I'm saying if Russia or U.S never came to help them could they have won against Germany? I mean they were dominating the skies with their British Spitfire planes, I'm pretty sure they could have lead a air strike on the Germans from the skies. Or do you guys think other-wise?
As always no trolling or flame wars.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Short answer: No
Long answer: No, and would probably have been nuked before long.
You pose two questions.
The one in your title - yes. They had basically done that during the Battle of Britain. Germany had no ways of conducting an invasion of Britain save for Alien Space Bat Magic.
The one in the post body - that's a tough one. And a much more hypothetical one. The British had a greater economy and reserves of both manpower and resources at their disposal than Germany, but around the globe (so what happens with Japan is important) and they would also have to project this force to the mainland.
>Long answer: No, and would probably have been nuked before long.
>Germany
>developing nukes
a y y y
y
y
y
If no supplies or troops were sent, they would have been fucked.
No. The UK needed overseas shipping (the majority of which came from the US) to survive WWII.
Without US aid the German blockade would've strangled Britain.
If the US wasn't constantly cranking out materiel like a continental beehive and shipping it across the Atlantic I'm not sure their empire would have been able to provide as cheaply, quickly, and routinely. Too spread out, especially with Japan mucking around in their Asian territories
is that the same submarine blockade that began to get countered in spring 1941 and the same submarine blockade that failed to sink the necessary tonnage for periods longer than a couple of weeks
Germany wasnt developing nukes. They were focusing on rocketry because they figured they didnt have the resources or time to get nukes up in time to fight the soviets.
>german blockade
u wot
They were though it is unlikely they would have eclipsed the 1st A-Bomb date of 1952 of the UK.
The knowledge was not too wildly behind, but the funding, political will and access to enough fissionable material would have been very difficult. Many estimates said 1954 (but then again this was also the estimate for Soviets and they first tested 1949).
>The knowledge was not too wildly behind
but it was
With help from the Americans, yes. Which was the whole point of the thread.
>With American imports
Basically indefinitely
>Without imports
No we'd be fucked
3 years at most given that isotope separation was figured out in a roughly comparable time scale.
>>The knowledge was not too wildly behind
they literally banned the teaching of relativity because it was "Jewish Physics" user
Nazi Germany had a massive brain drain of nuclear theorists before the war. They just did not have the knowledge to complete a nuclear bomb anymore.
The UK basically bankrupted itself buying support from the US, but it allowed them to continue the war.
Without the US sending them all their stuff? They'd be fucked.
We spend alot thought Americans offered a more then hospitable repayment plan at a mere 2% interest.
It was fully paid back in 2006.
>posts Boulton-Paul Defiant
>Spit Fire.jpg
Also, while Britain was able to defend itself over the island, they had a lot more trouble with conducting fighter sweeps over German-held France. Their night-bombing was a whole lot better than Germany's, though
won, perhaps not, lost certainly not.
the germans couldnt knock britain out, they couldnt land a decisive blow and despite s misguided belief the germans were far further from a working nuke than the british.
so the issue would be could the british be persuaded to accept terms.
>Could the UK have ever won any european war by themselves
The answer is nope
There's a reason why they always formed coalitions
before lend lease began the british were paying in cash, so from 1939 to december 1941 the most critical period the british were paying over the odds for inferior aircraft and paying for the building of much of the US war industry
This.
Because the Soviets had two spies the (Rosenbergs) that stole nuclear secrets from the US
What people need to understand is that Germany REALLY didn't want to go to war with Britain, but in our 'Age of Empires' arrogance we forced their hand.
Two fun facts:
1) We still haven't paid off our Marshall Plan debt. We are, symbolically and monetarily, still indebted to America: the 'Special Relationship' consists of nothing more than bending over to take Uncle Sam's cock on demand.
2) Europe in general was indefinitely indebted to America as a consequence of the Marshall Plan. America was never our 'friend', nor did it help Europe post-WW2 from the goodness of its heart. Read Adam Tooze's 'The Deluge'. What you have to ask is if the world is better off with fewer, larger empires - or numerous, small empires. Looking across time and fiction, a good comparison would be Nineteen Eighty-Four's Oceania/Eurasia and the Ancient Greek city states that kept one another in check.
Russia did not come to help... It was forced to join the war after Nazis attacked it without any warnings. Moreover, Russia's sacrifice in the war is tremendous and cannot be compared to any other country. from 8,7 to 14 million (the information varies from one study to another) Russian soldiers and civils died in total during that period of time.
They were just giving the money that they got from their investments and loans in the US back
You guys paid it back a decade ago i believe. And the special relationship goes back to the 1800s
We could have rebuilt Europe without the Marshall Plan right?
Pretty sure you guys pretty much payed it off.
/thread
>Spit Fire.jpg
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
t. Wehraboo
Definitely, Erich Raeder the Grand Admiral of the Kriegsmarine wrote Hitler a detailed grand strategy memorandum which explain to Hitler how to beat the British in 1940. Ironically at this same time WInston Churchill was writing to Roosevelt sweating bullets because he was worried that if the Germans did exactly what Raeder suggested he do he would have to surrender and admit defeat.
Although Hitler's peace demands with Britain were not harsh in any sense. Churchill resigns but is free to live and write his memoirs, Germany guarantees the British Empire, Britian recognizes Germans right to rule the re-divided poland, France regains control over her territory. Rexists control Belgium (a clerical fascist party, I'm not sure nederlands fate. There are some documents suggesting a conquest style puppet 'protectorate' but if anyone knows i'm interested.
Hitler was too distracted with his Russian campaign to bother anything but a half assed attempt at Raeder's plan.
