Britain Going it Alone (off topic, split) - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The Second World War (1939-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14174724
fuser wrote:And how did you mange to overlook the "blockade part", the "Victories on Periphery part" and Germany coming to negotiation table and giving up all her gains at least in Western Europe, how it doesn't translate in victory.

Victory doesn't always have to be = unconditional surrender.


Mate I ignored those points because they are a fallacy and show a lack of sound military and historical knowledge
#14174727
Oh please don't try to dodge the question. All you have done here is "ad hominem" attacks, now that's a fallacy.

Please tell us using your profound knowledge of military and history how the fuck Germans were going to defeat Britain? And how mine points are a fallacy instead of meaningless blank statements like above.

After all writing "you don't know a thing" is far more easier than writing anything substantial.

Edit : Also let's look at my points :

1. Continued blockade : A historical reality in both wars.
2. Victories in periphery : A historical reality
3. No foreign reserve for Germany : A historical reality
4. No conceivable way Germany could defeat the Britain, anyone is yet to provide any such scenario in this thread, a reality of this thread.

But amazingly all these are fallacies (How? no answer to that). for someone appealing to the "knowledge" of military and history, it doesn't look very good, does it?
#14174802
fuser wrote:Stalin would had preferred both side fighting and exhausting themselves to be easy pickings for the great cause of International Revolution.

Pff, yeah right. Aside from that being just an empty ideological punchline, Stalin had no chance to defeat the Germans after the war in the West possibly stopped. An increasing Cold War of sorts would develop between Germany and the Soviets and each side starts building up, ensuring bloody carnage if one of them dared attack. Plus, the only way the Soviets would develop Blitzkrieg tactics necessary to conquer Germany is if they were on the receiving end of it, as real life showed.

Finally the point is Britain can wait indefinitely while Germany can't

Why exactly would Germany not be able to wait? Like I said, with Germany's back covered by either the MR Pact or the Greater Germanic Reich stretching from Koln to Archangelsk, Britain has nothing to threaten Germany with. Quite the contrary.

hardly Americans will want Britain to sign peace treaty with Germany while France is still occupied. There was no peace for Germany until she leaves France and she has no means to bring the war at British doorsteps forcing or knocking them out of the war.

This is a bit sci-fi, but what if Vichy France was given the Atlantic coast back? German occupation of the coastal areas for aerial and naval operations isn't mandatory; they can just demand access to their facilities from the French.

Basically, France, sans Italian and German occupation zones, would be whole again, fighting on the Axis side. Germans intended to be a lot gentler on the French after the war ended, De Gaulle is stuck in London with popular support for him at home dwindling, and the British are forced to fight their former allies, while the French realize that being in the German sphere isn't all that bad. The Allies can play the "liberation from Fascism" card, but only for a while.

Unless the Allies are bent on wreaking carnage in Europe at any cost (and I imagine America would be quite capable of that), they will have no justification for continuing the war anymore. The war's over.
Last edited by Preston Cole on 16 Feb 2013 21:34, edited 5 times in total.
#14174805
Fuser it seems to me like you are the only fanboy here and are clinging to a handful of arguments as if they trump everything else without looking at the bigger picture. I am diametrically opposed to fascism but it doesn't prevent me like others to see the glaring fact that in an alternate historical scenario that we are discussing, in which Germany doesn't war with Russia, and in which the US isn't militarily involved in European afairs, there is little chance that Britain wouldn't succumb to Germany in a few years, let alone of the laughable notion that Germany would be forced into renouncing its gains by Britain alone

The part about Germany not warring with Russia is key here, and a major game changer. Do you realise what vast amounts of military resources Germany had devoted to the Russian campaign, by far the most massive campaign Germany was involved in? Resources and troops that could have been used against Britain in Europe as well as in North Africa.

Victories in the periphery? As Preston already mentioned Rommel wouldn't stop at El Alamein even in your wildest fantasies if the bulk of German forces weren't busy fighting the Soviets, and Brits already got their asses kicked by Japan in the far east.

Blockade? Unlike Britain, Germany could rely on land routes. Again as Preston mentioned ore would be flowing from Sweden, and victory in North Africa would secure additional important oil fields independent from Russia as well. With nowhere to land their planes on the south Mediterranean coast and nowhere to dock their ships anymore, and an isolated Malta presumably overrun sooner or later, the Axis would have air supremacy over the Med which would deal with any remaining British naval presence there and oil could be shipped to Europe securely.

