Did Germany have power to defeat XXX Allied Nation one on one?

On the whole I might agree with you... but the German economy was not much better off. In fact, it was in pretty dire straights itself. It lurched forward on the basis of the conquests it had made, plundering banks and stealing Oil reserves. Once the conquests stopped, it had a problem. It plundered gold from Jews to pay (no one wanted Reichmarks), it had a more rigidly planned economy than many Communist states. And it had access to few trading partners of significance. Post '41 it was starving people and killing slaves to produce equipment.

The UK was only "broke" by 1941, insofar as liquid assets (ready cash) went. It still had substantial non-liquid assets. And an enormous amount of untapped manpower. Lend Lease equipment, did not miraculously and suddenly arrive, solving the problems for the UK, indeed, it played almost no part in the battles of that year.

Also, you are forgetting, that a large chunk of the Commonwealth's resources were kept in the Pacific/Burma... In this "what if" scenario it should be safe to assume that Japan can be thoroughly ignored, freeing up yet more RN, Australian, and not least Indian, resources. Otherwise it'd be very peculiar to allow the Germans to completely ignore the Russian Bear.

That'd go some way to alleviating the $31.8 billion USD granted through the Lend Lease program. We should probably also subtract the $6.8 billion USD reverse Lend Lease from the Commonwealth to the US...

 

My understanding was the German economy held strong through-out most of the war. (They hit peek production in 44 if my info is correct).

My understanding was that England got caught off guard just as much as everyone else when Germany went into France. The fate of Dunkirk must be considered. Are saying Dunkirk happen or was botched? Again if you read my post about how speed was the essential to the German strategy.

That is a good point about Britain's Pacific assets. That would definitely add a lot to consider... :bb-cruising:

 

WRT to peek production... the Commonwealth peaked '43, and basically kept levels same during '44. (26,200 aircraft '43 vs 26,500 in '44: 1.200.000 tons of merchant vessels in '43 vs 1.000.000 of same in '44: 610.000 tonnes of warships in '43, vs 583.000 in '44).

Germany wouldn't peak production '44 without the acquisition of new territories and resources in the preceding years ('41/'42) in the East, and the influx of masses of slaves harvested from the East. It took time to organise, repair and utilize.

Peek production and liquid assets to purchase foreign produced goods are something entirely else altogether, you shouldn't really mix the two. Once again, I iterate: German production was based on slave labour, fed well below recommended amounts, killing untold numbers, something they couldn't maintain indefinitely. They did this, not just because they wanted to solve the issue of the Jews, but because they just didn't have enough food for everyone. The Germans had basically no cash at all with which to buy foreign goods. Few countries accepted Reichmarks, even before the war started. Most trading partners demanded gold and other valuables, and Nazi Germany had already spent the plundered gold from the captured nations Banks, and was sifting through the remains of dead Jews in Concentration Camps...

Germany owed it's occupied territories (those it bullied into its economy) 30 billion Reichmarks... In other words Occupied territories were acquiring ever larger claims on the German economy, which it could not meet.

So desperate were the German Economic straights in foreign trade, we know for a fact that they were trying to trade crude petroleum in '44 ...

Yep, that'll be a sure sign of a strong economy right... because we know they had such a surplus of petroleum '44, they didn't know what to do with the stuff. They were using it to light the motorbahn's by night, to guide the Panzer's into the Ardennes...

 

European Axis vs Commonwealth (more appropriate I think to reflect the situation)

So further clarification of the situation has no war with Japan freeing up resources, Would be a good chunk of resources from DEI and the British though limited from Australia. Australia by this time had the vast majority of their asset's in the Med. Would allow British to call in man power from India though to how hard they would fight for the war of another is open for discussion.

As for European wide embargo, In the form of sea trade the RN could do so, They only had to cover the Suez and South/West Spain. Though how many blockade runner's would get past is another matter, Historically they did get past time to time would there have been a major differences in the numbers with no USN support? On the land side of things Germany could gain quite a bit of resources from Russia, Both agricultural and energy needs. With no threat of war in this scenario Stalin is more likely to try and make a buck out of the war then ignore it completely.

On military terms no side could win. The Axis lacked the navy needed with the KM and RM being split between two oceans but on the other hand the Commonwealth lacked the Industrial and Economic scale needed for a military victory.

Who would last longer? Well historically seeing as Germany lasted in 1945 and that was when they were fighting 2 other super powers I don't think they would have had as much trouble in the Industrial and Economic sense. So I guess the question is could the Commonwealth as a whole afford to fight into and past 1945 with no US military or financial support?

European Axis vs USA

In said scenario would the UK (Cant speak for entire Commonwealth) have been neutral from the start? Or would a series of successive losses have driven them to a peace deal? (ie: Italy actually captures Egypt, Dunkirk became German victory etc). If the first then not much of an Issue, If the later then we get into discussion of if any UK territory is occupied and of use to the Axis? etc.

