What would happen if Britain was defeated in 1940 ?

Impossible? I cannot agree with that assessment. Britain was needed primarily as a base of operations and there are other possible alternatives as mentioned. Without Russia it becomes much more difficult since they bore the brunt of reducing the German Heer in land battles however the German Navy and Air Forces would not likely be able to keep pace with US development and production (see GDP of US compared to Germany)
nor could her smaller population produce the numbers of Infantry divisions the US was capable of equipping. I say capable because the US did not put nearly as many Infantry divisions in the field in WW II... as it turns out it wasn't necessary however the capablity was surely there.

 

Its debatable whether they could land easily (unless the land in question is the bottom of the English Channel).

The majority of the barges (note the term 'barge') assembled were inland waterway barges totally unsuitable to the English Channel and a significant number were unpowered and would have relied on a tug or a powered barge to tow strings of them.

A destroyer chargeing around at full speed would have created enough of a wake to swamp most of them and destroying the towing vessels would have left large numbers wallowing around for a short while before the Channels waves sank them.

The only way the Germans would have beaten Britain would have been to destroy its air force and systematically bomb cities to the ground until Britain surrenderd or failing a victory over the RAF, starving Britain out.

 

In case of german occupation of Europe you'll have to compare the GDP of the US not against the one of Germany but the one of nearly all european states combined.

I wouldn't call it impossible but I highly doubt the US could launch a sucessfull invasion in Europe against a Wehrmacht that can throw all it's forces in.

 

Hangs head in shame, sorry I didn't read the bottom bit.

 

As you say many senarios were possible,

Britain falls Med locked no invasion from N. Africa.

Britain falls Med locked no invasion from Scicily.

Britian falls Med locked no invasion from mid east.

Britain falls German Uboats un molested in the East Atlantic hundreds of hungry wolf packs feeding on millions of tons of US shipping until the US people become bored and dicide Hitler is not too bad and Trading with him is much more profitable. With Britain gone Who wwill pay for the lend lease. Billions of dollars investment in the lend lease and nothing in return.

Some how I just can't see it.

 

With war economy's fully geared up, say 1945, let's do that.

US GDP -1474 billion dollars

Germany and all other Euro combatant countries- 846 billion dollars

I don't understand "Med locked"? The German Navy and airpower was unbeatable? How could they "lock" the Med?

If Britain falls where is this lend lease in the Atlantic being sent?
As far as protecting out own sea supply lines goes...the U-boat campaign failed when sufficient air and ASW assets became available. Do you think that the Germans could put a navy to sea to challenge what the US was able to build and put to sea in a few short years. I don't see it.

 

By taking Gibralter, either Germany or Spain.

If Britain falls where is this lend lease in the Atlantic being sent?
As far as protecting out own sea supply lines goes...the U-boat campaign failed when sufficient air and ASW assets became available. Do you think that the Germans could put a navy to sea to challenge what the US was able to build and put to sea in a few short years. I don't see it.[/quote]

Exaxtly if Britain falls, so does Russia, or sufficient that germany could have a buffer zone and fresh slave labour, Not to mention oil, and ores, and fresh blood wishing to join the German army.

As for the ASW assets, neither the US or Britain had sufficient to cover the Atlantic, it needed both side to push them into a corridor in the mid Atlantic, allowing the convoys to be routed around them.

 

No Germany would not be able to put up sea power comparable to the US but I still don't see the US invading Europe with Britain and Russia defeated.
1.German weapon's industry output would be much more elevated without the strategic bombing campaign.

2.Germany would be able to field over 400 divisions, and launch great parts of these against an possible american beachead in Europe.
Remember that the actual figthing against the germans in Normandy was not easy at all, but then the germans had 50 divisions(undermanned and underequipped), the allies had total air superiority....

