Could Britain have defeated Germany on it's own?

DO IT AGAIN

Oh great, THIS autist again.

>could

it fucking did, who else?

kek

Thanks for those papers.

They would always win the sea and air war and eventually land in Sicily. They hadn't even begun to tap the manpower reserves of the empire. The thought of 3 million pajeets raping their way across Germany is amusing though.
Even if the land war became a stalemate (unlikely given the enormous advantage in men and resources Britain had) in the long run a protracted war would exhaust Germany first, Hitler would have had to eventually sue for peace.

I have never in my life seen a bigger "I get my opinions spoon-fed to me by shitposters on Veeky Forums" post in my life. Jesus christ.

This is where Americans get it from, just fyi

Even if Britain were invaded (which is less feasible than Britain retaking France), the government would be moved to Canada and slowly the empire would mobilise a glorious army of 10 gorillion pajeets and overrun Germany with sheer manpower. If Russia wasn't around to do it, i suppose India will have to do.

>Germany overrun by third world
Beautiful

Mashallah brother

I believe Britain would have peaced out if it became evident America or Russia wouldn't joint, and Hitler's terms left the Empire as was,

It would probably just be a long standoff, Germany was not capable of successfully invading the UK and the UK was backed into a corner

Depends on what you mean by "on their own", if they weren't leeching off from America they would've ran out of money and resources

It’s almost as if the UK is a small island with few resources... wow

The term UK usually includes the Commonwealth.

Operation vegetarian could easily BTFO hitter.

UK would get nuclear weapons eventually and nuked Berlin
Most likely landed in Balkans after inciting large scale uprsing

>It’s almost as if the UK is a small island with few resources
Exactly my point which was the subject of this thread; you don't have to act like a cunt about it.

THe Uk wouldn't use nukes for the sake of it.

No. Germany would have rekt Britain in Africa and eventually invade Britain.

Against the Axis? No.

Against Germany, 1v1? Most likely. They were already doing a great job in North Africa, on the seas and in the air, and it was only a matter of time until Good old Arthur "Aryan Annihilator of Augsburg" Harris ground Germany to dust.

My point it isn’t leeching if they have no alternative. The US made a penny selling that shit too, also.

You are unironically retarded. How would Germany do either?

Why specifically do you feel Britain couldn’t beat Japan?

Using the hundreds of thousands of men who died in Stalingrad in Africa and in Operation Sea Lion.

The retard is you and any imbecile who even thinks that only the United Kingdom would have an opportunity against Germany. When they could not even invade Germany having 2 fronts and were defeated in several battles even at the end of the war.

How are they going to solve the endemic supply problems that they historically had trying to project a relatively tiny force even further than they ever historically got?

>Using the hundreds of thousands of men who died in Stalingrad in Africa and in Operation Sea Lion.
With the fleet that they didn't have and didn't have the resources to build? Their total lack of amphibious experience? Their inability to get air control even over southern Britain?

It's not like they can just march across the channel and swim, you know.

Just Japan, maybe, but not Japan, Italy and Germany at once. Fighting on three fronts is exceedingly hard, and can results in disasters like Singapore, where Britain lost 100.000 men due to poor planning and a lack of focus.

From the same place that the United Kingdom was going to get theirs once the Germans closed the Suez Canal.

And Germany had resources to attack the United Kingdom. Especially when they not have to spend them in Russia, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Greece and so on.

>Being this mad because someone actually points out how infeasible the supply situation was instead of constantly spouting "hurr straight to suez like HoI"

>From the same place that the United Kingdom was going to get theirs once the Germans closed the Suez Canal.
How are they going to get to the Suez Canal? Rommel couldn't even consistently supply a 7 division force all the way to Tobruk; and only made his second advance to El Alamein off of stolen British supplies after a fluke victory.

>And Germany had resources to attack the United Kingdom.
No they didn't. They were badly outproduced on land equipment alone www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf (pp 30-31), nevermind air and naval stuff.

And especailly if you're not invading and occupying half of Europe, you're not going to get anywhere near the historic German production figures.

>My point it isn’t leeching if they have no alternative.
Yes it lmao

>no officer I wasn't stealing this car, you see i have no money so i had no alternative ways to obtain it, therefore it isn't stealing

No. But Germany could never invade Britain.

The most logical thing for both parties would have been for Britain to gobble up colonies and ignore Europe, in preparation to be strong when the inevitable Russian/German war kicked off.

>Thinking that the production will be the same if you are at war with many countries at the same time that if you were with only one

Kek.

And you do not need to invade half of Europe if you're not at war with them in the first place.

>And you do not need to invade half of Europe if you're not at war with them in the first place.
You do, however, need to invade and occupy them if you want the raw materials and especially foodstuffs that Germany was lacking on her own. If you don't, your economy is going to grind to a halt without things like non-ferrous metals or enough calories to get your factory workers through a day.

