[Far-Right Sage]

Some of this debate has regressed to silliness. Yes, Rommel was fallible as with any other commander and there was some domestic propaganda utilized concerning the Afrika Korps, such as the frequent mention of Hitler's "Sun General" and all that. It's irrelevant. The man was still exemplary in his position and a sharp tactician, as modern German, British, and American brass including experts in the field agree. The only reason Allied forces in Normandy were not thrown back into the sea like listless sardines with the powerful force of the collective German nation's fist acting through Rommel, was unfortunately because both the political leadership and the Wehrmacht were led astray by the British-run deception to obscure the landing beachhead's actual location.

[Travesty]

And what makes you think that Britain will not pursue their project without Americans?

Aren't the Americans neutral here.

[Americanroyalty]

@ Travesty

And what makes you think that Britain will not pursue their project without Americans?

They didn't have materials or enough industrial capacity to develop them well fighting a war with Germany. Interestingly the U.S. sent a potential assassin to listen to a German atomic scientist lecture, but when he heard of far off the German program was the attempt was called off.

As for D-day Hitler was unconvinced that it was the actual invasion, so he was unwilling to commit troops until it was too late.

[fuser]

Travesty

Yes. But then I will have to ask my question again did you read the link I posted which clearly demonstrates that Britain had a nuclear program of their own which was more advanced than the German one and was only subsumed into manhatten without the americans they will simply continue with their program.

FRS

Actually Rommel was indeed a great tactician (after all he lead the dreaded ghost division in France) but was a complete failure at strategic scale. The German high command (whose opinion I will respect more than Rommel's any day) had initially planned to remain at defensive in Africa and use whatever the resources available at that time to neutralize Malta but Rommel disregarding all the suggestions foiled the plan and ultimately led Germany to a goal which was not tenable and in doing this even the tenable goals couldn't be achieved.

Americaroyality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Alloys

And of course they had industrial capacity and in regards to materials, they had more than Germans.

[Americanroyalty]

Actually Rommel was indeed a great tactician (after all he lead the dreaded ghost division in France) but was a complete failure at strategic scale.

Logistics were his downfall in north Africa, a better supplied Wehrmacht would've trounced the British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Alloys

And of course they had industrial capacity and in regards to materials, they had more than Germans.

Interesting but they didn't explode an atomic device until 1958 and that was with U.S. help. I know that the German's were lagging far behind that has never been in dispute. The British even had a successful commando raid that severely curtailed Germany's access to heavy water supply (which is necessary for build an Atomic bomb).

[fuser]

Logistics were his downfall in north Africa, a better supplied Wehrmacht would've trounced the British.

Which Germans couldn't provide in Africa, a major point calculated by German high command but ignored by Rommel. That's why Albert Keeserling and German high command wanted to neutralize Malta (as the window of opportunity was closing fast) using whatever resources at that time but instead Rommel had his way because of his political influence and German army was doomed in Africa at that very moment.

Interesting but they didn't explode an atomic device until 1958 and that was with U.S. help. I know that the German's were lagging far behind that has never been in dispute.

Actually operation Hurricane happened in 1952 but the point is that given the fact that in 1942 British (individual not in cooperation with americans) nuclear program was far more advanced than Germans, if you are bringing Nuclear Weapons in this scenario, the advantage will go to Britain.

[Americanroyalty]

I wasn't really, just saying that both countries where far from developing nuclear weapons when Britain was fighting Germany alone. So it is a null point in a military sense.

I still think that Britain would not have been able to stand alone as they just weren't capable of defeating Germany on their own. Though your point of success on the periphery is valid. No of those successes were a killing blow and Germany would have eventually ground them down. I think the British leadership realized this and that's why they were desperate for U.S. support.

Here just found the book I was looking for to back up my point, in the quote the Author reviews a study looking at the battlefield performance of each army in WW2:

Dupuy assumed that the combat power of an army could be represented as a product of three quantities. The first is force Strength,which is basically the number of troops,but modified for quality and quantity of their equipment. The Second quantity is operational and environmental factor modifiers. The third quantity is combat effectiveness.

The best data set, analyzed by Dupuy, was 81 engagements between Allied (Anglo-American) and German forces in 1943-44. For each battle, Dupuy calculated force strengths, taking into account the numbers of tanks, artillery pieces, air support, and so forth. He then estimated the factor modifiers, such as posture (defensive vs offensive). Finally, he evaluated the outcome of engagement, using such factors as the casualties on both sides, the achievement (or not) of the objective, and the loss of territory (when the defeated army was forced to retreat).

The Results are striking. The Germans consistently outperformed the Allies in the ability to wage combat. If we assign 1 to the average combat efficiency of the British, the American was 1.1 and the German was 1.45. In other words, if the British wanted an even chance at winning a battle against the Germans, they had to bring 45 percent more troops (or arm them more heavily in the same proportion)

- Got this from War & Peace & War (The Life Cycles of Imperial Nations) written by Peter Turchin.

