All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of France

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
yyuusr
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 17 Feb 2013, 05:29

All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of France

#1

Post by yyuusr » 17 Feb 2013, 07:01

So I was reading one of those what if threads in this place about what would have happened if Germany had never invaded the Soviet Union and one guy claimed this:
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
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:
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
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:
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.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of Fr

#2

Post by maltesefalcon » 17 Feb 2013, 14:09

By the time of the Battle of Britain Germany was already being out produced in terms of war goods by the UK
Germany could not defeat the UK without a successful invasion and they were woefully unprepared for that
It would take years for the DKM to build itself up to a large enough strength to really defeat the RN

So I would foresee a protracted Africa campaign until the inevitable entry of the USA
After that Germany was doomed.
It would be a strong possibility as well that if the US/UK alliance weakened Germany enough, the USSR would join in against Hitler. Not in 1941 maybe, but by 1943 at the latest.


User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Re: All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of Fr

#3

Post by fredleander » 17 Feb 2013, 14:41

maltesefalcon wrote:....and they were woefully unprepared for that...
How much do you know about Sea Lion...?

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book about Operation Sealion:
https://www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - an eight-book series on the Pacific War:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of Fr

#4

Post by Marcus » 17 Feb 2013, 14:45

Let's not turn this into a thread about the actual Sea Lion plans and preparations, we have numerous other threads to discuss that.

/Marcus

yyuusr
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 17 Feb 2013, 05:29

Re: All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of Fr

#5

Post by yyuusr » 17 Feb 2013, 18:32

maltesefalcon wrote:By the time of the Battle of Britain Germany was already being out produced in terms of war goods by the UK
Germany could not defeat the UK without a successful invasion and they were woefully unprepared for that
It would take years for the DKM to build itself up to a large enough strength to really defeat the RN

So I would foresee a protracted Africa campaign until the inevitable entry of the USA
After that Germany was doomed.
It would be a strong possibility as well that if the US/UK alliance weakened Germany enough, the USSR would join in against Hitler. Not in 1941 maybe, but by 1943 at the latest.
But how does that work? According to the link I gave Germany has a better gdp than Britain pretty much all throughout the war. The only Britain could produce more if their PPP value was lower but was that the case? In know this meant nothing back then but you could but things in Germany is cheaper than Britain currently. On top of that I would think Germany would have bought things pretty cheaply from territories they occupied.

I am talking about a what if situation here where Britain doesn't have the US or USSR. So the Lend-Lease would be taken out as well.

Plus, I don't think Germany would have to build a strong enough navy to defeat the RN just enough to challenge it with the Lutwaffe so they could get a decent amount army there safely. As far as I know Britain's army was just as bad if not in a worse shape than the German navy so I they would hardly need their entire army strength.

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

Re: All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of Fr

#6

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 17 Feb 2013, 19:12

yyuusr wrote:But how does that work? According to the link I gave Germany has a better gdp than Britain pretty much all throughout the war.
Germany also had against the USSR...
Plus, I don't think Germany would have to build a strong enough navy to defeat the RN just enough to challenge it with the Lutwaffe so they could get a decent amount army there safely. As far as I know Britain's army was just as bad if not in a worse shape than the German navy so I they would hardly need their entire army strength.
It would depend much on the Russians. Germany did not have fuel to fully operate it's historical fleet, let alone an expanded one. The fuel would have to be Russian, as well as many other critical things. Other thing is that just like Germany could transfer resources, so Britain could.

For example, Phylo posted this some time ago:
See an interesting thread elsewhere on the board from a couple of years back - not only had Fighter Command more than DOUBLED in sized by the end of 1941 - those squadrons were now 90-95% Spitfire-equiped. There was now also a large number of re-formed and re-equiped "Army cooperation" squadrons in the UK...flying 1940-41 fighters converted to light fighter-bombers. The air defence of the UK was some 2-3 times stronger by the end of 1941...and the conversion to VHF radio from August 1940 on meant Fighter Command could control that vast jump in numbers available
Britain could have pumpred more resources in Fighter Command instead of Bomber Command. This was totally possible and the Germans did a similar thing with the LW late in the war. Also, you know that the defender has the advantage, specially if he has to defend an area relatively small such as the UK compared to Germany that had to defend almost the whole Europe.

