Possible Britain won early ww2?

Every one seems to thinke America ande Russia wone thee ww2,i have seen a documentary that hase gave a new meanning in briton winning thee ww2.

Briton hold off thee Germans before America jion thee war,this aloud thee Americans too used Britions base airfileds and air space!

If briton cuold not hold off germany and let germany over run briton herself,America when entered ww2,thee Britons airfeilds ande airspace wuold have been out of bounce for American aircrafts,this would limited thee America;s aircraft ability to be deployed at all.
This would cause thee American effect into ww2 as nothing ande germany cuold have carried on.

 

Probably one of the biggest missed opportunities to end the war early was the inaction of the French & British (although the British forces in France at that time hadn't been built up) on Germany's western borders when most of the German army were busy in Poland and recovering after that invasion.

 

"The blame on the Front Populiar Government" the Vichy Propaganda said at the time.
The French had great tanks , but they were scattered around and not enough of them were made. Same thing with the aircraft. With a few hundred more Dewoitines 152 instead of those outdated Moranes, it would been another matter. More than a strategic failure it was political decision that weakened France before the war even started. Fortunately the sacrifice of so many soldiers allowed British and French soldiers to embark at Dunkirk, but silly enough the French ones were shipped back to Normandy days later and thrown back into the pit when the dice were already cast. Had these 100.000 men stayed in the UK (but where and how would they been fed and should they keep their weapons etc...?) They would have been avaluable asset later. One thing is sure, no one at the time could have stopped the Germans on land in 1940. Some blame the UK for not having send their spit on French bases while they wer ein France, but had they done so, these same Spitfire would not have been able to defend the UK after France collapsed.

 

I think only ignorant people actually believe that the US alone won the war in Europe or even the Pacific. Isolationism was prevalent pre war, though a majority of the public by early 1941 could tell we were going to get involved sooner or later. In 1940 during the Battle of Britain the eyes of America were completely focused on what the brave pilots of the RAF were doing to protect their homes. We knew we would have to get involved and if Britain fell we knew things would become extremely difficult.

 

No one country could have won the war against Germany, not even Russia. The Russians whittled down the German army. The West hindered/stressed Germany's industrial capacity. This has been debated before but lend lease did have an impact that helped Russia. America's manpower and industrial might, as in WWI, gave the West a significant edge. Great Britain and the commonwealth did hold off invasion but also kept them busy in the Med. It was indeed an allied effort.

 

Yes correct! but i did not mean briton one thee war on there own sorry! i meant to say they help won thee war early.

I wase trying to state this-
If briton did fall and germany did overrun briton (Thee battle of briton)thee germans would have access to thee Royal navy and Royal A/F and the Britsh army!
all this would have been used against thee americans,and also America had no where to base all there men and aircrafts,thee briton wase thee number one country that hold thee americans as a base for all there equitment.

this would have won thee war for Germany,but since Briton hold off germany,America had a place to base all there mighty equitment,meanning that briton save thee Allies at the start of thee war,while thee Americas fished thee war off.

Yes,it was a Allied win.

 

I doubt it if the Royal Navy would have given itself up to the Germans. They would have sailed to Canada or the US. The British Army would have been interned as POWs so they would not have been used against the US. No way the Brits would have fought for the Germans.

But an occupied Britain would have made it more difficult for the Americans/Canadians to land in Europe. This would have meant taking Air Craft Carriers away from the Pacific.

 

Ditto.

 

Well, for Operation Torch, a portion of the American force sailed all the way across the Atlantic. Needless to say, this was only possible because of the Royal Navy control of the Mediterranean. However, if Britain theoretically did fall, what's to stop Gibraltar from staying in British hands? Same with Egypt. I doubt that everyone would just give up, unless Britain comes to terms instead of surrendering. The French came to terms, but thousands of French still fought on. If Germany conquered the British Isles, then the British and Commonwealth forces around the world would continue fighting, albeit much less effectively, without a central command. A central command could be later set up in exile in British possessions, Commonwealth countries, or America. Also, an invasion of Britain would require a large portion of the Wehrmacht, either delaying the Soviet invasion, or seriously handicapping it.

I am sure that the Strait of Gibraltar would have easily been held, making a Operation Torch still possible if the British Isles were taken. From Torch, the Americans could advance through North Africa, the only difference being that the U-boat campaign would be questionable, if the British Isles were taken. From Tunisia, its only a short sail to Sicily, and the Royal and American Navies combined could easily outmatch the Italian Navy. From then on, it would be pretty much the same in Italy.

Normandy would obviously be a no-no. Either the battle in Italy continued, breaking out of the peninsula, or, if really necessary, landings could be made in Southern France or Greece. I would guess it would be the landings, because any Italian offensive would stall as it hit the Alps. Progress would definitely be slower without an organized British army, and without the reasonable industrial power of Britain, but Germany would be finished by the end anyway. British troops in India would fight on, and British troops in Africa would probably organize themselves into some Free French-like force. Arguably the Russian Front would have proceeded faster if the Germans took Britain.

Probably the biggest loss that would follow from the fall of Britain would be the loss of Churchill, the driving force behind the Allies. But Churchill, like many French leaders, may be able to escape anyway.

 

Too Bl00dy right, Ike old chap ... "All for one and one for all" !!

 

Ike you said it mate between 1939 -1945 every allied country that fought against be it Germany or Japan and their allies played a part however big or small in their final defeat be it the 14TH Army in BURMA or the Polish home Army in the Warsaw uprising.

