Who Could Have Won WWII?

[Raellus]

Aspqrz, I can't tell if you're just trolling us here or if you really believe what you're asserting. If this is a troll, bravo- you suckered me right in. However, assuming that you are being sincere...

Originally Posted by aspqrz

The Germans had no way of defeating the Commonwealth ... no, their U-Boat Campaign didn't ever manage it, either, and it is wishful thinking to believe it could have ... the Commonwealth could not easily have defeated the Germans, either, however, as I noted, on a historical basis, the UK has taken on powers as strong as she is/was and defeated them even if it took decades.

Perhaps, if the Axis Powers just sat still and left the UK alone to do it, sure. When did GB test its first nuclear weapons? 1952. That's 13 years after the war [in Europe] started; 7 years after it ended. Could it have developed, tested, and deployed its own nuclear weapon/s under the constant pressure of a partial naval blockade and constant air and V-weapon attacks?

You also conveniently ignore the fact that UK had lost almost all of its East Asian empire by 1942 and did not have the means to both get it back and hold off the Germans at the same time. Without the Americans, could the British have defeated the Axis in the ETO and recovered its East Asian real estate?

As for your second point, past success does not guarantee future results. If so, every invasion of GB after the Norman Conquest would have succeeded.

I've read extensively on WWII, as I suspect you have too. I have never come across a single analysis of the war that even attempted to assert that the British Commonwealth could have won WWII on its own. Even noted British WWII historians like John Keegan, Max Hastings, and Antony Beevor concede that the UK could not have won the war without direct American intervention.

If your point is that the Commonwealth could have prevented its defeat without American help, then I concede the possibility. If you are arguing that the Commonwealth could have defeated the Axis Powers without American help...

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Perhaps, if the Axis Powers just sat still and left the UK alone to do it, sure. When did GB test its first nuclear weapons? 1952. That's 13 years after the war [in Europe] started; 7 years after it ended. Could it have developed, tested, and deployed its own nuclear weapon/s under the constant pressure of a partial naval blockade and constant air and V-weapon attacks?

Note where it was tested. Certainly wasn't in the UK!!!
Middle of Australia, Woomera to be exact.

Originally Posted by Raellus

You also conveniently ignore the fact that UK had lost almost all of its East Asian empire by 1942 and did not have the means to both get it back and hold off the Germans at the same time. Without the Americans, could the British have defeated the Axis in the ETO and recovered its East Asian real estate?

India was still in the fight as was Australia and New Zealand, not to mention South Africa as well as a number of other countries of somewhat lesser strategic importance (although able to supply troops and materials). Although at the time there was a great deal of fear that the Japanese would continue southward and roll over Australia and New Zealand, there was in reality little need for them to do that, nor did they really have the available forces anyway. Australia is HUGE. They'd need hundreds of thousands of troops to take it in the 1940s (more today with our greater population), troops they simply didn't have as it turned out.

With the constant threat of German aerial attack it's likely much of the UKs industrial production would be shifted to safer colonies (such as South Africa) with finished products shipped in via convoys. Eygpt and the suez canal would likely have become even more important with Commonwealth efforts against the Axis forces concentrated there while the UK itself carried out only holding actions to prevent invasion. Instead of D-Day landings being in France, the main thrust (when it finally came, likely several years later) may have been up through the middle east in an attempt to link up with the Soviets.

All in all though it's really impossible to say what might have happened, but it is foolish to say the UK would definitely have been defeated without the US.

Originally Posted by Raellus

If you are arguing that the Commonwealth could have defeated the Axis Powers without American help...

It was possible. Even with the multiple fronts the Commonwealth were holding their own using substandard equipment (mainly god awful tanks with underpowered guns and dodgy tactics). It may have taken a few years but the Commonwealth may have been able to strangle Germany just enough to force a stalemate, and eventually, after another decade or two, maybe even take back some areas.

It would be a radically different world that which we live in today, one I imagine would somewhat resemble that shown in the George Orwell book, 1984 with war a constant background and the people generally living in poverty.

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It was possible. Even with the multiple fronts the Commonwealth were holding their own using substandard equipment (mainly god awful tanks with underpowered guns and dodgy tactics). It may have taken a few years but the Commonwealth may have been able to strangle Germany just enough to force a stalemate, and eventually, after another decade or two, maybe even take back some areas.

It would be a radically different world that which we live in today, one I imagine would somewhat resemble that shown in the George Orwell book, 1984 with war a constant background and the people generally living in poverty.

My point exactly. And, to other posters, no, I am not trolling and the fact that Historians don't suggest that the Commonwealth could have won alone is unsurprising. Historians document what did happen, generally speaking, and shy away from explaining what could have happened except in the shortest of short terms, maybe medium term if they stretch it.

And, of course, many Historians, even respected ones, don't actually do a lot of (and, in some cases, any at all) original research ... they simply rehash what is available in secondary sources and seldom check to see whether those secondary sources are based on reliable primary sources.

This is one of the reasons why our understanding of the war in the East has so radically changed in the last quarter century ... decades of Soviet lies and misinformation is gradually being chipped away at by people like Glantz (good researcher, terrible writer btw). But even before that by people such as Barber and Harrison in books such as "The Soviet Home Front, 1941-5: a Social and Economic History of the USSR in World War II" and in others of their extensive writings on the Soviet economy.

Unfortunately, this material has yet to make its way into the wider historical context, especially in generalist histories and histories aimed at a non-specialist audience.