3.I don't see US public opinion accept the loss of millions of soldiers.(remember that if figthing a Wehrmacht like they would likely face in such a scenario, the US forces would in some weeks loose more troops than they actually lost in the whole WW2)

 

At least it would have been interesting to see how many Carrier task forces it would take to pound Gibraltar into dust Or how much high altitude carpet bombing such a small target could absorb

I think a lot of Russians would disagree with that idea.

Being conquered doesn't necessarily mean the subjects are enthusiastic to join their conquerers.

At the beginning of the war this was true. By the time the US production was turning out ships en mass the U-boats were nullified. Not routed around but sent to the bottom, most of them.

Woops..quitting time..no more posting on my employers time..will rejoin this enjoyable debate at a later date

 

I certainly agree with you and would consider all these scenarios extremely unlikely. Just interesting to consider what if.

 

The Atlantic gap wan't closed until 1943, Britian would have fallen in 1941, that gives the wolf packs 18 months to recover and build up.

As for high altitude carpet bombing quite a lot really, Carpet bombing was accurate to 5 miles, so they would miss by some 3.5 miles. the carrier task force would be inspecting the seabed.

I think a lot of Russians would disagree with that idea.

Being conquered doesn't necessarily mean the subjects are enthusiastic to join their conquerers.

[/quote]

Not for all, but for a lot. It is amzing how one half educated man can make a nation think that he is good and worthy of following.

At the beginning of the war this was true. By the time the US production was turning out ships en mass the U-boats were nullified. Not routed around but sent to the bottom, most of them.

Woops..quitting time..no more posting on my employers time..will rejoin this enjoyable debate at a later date [/quote]

 

many country in east europe saw in the beginning the germans as liberators from Stalin, but they soon found out that Hitler was worse then Stalin, if the german not had making all those crimes against them, they would had have alot of man power to recrutting from to use in the army and industry....but again its a what if??

 

Grieg, you are missing one very big point...

If Britain is not in the fight, where is America going to base the ASW aircraft to defeat the U-boats? Half of the Atlantic is unprotected. Plus yuo effectively lose the British experience & equipment of ASW (admittedly pretty poor in 1940/41) and you are stuck with Admiral King, who passionately believes that convoys are not a good idea.

Where is America going to base the strategic bombers to pound Europe (remember, they need fighter escorts)?

Carpet bombing (even if it was feasible) really has little effect on dug-in defenders - WW2 provides many good example of this.

The Ukranians were. Most European nations had their own SS unit. True, this was to combat the evil Bolsheviks, but after a few years of Nazi propaganda, how many would be willing to fight the evil Capitalists?

On the subject of Germany invading Britain - yes, they could have, if they had planned for it in advance. They did not, so could not. If America had not joined the war, they could have more-or-less ignored Britain & concentrated on the Soviets.

 

If Britain and Russia fell in 41, then not only will the Germans have more troops available, but they will also have much 'much' more capable troops than the U.S..

German troops were far better trained than their western counterparts in 39-43. Also their war experience would be much greater than the U.S. troops.

Oh and Grieg dont compare Europe in 45 with the U.S. in 45. Europe had suffered a 5 year war at that time, where its home cities had been bombed and masses of people had died ! No wonder the budget was low !

KBO

 

Interesting point - If the US was seriously contemplating an invasion of Europe from America... How?
IMHO it would either wait until the Japanese were dealt with, or it would be a shambles (as they would lack the required knowledge of how to launch an invasion at such distance).

Now, as stated before (possibly on this topic) the best route is probably to grab a corner of Africa (least resistance) and work up from there. At least that will give you a base to work from.

However, getting there will prove tricky (remember, no Brits, no Bletchley Park, no knowledge of how to crack Enigma. And no, the US would not have the 'bombe', as we were given it by the Poles, and jealously guarded it until late in the war) as you will have to dodge the U-boats. Yes, if you do it late-war, you will be better, but still.
Yes, the 'Torch' convoys achieved just such a feat, but we were reading their codes at that point...

