Did Germany have power to defeat XXX Allied Nation one on one?

Crazy Idea!!!??

I must be crazy... : )

I have also devised an air assault plan (with a suitable bomber design) however, crazy would be to try and attack the US head on...one cannot get "through" the US...so one must go around...

 

That is assuming that all plays out according to history. Denmark was only occupied for the invasion of Norway, Which only occurred due to the conflict with the British. With no conflict with the British there would be no need for an invasion of Norway and as such no need for an invasion of Denmark.

That said, Assuming the US did occupy Iceland just how beneficial would it be to them? It was limited in Infrastructure and with the need to support a million men at the minimum would require a massive work up. Not impossible but time consuming giving Germans plenty of warning.

After that must look at the approach path, Still a fairly long see voyage against a nation that would still retain a potent air force and naval capability (largely Submarine based), Allowing a speed of 10 knots would still have them at sea for almost 5 days.

Then that is yet to take into account the beach defences and local air superiority. The North Sea coastline is about 1500 km's long so allowing Germany to field 2.5 - 3 million heavily trained and equipped troops would allow them Almost 2 soldiers for every 1 metre of coast to defend.....

I just don't see the US breaking that defence even with all their strengths, Not without heavy casualties.

 

As mentioned, Goring diluted Milch’s responsibilities. Consequently, Goring appointed Ernst Udet as the director of the technical department at the air ministry, if I recall correctly, in 1936. Intent to dilute Milch’s power further, he gave more of the power to Udet by appointing him director-general of air force equipment in 1939. It was a poor decision on Goring’s part as Udet was much like Goring in that he understood and excelled at tactical airpower at the small unit level, but did not have the interest or intellect to effectively do his job. He liked to fly, but cared little about the what, how and why. Nor did he have the patience for planning for aircraft design, development and production. He focused on dive-bomber development while Germany went to war. He became an alcoholic, committing suicide November 17, 1941.

Another officer worth mentioning was Walther Wever, the Luftwaffe’s first chief of the general staff. Unlike Goring and other ranking Luftwaffe officers, he was one of the few who studied and understood airpower doctrine. He and his staff put together a document that guided Luftwaffe operations, Manual 16: Conduct of Aerial Warfare. It was not regularly updated and not widely read or utilized, largely due to Wever's death. One of its recommendations, reflecting a view strongly held by Wever, was the development of a long-range strategic bomber force. This belief lost its strongest supporter when Wever was killed June 3, 1936 in a crash at the controls of a He-70.

I agree the bomber force against the U.S. would not have been successful, however properly developed and used against England independently could well have brought her to her knees.

 

Maybe not a heavy bomber force but what about a long range light bomber with guided weapons? By the time any such bomber could conceivable be ready to field said guided weapons historically had also been used, Would such a force be useful in conjunction with the U-boats against the Atlantic convoys?

That said Germany wouldnt have to so much target the Industry, Just the port facilities. How effective would a heavy (or light) bomber be against port facilities?

 

It'd never be Britain alone against Germany. The Commonwealth would've defeated Germany alone, eventually. Germany held no Globally strategic points, and was virtually incapable of inflicting true lasting harm to the Commonwealth. Expanding the KM would require decades to get the experience, leadership and force presence to match the RN. In other words, Germany cannot hope to defeat the Commonwealth, and at best can hope to achieve peace. Best way is to secure Gibraltar and the Suez, and hang on, with these two, there is a chance you might get a grudging peace.

Without lendlease, it'd be close run, but I don't believe the Soviet's could hold it together ( $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks); 11,400 aircraft). Too many pieces of their infrastructure were coming in from the US. (Britain also provided between June 1941 and May 1945 3,000 Hurricanes along with 4,000 other aircraft, 5,000 tanks, 5,000 anti-tank guns and 15 million boots) Additionally, the Germans would not be suffering any damage to their industrial infrastructure, and would not be fielding divisions of troops in Africa/Italy/France.

Against the US? Don't make me laugh. The US proved it's strategic capabilities in WW2, keeping divisions and armies supplied across the entire Pacific, and launch massive invasions on remote islands. Germany managed to.... um, have a few Uboats sailing around.

 

I feel that something largely being left out of these points is the advantage the Axis had to start with. Germanys advantage during the beginning of the war was heavily dependent on surprise, new technological innovations, and being the aggressor (Blitz). As the years went by the technology gap closed, and their ability to employ the Blitz became neil leading to their defeat.