Similar material is increasingly available in specialist economic and historical circles that debunks many of the more ludicrous claims about such things as the U Boat campaign bringing the UK to its knees or that it could have defeated her single handedly.

As for the Japanese - well, as I noted elsewhere, the US and Japanese were on a path to conflict without the UK anywhere. If the Japs decided to steal all the resources they needed because of the US embargoes, they will, indeed, almost certainly go to war with the UK etc. Unfortunately, military reality, and their own unique and not entirely crazy (but always consistent within its own crazy logic) take on reality meant that, to take and secure the resources of Malaya, Borneo, the DEI and elsewhere they needed to take out the US forces in the PI. Which meant war with the US.

Now, if the US decides to ignore Europe and simply fight the Japs, the Japs are not a major problem for the Commonwealth for more than a year, maybe a year and a bit ... after all, as we all know, the US put 80% of its war effort into Europe and only 20% into the Pacific. If they had put 100% into the Pacific they would have swamped the Japs at least a year, and more likely 1.5-2 years, earlier ... though without the A-Bomb, of course.

And the A-Bomb. Tubealloys provided a lot of the theoretical and engineering underpinning for the US program on the, mistaken, understanding that the US would share the fruits of such ... so the UK didn't expend resources on it. If the US was not involved, then the program would have continued ... granted, much less quickly than the Manhattan Engineering District did, but I never suggested it would.

And, of course, I note you completely ignore the historical stick-to-it-ivity of the British Empire at war over the last several centuries and her ability to fund and pay off such wars within extremely short periods of time.

I just get annoyed at people trotting out 'facts' that are now known to not be such in specialist circles and pooh-poohing anyone who disagrees with those disproven assertions.

Not trolling at all.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

With the constant threat of German aerial attack it's likely much of the UKs industrial production would be shifted to safer colonies (such as South Africa) with finished products shipped in via convoys.

Probably not. The UK had large underground factory complexes for all sorts of things and, indeed, much of their industry was actually completely beyond the range of German bombers and more was beyond the range of unescorted German bombers (aka 'sitting ducks').

And, as we know from German experiences with the Bombing Campaign, factory buildings are easy(ish) to destroy, but the machine tools in them ... not so much. It was common for 'destroyed' factories to be back in production in days or weeks with, at best, only temporary shelter above the workers heads (if any at all) ... the Russians found much the same with the factories they relocated east of the Urals, they were back in production as soon as the machines were on firm footings, even in winter, and way before anything more than temporary shelter was erected over them.

If the Germans and Russians could manage it, no reason why the Brits couldn't.

Phil

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

And, of course, I note you completely ignore the historical stick-to-it-ivity of the British Empire at war over the last several centuries and her ability to fund and pay off such wars within extremely short periods of time.

No, I don't. I was simply pointing out the false logic of stating that GB would have won WWII alone because "it had done so before". First off, that is a non sequitur. Second, you overstate GB's record. The Seven Year's War nearly bankrupted the British government, leading to an arrogant tax policy which eventually led to the American Revolution and consequent loss of GB's 13 North American colonies. That's non an unqualified win, economically or militarily. GB's ultimate victory in the Napoleonic Wars (which, I might add, took more or less 30 years to complete) was at the head of a pan-European coalition. GB did not defeat Napoleon on its own, yet this part of your argument hinges upon that assertion.

If GB was so potent, why did it lose most of its empire after WWII? GB was in bad shape after winning WWII (with American help). It did NOT fund and pay off its defense spending from WWII (having received billions of dollars in Cash and Carry and Lend Lease aid from the U.S.) in an extremely "short period of time". In fact, it received Marshall Plan monies from the U.S. after the war. Its economy took decades to recover. If it was strong enough to defeat the Axis on its own, why wasn't strong enough to hold on to its colonies? Why did it struggle with years of post-war economic recession? Perhaps this is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument on my part, but I think it's a valid question, considering how capable, militarily and financially, you argue that the Commonwealth was 1939-1952.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

I just get annoyed at people trotting out 'facts' that are now known to not be such in specialist circles and pooh-poohing anyone who disagrees with those disproven assertions.

I guess I don't have access to the font of "specialist" knowledge that you apparently do. And I get annoyed at "special pleading" arguments. Somehow, mainstream historians have all gotten it wrong for a half-century and you and a few cutting edge historians in "specialist circles" (most of whom you neglect to name) have the [secret] knowledge that disproves years of careful scholarship? What "facts" that I've trotted out have been "disproven"? Perhaps I overstated the efficacy of the German U-Boat blockade, but what else? Where do your "facts" come from? Don't tell me they're classified or I'll know you're trolling.

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I guess I don't have access to the font of "specialist" knowledge that you apparently do. And I get annoyed at "special pleading" arguments. Somehow, mainstream historians have all gotten it wrong for a half-century and you and a few cutting edge historians in "specialist circles" (most of whom you neglect to name) have the [secret] knowledge that disproves years of careful scholarship? What "facts" that I've trotted out have been "disproven"? Perhaps I overstated the efficacy of the German U-Boat blockade, but what else? Where do your "facts" come from? Don't tell me they're classified or I'll know you're trolling.

Of course you have access to the specialist knowledge - all you have to do is some research and your local library will be able to get the relevant books through interlibrary loans. Me? I either buy the books (Amazon and Book Depository are great) or use Sydney University Library (where I did my degree, but I could use the Mitchell Library/State Library of NSW or even interlibrary loans from Warringah Shire Library, my local library).

I mentioned one book previously, by Harrison and Barber, but any of their books are worth reading.

Harrison's books ...