Now I know this is actually a couple of years after the time period I'm talking about, but it would be crazy to claim that the British army was somehow a better fighting force in 1940-41 (though they could still draw on more male citizens they were still rebuilding an army that had been smashed by the germans). Also take notice of that 45% needed for just an even shot at british victory as Great Britain was never capable of consistently achieving that numbers advantage without Allied help. El Alamein was an isolated incident and the British army would have been destined for the German meat grinder if they had been forced to continue the war on their own.

[fuser]

Even if Britain couldn't defeat Germany, it can surely stand alone as Germany simply didn't had the capacity to attack Britain anywhere in the world to force them on negotiation table.

My scenario explicitly says that there will be no Unconditional surrender as historically and Nazi Germany will survive but Germany will have to come up to terms and give up all her gains made in the war.

[Americanroyalty]

Even if Britain couldn't defeat Germany, it can surely stand alone as Germany simply didn't had the capacity to attack Britain anywhere in the world to force them on negotiation table.

My scenario explicitly says that there will be no Unconditional surrender as historically and Nazi Germany will survive but Germany will have to come up to terms and give up all her gains made in the war.

I would disagree as Germany showed it was capable of making an attack on British over seas possessions (which Egypt basically was). You brought up the point of how the potential destruction of Malta would give the Axis powers as major advantage. I've brought up Japan's success in South East Asia against the British already on the thread . If the German's had focused their might on dismantling the British Empire instead of a disastrous Russian campaign the British would have been forced to negotiate or risk losing their empire piece by piece. I also don't see any way that the british would have been able to force the German's to give up the conquered territory.

With an eye to the hypothetical future Germany could have put an isolated Britain into a tough spot with an all out sustained rocket attack on the British Isles.

[fuser]

First of all we are discussing German vs UK not Japan. I for one can't envision a scenario where Japan is at war with UK but not USA.

And as in Africa it was noticed that Germany couldn't supply her off shore troops sufficiently beside German attack on African possession was done from the same land mass (i.e. Italian lands) and was more of a counter attack than a pre planned offensive operation.

How total German focus will result in UK's defeat, I am yet to see any conceivable scenario for that.

As for my points as already explained :

Blockade and defeats on periphery forces Germany to come to terms with British Empire.

And as per military might, the GDP ratio in 1941 for both the countries was 1:1.2 in Germany's favor hardly much difference.

[Far-Right Sage]

First of all we are discussing German vs UK not Japan. I for one can't envision a scenario where Japan is at war with UK but not USA.

With or without the bombing strike against Pearl Harbor, there was little doubt that the Japanese viewed the conflagration in Europe, perhaps with great foresight, as not only a timely distraction, but the harbinger of a slow death of European colonialism and control of East Asian territory - in Indochina, Singapore, Malaysia, and elsewhere. As the U.S. and Imperial Japan were for some time on a collision course countdown to a conflict which would essentially determine who controls the Pacific basin, it's difficult to see the Japanese not striking at Hawaii when they did in '41 with the U.S.-British-Dutch tightening of the oil embargo, but Tokyo's conflict with the European powers (apart from the Soviet Union) was largely a separate affair which had to do with gobbling up the spoils of former European colonial adventures, as it was clear by '41 the British, Dutch, and even the French (whose territories were nominally under Vichy administration) were in no position to intervene in East Asia. This eventuality would have played out in the form of the Battle of Singapore, the moves against Hong Kong and Malaya, expansion into former Burma and north India, and Japanese consolidation in southern Indochina regardless of U.S. involvement or not.

Japan's two major missteps were engaging the U.S. when it did and committing to a costly invasion of the whole of China which was simply too vast to conquer while resources were desperately required in so many places.

I've always felt the Japanese should have worked harder to cut a deal with the Chinese - both Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao - which would involve a Japanese withdrawal from mainland China apart from Manchuria/Manchukuo and a few key territories which could have been soundly integrated into the Co-Prosperity Sphere. If the Chinese refused, reproduce more Nankings and Chongqings, generally committing to a mass terror campaign in eastern China until less and less remains and the populace was utterly demoralized. This would have avoided what increasingly became a slaughter as more and more Japanese men and resources were depleted in white-knuckle struggles such as the Battle of Wuhan, despite the magnificent performance of the Imperial Japanese Army overall.

[fuser]

My point is that USA can remain in isolation regarding the European affair but she simply can't afford to see "Pacific" falling to Japan. Any Japanese move in pacific will most definitely bring USA and thus giving allies a huge boost against Germany too.

Not to forget that in pre war era Japan and Britain were allies with their partnership strategically aimed at USA.