It's hard pitting them against another World Power that is "ready to go" so to speak and see who would win. This obviously puts Germany at a disadvantage. I think her leaders knew that they could not go toe-to-toe with the other World Power, thus the plan for a fast short decisive war was hatched. Surprise and speed were huge strategies employed successfully againsts the French, and almost successfully against the Russians and to a certain extent the Americans at the Bulge. Taking away Germanys speed, surprise and tech advantage takes away the very core of her military strategy that was employed from the beginning to make up for their numerical and industrial disadvantage. So this makes it difficult to really compare. I forget who it was, but I remember reading that one of the German Generals said that if the British or French had attacked them while their backs were turned while in Poland, Germany would have fallen almost instantly. I'm sure if you had asked a military analysts in 1939 a Germany vs France question they would have never predicted the result.

So I guess I answered my own question in a way. Its almost impossible to do a direct comparison of these nations. Because on paper, "in a controlled boxing ring," Germany almost always loses against the 3 Great Powers. At that point you are basically just comparing industrial might and population numbers. But to do that undermines the very core of their entire strategy from the beginning.

I am going to throw in a great example here that only some of our gamer members will get. I was playing Starcraft the other day when I got matched with a Master League player. Myself being a lower level player - I stood no chance at defeating him in a long match. I could never get an economy on the level he could or match his ability to control large numbers of troops at one time. So I devised a plan to rush him early in the game to take him out before he built his forces up or got any defence. While initially successfully, I failed to completely take him out with my rush. He was able to get his macro going, and eventually defeated me. But thats basically what happen to Germany. They had initial success with the Blitzkrieg but once the Allies got going they were doomed.

 

So it should be Germany vs the Commonwealth, That said you mentioned the Suez canal. Does that mean to imply Italy is still an Axis partner in the war?

Assuming Italy is a part of the Axis then most combat would occur in NA, I dont see the Atlantic being much different except possibly taking longer and more resources on the Commonwealths part to combat the U-boats. That said with no US combat support (would they provide material support?) their also the possibility the U-boats could win out, They did come close at one point. So with main fighting occurring in NA German logistics are far less starved and would be able to commit more resources to their (and more fuel to the Regia Marina). I just dont see the Commonwealth being able to win out with a total victory nor for that matter the Germans.

Assuming Italy isn't a part then one question, Did the commonwealth have the naval and air power to invade Germany head on into millions of waiting troops with years of preparation? To my knowledge they didn't.

As for the US, Yes they supplied entire armies across the Pacific except it should be noted they stock piled supplies close to each new objective (or as close as they could) They didnt set sail from the US to invade a point but from a base in the Pacific. The US has a lot of transport capability but to sail from the West Coast with 1 million men and all their supplies to then invade Germany head on into defences in depth? Not even the US was that capable.

 

Why should an invasion of Germany be necessary ?In 1940,the Germans expected war with the US ,such a war would essentially be an aerial war : attacks on the German cities .It is also very questionable that the U Boats could force the decision and force Britain to give up .

Whatever,the scenario of Britain (+ the Commonwealth) against Germany is very irrealistic:if the US would tell Britain : don't expect any help,Britain would give up :in the OTL,Britain continued the war,because it expected help from the US,which it received almost immediately .

 

From my understanding Churchill had his doubts about the War until the United States entered. He was quoted as saying, "So we won after all" when hearing of this.

 

I'm sorry, you're wrong. The Commonwealth would not "give up". Why would they? What could the Germans do, that would possibly cause British will (never mind Canadian, Indian, Australian, or New Zealand) to crumble?

They can't invade the UK, that's clear. While the UK is suffering from the Atlantic Uboats, it's the European mainland that is suffering more, from food shortages, due to the Commonwealth Blockade. They can't gain air superiority over the British Isles. So just what exactly are they going to do?

 

Any Commonwealth blockade would be limited as to its coverage. To guarantee Germany being cut off entirely they would have to blockade all of Europe including the German/Russian border region. In reality unless they would be willing to risk conflict their blockade would be limited to the the North Atlantic. Their is no way in hell realistically that the Commonwealth would try and impose a blockade on France or Italy when they are not at war with them, To do so would just drive more support for Germany and give them more enemies.

But to clarify, I am not saying that Germany could defeat the commonwealth or that they would surrender, What I am saying is that it was a lose/lose situation for both sides. No single nation on earth at the time had the capability to take on Germany head on via a sea born invasion. At least not until late in the war when larger number's of ships were coming off the line.

So I agree whole heartedly that the Germans would not be able to defeat the Commonwealth on a military term's (unless historically the U-boat war played out differently) but on the other end how could the Commonwealth impose a Europe wide embargo with out repercussions and still defeat Germany on military terms?

