German vs. Russia - No England.

Is this "that" kind of forum? Is the site short on space, thus the need to keep it lean? Seems like heavy handed moderation otherwise.

 

The owner wants this site as a site for references and information, meaning whoever comes here needs to be able to find what they are looking for without going through an entire thread to find one post with a single link. The threads are allowed to go off topic depending on how far, but always must be linked back to the original topic, no some far fetched post with little or no relevance.

 

I hope you guys don't mind a new guy jumping in here. Personally, I think a neutral Britain makes all the difference. No Battle of Britain means another 1800+ aircraft and aircrew for the attack on Russia. But mostly, it means NO blockade on Germany. Therefore, NO food problems, rare materials would not be scarce. No need for massive U-boat building, so more steel for land weapons. And the big choke point in the German economy throughout the war was iron, always iron. Even when oil was abundant, iron was a problem.

Perhaps the most significant point made in Tooze's Wages of Desctruction is that when Germany attacked Russia she was all in. There were NO manpower reserves left. None, as in nobody. Later, slave labor was used to make up for men that had to be drafted, but Barbarossa was total mobilization. No Afrika Korps gives a few more divisions. No huge garrisons in Norway or France necessary. Peripheral forces in places like Greece need only be minimal. It would all add up.

As for how England could have dropped out of the war...take Dunkirk ahead of the evacuation and there's not enough men left to fight. By 1944 they were breaking up divisions for replacements, minus a few hundred thousand of their best troops I think they might have negotiated for their release.

 

No it will not be taken from here because this is not the opening posters topic, this makes this thread hi jacked. If you want this discussion then start a new thread and hope it gets approved by the moderators.

Move on or this will be closed, do you understand?

 

I viewed his post as an attempt to clarify an illdefined scenario. Due to the lack of defintion in the original post and indeed in any of the follow ups closing it is probably the best choice. In retrospect closing it after the initial post would probably have been the optimum choice. IMHOP.

Sorry for the OT post by the way.

 

As you wish.