But for now I'll assume the UK was neutral from the start. Head on confrontation was not something they could attempt, An invasion of Germany or France from the US west coast was just too great of distance for the size needed. That leaves NA as the Axis soft underbelly. (I'm also making assumption the Iceland is occupied by Axis). Would the US be willing to start a war against Vichy France? What would their response be? (With no UK in the war would they be more or less hostile to American forces).

Gaining a foot hold in NA would not have been that difficult, But assuming total aerial and naval dominance by 1944 (a 12 to 15 month period from your timeline) is a bit of a stretch to me. The thing that lost the Axis NA was over stretched supply lines but the real knock out came from it turning into a two front conflict. With no UK the Axis can freely concentrate on a singular front so they would still be unable to get a decisive victory on the ground, Too much time for some European war of little consequence to the US.

Related to it, With no immediate conflict in Europe would Hitler have thrown more support and resources behind the Amerika Bomber?

The US could use the bomb once they achieved it but could it reach its target and would they be willing to do so? With no actual attack against America I trouble to see the Americans willingly use nuclear weapons against a nation that could not truly harm them (Germany just too far away). That said if they were willing I'm assuming any air base would be located in NA, While the B-29 would have the range would they be able to make it that far unharmed?

 

What I meant was Germany didn't switch to a full war economy until 43/44.

Its no secrete that the allies had much stronger economies when things got under full swing. <_<

 

Indians fought in Africa, and were stationed in the Middle East. The Indian army grew from 200,000 men in 1939 to 2.5 million in Aug 1945.

How is Germany going to
1) pay Russia for all this agriculture and energy? The Russians aren't going to fall for Germany's limitless trade deficit scheme like France was forced to accept.
2) maintain historical production, without slave labour from the East? Without the slave labour, there is no significant ramp up of production. Without the ramp up of production, it can't match the UK figures

The Commonwealth had a significant industrial output, thank you very much, and was in far better shape than the Germans, both at the start, and subsequently. Yes, the lack of US Lend Lease would be a serious hindrance, but the will to fight, and the ability to produce significant amounts of equipment, sufficient to match the Germans, without starving off millions of people.

Don't forget that historically the Commonwealth also sent Lend Lease to the USSR... The Commonwealth was no industrial featherweight. When compared to the US, it's totals are low, but it is comparable to the totals Germany was producing, until the very end, 1944 (when the benefits of conquering the Ukraine were reaching the factories), and it was doing so without people dying around the factories of starvation, abuse and disease. The German economy was vastly unsustainable, as was it's industrial output. Its traditional trading partners were weak, and placed further drain on the German Economy.

Aircraft production:
1940: UK 15.000 Germany: 10.200
1941: UK 21.000 Germany: 11.000
1942: UK 23.600 Germany: 14.200
1943: UK 26.200 Germany: 25.200 <= Figures only made possible by employing slave labour
1944: UK 26.500 Germany: 39.600 <= Figures only made possible by employing slave labour

Tank Production:
1940: UK 1.400 Germany: 1.600
1941: UK 4.800 Germany: 3.800
1942: UK 8.600 Germany: 6.300
1943: UK 7.500 Germany: 12.100 <= Figures only made possible by employing slave labour
1944: UK 4.600 Germany: 19.000 <= Figures only made possible by employing slave labour

 

Yes Green Slime, the UK was no industrial lightweight, but you missed my point. If the US is neutral, many of the materials for industry would have been in short supply. Once Lend Lease started and then once the US was in the war, vast amounts of the raw materials industry required flowed into Britain from the US. Cut out much of the input and the output drops. Without the US in the war or aiding Britain materially, the U-Boat campaign has a very good chance of severely, perhaps fatally, hurting Britain's economy and ability to produce war materials. American weapons, aircraft, vessels and munitions were being used well before Lend-Lease kicked in.

As for the Pacific, Britain could probably not free up many more assets than they already had. Japan was still a potential threat, and even if you remove her from the mix, Britain had to keep assets in the Far East and India to maintain it's colonial status. Most of these areas would revolt against British rule/control if too many military assets were pulled out.

 

No :the etra divisions from the West would remain in the West,and,if going East,they woud change nothing

 

This one has been told countless times and has been proved to be wrong countless times .

 

Yes Indians fought in Africa and did so wonderfully but they were a minor amount of the population. How many Indians would be willing to join the army to fight their colonial masters war when their homes are not the ones under threat?

How would Germany pay for the agricultural and energy? Well via trade. In 1939 they had already signed trade deals with the Soviets that had Germany giving industrial equipment in exchange for raw materials, There is no reason why this could not be expanded.

How could Germany maintain historical production? I don't think they could but did they have to? Historically Germany was fighting 3 super powers, By fighting one they would need at most half of their historical production. All the millions of German troops not needed at the ready (No war in Russia) and the industry is not in the dire straights you imagine.