Also, please explain how being at war and occupying places like France, Greece, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc, cut into German war production.

That you waste your production in shit countries like Greece just to save Mussolini. And not for supplies.

With all its production concentrated in the United Kingdom, with its new tactics of war and each general concentrated in a single country, the British bombers would not have approached Germany.

Bye bye United Kangdom in first year.

>when people take Veeky Forums memes seriously

with stunning victories such as leaving the continent and successfully defending their island and failing to raid the continent and taking three years to win in africa, i'm sure they'd be able to win. eventually germany's economy or government will collapse and britain will be able to clamour about their heroic victory

>Operation Sea Lion
ahhahahahhahahahaha

>this is what lindybeige drones actually believe
lmfao

No. Germany would be able to sue for peace on favorable terms.

Germany wouldn't have been able to invade Britain in her entirety, but he could've taken most of it.

However, Britain couldn't have invaded Germany in her entirety either.

It would've been a stalemate, however, Germany would've been able to win in a war of attrition.

On the other hand, USA could've defeated Germany, or Britain by them self, and Russia could've beaten Britain in a 1v1 as well most likely

No.

In four words:
Infantry tanks
War Industry

Bonus round:
U-Boats

>U-Boats
Don't underestimate the Royal navy

Except Britain won the battle of the atlantic and far more ships came through than not. If Britain wasn't also fighting Japan they'd sooner or later pull a WW1 and blockade Germany with their unchallenged navy.

Out of Germany and Britain it's fairly obvious who has the manpower, the economy and the resources to draw upon. A long war for Germany would destroy their delayed debted economy, that's why they used Blitz tactics to gain an easy victory. Germany literally couldn't afford it's military.

Even without lend-lease Britain still had a vast array of resource-rich colonies and dominions from which it could draw upon.

>itt: deluded Naziboos who think war is like a video game where you can just create more men and raw materials when you need them
In this scenario Germany is getting blockaded and bombed, but has no way of striking back. They will quickly run out of steel, oil and rubber.

Not a snowball's chance.

America beat Germany with a bit of help from Russia, Britain waved pom poms.

This. Britain was nothing but a glorified FOB

>dude in hospital beinf given blood consensually
>WHAT A LEECHER

basically this

This is supremely insulting to the hundreds of thousands of British soldiers that died in combat in WW2.

What do you mean they did nothing? How about pretty much every piece of intelligence on axis plans was gathered by the british. It was they who undertook the huge task to keep the d'day landings secret.

It was Britain which provided a base for the allied invasion from the west, if Britain didn't hold the line then good luck to the USA to try and take Germany. The north African campaign was won thanks to Montgomery. Britain crippled Germany's air force and through area bombing also crippled their industry. Allied invasion of sicily, halting Japanese expansion in Asia. If Britain wasn't there to divert German forces then the USSR would be in more trouble. Yes the war could've been won without Britain, but that goes for all the allies.

Stay mad, britboy

Found the kraut

>everyone who sees Britain's contribution to WW2 for the joke it was is a kraut
ok

>rightly defends british contribution to the war so i must be british
Ok

>getting baited this easily

>Using the hundreds of thousands of men who died in Stalingrad in Africa
You are a fucking retard. How would you supply such an enormous force with barely any railroads and ports bombed by the Brits?

>All these delusional Lindyfags itt
America supplied your shitty island from the very beginning. There's no way you could have won alone.

>shitty island
The die is cast...

Germany couldn't have ever crossed the pond, we can at least be certain.
By the way, I am pure Yankee.

>rightly defends british contribution to the war
Literally what is the point? Retards like you jumping onto every bait they see is one of the reasons why Veeky Forums is so shit

Absolutely. Britain had a far superior airforce and navy to that of Nazi Germany, leaving Germany with minimal ability to trade with anyone outside of Europe. There was no way the territories occupied by Germany would have remained relatively quiet during their occupations either. The German economy would have collapsed without the ability to plunder more lands, and Germans would be less impressed with National Socialism when the war is locked in a stalemate. Germany would have collapsed in itself.

>This is supremely insulting to the hundreds of thousands of British soldiers that died in combat in WW2.
Well shit Cameron I didn't expect you to start shitposting on Veeky Forums after Theresa May got in.
I've seen and heard plenty of Brits say the same shit about plenty of other countries in plenty of other wars. I rarely ever see some Frenchman or Ouiaboo going SACRE BLU SINK OF ALL ZE FRENCH SOLDIERS WHO DIED IN ZE BATTLE OF FRANCE!
Quit being an emotional shit. Canada had a roll almost equal to Britain. I'm not disrespecting their cervix but am I accurately describing British effect on the outcome of the war. I'm not going to be a historical revisionist just because your feelings are hurt.

