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

A couple of observations that lead me to saying Germany wins by 1943.

If the level of U.S. involvement stays consistent as to 1940 levels, Germany strangles marine resupply from the Western Hemisphere, and that's materiel, foodstuffs and fuel (except coal because the UK had this domestically).

Had the war gone differently, the Germans might have realized the Enigma system was compromised as well.

Also air cover and the deviation of resources to air-related industries and issues without the US active participation would have favored the Germans.

Folks don't realize the huge amounts of men, materiel, fuel and energy that was expended by the Germans on the Eastern Front against the Soviets. Most of that (or what the equivalent that the Germans would have built instead of 1,000s of tanks and artillery pieces) could have been brought to bear on the UK.

Also, occupied Continental Europe was a pretty intact infrastructure of trade, transport and economies in 1940. The German masters would have been able to exploit the hell out of this area without much external interference.

Germany 9 times out of 10 in that scenario.

quote:

---

Germany's entire reason for going to war was to strike east.

---

Perhaps not entirely, but this is certainly more arguable than the fact he wanted a dust up with Britain and the U.S. He was FURIOUS when he learned of the Pearl Harbor attacks. He did want to reverse WWI and the Treaty of Versailles, and was willing to fight the British to accomplish that. But he had no real interest in conquering the island itself. Their resources were abroad. He wanted the Eastern European oil - and felt he would eventually get to the middle east. He wanted the Ukraine for an agricultural colony to expand Germany eastward. I don't think he had a long-term plan for the lower Balkans or Italy, but he also didn't want a protracted naval war with the British, either.

But East was the primary goal for his expansion - about that there is little doubt.

quote:

---

He was FURIOUS when he learned of the Pearl Harbor attacks

---

Yet he inexplicably declared war on the US when he wasn't obligated to by treaty. FDR always wanted a Europe first war strategy, but without Hitler's action, he would have had to do some fancy political maneuvering. Hitler gift wrapped the opportunity for him. I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for this other than Hitler being Hitler.

quote:

---

Yet he inexplicably declared war on the US when he wasn't obligated to by treaty. FDR always wanted a Europe first war strategy, but without Hitler's action, he would have had to do some fancy political maneuvering. Hitler gift wrapped the opportunity for him. I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for this other than Hitler being Hitler.

---

I've always wondered what the hell Hitler was thinking when he declared war on the US. My only guess is he was hoping the Japanese would return the favor and declare war on the Soviets.

quote:

---

Yet he inexplicably declared war on the US when he wasn't obligated to by treaty.

---

It isn't all that inexplicable. It was he that encouraged Japan to strike hard. Perhaps he was flattered they took his advice. He also had little direct knowledge of the U.S. He had to know how neutral we really weren't and this gave him the opportunity to expand submarine warfare in the Atlantic, expecting our (and the British) navies would have divided efforts between the 2 Oceans (and 3 if you count the Med). Perhaps he expected an operational advantage in that area that would outweigh the strategic setback of adding another major combatant.

He was a mad man. He would have preferred the Japanese wait another year (he expected to conclude the war in the East by then, and would have been wrong in any event - the Soviets - without a western front - would have overwhelmed Germany by 1947 or 1948, at the latest, assuming something like the level of logistical support we were giving them.

Stalin was a mad man, too, but one with far more people to spare in a struggle of wills. The rock star decision to relocate the factories to the Urals was the war winning decision, IMHO. Nothing else after that really mattered, other than, perhaps, Hitler's meddling in operational matters well below his pay grade.

quote:

---

Yet he inexplicably declared war on the US when he wasn't obligated to by treaty. FDR always wanted a Europe first war strategy, but without Hitler's action, he would have had to do some fancy political maneuvering. Hitler gift wrapped the opportunity for him. I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for this other than Hitler being Hitler.

---

Hitler had reasoning behind it. He was personally convinced that the U.S. was gearing for entry into the war one way or another and a Chicago Tribune article exposing secret US war plans just days prior to Pearl Harbor may have been the straw that broke the camel's back in convincing Hitler war with America was coming whether he declared it or not. He wasn't far off in thinking this either as many of us are well aware that FDR was chomping at the bit to get the U.S. involved. In Hitler's mind, declaring it sooner afforded Germany better chances since it would finally allow them to openly attack American Lend-Lease supplies to Britain. Whether he thought the Japanese would be more inclined to offer contribution in fighting the USSR as well is still undetermined. I agree it was a dumb decision by Hitler though and that in reality it offered Germany no long term benefits. It was far more worth the risk of the US entering the war on their own terms at a later date and the US supplies continuing to Britain in the hopes of political forces outside the Roosevelt administration preventing outright US intervention. The U.S. entering the war at all was an unmitigated disaster for Germany.

Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag about the decision to declare war on the United States. Surely you can find a transcript online somewhere. I've read it before.

(work computer blocked me from replying to JimRockford for whatever reason )

quote:

---

The U.S. was only nominally neutral prior to December 1941. For almost 2 years we had been "neutral" in the absolutely most partisan, pro- British way, particularly after June 1940.

---

and we were supplying into western China from India once Japan invaded from the east.

quote:

---

He's certainly on some kind of government watch list by now. We're probably getting added to it just by being in the same thread with him.

---

Everybody who has posted on the Poli Board is on a government watch list by now.

I'd argue the Luftwaffe being totally concentrated on the English channel instead of across the world would have been an equalizer in a naval aspect.