Meanwhile the U-boat fleet would slowly choke Britain in a far more effective blockade than the one of Germany you envision. And no it does not matter if Brits can build more merchant ships than the U-boats can sink, they don't have to completely cut off supplies and sink every ship, just enough impair the flow of supplies drastically enough and time would do the rest. The lack of supplies and resources would reflect on the war industry, airplane manufacture and engine quality specifically (as was the case with late war Japan), contributing to the Luftwaffe eventually gaining air supremacy.

And air supremacy it would gain. As mentioned Germany built the first jet airplane (Heinkel 178) and fielded the first jet and rocket powered fighter aircraft in combat (Me-262, He-162, Me-163) and the first jet powered bomber (Ar-234), thus having more expertise in this field than rival powers. Had they not used so many resources in the east battling with Russia, no doubt there would be more resources to go around to expand the jet aricraft numbers as well as perfect them. A lot of the problems associated with some of these aircraft were because Germany was struggling with time and resources at the time they were developed and introduced because of the commitment and losses on the Eastern front and the Russians steadily creeping closer, a nonexistent issue in our fictional scenario. These aircraft are vastly superior and virtually untouchable by their piston engined counterparts. The Arado 234 jet bomber for example would only have flak to worry about above Britain as no piston engined aircraft could ever catch it or even get up to altitude before it is on its already back over friendly territory. Now imagine a force of these targeting airfields and aircraft factories exclussively. Meanwhile in this scenario Britain would be the one struggling with resources much more and trying to keep up with production of piston engined aircraft, thus any game changing jet endeavours by the British side would be little more than a wet dream.

In any event this would all contribute to eventual Luftwaffe air supremacy, German bombers could focus more on the ground defenses while Germany builds vessels for the delivery of ground forces to British soil. Air supremacy over the channel would deal with the British Navy there and ensure safe transport of the invasion forces. As for conquering the island itself, pretty straightforward. Britain would be starved of resources and defended by a modest ground force while Germans would have a vast amount of tanks and troops (as none would be on the eastern front like they have been in reality) as well as the first and only ballistic missiles just as it did have in the "real" WW2.

This is my scenario, and it's far more realistic than yours in which a Britain facing all of the above somehow magically wins against all odds and even forces Germany to give away its gains
#14174910
If 5-8 million german soldiers from the soviet campaign will participate in north africa(You know, where only 150-200k GERMANs participated, i dont think al alamein would matter that much. They could just walk over you in north africa and just march straight through turkey, iran and then into india without you even doing anything.

Also partial blockade of the british islands means total military collapse for the colonies. You know, cant fight those damn nazis with sticks.

There is simply no way Britain could EVER hope for peace with germany, it was obviouse that germans would overcome you sooner or later, even if all the brits turn into some heroes ubermench. And lets be honest here, Britain has always sucked at repelling land invasions to their island. If anybody managed to land, you were usually screwed up. And if you gonna bring up french-spanish-backed Mary crap as proof of your ability to repel invaders, you know your just will make a fool of yourself. There is a reason you are called anglo-saxons you know
#14174927
If 5-8 million german soldiers from the soviet campaign will participate in north africa(You know, where only 150-200k GERMANs participated, i dont think al alamein would matter that much.




You believe that Germany could have supplied millions of troops in North Africa when they couldn't even adequately support the couple hundred thousand that they had?

There is no hope for you; your opinion is worth nothing but a hearty belly laugh.

Why do all your theories assume that the Royal Navy didn't actually exist by the way?
#14174947
More often than not debating something on pofo makes me feel like i am hitting a wall with my head.
Image
#14175030
Preston Cole wrote:Why exactly would Germany not be able to wait? Like I said, with Germany's back covered by either the MR Pact or the Greater Germanic Reich stretching from Koln to Archangelsk, Britain has nothing to threaten Germany with. Quite the contrary.


There is nothing to suggest that Germany has won in east (if yes, how?) or MR pact will go indefinitely and USSR will want a German dominated Britain.