[Far-Right Sage]

Perhaps someone somewhere wrote an interesting novel of alternate history in which Sino-German cooperation continues as many higher-ups in the Wehrmacht working as liasons in Asia desired and thus, Japan never endeavors to move closer to the Rome-Berlin axis and leaves British colonial possessions in East Asia alone. It would certainly have been interesting, although I am personally grateful this did not play out.

In retrospect, the Japanese could have opportunistically moved against German interests by seizing Dutch and (Vichy) French territories while leaving the British be, pressed the invasion of China which would be receiving German supplies, and in reality there could have been little intervention in Asia to prevent it. With China as a German ally, and the traditional friendship between London and Tokyo, it would be difficult too see the British wanting to send the Royal Navy against Japan, and this would likely influence the U.S. attitude as well. Of course, the problem for Japan in this scenario is that even if it grew fat off the Dutch and French colonies and integrated what it could of China into the Co-Prosperity sphere without British or American interference, it would still live with the Soviet threat, and this means that if the war in Europe ended similarly, Chinese communists would have received massive funding from Moscow after a settlement in Europe to create massive problems in East Asia.

[fuser]

IMO Germany should had continued Sino-German cooperation if her long term goal was to check USSR.

[Far-Right Sage]

I've always tossed that around in my head.

Basically, the decision to abandon China and bring Japan into Axis' family/the Tripartite Pact came about for a few reasons:

1. Hitler's Japanophilia, which was with him since his time in Wien and his following of smashing Japanese victories in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905

2. Although the Kuomintang were nationalists and Chiang Kai-Shek a rightist authoritarian of sorts akin to the states which existed at the time in Spain and Portugal, this was a far cry from fascism as it existed in Germany and Italy, and the Chinese lacked a coherent fascist party whereas the Japanese leadership (particularly officials such as Seigo Nakano) borrowed much from National Socialism and European fascism, merging this with a uniquely Japanese ideology which was revolutionary and propelled Tokyo into the alliance

3. China's lack of a central government which controlled all its territory and the communist insurgency in China

4. The perception of Japanese military superiority

An interesting scenario indeed would have been more coherent German involvement in China to bolster Chiang's position in the country, support for an adoption of soundly fascist policies as the Japanese later did through personalities such as Wang Jingwei and his Blue Shirts Society, and more active intervention to assist in quelling Maoist rebels around the time of the Spanish Civil War, before the kick-off of events in Europe. Oh lord, the possibilities have long tortured me and still do so.

[Americanroyalty]

Well Japan (a German Ally) shows that the British didn't have it all their own way in the periphery. It also shows that this would not be a fight between Germany and Britain, but instead a fight between a lonely Britain and the whole of the axis powers. I wasn't talking about the war in the pacific I was focusing on the war in South East Asia and the threat it posed to british possessions.

The blockade didn't forcing Germany to the negotiating. Said blockade (plus intense bombing) didn't force Germany to the table in the later years of the war, so I don't see how it would have brought the British victory in a war by themselves. This is all without taking into account the fact that Germany could rely on Russian resources if the Germans hadn't invaded Russia.

So we're left with one military setback in North Africa as the basis for Britain's hopes. Which is not much evidence of Britain being able to force Germany to give up the territory it had conquered.

And as per military might, the GDP ratio in 1941 for both the countries was 1:1.2 in Germany's favor hardly much difference.

I was talking about the military efficiency of the two armies not the economic capabilities of the respective countries. Germany wasn't going to be capable of conquering Britain (through an invasion of the British Isles), but without a major military defeat at the hands of the British Germany was never going to back down. Germany didn't back down even after getting crushed by the Allies in the later years of the war.

[Far-Right Sage]

Particularly Elsaß-Lothringen and the Low Countries. Nor would I imagine the British would have insisted upon such territories if it came to a protracted and lengthy stalemate in which no clear British allies emerged. Invading the British Isles was always a long shot and the foreign office, being well versed in historical matters, looked back to the list of failed invaders of British soil from the Spanish Armada to Napoleon; why this was always considered a scenario which could only emerge under perfect conditions, despite officials such as SS-Brigadeführer Franz Six being supposedly prepped and prepared for the occupation of the United Kingdom and all that, owes to the relative weakness of the Kriegsmarine in the face of British naval supremacy and massive aerial assets to contest the English Channel, which Dönitz and Großadmiral Raeder were not ignorant to.

As well, if the conflict continued as such, it's likely that domestic opposition would have gotten the better of Churchill, and the Tory old guard such as Lord Halifax's allies in parliament would have been clamoring to the point of damn near rebellion for an equitable peace settlement.

[fuser]

Well Japan (a German Ally) shows that the British didn't have it all their own way in the periphery. It also shows that this would not be a fight between Germany and Britain, but instead a fight between a lonely Britain and the whole of the axis powers. I wasn't talking about the war in the pacific I was focusing on the war in South East Asia and the threat it posed to british possessions.