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ec...rrison/public/

... many of which he co-authored with John Barber (King's College, Cambridge, not London)

You can see a sample of his/their work at -

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ec...rrison/public/

... which has interesting tables from their other works, including those on the WW2 economies of the Great Powers, which is in and of itself especially interesting.

I have also mentioned Glantz's work which is more specifically on the Eastern Front but, unfortunately, not widely enough read because, as I indicated, he is a horrible writer. It is only in the last 5-10 years that more readable accounts of the Eastern Front and Soviet era misinformation and lies have become more mainstream in the hands of historians with greater communications skills than Glantz (one of my colleagues refers to Glantz's writing style as 'mere typing'). His works done with Jonathan House are the most readable ("When Titans Clashed" etc.)

For Bombing, Overy's 'The Bombing War' is showing more recent scholarship, and his 'Why the Allies Won' is getting somewhat dated, but basic still good (and readable).

Kershaw's 'Fateful Choices' is interesting, as it is about as close to a realistic assessment of 'alternate history' as a real specialist goes.

Blair's two volume work on the U-Boat War places a spotlight on the shortcomings of the German U-Boat campaign, supplement figures that can be found in Tarrant's "The U-Boat Offensive 1914-1945".

For overall logistics, look at Van Creveld's 'Supplying War', especially the last three chapters which are relevant to WW2 (East Front, Med, Western Europe).

To understand the political and economic realities faced by all major powers involved, and why the Allies (and Russians) had so much difficulty in matching initial German production, you couldn't go far wrong with Maiolo's 'Cry Havoc'

For the Strategic Bombing Campaign, reading the USAAF's 'Strategic Bombing Survey' with a critical eye, and looking at the actual figures presented which often belie some of the conclusions made then, and later, is always valuable.

I haven't found a single source that breaks down the various national contributions to Lend Lease and Reverse Lend Lease, or breakdowns of actual composition of Lend Lease shipments by specific type (most sources have only general categories and don't always even attempt to break it down by nation of origin), but if you dig around in a lot of the better Economic histories, you can find a lot (Harrison and Barber do deal with it in some places, for example).

As for Britain's stick-to-it-ivity, I haven't mentioned the books on the Napoleonic Wars, well, Knight's 'Britain Against Napoleon: The Organisation of Victory, 1793-1815' explains it in more detail than you'd probably care for, but any book about the invention of the National Debt/Creation of the Bank of England is also valuable (aka France lost because she couldn't organise herself efficiently to pay for the wars).

And that's just the stuff I can see from my Office, without going into my Lounge, which is lined, floor to ceiling on one long wall and a third of the other with bookshelves ... and without consulting the sheafs of notes I have taken over the years.



Phil

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Actually the British had done initial research in an atomic bomb in 1940 under the MAUD Committee and much of this research was given to the USA to help convince the US to develop atomic weapons. It was a joint British-American team that worked on the Manhattan Project.

The two nations had an agreement to collaborate on nuclear weapons after the war but the US was deliberately reluctant (justifiably given the circumstances) to share the information gained, mostly due to the discovery that one of the British researchers, Klaus Fuchs (a Jewish German who fled when the Nazis took power) was also a communist.
British scientists then built up their atomic weapons programme with little outside assistance to the point where they were able to test their first weapon in the 1950s.

If the British had continued their own programme instead of halting it to give their information and their researchers to the US, they likely would have had a bomb available to them around the same time as the Manhattan Project delivered its first weapon and possibly before.

For more information on how the US atomic bomb was just as much a British weapon and how the US froze out the British, refer to pages 24 to 30 of Between Heaven and Hell by Alan Rimmer
The specific pages can be read here courtesy of Google Books
https://books.google.com.au/books?id...page&q&f=false

[Legbreaker]

It's also worth noting the British had an aircraft more than capable to carrying an atomic bomb several years before the US - the Avro Lancaster.
With a payload of 22,000lbs, it was also capable of carrying nearly a ton more than the US B-29.

[Raellus]

ASPQRZ, you are clearly widely and well-read. I respect that. I too have a fairly respectable library of WWII scholarship. I have a degree in history and have taught it for nearly a decade now.

I've read some of the books and authors that you mentioned*. I will look into the ones that I have not. AFAIK, none of the works we have common experience with assert that the UK/Commonwealth didn't need U.S. assistance or speculate that they could defeated all of the Axis Powers without it. Apparently, we are drawing different conclusions from much the same information. Fair play there. I am just not seeing direct academic support- raw data, analysis, or synthesis- that supports your interpretations. I see a lot of picking and choosing of evidence to support your position. However, in my professional opinion, the preponderance of the evidence does not. In other words, I think that you are missing the forest for the trees.

But, at this point, I think that we are both beating a horse that is well and truly dead. I don't think either of us are prepared to change our respective points of view on the matter either. I am fine with agreeing to disagree.

That said, I'm interested in reading your response to my counterarguments to your allegations that GB had a track record of spanking larger continental powers (you implied that they did so on their own) and then quickly and easily paying off the financial burdens incurred during those wars. I cited two widely known examples refuting those assertions. I also mentioned GB's economic struggles during and after WWII- a historical reality despite substantial American material and financial aid, both during and after the war. Neither precedence nor the events of WWII support your argument that GB and the Commonwealth were ever in a position, militarily or financially, to defeat the Axis on their own.

I like speculative fiction and alternate histories as much as the next guy, but that's really all that this is.