Roxunreal wrote:in which Germany doesn't war with Russia, and in which the US isn't militarily involved in European afairs, there is little chance that Britain wouldn't succumb to Germany in a few years, let alone of the laughable notion that Germany would be forced into renouncing its gains by Britain alone


Repeating same thing again and again won't make the argument any better. The point remains above is a meaningless statement unless you back that up i.e. how will they win?

The part about Germany not warring with Russia is key here, and a major game changer. Do you realise what vast amounts of military resources Germany had devoted to the Russian campaign, by far the most massive campaign Germany was involved in? Resources and troops that could have been used against Britain in Europe as well as in North Africa.


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?

Victories in the periphery? As Preston already mentioned Rommel wouldn't stop at El Alamein even in your wildest fantasies if the bulk of German forces weren't busy fighting the Soviets, and Brits already got their asses kicked by Japan in the far east.


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.

Blockade? Unlike Britain, Germany could rely on land routes. Again as Preston mentioned ore would be flowing from Sweden, and victory in North Africa would secure additional important oil fields


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.

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.

Meanwhile the U-boat fleet would slowly choke Britain in a far more effective blockade than the one of Germany you envision. And no it does not matter if Brits can build more merchant ships than the U-boats can sink, they don't have to completely cut off supplies and sink every ship,


And how will that happen, again magic? U-boat never even came close to threaten British stockpiles of supplies, again a myth. When Britain went on offensive in Atlantic, it took three months to completely defeat U boats but then who cares for historical facts, if it doesn't fits well with the dreams of fanboys. But to dispell some more myths here are some bitter historical facts

"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.

And air supremacy it would gain. As mentioned Germany built the first jet airplane (Heinkel 178) and fielded the first jet and rocket powered fighter aircraft in combat (Me-262, He-162, Me-163) and the first jet powered bomber (Ar-234), thus having more expertise in this field than rival powers.


Building "first" means jackshit here. 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.

Had they not used so many resources in the east battling with Russia, no doubt there would be more resources to go around to expand the jet aricraft numbers as well as perfect them.


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. What resources used in Russia would had been spared for jet industry, please tell us. And why the fuck will Germany not maintain a strong army facing east even without the war, share that us with too.

Had they not used so many resources in the east battling with Russia, no doubt there would be more resources to go around to expand the jet aricraft numbers as well as perfect them.


Oh, please. The first operational jet plane was introduced in 1944 just as a morale booster and had no strategic value. At the same time every country had their own jet planes. Following your logic with no D Day to worry for Britain could also had funneled more resources to this Jet programe.

The Arado 234 jet bomber for example would only have flak to worry about above Britain as no piston engined aircraft could ever catch it or even get up to altitude before it is on its already back over friendly territory.


So, now you will ignore that Britain also had Jet planes and in this changed scenario they will use them too. Yeah, right fuck historical facts when designing fantasy scenarios.

In any event this would all contribute to eventual Luftwaffe air supremacy


Fantasy is fantasy.

Air supremacy over the channel would deal with the British Navy there and ensure safe transport of the invasion forces.


How the fuck this supremacy came into existence? Just because you wish so? Also let's see another historical example at norwegian campaign with complete air superiority Germany lost half of her invasion fleet and around 40% of the entire kriegsmarine surface fleet. But who cares for historical fact, this time they will simply do it just because fanboys wish for it.

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.

As for conquering the island itself, pretty straightforward. Britain would be starved of resources and defended by a modest ground force while Germans would have a vast amount of tanks and troops (as none would be on the eastern front like they have been in reality) as well as the first and only ballistic missiles just as it did have in the "real" WW2.


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.

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.

This is my scenario, and it's far more realistic than yours in which a Britain facing all of the above somehow magically wins against all odds and even forces Germany to give away its gains


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

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.

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

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.

John Rawls wrote:If 5-8 million german soldiers from the soviet campaign will participate in north africa(You know, where only 150-200k GERMANs participated, i dont think al alamein would matter that much. They could just walk over you in north africa and just march straight through turkey, iran and then into india without you even doing anything.


Of course as the ubermansch can obviously survive by eating sands and drinking their own urinals, food is for untermansch.

Also partial blockade of the british islands means total military collapse for the colonies. You know, cant fight those damn nazis with sticks.


Ah yes, when it comes to Britain supplies are making her collapse but Germany they are just supermen, how you fight with that logic.