 

I was assuming a post-Dunkirk scenario... i.e. that Germany now has to feed France, hold Italy up, and desperately needs to turn the Med. into a lake. Germany's trying to gain air superiority over the Channel, and failing.

This is what I don't get. By June 1940, Italy has declared war. France is Lost. Norway, Denmark and Poland are long gone. Spain is Fascist, but undeclared. The Soviets have a effing pact with the Demon himself, and have gobbled up half of Eastern Europe, and brutalised Finland. The UK was not receiving any Lend Lease at this stage, but was paying Cash and Carry-ing, and Lend Lease was not even on the drawing board (passed March '41). The US was still very neutral. The outlook doesn't get any bleaker for the Commonwealth than now. If there ever was a time the Commonwealth was going to "give up" it was that Autumn. They didn't. They wouldn't.

It wasn't due to the existence of the USSR ("oh they might be real stoopid and pick a fight with their sole remaining trading partner"), nor "let's just hold out until the Americans arrive". It's "They currently can't really hurt us, but we can give them a bloody nose, and make sure the whole world knows the British Empire will not go down with whimper."

The Soviet Union could not adequately make up the supply shortfall throughout Europe, and Nazi brutality would always mean they'd be facing resistance in occupied areas.

The Commonwealth would be mad to try and invade Germany proper via the sea. But it'd be the death of a thousand pin pricks, the way the UK has historically fought wars. Diplomacy, alliances, "the Resistance", "soft underbellies" and by holding strategic strangle points. This allows you to punch far above your weight, and causes a lot of harm. Just the length of coastline Germany has to protect to prevent the Commonwealth from potentially getting a toehold somewhere is incredible.

 

Ok now that I understand what time line you are referring to we can better discuss this (I had previously been on the assumption Germany takes Poland, France remains Neutral while Commonwealth declares war). Since this is the scenario and their is no USSR involved can we make the assumption under this scenario that Stalin would not decide to just invade for the sake of it?

Under this scenario the Commonwealth is given a host of new options but also a host of new requirements, Same goes for Germany. Fighting would largely take place in NA, With such fighting occuring I see Germany having to decide with supporting a large scale U-boat campaign (that came close to winning) or supporting the Italian navy in operations in the Med. Which is more likely a cant speak of nor could I hazard a guess on how much fuel would be made available (with the army remaining at a stand still, No war in Russia).

Assuming historically that Germany lost the BoB then they would be down on needed pilots, Though they too would have time on their side to train new ones. This would give the RAF, RAAF, RSAF, RNZAF and RCAF time to prepare and even launch missions of their own (though limited, But still have time of their own to prepare).

US may still under this scenario sell 50 destroyers to the UK which would aid in the U-boat war, Depending on decisions about Med vs Atlantic the Allies could come out pretty strong or just scrape by.. Or worse comes to worse lose the UK as a main strategic asset (Wouldn't fall, Just less space would be available on transports for weapons with food being more required).

NA would so the brunt of ground, Surface and Aerial action. Who would win is open for debate, While the Regia Marina was strong on paper the radar and some of the commanders (Not all, They had some of the best) were not up to scratch. If the short comings could be solved then it could play a big part in actions against Malta, Gibraltar and the Eastern Med.

Surface action in NA I see as keeping to the back and forth occurrences, Even with more experienced generals in charge available to Germany (Rommel was good, But he excelled at small formation combat rather then large scale armies). Just too little infrastructure to utilize for continuous advances (Would they be able to build it up with what would be available? No war with Russia and all). As such the game changer would likely be the naval battles, Which ever navy could in theory harass the supply lines making the far forward positions untenable. Same goes for the Axis, If the Regia Marina loses then the Commonwealth navies could make their positions untenable and take NA.. So fight for NA and the Med is any ones game though for the Naval actions the Commonwealth would have a head start..

But for any Axis victory in the Med I see them having to divert resources from the Atlantic. Or vice versa.

For mainland Europe assuming the Commonwealth won out in the Med/NA (50/50 chance for either side) then could the Commonwealth put together a force large enough to take them on? Manpower wise? definitely. Equipment wise? Iffy. Financially? not at all. Maybe the Commonwealth could take Sicily, Norway, Corsica, Sardinia and other isolated Islands but for a direct confrontation with out the USN I don't see them having the force.

On the other hand Germany/Italy just did not have the naval or air power to win out either so again my stand is neither side has out right military victory.

 

I feel that Germany could have defended mainland Europe well enough to sue for peace. In hindsight that is probably what they should have done anyway and they would have effectively doubled the size of their nation.

But historically speaking I feel that Germany easily could have defended the Atlantic wall from just the UK.
D-day had the accumulation of both the UK and American forces and even that had a high risk of failure. If memory serves Eisenhower even had a letter pre-written taking responsibility for the failure.