Then it makes no sense. Why would Japan attack only south east asia when her goal was to secure "oil" from pacific regions namely dutch indies?

The blockade didn't forcing Germany to the negotiating. Said blockade (plus intense bombing) didn't force Germany to the table in the later years of the war, so I don't see how it would have brought the British victory in a war by themselves. This is all without taking into account the fact that Germany could rely on Russian resources if the Germans hadn't invaded Russia.

But I am not talking about unconditional surrender neither I am saying war will end in 1945, blockade will take time for sure but is hardly comforting for Germany.

So we're left with one military setback in North Africa as the basis for Britain's hopes. Which is not much evidence of Britain being able to force Germany to give up the territory it had conquered.

And Scandinavia. Military set backs and blockade, advantage Britain.

I was talking about the military efficiency of the two armies not the economic capabilities of the respective countries

And there's no reason to believe that Germany was more efficient given the pounding they got in Africa (land) BoB (air) Atlantic (water). But Germany also had their victories to count for and that's precisely my point, no nation in this scenario has a definite age in this efficiency. Modern Industrial warfare are hardly decided by military efficiency alone anyway.

Germany was never going to back down. Germany didn't back down even after getting crushed by the Allies in the later years of the war.

Two major facts that are not to be found in this scenario are :

1. Fear of getting overrun by the dreaded communism.
2. Demand of Unconditional surrender by the allies.

FRS, you raised some good points regarding Germany's position for Japan and China but what I am saying that from a purely pragmatic pov, China could had been much better ally for Germany for her crusade against bolshevism whether they followed fascist ethos or not.

[roxunreal]

Resources on their own mean nothing. How the fuck (a question already asked but without any answer) are you going to supply those resources either in Africa or british isles, again magic?

By deploying some of the twelve thousand airplanes that were originally used to fight the Soviets to Italy, Sicily and Axis North Africa, overwhelmingly bombing Malta and taking it, and using the planes in general against the RN and RAF to provide a significantly more secure naval and air supply line. But sorry, that must be magic and not common sense and a perfectly plausible possibility right I mean ten thousand airplanes is totally irrelevant and insignificant.

The 80% (EIGHTY PERCENT) of overall German military cassualties in WW2 happening on the Eastern front is meaningless right? Having four times as much military and associated resources to battle Britain is meaningless? They couldn't have contributed in the effort of both fighting in and supplying North Africa, total science fiction because the guy that claims Britain can beat Germany alone without ever even fighting it says so.

Pay more attention, as already been told Germany can't support more troops in Africa, their supply lines were already thinned and they were unable to supply the tiny afrika korps but suddenly just because fanboys are wishing something, these things won't matter.

So now the magical superhuman Germans have secured Africa. May be but only in your fantasies, until you come up with a plan that somehow neutralizes RN in Mediterranean and solves supply problem in Africa for axis troops, you are just being a fanboy making shit up.

Explained above, next.

Then as already said (a point which was left uncontested) UK can secure Norway and Sweden on her own simply because she rules the sea and can bring and supply more men and equipment to these areas compared to axis.

No it can't, and Preston explained this to you but you keep ignoring the fact that crossing a narrow strait between Denmark and Sweden is not the same as crossing the Mediterranean to Africa.

But then again if the UK can so easily do that then why didn't it?

And how will that happen, again magic? U-boat never even came close to threaten British stockpiles of supplies, again a myth.

Yeah, everything that ever goes against the UK in WW2 is a myth based on your objective thinking. It's probably also a myth that the British rationed basic food and petrol throughout most of the war as well, because of this irrelevant U-boat threat. It's also a myth that unneeded metal like iron fences was collected to be scrapped so they have something to make bombs out of. Maybe it's even a myth that Churchill himself said the following:
"The Battle of the Atlantic was the dominating factor all through the war. Never for one moment could we forget that everything happening elsewhere, on land, at sea or in the air depended ultimately on its outcome."

Oh yes sorry for not noticing how strategically irrelevant the U-boat threat was

"In all during the Atlantic Campaign, only 10% of transatlantic convoys that sailed were attacked, and of those attacked only 10% on average of the ships were lost. Overall, more than 99% of all ships sailing to and from the British Isles during World War II did so safely." But suddenly now they are starving the British isles, such a leap bound increase in effectiveness can only be attributed to magic.

Text copied from Wikipedia where a source for it isn't provided, which could have been written by you for all anyone knows and for all the objectivity the whole "Assesment" part of the article in question reeks of. Self-named "sober" assesment, rofl.

Again as shown above Churchill must have really been so scared of that less than one percent of supply ships not reaching Britain that he would say that the entire war rested on it

Building "first" means jackshit here.

