It came of as how should I put it, fanboyism for lack of better words, with a bias agenda behind it as he was pretty much claiming that the British by themselves would comfortably beaten Germany on its own even without the large sums of aid and help it got from the US. I usually dismiss these sort of posts and pay no attention to it but he then later provided a link to a website calming how the British had better resources than Germany:Then Germany would have been defeated by the British and her commonwealth alone, as she stood no hope of defeating the British and her commonwealth
Now I went to the hompage of that website. Seems like a blog type site with a whole lot of personal opinions involved so I am really sure as to how to interpret the info provided or that even if it can be trusted. So I decided to research a little about WW2 economy myself and found this:are you sure as here is a list showing how the British commonwealth's resources did dominate those of the Reich...if we add those of the UK to that of the British commonwealth, simply put, Britain did have the advantage in materials, food stocks and resources necessary to defeat Germany http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/resources.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_p ... _.28GDP.29
It's the gdp of all the major countries of WW2 from 1938-1945 counted in billion international dollars and in 1990 prices. Germany's gdp is higher than the British Isles in every year bar 1945 at the end of the war and that too including large sums money received from the US through Lend-Lease. Now I get it doesn't include the commonwealth but Germany would have also been getting aid from axis conquered/allied territories some of whom with quite large economies like France. I am not sure if the commonwealth resources was that much back then anyways. And how much help would the British have gotten from each commonwealth country anyways? I am really sure of the situation between them was like back then was but I can't imagine countries like India throwing all they have for the UK and pretty much the same with the rest of the non white countries. There was a rebel Indian army group that fought against the Allies with Japan to eliminate the British rule in India. Hell I can't even picture countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand keep throwing their men and resources for the UK if the going got too tough especially with the threat of the Japanese in the Pacific.
But the thing is I'm also not sure as to how much of this data is accurate either and that's pretty much my main reason for asking this to expand knowledge on this. The study is done by Mark Harrison from the Cambridge University Press so it sound like a pretty reliable source but my knowledge on this is very limited so I am just not sure about it or if the site from the other guy is reliable or not either. I have never really been a statistic person as far as wars are concerned I have always used common sense on the matter and the suggestion that Britain, who was so desperate for US help and seemed like they were scared shitless to invade Germany even with the US by their side and Soviets fighting from another front, could have comfortably beaten Germany just seems wrong to me. So that's why I need to hear what knowledge minds think about this.
So who would have really won between the two if Germans hadn't invaded the Soviet Union and concentrated all its resources and troops against British? The Germans would have no doubt built a stronger navy to challenge the RN in this case. Would they have pulled that off and invaded Britain in this case? And could the British have not only stopped Germans from invading but then beat Germany by itself without any US? I am sorry if this comes off as sort of a bait it really wasn't my intention to do so if it does. Just keep wondering about this that's all.