re: WWII hypothetical: could Britain have defeated Germany by itself after June 1940

quote:

---

I know books have been written and the debate rages on, but Hitler is very likely to have had a number of undiagnosed/untreated (or treated with some whackadoodle, new age crap) mental impairments, not the least of which was schizophrenia. Now, couple that with folks actually trying to kill him, his personality disorder(s), the deference/adulation so many important folks gave him, it makes it almost inevitable, rather than perplexing.

---

He was also what in modern terms would be called a tweaker. His personal physician treated him with regular amphetamine injections.

quote:

---

I agree with your larger point, and many scholars agree with you - the logistical challenge would have been enormous even if Germany had gone all in. Maybe they were doomed from the start, doubly so because they did not commit the industrial might as early as they might have (LBJ's "guns and butter" strategy?). However, I think it is foolish to say that (you're right about tactics - good tactics can rarely, if ever, cover for failed strategy or logistical inadequacies) strategy and operational errors are of no moment when we can see a handful that could easily have tipped the balance in favor of German victory in 1941 or early 1942.

---

I didn't have time to finish what I wanted to say in my other post, I had to leave. I wasn't able to mention that your points are important, and there can be fair disagreement on issues concerning the battles and campaigns. For example, perhaps it was possible to begin the invasion of Russia one or two weeks more early. It's a question that probably doesn't have an absolute answer.

The battles and operations are all very important and fun to understand and discuss. What I wanted to say is that I sometimes think that the battles and operations might be secondary to the other issues I mentioned. Both being important. Battles and Campaigns get most of the attention, because they are very important and fun to discuss.

Another big point that we sometimes might forget to give the attention it deserves -- Can we say that WW2 was an accident? In his book, Speer makes quite clear (and he was with Hitler during the days surrounding 1 Sep 1939) that Hitler tried to act like he had control of all events and that everything was expected. Speer then says that it was clear to him that Hitler was shocked and surprised that Britain and France actually went to war for Poland.

Speer says that Hitler totally expected to be able to beat Poland and then be at peace with the West.

Speer also says that after France fell, Hitler totally expected to be able to make peace with Britain! And as we know, Hitler didn't begin planning the invasion of Russia until, what, October of 1940? After it was clear that Britain would not agree to peace?

So, it seems clear to me that we must give careful consideration to the notion that Hitler was not in control of events, but the OPPOSITE is true! Hitler's gross miscalculations with regard to especially Britain created the chain of events, not any careful planning from Hitler.

Speer says that Hitler operated from impulse and intuition, not from any desire for long-range planning of the war. Speer says that Hitler's approach to everything was that of a dilettante. Hitler preferred to select amateurs for big projects, he didn't like to be around people who might seem more smart than he. That's why he made an architect, Speer, Minister of Armaments. That's why he appointed World War One pilot, Goering, to be in charge of Economic Development. That's why he made Keitel a high strategic officer in the OKW -- Keitel wasn't qualified for that job.

Lots of great insight to be gained from Speer's book Inside the Third Reich. IMHO, it is one very important part of the historical record that cannot be ignored by any serious student of the war.

As a History major, I love to look into 'what ifs' as American Revolution, Civil War, and certain theatres in WW2, and well any war/battle/event that went wrong/right that change the course of an outcome, from weather, time, or miscommunications.

To answer OPs question; I do not believe GB would have been able to out produce, nor out perform Germany.

quote:

---

To answer OPs question; I do not believe GB would have been able to out produce, nor out perform Germany.

---

I like hypotheticals myself, but, the hypo that pits UK vs. Nazi Germany, and only those two at war, almost already happened. It was UK vs Germany and Italy for a while. Neither side could project enough combat power to knock out the other.

Germany tried the Luftwaffe vs the UK homeland, but, the entire "Battle of Britain" was a completely improvised affair from Germany's standpoint. Germany nor the Luftwaffe had any pre-planned campaign vs UK. That's why I say it was completely improvised. Germany never had a heavy bomber prepared to use vs UK. In fact, the largest bomber ever to attack the UK homeland dates from World War One.

In any event, the USA was helping the UK from very early on. Most don't know that by June 1940, the Royal Air Force plane fuel for their fighters was 100 octane. They got that 100 octane fuel from the USA. The USA would not have sold that high grade fuel to Germany, whose planes had no access to 100 octane, but had to use 87 octane.

