[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

Germany wasn't at war with the Commonwealth, it was at war with Britain in Europe (also in the Atlantic and North Africa) and only fought Commonwealth forces who were deployed in these areas to support British forces. I doubt Germany even had any realistic plans for a war with the Commonwealth that was separate from plans directed against Britain.

]

That's an interesting ... assertion ... the Commonwealth Nations, Australia, Canada and New Zealand ... would have found it ... unusual ... as they believed they were at war with Germany as part of the Commonwealth (or Empire, or whatever you wish to call it).

Certainly Menzies made it plain that Australia was an integral part of it ...

Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that, in consequence of the persistence of Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her, and that, as a result, Australia is also at war. No harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make such an announcement. Great Britain and France, with the cooperation of the British Dominions, have struggled to avoid this tragedy.

... and the NZ and Canadian governments felt the same.

(Yes, I know all about the Statute of Westminster [1931] etc. But it is not relevant that the Commonwealth was in it under UK leadership)

Originally Posted by RN7

Britain had an atomic weapons programme but it wouldn't have independently produced an atomic bomb before 1950 without American involvement.

Indeed. If I had said differently, there might be some point to this statement. Sadly, however, I have never said such, so it is irrelevant in and of itself.

Originally Posted by RN7

How exactly would Britain have established air superiority over the English Channel and Northern France and Low Countries, and cleared German submarine forces from the North Sea, Western Approaches and North Atlantic, and then assemble an army the size of what was assembled during D-Day and then mount an invasion of Western Europe without the involvement of America?

Air Superiority over the English Channel etc. With the RAF, RCAF, RNZAF, RSAAF, and RAAF and probably the RIAF. As they did historically.

(Note: The definition of 'air superiority' is rather different to that of 'air supremacy' which is what I assume you really mean)

German U Boats in North Sea. Well, since this wasn't their prime operational area and was relatively shallow, relatively easily.

As for the Western Approaches etc. Clearing the areas of U-Boats is not necessary as long as you are building more merchant ships than are being sunk. Which, overall, the British Commonwealth was until the US entered the war and decided that convoys weren't necessary, and the loss rate went through the roof thanks to that piece of idiocy.

You might like to read about Operational Research and the weapons and tactics it allowed to be developed that nobbled the U-Boat threat.

And, of course, the allocation of more air power to LR ASW Patrols historically put the final nails in the coffin of any chance the U-Boats had ... and required 25-50 LRBs. Could have been done at any time, except that Harris was too focussed on the Bombing Campaign ... and, really, it wasn't desperately needed until the US stuffed things up.

And as for a land invasion of Western Europe with an Army the size of that which took part in Overlord ... where did I ever say that that would happen?

Or, to put it another way, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

I specifically referred to Britain's efforts in the Napoleonic and 7YW ... which were coalition building efforts, and were won as part of a British encouraged and often paid for coalition and where most of the troops involved were not British.

And, of course, since I made it clear that it would take much longer than with the US, the British A-Bombs come into play alongside with whatever coalition the Commonwealth manages to cobble together.

Phil