May I comment on these two statements? a) Any army loses during a large scale campaign. The German losses were, however, neclectable weighing the military and economic gains. Compared to the losses of the BEF and RAF, I feel it is hard to defend a statement as if the German losses during the brief campaign were hardest felt on their side. More importantly, the core of the German field-army had gained irreplaceable battle experience. For one thing, the Germans learnt that their arty tactics had been poor and their armoured columns too vulnerable and massive, causing gigantic logistical challenges. The adaptions that were made to both tank designs and mechanized warfare tactics were gains from the Westfeldzug. Most important was also the fact that much of the lost material was recovered and repaired. I therefor do not agree that the German losses during the campaign mattered in any significant way as to the remainder of the war. b) I cannot see where the Germans had expected, given their initial strategy for the Westfeldzug, the British to yield all along during or directly after the France campaign. The Operation Seelion had been scheduled which was a prep to invade the Islands and force the UK into submission. Moreover, I don't think that one can say that the fact that the UK continued the war, was in any way decisive for the final outcome. That kind of 'what if' analysis is more than speculative. For one thing, the invasion of the USSR and the involvement of the US in the war seemed to be the undisputed turning points. But I cannot see why the UK not yielding in June 1940, caused the Germans more than a nuisance. I fear that 'we from the west' tend to exagerate particularly the European role in the submission of Hitler in 1945. Where would we have been if it hadn't been for the American and Russian efforts? 1)The LW lost in may/june some 1428 aircraft,resulting in 1428 aircraft less available for the Battle of Britain 2)The Germans were bewildered when Britain decided to continue the war . 3)This decision was vital for the final outcome :without Britain,no Overlord,and probably no German declaration of war on the US.I am also sceptical on the claims that if Britain had give up,Hitler would attack the SU .
1)The LW lost in may/june some 1428 aircraft,resulting in 1428 aircraft less available for the Battle of Britain 1/ I think you should look at the breakdown of those losses - for instance, it's going to include the 180 Ju52s in Norway, the ~320 totally destroyed or write-offs in Holland/Belgium..... (Which of course would have contributed in no way to the historical BoB.) Of that 1428 (Hooton's figure, but he's wrong elsewhere, suprisingly...) only 90 were bombers....and 438 were zerstoerer I.E. vulnerable Bf110s. 2/ that figure also includes some (not many, but they're still in there...) losses suffered AFTER the withdrawal of the British from the Continent and before the Armistice Including not only Fall Rot, but the first raids against British airfield and industrial targets. 3/In turn - the RAF had lost 381 bombers and 477 fighters.... 4/ what's the production rate of bombers from German factories? Certainly more than 90 across nine weeks... 2)The Germans were bewildered when Britain decided to continue the war . The Nazi hierarchy definitely were, as recorded by Bill Shirer at the Deutschesrundfunkhaus....but I'd bet not necessarily the rank and file, and especially none that had been in contact with them 1914-18...!
1)The LW lost in may/june some 1428 aircraft,resulting in 1428 aircraft less available for the Battle of Britain 2)The Germans were bewildered when Britain decided to continue the war . 3)This decision was vital for the final outcome :without Britain,no Overlord,and probably no German declaration of war on the US.I am also sceptical on the claims that if Britain had give up,Hitler would attack the SU . 1) Like said hereabove, about 40% of these losses were represented by air-recce and transport planes. More importantly, these figures included planes that could be recovered. Bearing in mind the vast production figures these losses were quite rapidly overcome. Particularly in this stage of the war the salvation of most seasoned air-crew, the prerogative of the German siege, was much more important than the loss of easily replaceable air-frames. Mind you, the German (and Axis related) industries were able to construct and repair 160,000 air-planes in the 1939-1945 period. Don't you think that the loss of less than 1% of that can hardly represent a major blow to the German case? I know that it is tempting to enlarge 'our' initial 'successes', but this was merely one of them. The losses of the RAF were far more critical. Not only did the RAF lose much of its air-crews, but the tactical fleet was hit hard. 2) The Germans bewildered that the UK continued the war? I am sorry, but what kind of sources do you refer to? Besides Hitler himself and is pacification dreams over England, none of the senior German generals anticipated the UK to seek peace talks. It was pretty clear to all of them, but the old Adolf, that the Uk would remain defient of the Fatherland until actually brought to their knees. 3) Should the UK have been pacified or even occupied, the Americans would have sought a jumping ground in the North of Africa or perhaps even the Middle-East. Obviously the UK was preferable over a more remote area such as the Mediterranean. It is certainly worth debating what the position of the Americans would have been when the UK would have pacified, but it is not unlikely that Hitler would still have declared war on them as a result of the Axis alliance with Japan. But I do give it to you that this matter is not as clear as the previous one. I would advise you to study Hitler a little bit more. His only desire was to submit the 'evil communist' east of Europe and get rid of Stalin. His obsession with the conquest in the East had nothing to do with the UK, that he even secretly admired.