>Intelligence gathering
>D-Day Landings
Britain drugged the poor guy who accomplished that to death all because he liked dudes. The one serious contributor and they fucking give him a slow undeserved death.
>base for the allied invasion
Pom poms
>The north African campaign was won thanks to Montgomery
The same Montgomery who cost allied soldiers their lives with his dumbfuckery in the Western front.
>Britain crippled Germany's air force
The French had more of an impact
>halting Japanese expansion in Asia
Battle of Singapore
>If Britain didn't just sit on it's Island and not fight then
Irrelevant

Didn't montgomery lead the allied invasion of Normandy?

Three words,
Operation
Market
Garden

Montgomery was a retard.

No British Empire is Overrated by propaganda

Wow that is unfortunate. Regardless though he was instrumental in beeting Rommel in north Africa and turned the tide of constant allied defeat to (mostly) repeated allies successes

>M-M-montgomery was a b-bad general and a r-retard

Tell me, penis breath, which ww2 Era generals do you find good?

even you couldnt lose the battle at el alamein, Rommels only chance was, idk, Panzers with fuel start raining from the sky

Panzers could survive a fall from orbit, one panzer would win.

>implying Britain wouldn't sue for white peace instead off having it's population being held hostage by Germany.

>Battle of Singapore
Irrelevant. Everyone lost to the Japanese at the stage. It's like pointing to Corregidor and suggesting this means the USA could never defeat Japan.
By 1944 Slim and the Indian army were trouncing the Japanese.

>By 1944

So in this scenario. Did the germs annex half of Europe? Did they crack the enigma code?

Also would be interesting to watch UK fight a war without a continental all to take the hits for them

No. The only thing that saved UK is the fact that's it's an island. They would've been btfo like France if it wasn't.

I mean, if Brits start using chemical and biological warfare then the Germans would too.
The Germans had Nerve agents like Sarin and shit that the Allies didn't even know existed until the end of the war, and after both sides start gassing eachother then there would probably be a really horrible arms race and who knows what happens after that.

The Germans had no capacity to invade the UK, let alone conquer most of it. The same applies to the Russians. Tge amount of naval expertise, industrial capacity to produce so many ships and supply a vast ligustics train to ensure the invasion had any chance of successes are huge. For germany to have any chance it would need to conquer large amounts of europe and therefore wouldnt be a uk germany 1v1. There is a reason the UK has gotten into wars with much more powerful countries and never been invaded. Its also the reason the uk has sought to divide europe or support tge emergance of small countries in europe. Its a good way to pre empt even needing to be in such a situation.

The US is the only one out of that list who could do it as they have the industrial, resource, skills and coastline capacity needed to carry it out inside their own borders.

The UK couldnt lose against germany, but it most likely wouldnt be able to win either.

>Britain drugged the poor guy who accomplished that to death all because he liked dudes. The one serious contributor and they fucking give him a slow undeserved death.
What happened to Alan Turing was a fucking disgrace, but i don't think that being chemically castrated was the be all and end all in someone's descision to kill themselves, especially if he had no intention to rear a kid anyway (Not that i know of)

Did Germany occupy France? Did they get the French fleet?

No but Germany wouldn't have been able to beat Britain alone either.

>I rarely ever see some Frenchman or Ouiaboo going SACRE BLU SINK OF ALL ZE FRENCH SOLDIERS WHO DIED IN ZE BATTLE OF FRANCE!
Happens all the time, are you new to this board?
>Britain drugged the poor guy
Irrelevant
>the same Montgomery who cost allied soldiers their lives
Yes, the same Montgomery who battled the majority of German troops in Normandy allowing the US (which was facing minimal resistance in their sector) to break out and beat the Krauts
>the French had more impact
Now you're just being ridiculous
>Battle of Singapore
Im guessing your limited historical knowledge hasn't extended to Imphal and Kohima?

Britain only surprassed Germany in industrial output in 1945 after Germany had been partially conquered and bombed to death.Britain alone would have been BTFO by German production alone

That is quite literally wrong and has been cited to in this very thread.

The british bombed the some of the french fleet in the ports, despite having the word of the leader of the admiralty (I think it was him you should google it) that they would scupper their vessels rather than let the Germans get ahold of them. The French are still quite salty about it.

>Dude having less manufacturing than Germany but having a gorillion niggers and pakis means that the British economy could go one on one against Germany's in a war
Lol. Britain got its ass save by lend lease and in 1943 once Germany started to shift its economy to a war economy the German's double British tank production while creating more expensive and complex tanks. Britain had 0 chances on taking on Germany alone as it always was a paper tiger

>Muh British industry outproduced a debasted German one in 1945
>For that very same reason it will always outproduce a country with a bigger manufacturing sector and a higher GDP

dude...

>The only reason Britain didn't get conquered is because Britain couldn't be invaded.

Didn't mean to tag second guy.

Rommel never would have had problems with fuel if most of it hadn't already been used in Russia you imbecile.