Germany does want to invade the USSR after defeated or forced Britain to surrender? By 1943 (and I belive that Britain could held until then) the chances of a German sucess would not be very good, and Germany would be at the mercy of Stalin's regime, both economically and militarly. However, I don't think that the Russians would attack Germany. They would need a good reason for that, and I don't think they would have it.
Last edited by Marcelo Jenisch on 17 Feb 2013, 19:28, edited 4 times in total.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of Fr

#7

Post by maltesefalcon » 17 Feb 2013, 19:16

To answer the query above:

Germany's higher GDP did not equate to a higher war production.Much of their economy still tended towards commercial or consumer goods.
Hitler did not authorize a full war econmy until 1943, by which it was too late to turn the tide.

And it is not safe to assume the USA at least is out of the picture.
Japan was still around and if Germany had the UK well preoccupied, it is even more likely they will take advantage of the situation in the Pacific.

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Re: All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of Fr

#8

Post by fredleander » 17 Feb 2013, 19:55

yyuusr wrote:But how does that work? According to the link I gave Germany has a better gdp than Britain pretty much all throughout the war. The only Britain could produce more if their PPP value was lower but was that the case? In know this meant nothing back then but you could but things in Germany is cheaper than Britain currently. On top of that I would think Germany would have bought things pretty cheaply from territories they occupied.
I should think it more important what the GNP - whatever it was - was used for. There is a good source for your scenario. Just after Barbarossa had started Hitler issued directives where he outlined his plans for the future, after the Soviet Union had been beaten. If he had not initiated Barbarossa I should think these are good pinpoints as to what would have happened in your scenario. To quote Directive 32 para 4.:

"In addition to these contemplated operations against the British position in the Mediterranean, the "Siege of England" must be resumed with the utmost intensity by the Navy and Air force after the conclusion of the campaign in the East. All weapons and equipment required for this purpose will be given priority in the general armaments programme. At the same time German Air Defences will be strengthened to the maximum. Preparations for the invasion of England will serve the double purpose of tying down English forces at home and of bringing about a final English collapse through a landing in England."

....and para I. General - of directive 32a:

"The manning and equipment of the navy will be limited to what is essential for the direct prosecution of the war against England and, should the occasion arise, against America....The main effort of equipment will be devoted to the Air Force, which will be greatly strengthened".

The "contemplated operations" in the Mediterranean was a strenghtening of the German assets there. With other words, more army forces in the desert and more air force units to choke off Malta and the Med in general. As we know, in the OTL, the Luftwaffe was not allowed to keep up a constant pressure in the Med due to the intermediate needs of the Eastern Front operations.

Personally, I believe it was a mistake for both parties to spend their assets in the Med. The British had no use for it as it was choked off as an Empire transport route. The Middle East could have been defended from the other side. Most of the supply transports came from that direction anyway. Instead they squandered several hundred naval vessels and crews that could have been better used in the Atlantic and around the shores of the UK. Same for the Germans that should have used their resources to finish off England instead of in the Med. Just my opinion.

The text also shows that Operation Sea Lion was not cancelled as such in Fall 1940, whatever Chruchill writes in his historical work. Alanbrooke was well aware of this.

Apart from the fact that the Germans had a complete landing force, with transport, available in September 1940, a non-Barbarossa scenario would have released funds and materials (as per the Directives) for a much more advanced transport fleet, for example equipped with Marinefährprame instead of, or in addition to, the 2.300 barges converted for landing purposes up till September 1940.