Had Britain fallen the USA would have not entered the war in Europe - the German lobby in the US would have ensured that - had Hitler not made the mistake of declaring war on the USA it is likely the Isolationists would have prevailed politically. Plus with Britain out of the equation American industrial expansion would have slowed. I agree with Gooseman that Hitler's admiration for the British was genuine and may have led to the belief that Britain would see Russia as a common enemy. Also do not forget that British 'volunteers' deployed to Finland during the Winter War a situation that could have led to us fighting two foes at war with each other!
Had Britain fallen the USA would have not entered the war in Europe - the German lobby in the US would have ensured that - had Hitler not made the mistake of declaring war on the USA t is likely the Isolationists would have prevailed politically. I disagree. Please look at these polls: http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201940.htm Interviewing Date 12/18-23/40 Survey #226-K Question #3 Do you think our country's future safety depends on England winning this war? Yes................................ 68% No................................26 No opinion......................... 6 Interviewing Date 12/18-23/40 Survey #226-K Question #1 Which of these two things do you think is the more important for the United States to try to do — to keep out of war ourselves, or to help England win even at the risk of getting into the war? Keep out...........................40% Help England....................... 60 Two per cent expressed no opinion. Here is another from 1941 http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm EUROPEAN WAR Interviewing Date 4/10-15/41 Survey #234-K Question #la Do you think the United States will go into the war in Europe sometime before it's over, or do you think we will stay out of the war? Will go in.......................... 82% Will stay out........................ 18 APRIL 28 EUROPEAN WAR Interviewing Date 4/10-15/41 Survey #234-K Question #8a If you were asked to vote today on the question of the United States entering the war against Germany and Italy, how would you vote — to go into the war, or to stay out of the war? Go in.............................. 19% Stay out............................ 81 Interviewing Date 4/10-15/41 Survey #234-K Question #8b If it appeared certain that there was no other way to defeat Germany and Italy except for the United States to go to war against them, would you be in favor of the United States going to war? Yes................................ 68% No................................ 24 No opinion......................... 8 JAPAN Interviewing Date 11/27-12/1/41 Survey #254-K Question #4 Do you think the United States will go to war against Japan sometime in the near future? Yes................................ 52% No................................27 No opinion.........................21 EUROPEAN WAR Interviewing Date 11/15-20/41 Survey #253-K Question #13 Which of these two things do you think is the more important — that this country keep out of war, or that Germany be defeated? Keep out of war..................... 32% Defeat Germany..................... 68 Plus with Britain out of the equation American industrial expansion would have slowed. Could you provide any data to support this statement?
Jeff - while Britain was at war I agree with your statements - and the poll results (which were skewed by British propaganda efforts in the USA) Had Britain capitulated or lost it's mainland ports the Navy would have been forced to surrender or withdraw across the Atlantic or to South Africa. The huge British defence contracts with American industry would have been cancelled and the British industrial know how that was shared would have headed into Europe instead. In Britain the Communists in Russia were deemed a threat and the people who would have worked with the Germans would have formed part of this polical grouping. I think Psywar is much more knowledgeable than I am on the British effort in the USA but it was massive working with society figures, politicians and the press and no expense was spared in these efforts.
