Could UK defeat Germany without help from the United States?

Could UK alone defeat Germany in WW2?

  • Total voters
    2
Thank you David, unfortunately people have lost the simplest of manners these days.

I leave with this thought tonite...

What do you think the US response would have been if Germany and Russia had made a seperate peace deal in say '42?

Just a counterfactual question one of my students asked me once...
 
.....and a question worthy of starting as a “New Topic” – please do so sir and I will be more than happy to think this question over and comment. I think it is a wonderful idea.
 
Doppleganger said:
Never.

In fact the poll should really read:

Could the UK and the USA have defeated Germany without help from the Soviet Union?
Click to expand...

I totally agree. The US and the UK would have got there arses kicked by the superior German Army if the Germans hadn't turned on the USSR.

The UK can thank the English Channel once again. If the Germans were able to invade England they would have made "mincemeat" of the UK Army. Sure the English would have fought bravely in 1940 but would have been finally crushed.


The US Army never fought the Germans at full strength. Check out the Normandy Battles. They would have got "a nice old touch up" from the Germans if they had. The Germans lost the Battle of the Bulge because they ran out of fuel and had no air cover when the weather got better. Their retreat from a superior Allied Army was achieved with great skill.

The Allies fought some battle hardened Panzer Divisions in Normandy with great difficulty and the Germans having virtually no air cover.
 
The Germans were defeated by D-Day, when the US landed?

Rite...

1 - There would have been no D-Day with out Britain.
2 - Er... Russia?
3- You rate the heavy losses in military material in North Africa minor? 500 Ju-52s lost in three weeks is minor?
4 - Why no mention of the American defeat at Kasserine Pass when the US first met the Germans?
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly know that not all Americans, and all people are like this, but some are... Before on another Military History forum there was a topic about WW2's most influential battle, this Moderator was convinced that the Battle of the bulge was far important and deadly than Stalingrad.

Now don't get me wrong, the Battle of the Bulge was important, but this guy made me sick, what ignorance, he was American, and sadly puts a bad name on all people, particularly Americans who are proud of their countries achievements.

But I understand where you are coming from, Patriotism is fine, but not when you post it as fact...

Personally a 'Uk & Empire & USA vs Soviet Union' would be a difficult one, I do think the Soviets would have beaten us though.
 
Like I have said before.....

".....let’s not forget all the other many countries that committed their warriors, resources, and efforts to stop Fascism. The bottom line is that the reality of this situation and the positive outcome in defeating Fascism required a collective world effort."
Click to expand...
 
Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't having a go at you David, I was saying people at hollywood put, at times, a bad name on Americans and make it seem as though 'Americans won the war' when that is not the case.

Never judge someone by their group, it is the individual.
 
I wholeheartedly know that not all Americans, and all people are like this, but some are... Before on another Military History forum there was a topic about WW2's most influential battle, this Moderator was convinced that the Battle of the bulge was far important and deadly than Stalingrad.

Now don't get me wrong, the Battle of the Bulge was important, but this guy made me sick, what ignorance, he was American, and sadly puts a bad name on all people, particularly Americans who are proud of their countries achievements.
Click to expand...

Paddster, I agree regarding your concepts about Hollywood, but then again most people already know they make everything and anything bigger than life. However, as an American I know that Americans can be just as egocentric and zealous as any other persons in the world. In fact, I have seen enough of these types for everyone in this forum. Nonetheless, the manner above in which you quoted and discussed this person’s points reinforces the reader to think that this person you are referring is an American. Just for the record, I think it is important to note that this man you quoted in your comments is British.
 
I am sorry for my earlier comments. As I stated to David I apologise for any offence but was merely trying to point out that often the US is portrayed as the sole winner of the war. I know that some people in the US believe this and others dont. I also misread Davids post.

As for the comment of GB,US vs USSR, I was involved in such a debate on another WW2 forum and it had very interesting answers...
 
Hahahaha, no don't worry guys, I'm not going mad or anything at either of you.

I just quoted that for...well I forgot, but I was just pointing out that these sort of things which theredbaron said are what annoys British, aussies, canadians and all none-americans. But I was saying that not all Americans are like that, and that we shouldn't judge an individual by their group.

I'm just saying that some people on this forum post there Patriotism as Fact.

I'm kind of tired at the moment so it may sound confusing, I'm sorry if I offeneded or confused anyone.
 
Paddster, drive on sir.......you are a good man and I salute you and your great, great, great, great [I hope this count is correct?] grandfather!
 
aussiejohn said:
Doppleganger said:
Never.

In fact the poll should really read:

Could the UK and the USA have defeated Germany without help from the Soviet Union?
Click to expand...

I totally agree. The US and the UK would have got there arses kicked by the superior German Army if the Germans hadn't turned on the USSR.

The UK can thank the English Channel once again. If the Germans were able to invade England they would have made "mincemeat" of the UK Army. Sure the English would have fought bravely in 1940 but would have been finally crushed.


The US Army never fought the Germans at full strength. Check out the Normandy Battles. They would have got "a nice old touch up" from the Germans if they had. The Germans lost the Battle of the Bulge because they ran out of fuel and had no air cover when the weather got better. Their retreat from a superior Allied Army was achieved with great skill.

The Allies fought some battle hardened Panzer Divisions in Normandy with great difficulty and the Germans having virtually no air cover.
Click to expand...