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book about Operation Sealion:
https://www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - an eight-book series on the Pacific War:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of Fr

#9

Post by phylo_roadking » 17 Feb 2013, 20:08

"In addition to these contemplated operations against the British position in the Mediterranean, the "Siege of England" must be resumed with the utmost intensity by the Navy and Air force after the conclusion of the campaign in the East. All weapons and equipment required for this purpose will be given priority in the general armaments programme. At the same time German Air Defences will be strengthened to the maximum. Preparations for the invasion of England will serve the double purpose of tying down English forces at home and of bringing about a final English collapse through a landing in England."
The text also shows that Operation Sea Lion was not cancelled as such in Fall 1940, whatever Chruchill writes in his historical work. Alanbrooke was well aware of this
Fred, that's a very wilful and out-of-context interpretation of Nr. 32A...and one that is not commonly held by historians. Instead - it is generally held...as confirmed by the mention of the "Navy" and "Air Force" and NO mention of the "Army"...that the "Siege of England" refers to Directive No. 23 "Directions for operations against the Engligh War Economy"

This sentence - "Preparations for the invasion of England will serve the double purpose of tying down English forces at home and of bringing about a final English collapse through a landing in England" - once again illustrates Hitler's conservative use of language when referring to invading Britain I.E preparations as a psi-war op would be undertaken - an invasion would only be the last resort.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

yyuusr
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 17 Feb 2013, 05:29

Re: All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of Fr

#10

Post by yyuusr » 17 Feb 2013, 22:02

Germany also had against the USSR...
But in this scanerio they are fighting the USSR. They are putting all they have against Britain.
It would depend much on the Russians. Germany did not have fuel to fully operate it's historical fleet, let alone an expanded one. The fuel would have to be Russian, as well as many other critical things. Other thing is that just like Germany could transfer resources, so Britain could.


Don't see why Soviets would stop trade with Germany. Soviets wanted to invade Germany themselves but wanted more time. Stalin thought that Germany would only attack Soviet Union after it had taken care of Britain. Stalin tried to keep Germany as happy as possible so they could buy more time. Giving Hitler what they need to invade Britain and then attack then from behind while they are doing so is the best possible situation for the Soviets.
Germany's higher GDP did not equate to a higher war production.Much of their economy still tended towards commercial or consumer goods.
Hitler did not authorize a full war econmy until 1943, by which it was too late to turn the tide.
Well in 1943 Germany had fought a brutal war against the Soviets and had gone to Italy's rescue in Africa/Mediterranean. None of which would be the case if he was invading Britain with full force.
And it is not safe to assume the USA at least is out of the picture.
Japan was still around and if Germany had the UK well preoccupied, it is even more likely they will take advantage of the situation in the Pacific.
Well I don't know about that. US was had already seen the effects on getting involved in foreign affairs in WW1. They had gone to a costly was for which didn't gain anything and they weren't very happy about that. Especially when you consider WW1 results was eventually a failure. That's why they were in Isolation since World War 1. Them declaring war first would not have been liked by the large group Isolationists in the congress.

Plus this is a what of scenario of Britain having to hold out on its own.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of Fr

#11

Post by ljadw » 17 Feb 2013, 22:25

One should not overestimate the importance of the Soviet deliveries for Germany:their importance was minor ;it is also not true that Stalin was giving Hitler all he needed to invade Britain.

Putted bluntly :

1)There was an all out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of France

2)In this war,Germany had no chance at all to eliminate Britain in the short run .

gurn
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 24 Jan 2010, 19:46

Re: All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of Fr

#12

Post by gurn » 17 Feb 2013, 23:49

"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."



http://canadaatwar.ca/content-7/world-w ... formation/
"Around 1.1 million Canadians served in WWII, including 106,000 in the Royal Canadian Navy and 200,000 in the Royal Canadian Air Force.
The first Canadian infantryman to die in World War II was Private John Gray. He was captured and executed by the Japanese on December 13, 1941 in Hong Kong.

Canada was the first Commonwealth country to send troops to Britain in 1939.

During 1939-45 hundreds of thousands of Canadians - more than 40 per cent of the male population between the ages of 18 and 45, and virtually all of them volunteers - enlisted.