That doesn't even take into account the fact that 80% of the German divisions were on the Eastern front. So you mean to tell me the UK, by itself, could have broken the (stronger) Atlantic Wall and invaded mainland Europe? Ridiculousness.

Germany may not have been able to take the British islands, but clearly when they decided to go into Russia they felt they could hold off any UK aggression from the West. As Von Noobie said, I seriously doubt England could beach the Atlantic Wall by themselves, let alone if it was stronger.

And this talk of Navy blockades is a bit silly. An Island Nation such as England requires imports to sustain itself. England could not blockaded Germany in these conditions. The blockade that was implemented largely worked in real life because of the American Lend Lease and the looming conflict with the Russians in the East. Without these, Germany would have all the resources of Europe for starters and could easily trade with the rest of Asia and the Middle East throughout the mainland. If anything England would be the one more hurt in the long run. They would have to rely on imports from North America, and their territories. But with the Atlantic Wall secure and no other conflicts going about Germany could easily just sit on their new european empire nice and happy, and wait out any kind of war of resource attrition with the UK.

To take it one step further, that would then put time on Germanys side. I feel they would quickly turn into a even larger economic industrial giant. And given a few years time could develop any kind of Navy or Military needed to defeat the UK. But by that point peace would probably have been established through treaty.

As whats-his-face said above. I don't know if any one nation could have defeated Germany, there had to be some kind of coalition.

Almost all of the situations end with Germany being able to sue for peace on some kind of favorable terms.

-England could never breach the Atlantic Wall by-itself.
-Russia fighting 100% of the German divisions with no Economic aid would likely fall.
-America would run into the same issues as England. However, I feel that with enough mobilization America could defeat Germany on paper, I don't know if Americans really "cared" enough to make the necessary sacrifice (millions of casualties). The government had a hard enough time convincing the public as it was fighting "europes war." The Europe First policy was largely to ensure Englands survival. If England was not in the picture... heck they probably would be more interested in trading with Germany.

 

The so-called "Atlantic Wall", never stopped raids occurring throughout occupied Europe. It didn't defeat the resistance, and it certainly didn't exist along the entire coast of mainland Europe, from Northern Norway, down to France, and then protect the Axis' Mediterranean interests from the RN.

You are thinking too immediately, and too short term. The Commonwealth had no need to enter mainland Europe, to be a beacon of resistance to Fascism.

At the instance I was speaking of, as I mentioned, at the very low point, the extreme Nadir; there was no lend lease. There was no indication that the USA would join. France had fallen. The USSR was in Cahoots with Germany. Yet LJAd blithely declares: "They'd give up." I'm sorry, but they wouldn't.

"All the Resources of Europe" is farcical, when the continent can't even feed itself properly.

Additionally, if you believe you can trade significant quantities of anything across "the mainland" of Asia minor and the Asiatic steppes you really need to re-examine a map again, and look at the lack of decent overland communication paths even today!!!

As I said before, it's definitely not a true war of attrition, as the Commonwealth holds the strategic strongpoints, and holds the ace in the form of a strategic arm, the Royal Navy. As long as the Commonwealth holds these advantages, the German advantage of a large land force is worth what? It cannot hope defend everywhere, and instead is nickel-and-dimed, loosing economically (maintaining a large army across Europe Entire, sure, that sounds cheap...) and failing to feed Europeans sufficiently. Holding both a strategic force, and the strategic strongpoints allows the Commonwealth to unilaterally decide when and where and how to fight. Not the Germans. The Germans can't do a thing, but bleed with each punch to the nose.

And you can't tell me that long term, a totalitarian nation of Europe, occupying large chunks of other European countries, while treating them like peons, and stripping their resources bare, utilizing slave labour is going to have a more productive economy, produce better goods, and have less self-centred corruption and a single purpose of mind, than the Commonwealth. Corruption and cronyism was rife in Nazi Germany. Any form of long-term static war, and it'd get worse, a lot worse.

The onus of forcing a decision, is upon the Nazis, not the Commonwealth. Its the Commonwealth, that can afford to bide its time. There is absolutely no need to rush in and invade the continent. Priority is to defend the UK, and the Suez. Bleed the Axis to death. It might take 20 years.

 

It is out of the questio,n that Russia would fight 100 % of the German divisions,and,BTW : it is unlikely that after Britain would give up,Germany would attack the SU .

 

The Atlantic Wall didn't need to really go to Norway. Norway had natural defences, such as rough mountain terrain, making her extremely difficult to assault. Nor would it be any easier coming up through the Mediterranean/Italy as proven in the real war.