And yes, just try getting a big enough fleet to create a realistic & sustained invasion of Europe through the Gibralter Straight when it is held by the enemy!

 

The same way they learned in the Pacific, by experience. Learning lessons with every advance. I know of no other nation that has every made such long range invasions successfully nor maintained such long supply lines.

Agree. That would be one route. The other direction would work also if Russia were cooperative.

No one here ever gives the US credit for anything True the Brits shared Enigma with the US but the US also cracked the Japanese code under the Ultra (Magic) program and shared that with the Brits.

Huh? The Poles developed nuclear weapons before the Manhattan project?

Just curious about how much knowledge there is here about US involvement in WWII .
How many aircraft carriers...battleships...cruisers...etc. did the US have by 1945?

I address these comments to your Ricky since I enjoy a good healthy debate and believe that people can disagree without being disagreeable, and I thinks perhaps you do also.

 

if britain was defeated in 1940, i dont see what its got to do with the usa?

in 1940 usa had no intention of declaring war on germany even after pearl hrbour it was germany who declared war on usa not the otherway round.

who to say that the two countries wouldnt have coexisted?

as far as im aware the germans had on desings on north america and obviusly the usa wasnt interested with the internal conflicts of europe.

germany would have attacked russia in 1941 japan attacks usa usa fights the jappanese and lets the germans and russians get on with it as they are no threat.

depending on the out come of the greman russian conflict who knows?

 

Fundamentally I agree with you. Despite having a bond of kinship with the Brits the average American did not hate the Germans (as many as 1/3 of troops fighting in Europe were of German ancestry) and there was a strong tendency to avoid what the Americans saw as an incessantly warring Europe. BTW there would be little reason for the US to declare war on Germany after Pearl Harbor attack. It was a complete surprise to most everyone when Hitler decided, in his madness sealing his fate, to declare war on the US.
However this is basically a debate about what if...what if the US and Russia or the US alone had to take on Germany..how would they proceed?
Not that it would at all be likely to occur on the circumstances presented.

 

I think Ricky was referring to the analogue computer device nicknamed 'bombes' developed in Poland and used at Bletchley Park.

 

Agreed, and thanks!

Ah, but the resources needed to invade, take over, and hold an island group in the Pacific are not really to be compared to those needed to mount a sustained invasion (and eventual conquest) of mainland Europe. Especially as the Japanese garrison of the island group was generally the only resistance you needed to overcome (aside from the potential worry of the Japanese Main Fleet). Plus, Japanese subs were a tad less effective than the Germans.
This is why I had the option of the US waiting until it gained experience in the Pacific before attempting anything. A setback in the Atlantic could be very costly, especially as the German U-boats could *potentially* cut your reteating task force to ribbons.

We've had this idea before somewhere - we got into an interesting discussion on how well Western Allied troops & equipment would cope with the rather savage conditions (weather & fighting) on the Eastern Front.

All due respect to the American code crackers (who did a great job & hastened the defeat of Japan - nobody can diminish that), but the Japanese code was not up to Enigma. Enigma required computers to even stand a chance of cracking & decrypting it, and even then it took ages (often months) unless you knew the key. We would not have stood a chance at it without the Polish computers (bombes).

'bombe', not 'bomb'. The 'bombe' was the above-mentioned computer used to decrypt Enigma.

Quite good knowledge. But:
1) most of it was in the Pacific (ok, so you could make more! )

2) The Gibralter Straight is nice & narrow. All the Germans have to do is mine it thoroughly, and stop anybody from removing the mines. Or just have a serious concentration of planes, U-boats, even surface units etc there. Remember, the Germans could replenish losses in the campaign as they go, from mainland Europe. An Invasion Fleet does not have that luxury. It must find a base & get established.
It can theoretically be done, but it would take a LOT of muscle, and involve a LOT of losses. Plus, once you are through, you are still under air & sub attack.

I look forward to your responses!