No, your wishing that it meant jack shit means jack shit. Building first and pioneering the field means they were leading developers in it and had the mostexperience, and again had the Eastern front not taken such a toll on resources would have probably made even better jet planes without some of the issues that plagued them, not to mention strategically relevant numbers of them.

The fact remains that every power had jet planes (and many better than german one) but they didn't invested in them historically as they were smarter than Nazis to realize that strategically more planes are needed and not faster planes.

More faster planes are needed.

Something that would be far less of an issue for germans if most of their attention wasn't in the east and if at the same time their cities and factories weren't being razed to the ground by US-UK bombing raids, something that would also have been much less of a problem if the Americans hadn't participated and if some of the Luftwaffe deployed in the east boosted the defending German a/c numbers over western Europe.

no doubt? so basically this is your personal opinion just like the whole post and you can't back that up in any meaningful way.

No, when I write "no doubt" I mean there is no doubt because a logical fact based conclusion prevents there being any doubt for anyone who isn't ideologically biased. For example a conclusion based on the numbers of German forces deployed in the east which overshadowed all its forces deployed elsewhere combined by multiple factors.

What resources used in Russia would had been spared for jet industry, please tell us.

Um, perhaps the resources that went into the building of weapons that were destroyed by the heaps on the eastern front every day? Or is that too "magical" for you They could probably conquer Britain and North Africa with half as many tanks as were ever deployed on the vast eastern front and still use the facilities that went into building the other half to actually build a respectable jet fighter/bomber force.

And why the fuck will Germany not maintain a strong army facing east even without the war, share that us with too.

They will maintain a routine standing force, there is no reason whatsoever to maintain anything near the size of the invasion force that participated ijn Barbarossa.

Following your logic with no D Day to worry for Britain could also had funneled more resources to this Jet programe.

With factories razed to the ground by the eastern half of the Luftwaffe and ore shippments on the bottom of the Atlantic courtesy of Jabos. Yes I know, you really hate that our scenario gives Germany such a numerical advantage when they don't have to waste it in the east. You're probably just gonna whine that Britain can manufacture twelve thousand airplanes more too if it wants to or some similar nonsense, just like that.

Fantasy is fantasy.

Yes everything is fantasy if British (the real) fanboy doesn't like it. The Eastern front was probably a fantasy too as were all the German forces that participated in it.

How the fuck this supremacy came into existence? Just because you wish so?

I already told you. By having more than a myriad more of planes and pilots available to make it come in existance, as well as having a superior and more massive jet programme. But keep ignoring this.

It's not like the RAF were not in a dire situation in late August 1940 only in the end saved by Hitler's incompetence (and no, this is not a myth and your word alone calling it such despite historical data showing otherwise means nothing), with so many more aircraft and staff available from the eastern front and a revision in bombing strategy a return, continuation and conclusion of August 1940 would be a realistic possibility.

But I love how you have managed to come up with a scenario where an entire air force has been neutralized of an industrial nation when the two nations involved have comparable GDP with Germany leading by a small margin of 1:1.2 in 1941 and UK having "home advantage" their planes are always under radar coverage while German planes are not.

I just outlined it above, the situation for Fighter Command was very serious just before Hitler started bombing cities, GDP is fucking irrelevant here, and radar didn't much help them from their perdicament during this stage of BoB now did it? Brits were not under their own radar coverage but Germans were in the time when Germany was being strategically bombed every day, didn't help the germans much now did it? Radar can be bombed too, unless your idiot leader orders you to suddenly bomb ordinary people's houses instead of military targets struggling to keep up.

Read some of my links first. Then, you gotta have no understanding of geopolitics to make a statement like that, that there will be no troops on eastern front. Because countries just leave their large borders completely unguarded. Less video games and more real life books please.

Yes, I must really be influenced by video games for knowing and accepting something as plainly obvious as that there will be nowhere in the fuck near the amount of German forces on the Russian border in peace time as there was when they actually had a huge fucking country to conquer. It must be either "magic" or "video games", or "fanboysm". But never numbers, common sense and logic.

As already said the germans didn't had the capability to supply more than 2-3 divisions on the isles, their plan involved no heavy equipment in fist stages, the tanks were supposed to close their hatches and dropped in 15 meters water just before the shore and make their way, I can think of dozens of things there going wrong.

Landing craft are easy as fuck to mass produce, even ones that can transport a few tanks. Give it a few years and they can do this with ease, it doesn't have to be 1940.

No your scenario is just fantasy without paying attention to any details. And mine has been detailed already and involves no magic.

Wow, and I was sure that it was exactly the opposite.

1. Blockade of Germany Happened in both war. and to supplement it with more historical facts which you don't seem to be paying any attention to :
I. The British blockade of the Mediterranean immediately cut Italy off from 80% of its imports.
II. As 1940 drew to a close, the situation for many of Europe's 525 million people was dire. With the food supply reduced by 15% by the blockade and another 15% by poor harvests, starvation and diseases such as influenza, pneumonia, tuberculosis, typhus and cholera were a threat.