If Britain had been taken out of the war in 1940 what would the benefit have been to Germany. 1) Either the loss of the RN and its future protection for convoys to the Soviet Union or its inclusion in the German Navy (depends on the terms). 2) Gaining North Africa along with the Italians and therefore more oil. 3) Less requirement for the U Boat program therefore resources could be diverted to other programs. 4) The Allied loss of the unsinkable aircraft carrier and jumping off point for future operations in Europe. 5) Less forces required in the occupied countries. 6) More assets or resources available for use in the Soviet Union. 7) Soviet Union does not receive as much lend lease equipment if any (If Britain is knocked out would the Commonwealth be included). This would have to include land routes through Iraq and Iran etc as well as the convoys. 8) Less diversion of assets and production to the protection of Germany from the Allied bombing campaign. 9) Technology advances made by the British would they be shared with the Germans the US or no one (Radar, Ultra, atomic weapons scientists, designers, etc). 10) The sinking of the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kébir (Operation Catapult) has been considered something that aided convincing the US that Britain would remain in the fight, if Britain was taken out would that have been taken into consideration by the US public. All what ifs and I am sure there could be more as well, but they would have to be considered. The Soviet Union relied heavily on Lend Lease for transportation (rail and road), food (I believe it was worked out at one meal per day per fighting man), large amounts of armour and aircraft especially at crucial points.
Jeff - while Britain was at war I agree with your statements - and the poll results (which were skewed by British propaganda efforts in the USA) Had Britain capitulated or lost it's mainland ports the Navy would have been forced to surrender or withdraw across the Atlantic or to South Africa. The huge British defence contracts with American industry would have been cancelled and the British industrial know how that was shared would have headed into Europe instead. I do not see how us industrial capacity would slow, if it was only using 30% of it's 1929 capacity in 1938. I inadvertently deleted my long-winded comment. Anyone happen to save it?
If Britain had been taken out of the war in 1940 what would the benefit have been to Germany. 1) Either the loss of the RN and its future protection for convoys to the Soviet Union or its inclusion in the German Navy (depends on the terms). 2) Gaining North Africa along with the Italians and therefore more oil. 3) Less requirement for the U Boat program therefore resources could be diverted to other programs. 4) The Allied loss of the unsinkable aircraft carrier and jumping off point for future operations in Europe. 5) Less forces required in the occupied countries. 6) More assets or resources available for use in the Soviet Union. 7) Soviet Union does not receive as much lend lease equipment if any (If Britain is knocked out would the Commonwealth be included). This would have to include land routes through Iraq and Iran etc as well as the convoys. 8) Less diversion of assets and production to the protection of Germany from the Allied bombing campaign. 9) Technology advances made by the British would they be shared with the Germans the US or no one (Radar, Ultra, atomic weapons scientists, designers, etc). 10) The sinking of the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kébir (Operation Catapult) has been considered something that aided convincing the US that Britain would remain in the fight, if Britain was taken out would that have been taken into consideration by the US public. Leccy, a lot of those depend on exactly WHICH way "Britian was taken out of the war; 1/ if by invasion - there would be no British technological advances to go to Germany instead of the US....for the German post-invasion plans would have meant the pastoralisation of the UK; 2/ Britain out by negotiation would have meant no CATAPAULT...depending on WHEN it occured; 3/ Britain by negotiation under Hitler's "Britain can keep her empire but stay out of Europe" offer would have meant she would have kept her navy Why not let Britain keep it? There was nowhere ON LAND they could come to blows after that....!!! 3A/ Italian aims in North Africa depend on what Britain would accept to get peace, in regards to giving up Mediterranean holdings And finally... 8) Less diversion of assets and production to the protection of Germany from the Allied bombing campaign. 4/ In 1940? Remember, the RAF thought they were doing far better than they wer...it wasn't until late 1941 they found out any different, and didn't start doing real damage until 1942.