To be honest I don't see why Germany needed to do anything after taking France. They should have called it a win and sued for peace. How can the UK embargo the whole continent? Is Europe proper that deprived of resources? I was under the assumption that the gas and supply shortages didn't become a real issue until Germany went into Russia. Wouldn't at this point the SU still be trading with them anyway?


From my reading Germany didn't really have a beef with England. They really didn't "try hard" to defeat them. The Battle of Britain was a major battle yes, but was nothing close to the effort and resources she put towards Russia. Germany let up on England because they really saw no need to continue with them. The grudge was always with Russia - from the start. My understanding was that they largely believed (incorrectly) that they had eliminated England as a sizable threat before moving East.

To go back to the post I put up the other day that you all ignored. Ask the generals of the day in 1939 about a conflict with Germany and France and nobody would have ever been able to predict the steamrolling defeat of France. A country that was on paper as strong if not stronger than Germany. It is hard to compare nations by just numbers on paper. For example, what if all the soldiers died at Dunkirk?

I think Germany could have won fighting a defencive war against pretty much any one nation. But fighting a Defensive and Offensive war against 3 world powers as they did simply over stretched them.

 

First, I was also basing my comments on France having fallen, so around 22 June 1940 was when I was considering Germany at her peak.
Second, as I said earlier, Germany did not have the capability to take Britain by seaborne invasion. It is impossible for years down the road if ever. Germany could not win, militarily. Then again neither could Britain, she lacked the capability to invade and defeat Germany on the continent, from a naval stand point, a military stand point or a financial stand point. She could and did raid the continent, but that is only a nuisance and has no long term ill effects. She could control the high seas against German surface forces, but was not strong enough to force her way onto the continent on a scale sufficient to defeat Germany.
Third, Britain, due to the cash and carry deal with the US was virtually bankrupt by the time Lend-Lease became law. In fact Britain's financial situation was one of the primary driving factors behind the law. How would Britain build the necessary strength to continue the fight, long term without the ordinance, munitions, supplies, oil, raw material etc. that the US had been supplying? Britain had been relying on US material support since 1939 when the Cash and Carry policy was adopted. US law forbade the extension of credit to belligerent nations, or the transportation of materials on US ships. So, Britain, cash strapped and unable to have access to the resources and industry of the United States would become progressively weaker as time went on. Since, her economy was also so dependent on overseas trade, the U-Boat campaign would have progressively greater impact. No shipping coming out of the US after Britain's money dries up. The U-boats can concentrate on the British Isles and the convoy routes from Canada to the British Isles. As the available fuel begins to drop surface fleet operations have to be curtailed. No US aircraft to assist in ASW warfare. No US ships helping to escort merchant shipping.
The OP's question was could Germany defeat any Allied nation one on one. I don't think Britain would have ever given up. Germany could never invade so they could not have beaten them militarily. I think that eventually a negotiated settlement based upon economic need would have been the end result of this matchup.

Again, assuming that we're talking June 1940, and France has fallen. Germany has declared War on the US. (Isolationist sentiment and really no need to do so because Germany couldn't really threaten the US pretty much dictates that the US wouldn't have been the first to declare war. Particularly, since in our scenario Britain is neutral.)
The US would probably invade North Africa in late 1942/early 1943 in order to establish bases. The US Navy would be strong enough to gain naval and air superiority over the Mediterranean by 1944. (Assuming no war with Japan) Invasions of Sicily, Italy or southern France would come next. They would be sorely pressed facing the entire might of the German military, but they'd have an advantage in almost every material category. August 1945 a B-29 flying out of an airfield somewhere the North Africa, Italy, Sicily or Southern France would drop an Atomic bomb on Berlin, the second bomb a few days later would take out Frankfurt. Germany sues for peace.
The big unknown here is could the US government gin up enough support to carry a war of this scale forward? Unless Germany actually attacked the US proper, probably not.

 

You know what I mean. If they had the extra divisions from the West. But besides that I think without the economic aid alone would put them in severe jeopardy. I think the extra divisions would have been enough to put them over the top. Or at least put it in the realm of realistic possibility.

 

Thank you. This is what I have been trying to say.
Germany couldn't take the British Isles but they didn't need to. England couldn't break the Atlantic Wall and was broke. All Germany had to do was sit on their new empire and settle on much more favorable terms.

The A-bomb throws a monkey wrench into any scenario with the Yankees. But I agree that I don't know if the American people would tolerate "Russian" levels of casualties required to defeat Germany on Europe proper. Like we said before the Europe first policy was largely to save England. The American people's beef was more with Japan.