*I am not sure why you keep citing Glantz. I've read several works by Glantz and, IIRC, if anything, he stresses the critical importance of Lend-Lease aid (from the USA and UK) in the Soviet Union both weathering the early storm and making possible its successes of 1943-'45.

[Olefin]

without the Lend Lease the Brits and Soviets lose the war - thats pretty much a fact -

however there is losing a war where you end up totally occupied and under enemy domination - and losing a war where you lose territory and resources and population but still stay independent

If you read what Hitler's goals were he never had the occupation of the entire UK and British Empire as one of those goals or the occupation of all of the Soviet Union

what he wanted was basically the European areas of the Soviet Union and the old German colonies in Africa

if that is what the UK and the Soviet Union would be trying to prevent then yes they could "win" a war against Germany and Italy and Japan without direct US participation as a combatant - however if what you mean by winning is that they defeat the Axis and they surrender that isnt possible - at best they fight them to a draw

and short of actually going to war itself there is no way the US ever would have switched its industrial production enough to give the Allies what they needed to win and actually beat the Axis to a surrender

however they would have given them enough to take the Axis to the negotiation table eventually for an armistice (probably like the one in Korea where the borders are armed camps full of mines and machine gun nests)

in that way the UK and Russians could have "won" the war without us - winning meaning frustrating Hitler's aims and surviving

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Raellus

ASPQRZ, you are clearly widely and well-read. I respect that. I too have a fairly respectable library of WWII scholarship. I have a degree in history and have taught it for nearly a decade now.

Double Major, Ancient/Medieval/Modern. 37 years teaching it. FWIW.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I've read some of the books and authors that you mentioned*. I will look into the ones that I have not. AFAIK, none of the works we have common experience with assert that the UK/Commonwealth didn't need U.S. assistance or speculate that they could defeated all of the Axis Powers without it.

Of course they don't. For the obvious reason, as I noted, that they are historians writing history, not alternate history. Indeed, when historians write alternate history it is (in my experience) almost universally awful.

However, they also deal in facts ... and, as I could point out (and as you undoubtedly understand), interpretation of facts changes over time, especially as new research brings new facts to light, or shines a different light on things that 'everyone knows' ... responsibility for WW1, for example. When I started Uni, pretty much entirely Germany's fault with a tinge of automaticity (train timetables) ... these days? Everyone's fault, with a rising tide of 'blame the idiot pollies who didn't grasp the seriousness of a potential war' ... which is, of course, grossly simplifying things to give a generalised trend.

The facts have, by and large, not changed ... and relatively few new facts have come to light, but reinterpretation of existing facts has brought forward several generations of revisionism.

ISTR some historian (forget who) making the lucid observation that the definitive histories of WW1/WW2 wouldn't (indeed, couldn't) be written for at least a couple of centuries ... and we can see the process occurring as I type this, almost.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Apparently, we are drawing different conclusions from much the same information. Fair play there. I am just not seeing direct academic support- raw data, analysis, or synthesis- that supports your interpretations. I see a lot of picking and choosing of evidence to support your position. However, in my professional opinion, the preponderance of the evidence does not. In other words, I think that you are missing the forest for the trees.

And in my professional opinion you are ignoring clear evidence as well, evidence which makes it clear that Germany, as a continental power, did not have the wherewithal to take on a naval power given that she had a clear inferiority in overall economic capacity ... in exactly the same way that Napoleonic France was unable to overcome Britain.

And, of course, you seem to be ignoring, or not grasping, that I have repeatedly pointed out it would not have been an easy Commonwealth victory ... but a slow, grinding, attritional one (at least until the Atomic Bombs start dropping from the Lancaster follow-ons in the early to mid-50's), and that the world resulting would be a very different one to the one that actually occurred.

I also feel that you are cherry picking your objections ... indeed, creating them where they simply cannot stand, as in the matter of Japan in the Far East, ignoring the reality that if they attacked the Commonwealth and her allies they had to attack the US. I am not aware of any mainstream historian who supports that line of thought ... unless they're conspiracy theorists.

Originally Posted by Raellus

But, at this point, I think that we are both beating a horse that is well and truly dead. I don't think either of us are prepared to change our respective points of view on the matter either. I am fine with agreeing to disagree.

Indeed, as I said to someone earlier on ... or should have if I didn't ... YMMV.

Originally Posted by Raellus

That said, I'm interested in reading your response to my counterarguments to your allegations that GB had a track record of spanking larger continental powers (you implied that they did so on their own) and then quickly and easily paying off the financial burdens incurred during those wars. I cited two widely known examples refuting those assertions. I also mentioned GB's economic struggles during and after WWII- a historical reality despite substantial American material and financial aid, both during and after the war. Neither precedence nor the events of WWII support your argument that GB and the Commonwealth were ever in a position, militarily or financially, to defeat the Axis on their own.

And I provided a source that shows your argument to be wrong, or at the very least not entirely supportable ...

And your reading of the 7 Years War and its outcome is ... unusual ... as pretty much every historian I have read on the subject makes the point that it led to British pre-eminence and France being reduced to a second rate power (or, really, finally recognised as such) ...

For example, British defence spending as a percentage of government revenue averaged ~70% or so (min. 62%, max. 89%) during the entirety of the 18th Century, while France managed only a max. of 41% ... reflecting, of course, the capital intensive nature of naval warfare ... and, yes, the Brits eventually lost the American colonies. So what?

They won the 7 Years War. They defeated Napoleon. They gained effective control of more territory than they lost in both conflicts. And they paid down the debt incurred in fighting those wars effectively ... as, as I indicated, any study of the National Debt plainly shows. They emerged as the pre-eminent world and european power and retained that status right through to WW1 (though, yes, WW1 showed that things had been changing ...). Aka, they 'won' despite the short term costs ... hell, despite even the medium term costs!