I feel that we are losing track of reality. The Netherlands army capitulated on 15 May 1940, but not the Government nor its colonies. Should London have capitulated the British mainland, the Common Wealth wouldn't automatically too, but most likely the British Government would have evacuated - at least partially - and like so many European countries have continued to govern in exile. Why discuss an issue that is so far fetched as this all out British capitulation? I don't see the point in that. The US would eventually enter WWII on the European mainland too. With 100 nations caught up in WWII in 1945, it is unthinkable that they would not have entered the war. Their economy would have been devastated. Look at today, where the world is much bothered over such a tiny thing as the Greek loans. Fancy the loans and revenues the US were losing when about half the world, including all larger countries, were involved in the war and they themselves would avoid being caught in the European theatre. It is highly unlikely that not for economy sake the US would eventually also join the battle on Germany. After all, they were already drawn in by the Japanese. The US would never have allowed the Sovjets taking control of the European region. I therefore consider these hypothetic side-steps quite useless pitches, to be honest.
By the end of 1940, British ability to pay for aircraft at time of delivery was about exausted, and lend lease came into effect, which I support. I don't see that US aircraft production was predicated on the ability to obtain foreign buyers, when the payment of those aircraft was to be delayed indefinately Jeff, don't forget that wouldn't have affected individual aircraft companies After Lend Lease arrived they'd have been getting their money from the U.S. government! As far as sharing of industrial abilities, most of that was occuring in late 1940, after Spaatz's visit there. It was a two-way street, with the British offering up the jet and radar and the US, mass -production techniques. Don't forget we also fed the U.S. war effort in the Pacific from New Zealand via Reverse Lend Lease...and we gave them rights to the Bren Gun Carier, the 6pdr A/T gun - and quite a large amount of aircraft all told - Spitfires, Mosquitos...
I feel that we are losing track of reality. The Netherlands army capitulated on 15 May 1940, but not the Government nor its colonies. Should London have capitulated the British mainland, the Common Wealth wouldn't automatically too, but most likely the British Government would have evacuated - at least partially - and like so many European countries have continued to govern in exile. Why discuss an issue that is so far fetched as this all out British capitulation? I don't see the point in that. Not all Britain's colonial holdings were self-governing "dominions" - like the NEI, and Vichy possessions abroad were to a great extent; the "Empire" ws very much a group of top-line Dominions who each made an independent decision in September 1939 to come into the war on the side of the Mother country....and grassroots wholly-governed colonies - there was a gurt big gap in the middle... I'm not sure the British government could have retained the alliance of Canada, Australia, etc. after a massive "defeat" such as being forced out of the war by whatever means - military or diplomatic. If they made their separate peaces I doubt the British Government-in-exile would be welcome in Canada or anywhere "close" at hand, and continuing the war against Germany from as far away as India would be ludicrous. Certainly it would be next to impossible to supply/network ANY sort of resistance in the UK from that distance, to start with. It's only fair to point out that the British government itself didn't give too much time to discussing a wholsesale "strategic withdrawal"; during DYNAMO, they wasted a full day, proabably two, discussing the tenuous offer via the Vatican and Sweden for the Italians to facilitate talks with Germany...on a negotiated FULL end to the war, with settlement in favour of Germany, with a facilitator's "fee" payable to Mussolini - probably Malta! :p
Gooseman The US would eventually enter WWII on the European mainland too. With 100 nations caught up in WWII in 1945, it is unthinkable that they would not have entered the war. With Europe either aligned with Germany, Occupied or Neutral that would leave the US the Soviet Union to be the launch pad for European operations, always assuming that the US would commit to Europe in 1941/42 when Japan had directly attacked her. Would the US instead turn all its attention to Japan. Should London have capitulated the British mainland, the Common Wealth wouldn't automatically too, but most likely the British Government would have evacuated - at least partially - and like so many European countries have continued to govern in exile Most were governments in exile in the UK where they were at least near their respective countries. They had little or no actual control over their respective countries. The individual constituents of the Empire decided to declare war or not on their own. The US would never have allowed the Sovjets taking control of the European region. I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. ... and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace. ” —Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1943 