Didn't stop the Germans all the way until their capital was laid to ruin 5 years later, and wouldn't stop them in our alternate scenario before the British Isles were renamed the North German Archipelago which would probaly come about before 1945. This is history, the blockade did not stop the Germans in the real historical scenario. And it wouldn't stop them in this fictional scenario either. North Korea is full to the roof with famine yet it would still simply roll over the South if real war happened again, of course under the condition that no outside forces helped the south. The food blockade would mean jack shit.

Both when Britain was alone but they don't matter and the puny U boats will starve UK, bias much?

Puny U-boats that made Churchill shit himself and ration basic life necessities for most of the war you mean?

2. Victory in Africa and Scandinavia : Simply because Britain can supply and maintain far more men and equipment in their because of her superiority in the seas. Your laughable notion that just because their is no eastern front German can transport these troops their is just ridiculously naive. Troops need supplies which Germany could not provide to her off shore troops.

Already explained while the above = fairytale, Scandinavia can be relatively easilly supplied by land and small ship connection in the strait if under real threat, North Africa can be suppplied much more effectively if the thousands of aircraft originally on the eastern front protected shipping and air supply routes and contributed to the taking of Malta. Planes sink ships. Simples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic#Assessment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany_%281939%E2%80%931945%29#European_food_shortages

At least read Wikipedia before making outlandish claims.

Large parts of the linked articles that relate to what we are discussing are unsourced, so any, *ahem* fanboy can go in and write that Britain can walk into berlin simply by blockading the Atlantic, but it won't really make it true though.


--
Again for the record, calling me a fanboy out of some butthurt frustration that anyone can even consider that the Brits would lose WW2 if they continued to fight alone doesn't really contribute to your arguments, it only contributes to our perception that this is personal to you rather than objective. If I was a fanboy I wouldn't be glad that Germany lost and got all its fair share of Karma in the form of ruin from the sky for every city it destroyed in another country during the war, which I am. But being glad that Germany lost still doesn't blind me from the obvious historical realities. You on the other hand just can't seem to cope with anything that indicates that the Brits were not better at anything than the Germans and that they would ever not be victorious, despite whatever arguments people throw at you. In stead you get into this frustrated frenzy and start childishly calling everybody a "fanboy" and pretending that millions of people and tens of thousands of pieces of military and attack vehicles being made available for use in the BoB and Med/NA campaigns wouldn't make much of a difference, which is an intensely absurd notion.

[fuser]

By deploying some of the twelve thousand airplanes that were originally used to fight the Soviets to Italy, Sicily and Axis North Africa, overwhelmingly bombing Malta and taking it, and using the planes in general against the RN and RAF to provide a significantly more secure naval and air supply line. But sorry, that must be magic and not common sense and a perfectly plausible possibility right I mean ten thousand airplanes is totally irrelevant and insignificant.

Oh, wait and you are saying that UK had deployed all their air force in Africa? They can't deploy more?

The 80% (EIGHTY PERCENT) of overall German military cassualties in WW2 happening on the Eastern front is meaningless right?

Strawman, no one said those casaualities were meaningless.

Having four times as much military and associated resources to battle Britain is meaningless?

When BoB was fought, there was no second front.

They couldn't have contributed in the effort of both fighting in and supplying North Africa, total science fiction because the guy that claims Britain can beat Germany alone without ever even fighting it says so.

Until you have a plan for how, no they couldn't as historically they were not able to supply and support the small afrika korps.

Explained above, next.

No nothing has been explained, just wishful thinking.

No it can't, and Preston explained this to you but you keep ignoring the fact that crossing a narrow strait between Denmark and Sweden is not the same as crossing the Mediterranean to Africa.

And how many ports were in Sweeden? What is the distance of that port to troehindem? How many trucks Germany have to supply such large distances on such an infrastructure, yeah of course disregard every single logistical fact? Then, how the fuck Germany which was unable to supply Africa, now will also supply Scandinavia and Africa simultaneously.

But then again if the UK can so easily do that then why didn't it?

Because they invaded continental Europe?, history check. A feat that they are unable to do in this scenario.

Yeah, everything that ever goes against the UK in WW2 is a myth based on your objective thinking. It's probably also a myth that the British rationed basic food and petrol throughout most of the war as well, because of this irrelevant U-boat threat.

Rationing happened in every country as you can't predict future but with hindsight we know that u boats were not a threat. But I see how you have ignored the entire wiki page which has explicitly said that less than 1% of atlantic convoys were sunken. Are you saying that, this data is wrong?

Maybe it's even a myth that Churchill himself said the following:

And churchill was wrong. Is every churchill's word to be taken at face value. why don't you challenge the wiki page instead and her sources with concrete data? Once again are you claiming that the data provided is wrong? If yes then provide your own with sources.