As far as a non-US WW2 goes, could the Commonwealth have won? Obviously, based on economics, the answer is yes. As I have repeatedly pointed out, and which you still don't seem to have fully understood, such a victory would have been neither fast nor cheap. Would it have caused economic stresses that could have had similar consequences to the American Revolution ... hell yes. Would that change the fact that the Commonwealth could/would have defeated Germany (aka 'won the war') ... IMO, no.

This is obviously where our main point of difference is.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Olefin

without the Lend Lease the Brits and Soviets lose the war - thats pretty much a fact

An interesting assertion not borne out by the facts on the ground.

Phil

[Olefin]

the facts on the ground are that without US participation in the war the UK and the Soviets in the end could have outlasted the Germans and Italians and Japanese but only if their populations were ready to basically face a very very very long war - and while that was possible in the Soviet Union it was not in the UK

dictatorships can harness people in ways that democracy's cannot - look at what happened to Churchill when he said we are done in Europe now we have to finish the job in Asia as an example

if it had become clear that Hitler was ready to leave the UK alone and sue for a seperate peace with the UK and you had the right political climate then its just Hitler versus the Soviets - and Germany's industrial base with no bombing to slow it down, especially of its oil production and the Soviets would not have been able to win - survive yes, win no

especially imagine how much difference it would have made in 1942 after Tobruk without the US ready and willing to pour in planes and tanks to save their position in Africa - something Roosevelt could not have done if he wasnt commander in chief of a nation at war

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You make a big assumption.
The British public would not have automatically said no to a prolonged war in Europe like they did for the war in Asia. The war in Europe had an immediacy for the British public that the war in Asia did not, the war in Europe was on their doorstep and it's highly unlikely that any population under those circumstances would have "just given up" the fight because it was going to last a few years longer than they liked.

[Raellus]

OK, Aspqrz, now you're getting nasty. I am well aware of historiography. You don't have to explain to me how historical interpretations change. You may have more teaching experience than I do (kudos to you sir) but you needn't talk down to me.

Since we're now cataloguing what our opposite is choosing to ignore, or "not grasping", let's list a few major points that you are ignoring or not grasping.

• GB did not win the 7 Years War alone.
  
• GB was on the winning side in the 7 Years War but lost her most prosperous N. American colonies in the balance, in large part do to mismanagement prompted by the massive debt taken on during said conflict. I'm referring now to the American Revolution. I understand that serious Anglophiles would probably like to pretend that it didn't happen, but it did.
  
• GB did not win the Napoleonic Wars on her own either.
  
• Oh, and she did not win WWI OR WWII alone either. You see a pattern here. So do I: Britain doesn't have a track record of defeated Continental Powers on its own or easily or cheaply.
  
• GB's economy was strained to the breaking point during WWII (6 years). She received millions of dollars (billions, adjusted) in material and monetary aid from the U.S. during and immediately after the war. GB's economy was depressed after WWII ended, for quite some time. This does not speak of economic strength or staying power. See my next point.
  
• GB lost most of its overseas empire in the three decades following WWII. As far as I understand it, this was, in large part, due to its military weakness and inability to sustain its imperial holdings financially.

Three of these four points, here repeated for the third time, put paid to your central argument that the British Commonwealth, on its own, could have won the war against the Axis Powers without American assistance, even in a long, drawn out conflict. I'm not ignoring or failing to grasp that bolded point. I just disagree with it, and I have made arguments against it.

Also, why did Japan have to attack U.S. possessions in the Asia and Pacific (i.e. the Philippines) in order to complete its conquest of French, Dutch, and British possessions in the region? You treat this as an inevitability but I don't see it as such. Would you care to explain your reasoning?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

OK, Aspqrz, now you're getting nasty.

Doesn't look that way to me. Perhaps a bit of a break from the keyboard is in order for all those intimately involved with the discussion?

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Olefin

the facts on the ground are that without US participation in the war the UK and the Soviets in the end could have outlasted the Germans and Italians and Japanese but only if their populations were ready to basically face a very very very long war - and while that was possible in the Soviet Union it was not in the UK

Another interesting assertion - one specifically at odds with the facts on the ground, both in terms of historical norms and immediate ones.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Raellus

OK, Aspqrz, now you're getting nasty. I am well aware of historiography. You don't have to explain to me how historical interpretations change. You may have more teaching experience than I do (kudos to you sir) but you needn't talk down to me.

I am sorry that you believe that I was talking down to you, as I was most definitely not. I was merely giving an example that is well known, and one I have had first hand experience of teaching, as an example ... nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Since we're now cataloguing what our opposite is choosing to ignore, or "not grasping", let's list a few major points that you are ignoring or not grasping.

• GB did not win the 7 Years War alone.
  
• GB was on the winning side in the 7 Years War but lost her most prosperous N. American colonies in the balance, in large part do to mismanagement prompted by the massive debt taken on during said conflict. I'm referring now to the American Revolution. I understand that serious Anglophiles would probably like to pretend that it didn't happen, but it did.

• The UK lost the North American colonies, some of them anyway, well after the end of the 7YW ... as a consequence, quite probably, but so what? I never said that there were none ... nor did I say that there would not be consequences of the Commonwealth and Russia fighting alone against Germany ... in fact, I alluded to the likelihood that the world would be a very different place.
  