The real question of WWII is what were Stalin's intentions? Germans were convinced of an inevitable attack. Especially after Stalin showed no interest in joining the Axis unless he could take control over what was left of East Europe Finland and the baltics.
The answer is yes, Germany could have won a 'checkmate' style victory where Britian had to come to the negotiating table but Germany could not have conquered Britian the way they had France and Poland.
youre a moron and should be shameful that you decided to make this thread
>poland
>Playing an even significant part in WWII
Kek
But other than that you're half-right. Britain has always relied on its cunning wit in politics and strategy to win wars, rather than its economic and talent capability. However, we still have won European wars without the use of coalitions - perhaps due to the amount of European wars we've fought.
[citation needed] how is this so called plan going to force Britain to the negotiating table with a navy roughly 1/5 the size? What is this alleged detailed plan?
oh great, it's an Operation Sealion thread
So, what was the plan? Praying that storms sink the Royal Navy?
>However, we still have won European wars without the use of coalitions - perhaps due to the amount of European wars we've fought.
I dare you to list just one
Aside from repressing some Irish peasant rebellion, I can't think of any European war Britain won (or even fought) alone
>filename
You fucking idiot, that's no Spitfire, it's a Defiant
The Germans won't be able to invade Britain but Britain won't be able to defend France. Assuming the Brits are still receiving US aid, they'll have to stall long enough for Russia. End result: vast swaths of continental Europe are communist.
got to say the armada bit in that one annoys me, the armada got beaten by the british and wrecked by storms while retreating back to spain, after beating the spanish in the battle of gravelines the english fleet pursued and arried the spanish until halfway up the scots coast.
the spanish got beaten by the english then ass fucked by the storm, but the storm didnt decide the issue, indeed had the spanish fleet not been so damaged by the battle they probably could have withstood the storms better
with u-boats m8, I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean surface ships because you know, Muh Royal Navy
Not him, but there's a big gap between commerce raiding and a blockade.
But thats what Germany was trying to do. Blockade England of supplies by commerce raiding
I know what you're trying to say, but you're using jargon incorrectly.
Blockades are area denial operations. You plunk down your ships (or other assets) around a given port, or at a strait, or in a given area, and you don't let the enemy through.
Commerce raiding is just pure and simple destruction of the enemy shipping, where and when you find them.
Even if the German commerce raiding campaign was successful (and historically, they were nowhere near close enough to even substantially impair Britain's ramping up of their war industry, let alone knocking them out of the war), it wouldn't be a blockade, because the u-boats were attacking targets of opportunity where and when they could find them, they weren't hanging around Dover or wherever and sinking anything that came in.
You don't really do a blockade with u-boats, not very effectively anyway. You commerce raid.
They already did.
It's doubtful.
In 1940 Churchill secretly met Roosevelt, who assured him that he was doing everything he could to advance American entry into the war on the side of the Allies. I can't remember what time it was exactly, but that must've been a huge boost to the desire to fight on.
I think if Roosevelt had refused to support the UK, or there had been an actually honest isolationist in power in the US, the UK would've caved soon after the fall of France
>I'm saying if Russia or U.S never came to help them could they have won against Germany?
It is ridiculous to think of a UK that isn't supported by the US since the UK would never isolate itself politically to that extent.
>I mean they were dominating the skies with their British Spitfire planes, I'm pretty sure they could have lead a air strike on the Germans from the skies.
The Spitfire is severely overrated. The workhorse of the Royal Air Force was the Hurricane. And the German aircraft were quite en par with anything the British had. Both the Bf109 and the FW190 were excellent fighter aircraft and in certain regards better than the British aircraft, it's just that they weren't really suited to escorting bombers across the channel (just like the British fighters would have failed at that the job if the situation had been reversed).
No
>Although Hitler's peace demands with Britain were not harsh in any sense. Churchill resigns but is free to live and write his memoirs, Germany guarantees the British Empire, Britian recognizes Germans right to rule the re-divided poland, France regains control over her territory. Rexists control Belgium (a clerical fascist party, I'm not sure nederlands fate. There are some documents suggesting a conquest style puppet 'protectorate' but if anyone knows i'm interested.
>German Treaties
>worth the paper they were printed on
gee OP I dunno if only they had tried, if only the germans had somehow attacked britain when it was basically standing alone against germany, probably in an air war preceding an invasion, maybe they ought to have given it a symbolic name... i dont know, since it would be fought in the skies above england, how about... the Engagement of England? or maybe Combat over Coventry? no thats not it... the Dogfight of Dover? the Air-war over Anglia?
Well an amphibious invasion was literally impossible and the Battle of Britain proved that they couldn't maintain air superiority.
Their best bet would have been to starve the island to death.
I dunno, maybe. Japan would have been fucking annoying to deal with without America.
>implying germany could ever have defeated the home guard
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
Britain made much more progress on the bomb independently than Germany, it just got very expensive and merged into the Manhattan Project.
No doubt if the war was prolonged for more years then they would have been looking at more drastic options like continued development.
They also had easier access to the required materials.
youtube.com
>ywn be in the home guard
>ywn put the fear of god into hitler so much he cancels all plans to invade britian and decides russia would be much easier
>but in our 'Age of Empires' arrogance we forced their hand.
"Haha yeah just let Adolf do whatever the fuck he wants :)"
Wehraboos like you need to get cancer.
t. Erich Raeder
You mean the Albion Aerial Acrobatics?
Hey OP here, I'm no plane expert. It is just what popped up when I looked for spit fire.
Fallen London reference?