I therefore consider these hypothetic side-steps quite useless pitches, to be honest Ignoring things that do not fit your thinking does not mean they do not matter. Many former colonies were not exactly completely happy with Britain. Many had Nationalistic movements, most of these colonies became independent after the war, with Britain out of the war would it have been an opportune time for them to try for independence earlier. If Britain was granted peace in the same way that France was it would still have been very restricted in what it was allowed to do in other parts of its Empire. I don't think that one can say that the fact that the UK continued the war, was in any way decisive for the final outcome. That kind of 'what if' analysis is more than speculative. For one thing, the invasion of the USSR and the involvement of the US in the war seemed to be the undisputed turning points. But I cannot see why the UK not yielding in June 1940, caused the Germans more than a nuisance. See post 67 with reference to some possible benefits to the UK being knocked out in 1940. phylo_roadking 8) Less diversion of assets and production to the protection of Germany from the Allied bombing campaign. In 1940? Remember, the RAF thought they were doing far better than they wer...it wasn't until late 1941 they found out any different, and didn't start doing real damage until 1942. Those points were probably aimed more to what Gooseman was saying about the Soviet Union and the US entering the war than what happened in 1940. Germany would have been able to divert men and materials to the east instead of guarding the West against possibly British intervention. The British and later US bombing campaigns diverted large numbers of men and equipment to the defense of Germany which would have been better used in the Soviet Union. It took the Soviets until 1943 to get the real measure of the German Forces.
phylo roadking 2/ Britain out by negotiation would have meant no CATAPAULT...depending on WHEN it occured; Pretty much my point, Operation Catapult was used as a reason for the US to support Britain, it showed Britain was prepared to do anything to win. If it had not happened would the US have still been swayed to enter another European war.
Germany would have been able to divert men and materials to the east instead of guarding the West against possibly British intervention. The British and later US bombing campaigns diverted large numbers of men and equipment to the defense of Germany which would have been better used in the Soviet Union. The only way this could have happened was if Germany had imposed a "punitive" peace on Great Britain (the sort of settlement Winston feared during the mid-DYNAMO discussions) , or invaded and conquered. If it was a "generous" peace - then Hitler wouldn't have been so stupid as to leave Western Europe defenceless.
I contributed to the issue of the French/BEF defeat in May 1940, and consider it wise to leave it at that. The reflections I gather from this thread in the current phase do not agree with me, so I leave that up to the true experts
The US would never have allowed the Sovjets taking control of the European region. Do you check under your bed before lying down too? Of course the US wouldn't, they are the ones who own Chuck Norris!
It is likely that has britain capitulated the USA would not have been involved in war until 1948-1950, the conflict then would have been more likely a long-range air engagement using the B36 which was in development in 1940. Also Japan may have decided to avoid conflict with the USA and instead have concentrated on the British, French and Dutch colonial possessions in the Far East as they had the raw materials needed by the Japanese economy.
The only way this could have happened was if Germany had imposed a "punitive" peace on Great Britain (the sort of settlement Winston feared during the mid-DYNAMO discussions) , or invaded and conquered. If it was a "generous" peace - then Hitler wouldn't have been so stupid as to leave Western Europe defenceless. We have drifted a tad away from the original post. Various units would have been able to be shifted elsewhere,less requirement for the bomber Flotte's and their escorts, this means they are available elsewhere along with the munitions and fuel etc. Even after D-Day Germany still kept large forces in Norway etc where they were effectively useless for the majority of the war. With no threat they could have been thinned out and used elsewhere. In the Defence of Germany over a million 'men' (originally Luftwaffe but gradually supplemented by home defence and HJ personnel from 1942 onwards) were used in the anti air units and a Luftwaffe study claimed it took 3308 88mm rounds to bring down one bomber. 9000 (read of claims of 15000) heavy AA guns and around 30000 light AA guns were used in the flak units. The material diverted to building the flak defences and rebuilding the bomb damage could also have been used elsewhere. All of this does not mean that Germany would have won but are things that should be considered when people comment that the USSR defeated Germany alone and that the Britain had no real bearing on the outcome. Likewise that the bomber offensive by the Allies was a complete waste of time as it had no military effect.