Oh yes sorry for not noticing how strategically irrelevant the U-boat threat was

Yes it was totally and utterly irrelevant as supported by my data.

Text copied from Wikipedia where a source for it isn't provided

It has been provided at the bottom of my post along with other sources that were used, now pay more attention to real arguments.

Again as shown above Churchill must have really been so scared of that less than one percent of supply ships not reaching Britain that he would say that the entire war rested on it

So your whole argument lies on the back of one churchill quote, the whole historical hard facts can go fuck themselves.

which could have been written by you for all anyone knows and for all the objectivity the whole "Assesment" part of the article in question reeks of. Self-named "sober" assesment

You know, wikipedia does list her sources at the bottom of page, try that. Three different sources for that.

Building first and pioneering the field means they were leading developers in it and had the mostexperience,

And? At least compare the aircraft and please tell how it gave German an winning age. Use some hard facts pleas.

nd again had the Eastern front not taken such a toll on resources would have probably made even better jet planes without some of the issues that plagued them

Yes, with GDP ratio being 1:.2, Germany will simply build more of everything, more ships, more merchant shipping, more planes, you name it and they will just build it. With no Normandy to fight, Britain will build more planes, so there's that too.

More faster planes are needed.

I was talking historically only in here.

No, when I write "no doubt" I mean there is no doubt because a logical fact based conclusion prevents there being any doubt for anyone who isn't ideologically biased. For example a conclusion based on the numbers of German forces deployed in the east which overshadowed all its forces deployed elsewhere combined by multiple factors.

No, there is no logic. And speaking of logic suddenly eastern front men can't reach England either by flying or swimming or magic.

Um, perhaps the resources that went into the building of weapons that were destroyed by the heaps on the eastern front every day?

So, you still can't answer specifically, i see.

They could probably conquer Britain and North Africa with half as many tanks as were ever deployed on the vast eastern front

So, after asking nth time, you still won't answer the logistical problem, good. Keep dodging that as it seems to be the only way out of this problem.

and still use the facilities that went into building the other half to actually build a respectable jet fighter/bomber force.

And Uk will just sit and watch? If they are halving everything, UK has complete superiority in almost every weapon category, oh wait but they are fucking Germans, how can you stop them. or may be UK will react, a very common phenomenon during any war and they will build more jet planes too or is this just inconceivable?

They will maintain a routine standing force, there is no reason whatsoever to maintain anything near the size of the invasion force that participated ijn Barbarossa.

Obviously, so there will be forces there unlike your original comment.

With factories razed to the ground by the eastern half of the Luftwaffe and ore shippments on the bottom of the Atlantic courtesy of Jabos

And when did those factories were razed? 1st BoB? or only Germany gets to prepare for 2nd BoB and not Uk because it suits your premise? Germany has already funneled her resources while UK just sits. How you fight against this logic?

And no U boats aren't damaging anything or if you are so sure why don't you share your numbers with us as what percentage of Atlantic convoys were sunk during the war?

Yes I know, you really hate that our scenario gives Germany such a numerical advantage when they don't have to waste it in the east

A numerical advantage that she can't bring on off shore fronts, please don't ignore my points and pretend that I never said anything regarding this. Its you who have failed completely to tell how they will bring this number off shore.

You're probably just gonna whine that Britain can manufacture twelve thousand airplanes more too if it wants to or some similar nonsense, just like that.

Oh, the irony. btw its you who is constantly saying Germany will produce x, y, z just like that. And for your information UK did build more airplanes than Germany in the war.

Yes everything is fantasy if British (the real) fanboy doesn't like it. The Eastern front was probably a fantasy too as were all the German forces that participated in it.

Strawman.

I already told you. By having more than a myriad more of planes and pilots available to make it come in existance, as well as having a superior and more massive jet programme. But keep ignoring this.

Now, don't lie. I have addressed this point in detail, if it doesn't fits in with your fantasy scenario, that's not my fault. But just to help you once again I will repeat myself again.

1. What is myriad more of planes? What more percentage will they have?
2. Why Britain won't produce more planes in this scenario?
3. Britain also had jet program, please prove that Germany had had much better program giving them battle winning edge.

It's not like the RAF were not in a dire situation in late August 1940 only in the end saved by Hitler's incompetence (and no, this is not a myth and your word alone calling it such despite historical data showing otherwise means nothing)

Yes its a myth and RAF was not in dire situation but you do forgot that in the end it was Luftwaffe who got the severe pounding. RAF had more plane in August than in last months where as Luftwaffe less. Yeah, please check historical facts, beside it was not Hitler's decision alone, many in Luftwaffe command wanted a switch in the strategy as the former was not being effective. Also Hitler is still alive in this scenario.