Pre-War Canadian Forces

Branch Regular Reserve Notes
Army 4,261 51,000 Few resources (10 Bren guns for example)
Air Force 3,100 - 270 aircraft, most obsolete
Navy 1,800 - 6 modern destroyers, 4 minesweepers


Canadian Armed Forces Intake During WWII (By Province)

Province Male
Population
(18-45) RCN Army RCAF Total % Male
Population
(18-45)
Prince Edward Island 19,000 1,448 6,333 1,528 9,309 48.18%
Nova Scotia 123,000 6,837 45,020 7,498 59,355 48.31%
New Brunswick 94,000 2,737 35,947 6,453 45,137 48.17%
Quebec 699,000 12,404 138,269 24,768 175,441 25.69%
Ontario 830,000 40,353 266,937 90,518 397,808 47.77%
Manitoba 159,000 7,782 48,542 20,120 76,444 48.12%
Saskatchewan 191,000 6,472 52,306 21,827 80,605 42.38%
Alberta 178,000 7,360 50,844 19,499 77,703 43.11%
British Columbia 181,000 11,925 58,246 20,805 90,976 50.47%
Outside Canada - 893 5,892 5,900 16,278 -
Not Stated - 263 191 - 454 -
TOTAL 2,474,000 98,474 708,535 222,501 1,029,510 41.15%


630,052 Canadians served in the Active Army. Of these, 25,251 were women. All these men and women were volunteers. In addition, 100,573 men were called up for service under the National Resources Mobilization Act. The Reserve Army numbered 82,163 all ranks at 30 April 1945. Roughly 2,800 served in the Pacific war zone, in addition to the 4,800 engaged in the Kiska operation. Approximately 368,000 all ranks served overseas in the European Zone. Thousands more did duty outside of Canada in the outposts of North America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_h ... _World_War
"Canada's military was active in every theatre of war, though most battles occurred in Italy,[4] Northern Europe,[5] and the North Atlantic.

Over the course of the war, 1.1 million Canadians served in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Of these more than 45,000 lost their lives and another 54,000 were wounded.[6] The financial cost was $21,786,077,519.13, between the 1939 and 1950 fiscal years.[7] By the end of the War, Canada had the world's fourth largest air force,[8] and third largest navy.[9] As well, the Canadian Merchant Navy completed over 25,000 voyages across the Atlantic.[10] Canadians also served in the militaries of various Allied countries."


I don't think the absence of the states would have changed Canad'a commitment to the war by a great deal. Shaped in in different directions probably but the country was in for the long haul.

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

Re: All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of Fr

#13

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 18 Feb 2013, 00:52

Canada produced 16,000 planes and 5,678 tanks and self-propelled guns. Usually Canada is overlooked, but it was not an irrelevant quanity of equipment, not to mention the other things they produced.

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Re: All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of Fr

#14

Post by fredleander » 18 Feb 2013, 00:57

phylo_roadking wrote:Fred, that's a very wilful and out-of-context interpretation of Nr. 32A...and one that is not commonly held by historians. Instead - it is generally held...as confirmed by the mention of the "Navy" and "Air Force" and NO mention of the "Army"...that the "Siege of England" refers to Directive No. 23 "Directions for operations against the Engligh War Economy"
The important text is the one quoted from Directive 32. Wilful? I have copied it straight off the English translation by Trevor-Roper. And what is so strange about it? Apology, please....wilful is a nasty word in this context.

As for the "Army" I should think that to invade England Summer 1941 they could cut it down to 1/6th and still have plenty. So, your point really isn't relevant. If you have directive no. 32a you know that his (Hitler's) means to increase the Air Force and Navy was to cut down on the Army. We are talking no Barbarossa in 1941, no...? Just following the thread. Directive no. 23 was history summer '41.

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book about Operation Sealion:
https://www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - an eight-book series on the Pacific War:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: All out war between Germany and Britain after Fall of Fr

#15

Post by Michael Kenny » 18 Feb 2013, 01:05

Getting a bit messy already but the fact is Germany gave the UK its undivided attention in 1940 and could not deliver a knock out blow.
Endless mulling over alternate scenarios won't change that fact.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”