Being a Scot and therefore British, it pains me to say that you're right. The Allies in Normandy and indeed Western Europe had complete air supremacy during day and mostly at night, yet it still took them almost a year to get anywhere near Berlin. The German forces that faced the Western Allies were only about 25% of total Wehrmacht strength, with the bulk of their armies trying to stop the Soviet juggernaut in the East. Many of the divisions in Western Europe were training divisions or divisions that had been sent there for refit from the East. Some were battle-hardened Panzer and SS Panzer divisions.

Ask any military experts on WW2 and they will tell you that the average German soldier on the Western front in 1944 performed all out of proportion to his supposed combat ability. Remember many of these men were 5 year veteran soldiers who were battle-hardened in the cauldron of the Ostfront. The Western Allies prevailed mainly because of the pounding the Germans were taking from the Red Army and because of their massive superiority in industrial output, which then led to their massive daytime air supremacy. The US industrial output also saved the Soviet Union from destruction vie the efforts of Lend-Lease. The impact of Lend-Lease on the outcome of WW2 cannot be understated.

If the German Army had either defeated the Red Army in 1941/42 or if Germany had made peace in 1943 (as Stalin had apparently offered to Hitler in early '43), the Western Allies would have been facing the bulk of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe. Some of the Western Allies units were of excellent quality and fought very well but facing the best divisions of the German Army with much better air support than they historically had and with no front behind them to sap away resources would have been tatamount to disaster.
 
Just a small note on Normandy and German Army performance.

The Germans performed well in defence, as always but it shuld be remembered that their attacks in Normandy were as unsuccessful as the Allies. This was in part due to the terrain and the air power, which was more psycological than actual.

Also not all those in Normandy were 3 year veterans of the EAstern front. Many units in the West were ill equipped and were termed Bodenstange units. Many were not even of German origin. Many were rated as combat ineffective by the Germans themselves. The Germans main benefit was the hardcore of reliable veteran units that were available to strengthen the line. Formations such as the 1st SS Pnz and others gave a valuable resource to the Germans and supplied an experienced force that was capable of fighting the best the Allies could throw at it.

Unfortunately the German problem in Normandy was the same as on all fronts. Logistical supply. Perhaps the most overlooked aspect of the Allied invasion was the destruction of the french railway network that had such a detrimental effect on the Germans. This was coupled by the lack of Werkstatte Kompanies in the West, and the lack of frontline repair facilities.

For those interested in German performance in Normandy then I would suggest 'Normandy 1944' by Zetterling. An excellent starting point for the study of the German army in Normandy.
 
A couple of points...

I have some second hand knowledge of this situation, especially the air battle part since my grandfather flew hurricanes for the royal navy during the BofB and ended up in the channel 3 times after flying into very bad odds. As a second generation American, my grandparents never let me forget WWII. They would have fought to the death and it would have taken forever for the Germans to get together the forces to invade Britain, but it would eventually have fallen, not from the lack of fighting, but the lack of resources. Butter, beans and bullets would have been the problem. Remember, logistics is just as important as the fierceness of the infantryman, don't get supplies and you lose. Just ask Napoleon.

As for the Germans on the Eastern front, remember there was a 14 to 1 (Russian to German) kill rate, if the Germans would have decided to pull back and just hold, with good supply, they Russians would have had a hard time getting into Germany.

There was an awful large quantity of supplies that was going to both Britain and Russia from the USA during the time before the entrance of the US into the war. The initial units from the US were not the greatest, no practice or experience, but as usual, we have huge resources and bounced back.

Germany during WWII still had the most efficient infantry and did until the end of the war, my opinion is that if Hitler would have listened to his generals, there would be many more German speakers in Europe.
 
To add to lil huks post the Americans trained some of their finest infantry units [101st/82nd] by captured German paratrooper manuals. The Germans were using paratroopers long before d-day.
 
Hmmm, to answer the quetion ... NO. The British were never in a position to end anything in World War II, the real question is how long would it have taken for them to finally be overrun by Germany. Without the US, the UK was the mouse to Germany's cat. If we take the quetion at face value, you also would leave out the USSR which would end matters all the faster.
 
Bear in mind, everyone played a part to defeat Hitler.

If there was no UK standing against Hitler, there was no need for the US to come in (sort of), there was no need for a huge amount of troops to stand guard there to wait for and plan an invasion.
 
I'm not trying to downplay the UK's role in the war, I was just answering the question. If we remove the US from the equation, things look a lot more favorable for the Axis Powers.
 
Depends on whether you mean US help militarily , and supplies or just supplies alone....The real damage done to the Germans was by the Russians. If one imagines having had NO US support either supplies or militarily , it is hard to imagine anything other than an Axis victory in WW2.
 
I think its a deffinant NO. Firstly, i do not agree that the RAF was better than the Luftwaffe. The Germans lost the BoB, but only through their own mistakes. And the Germans had two problems they had to fight with. German bombers were not intended for the stratigic role. And their fighters did not have the fuel to stay very long over England. Now, while the RAF beat the Germans when it came to bombers, British fighters suffered the same problems as Germans when they operated over German territory, namely a lack of fuel.

As for Britain fighting for every inch of land, i don't think it would have even come to that. Lets assume that not only does the US not enter the war, but also she does not supply Britain at all and she does nothing to hinder German U-Boats.

Where does Britain get her tanks from to win at El-Alamain. Where do the long range range fighters come from to escort the bombers. Where do the ships come from to escort the convoys. The second happy time for the U-Boats in 1942 could well have forced Britain to come to peace terms with Germany.

There would have been no tourch landing, no invasion of Italy, probably no Italian surrender. And if the Germans had reached the Nile in 1942, who knows where they could have gone from there.

At the very best we might have been able to hold her own. But how we have launched D-Day. We would have had to sit back and watch as Germany and Russia fought it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top