PDA

View Full Version : War Costs, who lost, who gained€¦



ARCHIE_CALVERT
03-09-2006, 03:37 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Probably the Accountants€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/AircraftImages01/WarCosts00.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/AircraftImages01/WarCosts01.jpg

ARCHIE_CALVERT
03-09-2006, 03:37 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Probably the Accountants€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/AircraftImages01/WarCosts00.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/AircraftImages01/WarCosts01.jpg

MLudner
03-09-2006, 03:47 PM
The world. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

danjama
03-09-2006, 03:49 PM
that just really hurts my eyes

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-09-2006, 03:57 PM
Suprised at how little Great Britain spent, seeing as she was on it from start to finish.

I'm not sure how those figures were calculated, and I'm no economist, but I imagine one reason for this was the remarkable cost-efficiency of British industry and production compared to many other nations.

Treetop64
03-09-2006, 06:16 PM
Ugly graphs, but they do the job in illustration.

Economically speaking, Japan was lost the moment she went to war with the United States. Big time.

I understand the dynamics of the strained relations and the situations of the time (not helped by the war in China, BTW), but Jeez-Louise! "Delusional" is the term that comes to mind when pondering the thought processes that led the Tojo government to start a fight with the U.S. at the time!

Mjollnir111675
03-09-2006, 08:37 PM
"I imagine one reason for this was the remarkable cost-efficiency of British industry and production compared to many other nations."

yeah and thats why they were borrowing everything from hardware to software, right?

SHORTBUS!!


Oleg: "Avenger IS new IL-2, Be sure!"

gx-warspite
03-09-2006, 09:09 PM
Uh, the Brits didn't "borrow" anything. Lend-Lease involved money. Not just islands and promises, but a lot of money.

The Brits also gave America access to such invaluable things as technology (jet engines), battlefield data, recovered German equipment, etc.

America, ultimately, made a ton of money off the war. Roosevelt's plan, in facy, was simply to stay out of it and earn money from the Brits, Chinese, and Soviets - until Japan invaded.

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-10-2006, 02:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
"I imagine one reason for this was the remarkable cost-efficiency of British industry and production compared to many other nations."

yeah and thats why they were borrowing everything from hardware to software, right?

SHORTBUS!!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Irrelevant, as I'm talking about per-unit production cost, not industrial capacity or industrial strength.

If you want an intelligent, informed and mature discussion, please take an intelligent, mature and informed tone, mmkay? I know that's expecting a lot from a computer game forum, so I suppose I shouldn't be *that* surprised...

SeaFireLIV
03-10-2006, 02:49 AM
Well, it`s pretty much accepted that for a winning country, Britain was crippled financially and never really recovered, although, morally they scored the biggest (standing out against the enemy alone for so long).

FlatSpinMan
03-10-2006, 03:21 AM
How come NZ (and India)came out on Zero alongside GERMANY??!! What did we do wrong?

GH_Klingstroem
03-10-2006, 03:28 AM
Uhm, I think we in sweden were the greatest winners! We were such COWARDS that we kissed everyones a*s*s*e*s in order no to step on anyone's toes!
So when the war was over and te rest of Europe was in ruins and trying to rebuild, we just continued as nothing happened. That way, we managed to become the 3rd richest country in the 60s-70s... But our very competent socical democratic government succeded in the difficult task and lost the advantage in just 20 years to have ended up as one of the poorest countries in Europe... Even Denmark and Norway, our neigbours that suffered in the war, past us years ago! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Muhaha but we still have worlds most beautiful blonds to comfort us...

OldMan____
03-10-2006, 04:45 AM
UK din´t had to spend nearly as much as Russia because ethey didn't had to rebuild a territory dozens of times larger than britain :P. Also measure the time Enaland spend on LAND war... air war and sea war are very small cost when comapred to tanks rolling upon your fields.

Also US is a special case because it had to make a last minute run, it was not prepared for war as europe was. Also WW2 for US also meant all the money spent to stablish a firm ground position all around world at end of war.