I just outlined it above, the situation for Fighter Command was very serious just before Hitler started bombing cities

No. See above and

From "The Most Dangerous Enemy by Stephen Bungay":

13 August

RAF fighter force = 579
Luftwaffe fighter force = 1042

7 September when the switch was made

RAF fighter force = 621
Luftwaffe fighter force = 770 i.e RAF is in much better shape compared to Luftwaffe at the time when switch was made.

But don't let historical facts spoil your fantasy.

Brits were not under their own radar coverage but Germans were in the time when Germany was being strategically bombed every day, didn't help the germans much now did it?

It did, Allies losses were much higher than Germans, what made Germany loose was attrition as allies can simply produce much much more than Germany, no such case in here. Just compare the GDP of allies and Germany and Germany and UK for this scenario.

Yes, I must really be influenced by video games for knowing and accepting something as plainly obvious as that there will be nowhere in the fuck near the amount of German forces on the Russian border in peace time as there was when they actually had a huge fucking country to conquer. It must be either "magic" or "video games", or "fanboysm". But never numbers, common sense and logic.

Yes. As you are absolutely not paying attention to UK's situation. As UK also produced all those weapons you are talking about and only Tanks and Machine guns are the weapons where Germany has more than double number. Everything else is comparable.

And you had Germany building more U boats more merchant shipping more planes this is just magic nothing else, also completely forgetting that Britain can also curtail many of her original production and match Germany. As She produced more planes more trucks more mortars more ships (no Japan less ships more planes), see how easy was that. I still can't see this edge of Germany.

Landing craft are easy as fuck to mass produce, even ones that can transport a few tanks. Give it a few years and they can do this with ease, it doesn't have to be 1940.

Along with surface ships? So basically they will simply produce more of everything? But when I said that they can't support them I meant supplies i.e. merchant shipping, oh wait but they will built them too. This time they are just building like crazy.

Didn't stop the Germans all the way until their capital was laid to ruin 5 years later

Because she also happened to be in control of Ukrainian farms? A point that has already been made.

Puny U-boats that made Churchill shit himself and ration basic life necessities for most of the war you mean?

Oh, please stop using Churchill, why don't you show me some real data instead to support your hypothesis?

Already explained

No it hasn't been. You people even't have touched logistical problems let alone neutralizing RN in mediterrarian.

Scandinavia can be relatively easilly supplied by land and small ship connection in the strait if under real threat

Now this has already been explained, so I will just requote me.

And how many ports were in Sweeden? What is the distance of that port to troehindem? How many trucks Germany have to supply such large distances on such an infrastructure, yeah of course disregard every single logistical fact? Then, also me, how the fuck Germany which was unable to supply Africa, now will also supply Scandinavia and Africa .

Planes sink ships. Simples.

Nothing is simple in warfare as apparently you ignored my norwegian campaign example. And there is no air superiority here anyway.

Large parts of the linked articles that relate to what we are discussing are unsourced, so any, *ahem* fanboy can go in and write that Britain can walk into berlin simply by blockading the Atlantic, but it won't really make it true though.

No the segment that I have linked are fully cited and sourced, so this excuse that its Wikipedia won't cut here. But I do noted that you have yet provided "0" sources of your own.

Again for the record, calling me a fanboy out of some butthurt frustration

Oh, please. I didn't called you fanboy but john rawls and you tried to defend him heroically by calling me fanboy. And now suddenly you are angry that you have been called that too but you weren't that angry when you used the term for me.

that millions of people and tens of thousands of pieces of military and attack vehicles being made available for use in the BoB and Med/NA campaigns wouldn't make much of a difference, which is an intensely absurd notion.

Stop repeating yourself. For the last time, repeating a wrong 100 times won't make it right.

1. You haven't even touched logistical problems. Millions of troops and equipment won't be suddenly teleported to off shore fronts.
2. UK also had tens of thousands of equipment and can react to changes.
3. They did fought BoB without another front.
4. Germany had to maintain a much larger army than UK because of their continental position.
5. Which means Britain can pour more resources on naval and air arms compared to Germany specially with no Japanese front.
6. German Navy can never escort Transport ships with RN lurking in the water.
7. Even with air superiority in Norwegian campaign, Germany lost 40% of her surface fleets.
8. Germany don't have merchant shipping, enough trucks to supply off shore troops.
9. Naval superiority + huge stockpile of merchant shipping means UK can effectively invade and occupy off shore fronts.
10. Blockade and its effect are historical facts for all to see. If you doubt my numbers, please provide your own.
11. Air superiority for either side is yet to be established here, I am not giving any side an edge but you are, hence you will have to do more than "we have jet planes" as UK also have and there isn't any technical advantage for any side.
12. They will produce more will not cut as UK can also produce more (no Japanese front + no Normandy invasion etc) too.