There is simply no way Britain could EVER hope for peace with germany, it was obviouse that germans would overcome you sooner or later, even if all the brits turn into some heroes ubermench.


Fanboys will be fanboys.


I like their thinking i.e. their simply won't be any troops on Eastern front, they will simply make more jet planes more ships more merchant shipping, you name it and their will be more of it while other side will remain static without responding to any of the changes and voila there comes a victory.

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.
#14175090
Scandinavia wouldn't fall even with British naval superiority. The Denmark-Sweden strait will remain open, it will be easier for the Germans to defend it and pour troops into Sweden, and the Brits will most likely lose a land battle against Germany in Sweden because, put simply, they suck against the Germans.

There is nothing to suggest that Germany has won in east (if yes, how?) or MR pact will go indefinitely and USSR will want a German dominated Britain.

Of, for fuck's sake. The USSR was basically wetting its pants when it heard that Hitler intended to bring it into the Axis against Britain. That cooperation could go on indefinitely.
#14175096
Preston Cole wrote:Scandinavia wouldn't fall even with British naval superiority


Again a meaningless blank statement with no logic/argument to support it. Why suddenly naval superiority won't matter, just because it doesn't fit in well with your pre conceived notion. As already said Germany didn't had the troop carrying or supplying capacity (a capacity that UK had) to transport and support large number of troops on off shore frontiers.

As historically they lost Norway and were saved only because their enemy had to withdraw because of France. But now not only Germany will magically supply hundred of thousands of men in Africa but also in Scandinavia, now how's that possible? Please once again see the pounding that KM got in invasion of Norway.

and the Brits will most likely lose a land battle against Germany in Sweden because, put simply, they suck against the Germans.


What an infallible logic. El alamein? or these things should be forgotten for the convenience sake.

Of, for fuck's sake. The USSR was basically wetting its pants when it heard that Hitler intended to bring it into the Axis against Britain. That cooperation could go on indefinitely.
Image


USSR was never serious about this hypothetical cooperation, the original conversation is freely available, at least read that. Why the fuck would USSR want a hostile entity on her borders who has just subdued British Empire, what the fuck is to gain here?
#14175113
Fuser just for you, the USSR won 4 or 5 battle of britains. Had killed or captured 10 times more soldiers and destroyed 20 times more tanks. The baltic would still be open because you can not occupy the baltic without full air superiority unless you will want all your ships sunk, how can you possible write off 12k airplanes that the SU shot down on the eastern front, when you only shot down 2500 during BoB? Even with full air superiority, mining the baltic sea and using artilery to destroy your fleat has always been a threat. Durring ww1, the case was the same and it was when air power was not as advanced and couldn't sink ships. There is just simply no way Britain could have outproduced germany to win it, like lets say the SU or the USA could.
#14175118
JohnRawls wrote:Fuser just for you, the USSR won 4 or 5 battle of britains. Had killed or captured 10 times more soldiers and destroyed 20 times more tanks. The baltic would still be open because you can not occupy the baltic without full air superiority unless you will want all your ships sunk, how can you possible write off 12k airplanes that the SU shot down on the eastern front, when you only shot down 2500 during BoB? Even with full air superiority, mining the baltic sea and using artilery to destroy your fleat has always been a threat. Durring ww1, the case was the same and it was when air power was not as advanced and couldn't sink ships. There is just simply no way Britain could have outproduced germany to win it, like lets say the SU or the USA could.


The fuck you are blathering about. Battle of Britain was not only aerial battle in west either. All your ship sunks? Are you guys even looking at the historical facts that has been spewed in this thread too, Look what happened to KM during Norwegian campaign with Germans having the aerial superiority.

Britain shot down planes other than BoB too, you didn't knew that. Actually not surprising given the fantasy scenarios you have been envisioning anything is possible.

And may be next time before jumping in read what has been written, I never said Britain will blockade baltic, they will simply conquer or force Scandinavia to align with themselves sealing off the Baltic for good.

I never said Britain will outproduce Germany so that's a starwman but neither could Germany win the war by simply outproducing Britain, remember that. The GDP ratio 1:1.2 in Germany's favor, a very small margin.
#14175138
fuser wrote:Again a meaningless blank statement with no logic/argument to support it. Why suddenly naval superiority won't matter, just because it doesn't fit in well with your pre conceived notion. As already said Germany didn't had the troop carrying or supplying capacity (a capacity that UK had) to transport and support large number of troops on off shore frontiers.