Yes the commonwealth had a decent industrial capacity, But could it all be used? For it's full effect's they needed a constant supply of raw materials of which you would not find the needed amount in the UK. With the Commonwealth going it alone against the U-boats then they would have a harder time of getting the raw materials in, No raw materials and the UK becomes and idle industrial park. In reality in such a scenario for the Commonwealth to have a more secure Industrial system that couldnt be ground to a halt by the U-boats they would have to shift the Industry to other nations (Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, India etc).

As for merchant shipping, Best I can find is Germany sunk 13.5 million tonne of merchant shipping in the Atlantic, In the war the combined Commonwealth built a little under 13 million tonnes.. Going just by the numbers the Commonwealth would be losing the conflict in the Atlantic...

 

This is a wrong calculation : already before PH,Germany was losing the U Boat War

 

I have yet to come across such numbers but if you could put me onto a source?

From my knowledge the Battle of the Atlantic swung back and forth, Could not a sizeable share of the Commonwealth success be attributed to the 50 destroyers they got off of America? With none of this their ability to combat the U-boat would be severely weakened.

 

Souces : U Boat Net,losses during the battle of the Atlantic,battle of the Atlantic statistics,..U Boat Archive,Versenkungserfolge der Achsenmächte..

Figures :

British Merchant ship losses in the battle of the Atlantic :

1939 : 50 ships,420.000 GRT

1940: 225 ships,2.5 million GRT (or 2.186 following an other source)

But,these raw figures are useless: they should be compared to the number of GRT availabe to Britain in september 1938,the production capacity of Britain and the Commonwealth,the additional

GRT Britain received from Norway,Holland ,Greece .,and these were bigger than the losses by U Boats at the end of 1940..

And,the important is not how much GRT was lost,but,how much GRT arrived and how much GRT was needed .

The general conclusion is that already before PH,the U Boats had failed to starve Britain .

 

If they were not at war with the commonwealth or the united states I see no reason why they would have to dedicate anywhere near the amount of resources they did in the West and North Africa- other then a couple divisions to police the annexed land.

 

Because,otherwise,the war with Britain would start again:in june 1941,Germany had 208 divisions:152 were earmarked for Barbarossa,56 (of which only a few had any fighting-value) were used as occupation forces : do you imagine Hitler ordering the transfer of these 56 divisions to the east,with as argument : the British PM (Churchill,Halifax,or an other one) has given me his word of honour of a gentleman and member of the Conservative Club,that he will remain neutral,and that he will not stab us in the back ?

 

well i would trust church hill more then stalin...

 

You really should consider getting a copy of Wages of Destruction. The German economy was a looming bankrupcy in the late 30's. Only by occupying and looting other countries and the war allowing them to ignore loan payments kept them afloat.

This is often now referred to as the "Speer myth". Again see the book mentioned above. Paper back copies can be found for uner $20.

 

america was not more industrialized than germany in the late 1930's/early 40's. Not by a long shot. By 1944, yeah, maybe... But the Germans had a massive industrial complex. They were essentially fighting three of the world's greatest powers single handidly (alliance with Italy is negligible, Japan has no hand in Europe) I'm not sure what resources you are referring to, natural resources? the US has little of anything in that regard; except coal and oil... rubber, maybe? Not sure.

In any case I think it's fairly obvious that during this period there is absolutely no plausible way to rationalize the US solely winning a war against Germany when they had already taken down European powers that were far more ready/capable to fight that type of war. All I know is that combined between the major Allied powers on the western front there were a total of ~400,000 German casualties (closer to 1 million if you count the Italians), compared to the ~2 million on the eastern front. I just don''t seen how anyone could seriously posit this as a possibility with a straight face. America was not the power then that it is now.

Further, the Allies suffered over three million casualties between them on the Western Front. They were not winning the war. They were slowly chipping away at Germany's ability to defend itself through attrition while they used almost all of their offensive power attacking the USSR.

 

Really? In 1938 the German economy was only 43% the size of the US economy. In 1939 it was 44%, then America started mobilizing. In 1940 Germany had dropped to 41%, 1941 to 37%, 42 to 33% and was peaking, the US was still growing. 1943 it was only 30% the size of the US economy and in 1944 when German production reached it's highest output it had dropped to 29% the size of the US economy.

Germany did not present a threat to the US, because they would never be able to create a navy large enough, or experienced enough to challenge the US Navy on the high seas and therefore could not mount an invasion of the US. The US however could, if it invaded Vichy French North Africa and used it as a base for further operations, attack continental Europe.

The US produced 102,410 Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns-Germany 67,429. The US produced 2,679,840 military trucks-Germany 345,914. The US produced 324,750 military aircraft-Germany 119,307. The list goes on and on. Logistics wins wars. Locomotives, rolling stock, rails, trucks, etc. that the US supplied to the USSR allowed them to field the massive armies they fielded against the Germans.

The one question that cannot be answered is would the US have the will to prosecute the war against Germany, without Germany being able to threaten the US homeland.