So, the USA was helping Britain every early on. The USA was never a TRUE neutral, and that's part of the reason why Hitler felt it was politically helpful to declare war on the USA -- the USA was helping the UK and actually engaged in shooting at U boats but Germany was not shooting back.

quote:

---

Germany would have crushed Britain in a few weeks, do you have any idea the resources they committed to Barbarossa?

---

True, but to conquer the UK homeland, Germany would have to invade the homeland with ground forces. Germany had no plan to execute an amphibious invasion of England. Germany hadn't nearly enough seapower to do it. Germany had no trained amphib troops. Germany had no officers trained in such operations. Germany had no equipment designed for the purpose of amphibious invasion.

In short, Germany had absolutely no realistic chance of invading and conquering the UK homeland. Much has been written about Sea Lion, but, it was always a mere bluff and a completely ad hoc and improvised affair.

quote:

---

True, but to conquer the UK homeland, Germany would have to invade the homeland with ground forces. Germany had no plan to execute an amphibious invasion of England. Germany hadn't nearly enough seapower to do it. Germany had no trained amphib troops. Germany had no officers trained in such operations. Germany had no equipment designed for the purpose of amphibious invasion.

In short, Germany had absolutely no realistic chance of invading and conquering the UK homeland. Much has been written about Sea Lion, but, it was always a mere bluff and a completely ad hoc and improvised affair.

---

Agree 100%. All the Panzer divisions in the world do you no good if you lack the ability to get them across the English Channel and land them on British soil safely. And the ability to achieve such a feat was simply beyond German capabilities in 1940.

Now, let's say the Germans never turned east and the war against Britain dragged on between just the two of them for a few years. Perhaps using a combination of starvation through u-boat blockaid and building up the Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine, the Germans could have been in a position to try a cross channel invasion sometime around 1944 - 45.

quote:

---

A new book proves a long-discussed rumor that Hitler’s Nazi soldiers were addicted to Pervitin, a pill form of crystal meth.

---

This has been known for about 50 years. Also, no, Britain did not have the means to defeat the Germans alone.

quote:

---

For example - to call it foolhardy ignores all the other things Hitler got away with. He got away with so much because he was crazy, appeared crazy, and the other side backed down to avoid conflict until it was almost too late. He could use those successes as justification for continuing to be crazy. 

---

I just don't agree with this assessment. I'm not ignoring anything in determining the decision to overrule an offensive, bold, and innovative commander like Guderian's plans to make a very strategic withdrawal to more defensible lines when the German offensive had simply run out of steam and could advance no further was foolhardy. Hitler should well have known that Guderian's mindset was not like those of the old breed who had resisted his boldness earlier and been proven wrong. Hitler at this point was relying too heavily on his emotions and will and concerns regarding the psychological effects of Germany relinquishing the offensive attitude of always remaining on the attack. He also underestimated the remaining Soviet capabilities and the true exhausted state of the German forces at the front. Any wy you slice it, the decision was foolhardy. That he had a rationale for it doesn't change that.

And I don't subscribe to the notions that Hitler was crazy nor schizophrenic at all. Megalomania and narcissism were rather the more operative traits that led to his poor decision making as the war began to turn against Germany. Granted he was in an extremely difficult situation and had placed the entire responsibility of the war on his own shoulders. Even Ludendorff had to be put on R&R for a period of mental and physical recuperation due to the strains of having such responsibilies in WWI. Hitler simply took on too much and failed to put his faith in those commanders that had already proven themselves 100% committed to boldness. Hell, Guderian literally wrote the book on daring armored warfare yet Hitler could not bring himself to heed his advice at this critical moment. It's not insanity or anything extraordinary, it's simply a character flaw.

quote:

---

Yeah, the truth is somewhere in between, but Hitler wasn't a professional military man, either.

---

The old popular history of the war is that Hitler had evil, long range plans, that he re-armed Germany into a mighty invincible machine with endless numbers of tanks and planes, that he planned the whole war carefully. The carefully planned and prepared Battle of Britain -- where Britain is doomed but EUREKA a miracle! A few Spitfire pilots defeat the greatest invasion armada of all time -- the vaunted Nazi Luftwaffe and Nazi Kriegsmarine !

It really wasn't until after Speer's book came out that history arrived at a more accurate interpretation of the war's events. Speer lived through it. He was at Hitler's side more than any other functionary except Martin Bormann. The story I tell about how the war really unfolded comes directly from an eyewitness -- Speer.