Awww, because your statements aren't at all rooted in partisan idealism. Germany has superior numbers and superior-trained troops that would overrun whatever Britain threw at them in Sweden. Naval transportation is easier through shorter distances like that from Denmark to southern Sweden. Block that strait, build up your transportation capacity further in the Baltic sea and enough troops will be available to kick the Brits out of Sweden.

What an infallible logic. El alamein? or these things should be forgotten for the convenience sake.

Again, Rommel was tied down by lack of troops. You really think Britain would have stood a chance if the Desert Fox hadn't had his hands tied?

USSR was never serious about this hypothetical cooperation, the original conversation is freely available, at least read that. Why the fuck would USSR want a hostile entity on her borders who has just subdued British Empire, what the fuck is to gain here?

The spoils of the British Empire. That was what the USSR was after when it had the Axis talks. They were interested in this hypothetical cooperation right until Hitler decided to unilaterally cancel the talks.
#14175150
Preston Cole wrote:Awww, because your statements aren't at all rooted in partisan idealism.


No it isn't. They are backed by logics that are yet to be contested.

ermany has superior numbers and superior-trained troops that would overrun whatever Britain threw at them in Sweden. Naval transportation is easier through shorter distances like that from Denmark to southern Sweden. Block that strait, build up your transportation capacity further in the Baltic sea and enough troops will be available to kick the Brits out of Sweden.


Superior numbers that can't be brought on, on off shore frontiers (why are you always missing that point.) And how many transport ships were lost during Norwegian campaign (at least look at the wiki for that particular campaign.) How will you supply this large number of troops, build more merchant shipping? So basically you are going to say that "everything" will be built out of thin air to suit your position. More u boats more airplanes more surface ships more transport ships more merchant shipping just by scrapping a dozen thousand tanks?

The point still remains that given the fact that Germany were hard pressed to supply relatively small army in Africa, expecting them to simultaneously supply large numbers both in Scandinavia and Africa is nothing but wishful thinking.

btw Germany also lacked shipbuilding industry/capacity for a large scale shipping project and it would had taken a great time to develop such an industry so unlike in games like HOI, you can't simply relocate resources from tank factory and voila a ship is ready.

Again, Rommel was tied down by lack of troops. You really think Britain would have stood a chance if the Desert Fox hadn't had his hands tied?


Desert fox is nothing but propaganda, he was an incompetent fool who bypassed the order of German High command to remain defensive and doomed thousands of men in worthless endeavor for his personal glory. But that's different matter.

Germany had less troops exactly because of logistics as being said time and again in this thread but still let's look at the numbers :

Operation Crusader :

Allies Axis
118000 119000

Result : Allies victory and If you are going to say that Axis had incompetent Italians then well the allied army had host of nationalities as well.

But that's just one example with point being that Britain sucked ass in land battles against Germany is simply not true.

The spoils of the British Empire. That was what the USSR was after when it had the Axis talks. They were interested in this hypothetical cooperation right until Hitler decided to unilaterally cancel the talks.


Before Hitler did anything about it, USSR through Molotov showed no interest in the deal,using that example you are just proving my point.
Seriously read the original text, Molotov simply shows no interest in this cooperation.
#14175156
fuser wrote:No it isn't. They are backed by logics that are yet to be contested.

Logic.

And there's no logic in saying Britain alone could defeat Germany IF if wasn't warring in the East or if partnership with the Soviets has been secured. They could blockade Germany all they wanted; trade on the continent wouldn't have harmed a hair on a German's head. Your fictional scenario only makes sense if WW2 happened as in real life.

The point still remains that given the fact that Germany were hard pressed to supply relatively small army in Africa, expecting them to simultaneously supply large numbers both in Scandinavia and Africa is nothing but wishful thinking.

Africa is Africa, Scandinavia is a few kilometers off Germany's coast. Why can't you get that? No matter how slow the transportation goes, Germany would have a sizable force deployed in Scandinavia, and with British inferiority in numbers they'd have no problem kicking them out. It's not like Germany lacked sea transportation capacities AT ALL.