  The fact is, the UK won the 7YW and came out of it better than their principal allies who were, at best, able to manage regaining/holding the status quo ante.
  
  As for them having allies, yes. So? Again, I never said that the UK could have won alone, and clearly indicated that it would fight alongside the Russians. As allies. Or co-belligerents. Or whatever.
  
  Also note that the UK supported governments in exile in WW2 in the same way as it fomented rebellion/alternative governments in the 7YW and the Napoleonic Wars ... something she has had a long historical track record of doing.
  
  

  Originally Posted by Raellus

  GB did not win the Napoleonic Wars on her own either.
  

  Oh, and she did not win WWI OR WWII alone either. You see a pattern here. So do I: Britain doesn't have a track record of defeated Continental Powers on its own or easily or cheaply.

  Indeed I see a pattern. But it is a strawman argument, I pointed out that the UK (assisting/assisted by) Russia could have won the war without US assistance and, at no point, claimed that it would be easy.
  
  
  

  Originally Posted by Raellus

  GB's economy was strained to the breaking point during WWII (6 years). She received millions of dollars (billions, adjusted) in material and monetary aid from the U.S. during and immediately after the war. GB's economy was depressed after WWII ended, for quite some time. This does not speak of economic strength or staying power. See my next point.

  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../8b/UK_GDP.png
  
  Despite the fact that WW1 and WW2 were fought almost back to back, the National Debt never reached the heights that it did during the Napoleonic Wars ... and was paid down to pre-war levels in 40 years after the postwar peak rather than the century it took to do the same after the Napoleonic postwar peak.
  
  Much stronger, in fact, than earlier.
  
  As for the economic assistance, yes, again, so what? The Brits suffered more relative pain during the Napoleonic period and took longer to pay the debt down ... and could have done so again.
  
  Note: This is not saying that it would be easy. Not at all. Merely that, based on their historical track record, it was possible.
  
  

  Originally Posted by Raellus

  GB lost most of its overseas empire in the three decades following WWII. As far as I understand it, this was, in large part, due to its military weakness and inability to sustain its imperial holdings financially.

Something that was known and being prepared for well before WW2.

In fact, it was known and understood well before WW1. Indeed, it was known and understood, but trumped by immediate jingoistic politics, as far back as the 1830s and pretty much definitively by the late 19th century.

It may, or may not, on a case by case basis, have been accellerated by WW1 and WW2, but it was a process underway even before them.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Three of these four points, here repeated for the third time, put paid to your central argument that the British Commonwealth could have won the war against the Axis Powers without American assistance, even in a long, drawn out conflict. I'm not ignoring or failing to grasp that bolded point. I just disagree with it, and I have made arguments against it.

Well, you've arguably put paid to an argument - unfortunately none of them are arguments I made, or they are based on assumptions that clearly were not part of the arguments I made.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Also, why did Japan have to attack U.S. possessions in the Asia and Pacific (i.e. the Philippines) in order to complete its conquest of French, Dutch, and British possessions in the region? You treat this as an inevitability but I don't see it as such. Would you care to explain your reasoning?

Easy Peasy.

1) The US was seen by the Japanese as a threat regardless of what was going on in Europe (you could argue that this was a complete misreading of the US and her intentions, though many historians would hem and haw about such an interpretation ... but that is what we know the Japanese believed).

2) Japan didn't have the merchant fleet, especially tankers, to do anything but the most direct route from the Home islands to the British and Dutch possessions ... which meant they had to sail close to the PI, which the US were seen to be militarising, and which militarisation was seen to be directed at Japan by the Japanese (again, you could argue they were wrong in that belief, with the same hemming and hawing by historians as mentioned previously but, again, we know this is what the Japanese believed).

3) Ergo, there was an imminent military threat against their plans on the part of what they believed to be a hostile power ... so, given the military domination of Japanese politics and the world view, correct or incorrect, that the military had, to protect their supply lines for the invasions and, then, more importantly, prevent interference with their shipping bringing the spoils home, they believed that the only option they had was to attack the US, take out the Pacific Fleet, take the PI etc. etc.

Was this based on crazy reasoning and false assumptions? At least partly. But, within their craziness, they were reasoning consistently ... ergo, unless you assume a US run by political and economic forces that are completely different to what actually existed then and there and also assume a sane, rational and logical (not to mention conciliatory) Japanese leadership, then a Japanese attack = the perceived necessity of attacking the US.

Easy peasy, as I said.

Phil

[Raellus]

I'm finding this debate rather frustrating. You're clearly an intelligent and well-read fellow. I bear you no ill will. This shouldn't be so painful, but it is. I was enjoying intellectual the tete-a-tete, but now I am not.

First off, I don't like arguing against GB. I consider myself an Anglophile. I graduated from a British secondary in Montevideo, Uruguay. I enjoy watching football (come on, Arsenal!), the Mighty Boosh, and Doctor Who (Tom Baker is the Doctor, for my money). I've been to England twice in the last four years.

Also, I'm one of the most reasonable and least jingoistic Americans on this board. I'll be the first to call out my country on foreign policy stumbles (I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the get-go) and regularly find myself as the sole American apologist for our biggest military rivals, Russia and China. I'm not trying to give the U.S.A. undue credit here.

That's just part of it, though. The other part of it is that it's almost impossible to debate someone who resorts to "yeah, so what?" as a response to legitimate arguments. I could just as easily respond "yeah, so what?" to your entire thesis!