 

The loss of Britain to the Axis wouldn't have meant the loss of the European war, though it would have made it longer and probably incalculably bloodier. In mid-1940, when it appeared that Britain might succumb to German pressure, long range plans were being made to continue the fight against the Germans from the Western Hemisphere. Tentative plans were made for the RN to operate out of Canada and the US West Coast. Aircraft which could deliver bombs from trans-oceanic distances were projected. Contingencies were studied to launch invasions of islands near Europe from the Western Hemisphere. Of course, once it became clear that Britain would not fall to Germany, these plans were deferred or shelved, but they were seriously considered and some acted upon during the early part of the war.

Just as the loss of the Philippines in the Pacific necessitated a long, bloody, island hopping war against Japan, similar techniques would have been employed against Germany. And since such a war would have probably been years longer, Germany would have experienced the same ultimate fate as Japan.

The reality is that the Axis simply overreached itself and tried to do too much too fast, and alienated too many countries, to have any chance of winning the war. No one country won the war against the Axis; but many countries contributed to it's defeat in many ways, large and small. As it turned out, the magnificent resolve of the British nation meant that more costly (in terms of blood and treasure) measures were not necessary, but those measures would have been employed and would have prevailed had Britain fallen in the early days of the war.

 

Delilsadvocate,yuo mentioned thate -"In mid-1940,when it appeared that briton might succumb to German pressure,long range plans were being made to continue thee fight against thee germans"

Do yuo mean America wase making plans?

 

No Heidi, these Plans were made by the British Brass after France was rolled over.


But I do agree that if Britain was gone the war would have went on for many years. With both sides quiet until someones CVs could reach the other.

I think that Germany could have the edge though as they had a very good cadre of scientists in the Ballistic Missile section. Which could have lead to Germany getting long range weapons first if they could get a reactor.

 

(Just joined)
I think you are right in that England probably had as much to do with winning the war as did Russia and America. When Europe had fallen and Russia had an non-aggression pact with Germany, England stood alone, even if it was apparent that it was somewhat of a toothless tiger. Isolationist America waited in the wings to see if England would sink or swim. The air-battle confirmed that they had the stuff to stay in the game, and Churchill personally did much to convince FDR that they could win (together). I think that if Winston wasn't in charge at the time, there might have been a different reading of history. He was determined, and quite frankly, so were the British as a people. Whew...that was a mouthful.

Blasting the French fleet at Oran was a signal to the world that they were serious. The same for the Italian fleet at Taranto. Churchill showed their future allies that this was a different kind of war than the last, and that it was not hopeless.

I think that while Russia paid the cost in blood, she wouldn't have fought on without the allies, and while America paid the bill, without Britain, there wouldn't have been an effective counter to the German onslaught. The plan to ease into the "soft underbelly" of the Axis through Africa was correct, and was again a British initiative, certainly in the planning.
Regards from Vancouver..

 

Briton made this plans! Tghats rare,it seems briton did do some greate things during ww2!
I actaully thuoght America did all the great planning!

 

To say that Britain “Held-off” the Germans until America entered the war is incorrect. Britain at that time, were almost wiped out at Dunkirk. It was a matter of luck and Hitlers hesitation which allowed the remaining BEF to evacuate and pull back to England. Yes, the airfields and staging positions allowed the US, Britain and France to fight back and eventually secure the continent. However, we did have Carrier groups which could have been used against the Germans. Eventually. At that time we were doing all we could to hold the Japanese below Hawaii.

If Germany had been successful in an Invasion of Great Britain, I don’t believe they would have had “Captured” the Royal Navy. If anything they would either withdraw the Navy from European waters and relocate to the United States or worst case scenario, scuttle the fleet… The British Government, Royal Family and Military would of withdrawn to the US mainland also. All political and government functions would have been performed off the British mainland.


Britain could not of defeated Germany by herself. It was a combination of the American and British forces from the West and the Russians from the East. History will show us that no matter how big the Army you cannot win a war fighting on 2 fronts. The Russians just slowly bled the Germans out and the Western allies just delivered devastating blows that Germany could not and would not of survived.


I read a lot about American “Isolationist” stand. The Isolationist stand was not so much a moral or political theory, but more geography. We are a nation which sits in the middle of the 2 largest oceans in the world. It’s a matter of Geography which makes the mainland US the “Safest” and Most “Defensible” nation in the world. For any nation to advance across either the Pacific or Atlantic with a sustainable invasion force would have been a Gigantic undertaking. Not to mention the probable issues of keeping the Invading force properly supplied and replenished. Even Germany, at her strongest point, would of Invaded the Mainland US.


Hindsight is always 20/20…Its always easy to make the correct move when you already know all the outcomes.

 

Actually, the contingency plans to be invoked if Britain was forced to surrender involved both Britain and the US; remember the term "Combined Chiefs of Staff"? That was the name for the US and British Chiefs of Staff working together to jointly plan war strategy and it started before the US had even declared war on Germany. For example, there was a plan to have the Royal Navy operate from Canadian and US bases, if Britain itself was overrun. Obviously some of these contingencies required joint planning.

But the US was also making it's own plans to continue the war if Britain was lost. These involved planning new long range weapons, such as the B-29 and B-36, which could bomb Europe from bases in Africa or even the continental US;

"The genesis of the B-36 can be traced to early 1941, prior to the entry of the U.S. into World War II. At that time it appeared that there was a very real chance That Britain could fall, making a strategic bombing effort by the U.S. against Germany impossible. A new class of bomber would be needed to fill this role, one offering trans-Atlantic range so it could bomb targets in Europe from bases inside the continental USA."

Convair B-36 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also alternative war production and force deployment plans were studied because different weapons and materials, in varying quantities, and different military deployments, would be needed if Britain were no longer in the war. Since all of this was essentially a solo effort by the US, Britain was not involved in this kind of planning.

 

Yes,combined cheifs of staff,how can i forget about that! The US and Brits were always screaching there plans to each other.
That does make sence now you have mention it! Smart planning by the americans having planning plans with briton did fall.