Desert fox is nothing but propaganda, he was an incompetent fool who bypassed the order of German High command to remain defensive and doomed thousands of men in worthless endeavor for his personal glory. But that's different matter.

Your commie partisanship CERTAINLY isn't showing now. Rommel single-handedly kicked the British out of Libya and that's why you hate him.

Result : Allies victory and If you are going to say that Axis had incompetent Italians then well the allied army had host of nationalities as well.

Nope, the Allies had at most a few divisions of Commonwealth forces, not very crucial, while Italians formed the majority of Libyan operations. And continually citing Axis defeats in North Africa doesn't bear on a potential land battle in Sweden.
#14175162
Preston Cole wrote:Logic.


Yes logic just because it doesn't support your position, it doesn't means that it is devoid of logic. I never postulated that Britain could invade and liberate continental Europe on her own, my scenario is far more modest and envision a partial defeat not complete defeat resulting in unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany as historically and all of mine points are rooted in historical facts. You are free to point otherwise.
Unlike the German cheering crowd here who are envisioning complete collapse of Britain without paying attention to any details and historical reality.

And there's no logic in saying Britain alone could defeat Germany IF if wasn't warring in the East or if partnership with the Soviets has been secured. They could blockade Germany all they wanted; trade on the continent wouldn't have harmed a hair on a German's head. Your fictional scenario only makes sense if WW2 happened as in real life.


There is no partnership with Soviet Union ad infinitum and then seriously pay attention to my post I have written in detail the effects of blockade on Germany and Europe in 1940 only, when Britain was alone and a partnership with USSR was in place. 15% + 15% drop in food supplies for Germany and western Europe to name just one effect. Now that's a historical fact which you can't dispute, from which my scenario of "continued blockade" stems from unlike German cheering crowd here making scenarios out of thin air with no regards for historical facts.

Africa is Africa, Scandinavia is a few kilometers off Germany's coast. Why can't you get that? No matter how slow the transportation goes, Germany would have a sizable force deployed in Scandinavia, and with British inferiority in numbers they'd have no problem kicking them out. It's not like Germany lacked sea transportation capacities AT ALL.


Germany most definitely lacked transportation capability, there's no dispute on that in any circle. Then, its not only about transportation but supply ships which also Germany lacked. And how did you got British inferiority in number as already been said they will have numbers on their side because they can support a large number. There's no D Day in this scenario, those troops would had been available for such an operation.

Your commie partisanship CERTAINLY isn't showing now.
Rommel single-handedly kicked the British out of Libya and that's why you hate him.


So basically you utterly failed to address mine point about Rommel and went berserk over my ideology. And the point still stands that he was an incompetent fool who led his troops to doom. When the better generals like keeserling were arguing for defensive posture in Africa and use the available resources to attack Malta (as the window of opportunity was their which was closing down at every moment) but that fool called rommel convinced his political masters and used up those precious resources in a worthless endeavor for his personal glory.

Nope, the Allies had at most a few divisions of Commonwealth forces, not very crucial, while Italians formed the majority of Libyan operations. And continually citing Axis defeats in North Africa doesn't bear on a potential land battle in Sweden.


Wrong. The commonwealth forces formed the bulk of forces at crusader. Then remember the context these battles are here to disprove your claim that Britain sucked ass in land battles against Germany. So try to remember your inane comments which has been disproved by these land battles of Africa (i.e. they were not my original points) before accusing me of repetition.
#14175167
fuser wrote:There is no partnership with Soviet Union ad infinitum and then seriously pay attention to my post I have written in detail the effects of blockade on Germany and Europe in 1940 only when Britain was alone and a partnership with USSR was in place. 15% + 15% drop in food supplies for Germany and western Europe to name just one effect. Now that's a historical fact which you can't dispute from which my scenario of "continued blockade" stems from unlike German cheering crowd here making scenarios out of thin air with no regards for historical facts.

Yes, a drop in food supplies that still allowed Germany to drive all the way to Moscow and conquer the rest of Europe prior to that? Do you see any logical fallacy here? No, Soviet-German partnership wouldn't be all that cosy, but still enough to ensure Germany's standing on the same height as Britain. Besides, Russia would have no reason to terminate trade with Germany unilaterally.