So, I'll let you have the last word. This will be my last post in this thread. When your doctoral dissertation, How the British Commonwealth and the Soviet Union Could/Would have defeated the Axis Powers in Europe and Asia without any direct American Assistance* is vetted and accepted by the senior history faculty of a reputable university, then I will concede defeat. Until that time, "so what?"

*Although I am sure you will qualify your position again before then.

[aspqrz]

Just as, indeed, I find it disconcerting to have someone tell me that I am arguing a position I patently am not now, nor ever have.

Likewise I await the chance to read your doctoral thesis as well.

YMMV.

Phil

[Legbreaker]

I think this is rather telling. http://www.g2mil.com/thompson.htm

In the first six months of 1942, there was “an aggregate of 397 ships sunk in U.S. Navy-protected waters. And the totals do not include the many ships damaged. Overall, the numbers represent one of the greatest maritime disasters in history and the American nation’s worst-ever defeat at sea.” In return, the US Navy was only able to sink six U-boats! (During the same period, the British et al. were credited with 32 U-boat kills.) So dire was the situation that at one point General George C. Marshall, US Army, wrote to Admiral King to say “‘another month or so of this’ would so cripple their means of transport they would be unable to bring US forces to bear against the enemy.” Indeed, the Germans had a very good chance of disabling the entire US east coast, as Hickam told us, if only Hitler had permitted Doenitz to have the required numbers of U-boats, and the time to do it. If that had happened, Hickam speculated that the losses to the US “might have proven terminal.” During those deadly months of 1942, “The American Atlantic coast no longer belonged to the Americans. It quite literally had become the safe hunting ground for the U-boats of Nazi Germany,” said Hickam, with U-boats destroying US ships “just a few miles off Norfolk, practically within sight of the American fleet.” Admiral Doenitz told a reporter in 1942 “Our submarines are operating close inshore along the coast of the United States of America, so that bathers and sometimes entire coastal cities are witnesses to that drama of war, whose visual climaxes are constituted by the red glorioles of blazing tankers.” By the end of June, Captain Wilder D. Baker, US Navy, finally said something about his Navy’s poor showing in the Atlantic – “‘The Battle of the Atlantic is being lost.’”

Reading that it would seem quite possible for the US to have been knocked out of the war, at least in Europe, leaving the Commonwealth to go it alone.

A few paragraphs earlier it mentioned the Japanese never really bothered sending their subs to attack US shipping in the Pacific (even though the Germans constantly urged them to) and if they'd done so right from the beginning (December 1941), the US would have been extremely hard pressed to achieve anything there as well.

As I read more and more of this, which was written by an American using primarily American sources, the more it shows the US did not contribute as much to the survival of the Commonwealth as it claimed. I find one particular paragraph of great interest:

It is also ironic to note that the US Navy also apprompted or bought warships from Canada and the UK (including an aircraft carrier, HMS Victorious). This last comment is a minor, perhaps trivial point of course, but it, along with the U-boat hunting statistics mentioned above and the reality that Canadian and British ships had to escort allied shipping through American waters, surprises many who espouse the traditional “If it weren’t for us, you’d all be speaking German” polemics so often recited in certain lay circles. Actually, when the British deployed some two dozen ASW trawlers to the US east coast in 1942, the British viewed it as a “rescue mission.”

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'd say that what this really shows us, is that the reality is often a complex beast that few historians have managed to capture in its entirety. That is to say, there's a lot of events that have escaped general attention and even for historians and researchers, people don't often have a 100% full picture of the event.

For example, I've found in my own research on Cold War era military vehicles that many well known and credible authors have made some simple errors that should not have happened and the reason for this is that many, under a deadline, don't research the topic as well as they should and they fall back on earlier authors and the body of work they produced as the primary source material.

As an illustration of this, I have a book by Greenhill, a company just as reputable as Jane's Information Group. The book claims to list "Over 800 vehicles from 1915 to the present, every armoured fighting vehicle that has ever existed". Ignoring the bit about "to the present" as the book was published in 2000 but within 10 minutes reading I found at least five vehicles that were not even referenced let alone included and I don't mean such things as obscure one-offs from some design group in Nazi German.
They failed to list significant vehicles like the Canadian Bobcat APC, the Swiss MOWAG Typhoon or the US airportable T92 light tank.

The point being, they didn't dig deep enough and they instead used earlier sources that were themselves incomplete. They were then unable to present a full picture but they themselves were also apparently unaware of this lack of knowledge.

[Legbreaker]

So far I've spent about 5-6 hours reading through the thesis mentioned above and I'm still only about 70% of the way through. It's big and absolutely comprehensive covering just about every detail.
The more I read, the more I believe the T2K timeline wasn't just possible, but likely (with regard to naval operations). In fact it would seem the US navy would have been hard pressed to even achieve a result as good as they did off the coast of Norway in 1996 (virtual destruction) given the wide ranging failures of the navy command structure and absolute resistance to either change or acknowledging any problems. Anyone who raised/raises an issue it would seem is very quickly shut down an censured, their careers stalled. That is if they're not turned into a scapegoat and dismissed from service at the first opportunity.

The US Navy appears to have a culture of cover up. Lessons learned through experience are ignored to protect the careers of those at the top.

I STRONGLY encourage everyone to read it if they can (I know it's a big job, but well worth the effort).

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Tell that to the millions of people from many, many nations who fought and died there. To imply it was nothing but a "sideshow" is downright insulting!

So more people lost their life on the Eastern Front alone between 1941 and 1945 than the whole of Asia between 1937 and 1945, but we should ignore that fact and not call the war in Asia a sideshow compared to events in Europe as some in Asian might find that insulting. How insulted would the Russians be?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Threat to who? I don't understand this argument. It can only be valid from a very Eurocentric point of view.

