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

quote:

---

One on one, Germany could have taken any of the European powers, except mayyyyyybeee Russia (only with foreign supply/aid if not outright intervention)

---

If Britain and France had theoretically not declared war on Germany over Poland and remained neutral in a German/Soviet war, there is no chance the Soviets win. Hell, it's even conceivable that had Barbarossa begun May 1st instead of June 22 Germany could have knocked the Soviets out with that first campaign. The Soviet logistical situation was in very bad shape when the war started. They had decent technology in respect to their newest arms platforms, which were still being implemented, but they were not on par with the Germans in terms of conducting modern mobile warfare either in strategy or logistical support. They would learn the strategy and receive all the foreign aid they needed to carry this out as the war progressed, but in 1941 they were ripe for defeat.

Now if one imagines the Germans being able to dedicate full resources solely to that campaign, it becomes even more one sided. It doesn't necessarily matter that you have immense quantitative advantages when massive envelopments are eliminating hundreds of thousands of soldiers and their equipment a pop, over and over again.

quote:

---

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

---

During the time we're talking about, namely the summer of 1940, the Luftwaffe was concentrated on the Channel and hitting Great Britain with everything they had. At that time, they'd not started moving assets east, nor was Germany at war with anyone else. For that period of time, between the fall of France and the launching of the invasion of the USSR, WWII was basically a war with Great Britain on one side all alone and Germany and Italy against them on the other.

Both Germany and Great Britain threw in everything they could during the battle of Britain. And the British won... eventually.

But, let's say that when the issue was still in doubt, when the Germans had the RAF on the verge of collapse in early and mid August 1940, they chose that moment to launch the invasion. This would have pulled bombers and fighters from attacking British airfields and radar stations, which is exactly what the RAF needed to regain it's strength. These German bombers would be needed to attack coast defenses while the fighters would be needed to protect the invasion fleet. And that's where the British would have slaughtered them. The German Luftwaffe had an advantage over the RAF at that time, but the RAF was still a very dangerous and able force. The balance of power in this area favored the Germans, but not by enough to sway the battle. However, in terms of naval power, the British Home Fleet was so far ahead of the Kriegsmarine that it would have been suicide for any sizable German force from trying to cross the channel. Yes, the Germans would have scored some successes and sunk a number of British ships. But the Germans were never going to stop the British fleet from falling on a German invasion fleet like a full grown lion on a newborn zebra. The German's only hope of ever invading the British Isles was to wipe out the RAF first. The Germans knew this. That's why the first phase of "Sea Lion" was an air campaign with a stated goal of destroying the RAF as an effective fighting force and gaining air supremacy over the channel. Despite having the bulk of the Luftwaffe concentrated in Northern France, the Germans failed to do this and thus the plan for invading Britain was abandoned.

quote:

---

Yes, the Soviets could churn out tanks, planes, bullets, guns, and things of that nature on a scale the Germans could not fathom. But what they couldn't do was something as simple as feed their army or even provide the trucks the red army needed to keep the steamroller rolling. Basically, if it were not for these two items from the US, the Soviets would have not won the war in the East...

---

All true, and I said that assuming something like our logistical support - just keeping the lifeline open to Leningrad during the (longest/largest in human history) siege. I'm not sure how that would have affected the war effort, but had Leningrad actually fallen, even winning the Battle of Stalingrad, I think that the war in the East looks a lot different (better for Germany, worse for Russia).

You're right about the barges. The Germans were scrounging up every river barge they could get their hands on.

Imagine being in a barge being towed across the English Channel all while under the guns of the entirety of the British Home Fleet. It would have been like a gunnery practice for the British ships.

quote:

---

Now starving them to the talk peace is more believable to me.

---

That's pretty much what I was saying. Blockade them and the threat is pretty much neutralized. Then concentrate on your main objective to the East. What are the Brits going to do? They can't invade Europe by themselves.

quote:

---

All true, and I said that assuming something like our logistical support - just keeping the lifeline open to Leningrad during the (longest/largest in human history) siege. I'm not sure how that would have affected the war effort, but had Leningrad actually fallen, even winning the Battle of Stalingrad, I think that the war in the East looks a lot different (better for Germany, worse for Russia).

---

Great point. Along with that, with Leningrad out of the way, that would have freed up huge German formations that had be tied down during the siege of Leningrad.

And once Leningrad fell, where would the Soviets had been able to establish a new defensive line? You've got a lot of marshes, and rivers, but no real logistical points around which you can really establish and support any real defensive line. Basically, the fall of Leningrad would have meant the total collapse of the Soviet northern flank. And unlike the center where you had Moscow and southern flank where you had Stalingrad, there really was nothing behind Leningrad to fall back on.

quote:

---

And once Leningrad fell, where would the Soviets had been able to establish a new defensive line? You've got a lot of marshes, and rivers, but no real logistical points around which you can really establish and support any real defensive line. Basically, the fall of Leningrad would have meant the total collapse of the Soviet northern flank. And unlike the center where you had Moscow and southern flank where you had Stalingrad, there really was nothing behind Leningrad to fall back on.

---

That's not true at all.

quote:

---

hat's not true at all.

---

Very well. I'll ask you the same question, once Leningrad fell, where to the east would the Soviets have been able to establish a cohesive defensive line that could be supported?

The Russians killed 3.5 million German combatants, most of them in Russia with 800,000 of that number being killed as part of the advance on Berlin.

The Germans only lost 500,000 on the Western front.

Put those 3.5 million the Germans lost in Russia against the UK standing alone and it wouldn't have even been a fight. Germany would run up the score.

Germans would have died in Norilsk