Germany most definitely lacked transportation capability, there's no dispute on that in any circle. Then, its not only about transportation but supply ships which also Germany lacked. And how did you got British inferiority in number as already been said they will have numbers on their side because they can support a large number. There's no D Day in this scenario, those troops would had been available for such an operation.

Germany has a larger number of troops per total, about 50% more than Britain if I'm not mistaking. Supply and transport is easier through southern Sweden like I've said, and I seriously doubt Britain would ever have numerical superiority in Scandinavia to the point of blocking Germany form retaking the ore centers.

So basically you utterly failed to address mine point about Rommel and went berserk over my ideology. And the point still stands that he was an incompetent fool who led his troops to doom. When the better generals like galland were arguing for defensive posture in Africa and use the available resources to attack Malta (as the window of opportunity was their which was closing down at every moment) but that fool called rommel convinced his political masters and used up those precious resources in a worthless endeavor for his personal glory.

A commie should talk when Stalin doomed millions of his countrymen in the opening phases of Barbarossa. But no, Rommel's an incompetent fool for defeating Britain in Egypt at the start. Allow me to flush your commie-influenced opinions down the toilet on this one.

Wrong. The commonwealth forces formed the bulk of forces at crusader. Then remember the context these battles are here to disprove your claim that Britain sucked ass in land battles against Germany.

Because they outnumbered the German-Italian force! Goddamnit, I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
#14175173
Yes, a drop in food supplies that still allowed Germany to drive all the way to Moscow and conquer the rest of Europe prior to that? Do you see any logical fallacy here?


Can you differentiate between immediate blockade effect and continued blockade effect. Do you know that during the drive to Moscow Germany also happen to catch Ukranian farms and we are discussing a scenario where there is no Barbarossa. or are you saying that my sources are wrong? If that so please provide how so?

Besides, Russia would have no reason to terminate trade with Germany unilaterally.


And it did exactly that on more than one occasions during the brief MR pact only. Seriously try google before making such posts.

Germany has a larger number of troops per total, about 50% more than Britain if I'm not mistaking. Supply and transport is easier through southern Sweden like I've said, and I seriously doubt Britain would ever have numerical superiority in Scandinavia to the point of blocking Germany form retaking the ore centers.


Congratulations you have once again missed/ignored/ that total number of troops means nothing when the frontiers are off shore. What matters here is your naval capability. Please bear that in mind next time before posting.

Easier than Africa? yes but can they support large number of troops there when simultaneously maintaining similar numbers in Africa? a big no.

Both Italian and German shipping failed to properly supply Afrika Korps now how magically will Germany on her own will supply both the fronts? And no I am not talking about blocking baltics but there will be no need of blockade as there is no trading partner left on the other side of baltics.

A commie should talk when Stalin doomed millions of his countrymen in the opening phases of Barbarossa. But no, Rommel's an incompetent fool for defeating Britain in Egypt at the start.
Allow me to flush your commie-influenced opinions down the toilet on this one.


Fascists are so cute. When can't defend their hero who was brought up in the argument by them only, they will post completely nonsensical and irrelevant things about their nightmare i.e. Stalin either about his dick or whatever. But good to see that they still can't defend their hero and are just pissed about it.

Because they outnumbered the German-Italian force!


Are you lacking reading comprehension tonight only or is it a common thing for you. Check back the numbers for "crusader"

Axis : 119000 Allies : 118000, advantage in number Axis for this particular battle even though it was a very small advantage but completley demolishes your argument regarding superior numbers.

So yeah don't expect to make insane comments like "Britain sucked ass against Germany in land battles" and hope that it won't be thrashed.
#14175177
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but Britain being able to intercept and decode German orders was a pretty big advantage and would have played a big part in this alternate history. They also invented radar which the Germans didn't have.

One idea from Germany's point of view is if they could have focused on launching V1/V2 rockets at Britain and i doubt Britain could have stopped them. Then again they weren't accurate enough to hit military targets so i'm not sure how much this would have changed.
The Popular Vote...

1. Wrt cleaning up pollution; espec re prohibitin[…]

Election 2020

Thanks for the confirmation. I didn't say what I[…]

I watched Gretas address to Congress. There is s[…]

I do not think Gene was a communist. He was a p[…]