Granted, the Japanese didn't ever really pose a serious threat to CONUS, but, without the USN to hold (and then push) them back, the rest of the Pacific world was in serious danger of Japanese conquest and domination. I'm that a vast majority of the billions of people in Asia would strenuously disagree with your "sideshow" assessment.

-

Not a direct physical threat to America at the time perhaps but certainly a threat to everyone in Europe.

In 1941-45 who was Japan's opposition in Asia? China, the British and Dutch colonies and dominions and America across the Pacific Ocean.

In 1939-45 who was Germany's opposition, and were the forces assembled in the Far East against Japan comparable to those assembled against Germany.

Did Japan compare favourably in industrial and technological terms to Germany? Was the Japanese Army as well equipped or as large as the German Army? Did Japan engage in the industrial scale murder of millions of civilians in Asia? Did Japan field jet fighters and ballistic missiles in 1944?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

And you miss the point entirely.

The USSR was able to produce as much of pretty much anything it actually did produce because they didn't have to produce a lot of the stuff that the Allies provided to them. They could survive Butcher Stalin's squandering of their manpower and still field massive armies because they didn't have to have as many factory workers as they would have required without Lend Lease.

It is widely understood by specialists (and, afaict, never mentioned in non-specialist works) that Soviet Industry was wildly inefficient compared to Western Industry and that the fact that they were supplied by Lend Lease meant they could comb out far more now redundant workers than the Lend Lease supplies actually represented.

The fact that they produced a lot of stuff is ... nice ... but irrelevant.

And a lot of what they produced was, compared to allied stuff, crap ... they had to produce a lot of it because it wore out, broke down, or was unserviceable most of the time.

Allied Tanks, for example, were operational around 80% of the time. Russian Tanks? About 30-40%. So the Russians had to field twice as many tanks as an Allied Force to simply have the same number operational.

Russian tanks wore out faster, too. T-34s typically went into battle with extra Transmissions loaded on their back deck because they were so unreliable and the MTBF of a T-34 was around 100 hours, or 250 klicks, before it required a major rebuild ... and after another 100 hours or 250 klicks it was more often than not uneconomic to repair.

A lot of Russian equipment was like that ... so if they produced a lot of it, that is not an indicator of the actual value of the stuff, or even how much of it was usable or survived the war.

Phil

So if I understand correctly you are saying that the USSR was only able to build so many tanks, artillery, munitions, aircraft etc in WW2 because Allied Lend Lease supplied them with everything else. Also unlike Britain for example the Soviets didn't have the specialised industrial expertise, machinery and tools to mass produce material that they would have needed to support themselves. Well if that is the case how come the Soviet Union was supplied with 10,982 millions dollars worth of Lend Lease and the British Empire was supplied with 31,387 million dollars worth of Lend Lease (3 times as much as the USSR)? Also can you compare the difference between the material that the United States supplied to the Soviet Union and the British Empire for comparison to support that statement?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

SMGs, Machineguns, Mortars, 25 pdr artillery. Ammunition and Artillery rounds.

Oh, and sixty Bathurst class Corvettes alone were built in Australia. Six Tribal Class Destroyers were built in Australia.

And we built RR Aero engines for a variety of, yes, imported aircraft.

However, we built around 700 Beauforts locally, too, around 400 Beaufighters, 700 odd Wirraway Trainers, 250 Boomerang Fighters etc.

Yes, not much in the greater scheme of things, but much more than most people, even most Australians, realise!

And rather more than you claimed.

Phil

Outside of small arms and munitions which almost every country in WW2 produced how much of Australia's war production was sent outside of Australia and the South West Pacific Area theatre?

I stated that Australia produced 16 escorts in WW2. I included the Tribal Class Destroyers as escorts as that is the type of warship they are; escorts to larger fleet warships such as cruisers, capitol ships and aircraft carriers; But on closer examination I overstated that figure. Between 1939 and the end of the war Australia only produced 11 escorts (2 Grimsby Class Sloops, 6 River Class Frigates and 3 Tribal Class destroyers, and one of the Tribal Class was commissioned in May 1945).

I didn't include the Bathurst Class as escorts as they were originally classed as minesweepers, later re-designated corvettes and then classed again as minesweepers depending on their deployment. Incidentally 4 ships in the class were involved in mutinous activity due to the poor working and living conditions aboard these vessels, a record for a single class I think.

The Bristol Beaufort and Beaufighter were British designs. The 700 Beaufort's license built in Australia used American engines. The 365 Beaufighters were only built from 1944, and the Wirraway and Boomerang used American engines.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by RN7

The Bristol Beaufort and Beaufighter were British designs. The 700 Beaufort's license built in Australia used American engines. The 365 Beaufighters were only built from 1944, and the Wirraway and Boomerang used American engines.

Although some of the Beaufort's and Boomerang's engines were built under license in Lidcombe NSW by General Motor's Holden subsidiary.

[Cdnwolf]

GODZILLA WON!

Can we now lock this thread?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

GODZILLA WON!

Can we now lock this thread?

I have a suggestion for you. Stop reading this thread.


Is it argumentative? Yes it is, (in the proper sense of arguing a point).
Is it polarizing? Yes it is.
Is it combatative? Yeah we've seen that too.
Is it divisive? No it isn't, not to the point of hostility.
I will agree that it has the potential to get heated and hostile but then so do many other threads were people argue from opposite sides.