Berlin, because both nations would have been financially shattered from the efforts. Financially Britain could have held out longer drawing on the Empire's coffers. The financial stress would have meant Britain's peace terms may have been somewhat soft just to end the war. Ie Germany may have kept some territories granted pre war, reparations may have been minimal and the German armed forces would have been scrapped. Probable there would have been another war erupt during Hitler's life time assuming he hadn't died from the illness that developed during the war and that the Atom bomb hadn't been invented. However, given that Britain had the scientists with the most complete research on atom splitting (NZ'er Lord Rutherford) they would like have developed it some short time after the war anyway.
Japan isn't worth mentioning, it only lasted as long as it did because it was up against the allies spares as the mains were in Europe. After Germany falling Japan would have been wiped through an invasion via the Chinese side rather than the Pacific island hop route, as Britain reclaimed its colonies.
>>Britain with no outside support but her own flesh and
>>blood, no outside help from the Americans, who wins
>>the war? What will be the world today?
>
>You guys are all crazy. Without the US or Soviet
>Union, Britain was getting its butt kicked in nearly
>every aspect of the war. They were terrible against
>the Germans early in the war and even worse against
>the Japanese. The Battle of Britain would have been a
>temporary setback, in the same way that early war
>daylight bombing was a setback for the Allies.
>
>Without American intervention, Germany would have had
>a huge industrial advantage... it could have used that
>to gain air superiority over time, and launched an
>invasion in 1943 or 1944 - the actual European theater
>in reverse, basically. Or it could have strangled
>Britain with U-Boats and aircraft. Their options were
>limitless.
>
>And before people bring up the Royal Navy... a large
>part of that was WWI vintage, and I think limited
>actions showed how utterly ineffective that was
>against airplanes, submarines, and more modern surface
>ships.
>
>With no outside help for Britain, some form of a EU,
>with the capital being Berlin, would have extended
>over a large part of the world.
>
>A better question might be, what would the world look
>like now, if Britain had sided with the Axis? The
>Japanese were allies of Britain until the 30's, and
>I'm sure the Germans would have preferred Britain as a
>European ally to the comic relief they had in the
>Italians.