But they got rich because walf the world needed to be rebuild and the place to buy this was US

OldMan____
03-10-2006, 04:51 AM
Also look at last chart how much we from south america sent in help.. consider how "poor" we are and some people should be more gratefull for our attempt to help.

ImpStarDuece
03-10-2006, 05:24 AM
The USA ended up with more than 780 "official" military bases and/or facilities outside of the continental United States during and immediately after WW2. Its an interesting legacy of the war, an Empire accquired by default.

Aside from the obvious areas ceded by Britain and/or taken as part of the post war settlements, there were the base and all over the Pacific, there were numerous bases in countries like Turkey, Italy, Greece, Korea and through much of the Middle East. As of 2004, the United States had a millitary presence in 140 of 189 United Nations member states, with 'significant' military deployments in 25 of them.

luftluuver
03-10-2006, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
UK din´t had to spend nearly as much as Russia because ethey didn't had to rebuild a territory dozens of times larger than britain :P. Also measure the time Enaland spend on LAND war... air war and sea war are very small cost when comapred to tanks rolling upon your fields. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>GB was fighting a <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">land war</span> before the SU was at war. North Africa ring any bells?

OldMan____
03-10-2006, 05:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
UK din´t had to spend nearly as much as Russia because ethey didn't had to rebuild a territory dozens of times larger than britain :P. Also measure the time Enaland spend on LAND war... air war and sea war are very small cost when comapred to tanks rolling upon your fields. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>GB was fighting a <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">land war</span> before the SU was at war. North Africa ring any bells? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you want to compare noth africa with the patriotic war??!!! LOL. Just look at numbers of soldiers involved and lost. Completely different scale!

luftluuver
03-10-2006, 05:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
UK din´t had to spend nearly as much as Russia because ethey didn't had to rebuild a territory dozens of times larger than britain :P. Also measure the time Enaland spend on LAND war... air war and sea war are very small cost when comapred to tanks rolling upon your fields. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>GB was fighting a <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">land war</span> before the SU was at war. North Africa ring any bells? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you want to compare noth africa with the patriotic war??!!! LOL. Just look at numbers of soldiers involved and lost. Completely different scale! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You said the time spent in LAND war. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Not the 'expense' of land war. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-10-2006, 05:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Muhaha but we still have worlds most beautiful blonds to comfort us... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely! You could earn a lot by exporting those http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HellToupee
03-10-2006, 05:59 AM
suprises me just how much france lost, much more than GB or the US, everyone always saying they rolled over an all.

joeap
03-10-2006, 06:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
UK din´t had to spend nearly as much as Russia because ethey didn't had to rebuild a territory dozens of times larger than britain :P. Also measure the time Enaland spend on LAND war... air war and sea war are very small cost when comapred to tanks rolling upon your fields. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>GB was fighting a <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">land war</span> before the SU was at war. North Africa ring any bells? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you want to compare noth africa with the patriotic war??!!! LOL. Just look at numbers of soldiers involved and lost. Completely different scale! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He said BEFORE SU was involved, Molotov-Ribbentrop ring any bells? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AFTER, no question....

Edit: Not sure about those figures for casualties, didn't find the Soviet figures til I realized it was listed apart...sure the China figures are wayyy underestimated too...about 10 million is the figure I've seen.

But what is a few million here or there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Pirschjaeger
03-10-2006, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Well, it`s pretty much accepted that for a winning country, Britain was crippled financially and never really recovered, although, morally they scored the biggest (standing out against the enemy alone for so long). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

standing out against the enemy alone for so long

Um, Seafire, are you sure you meant that or was that a typo?

midgie
03-10-2006, 07:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
suprises me just how much france lost, much more than GB or the US, everyone always saying they rolled over an all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're confusing the gain/loss with how much they spent.

France lost 335 million from gold reserves because they were occupied by Germany who pundered their resserves. Compared with GB losses of 5 and US gains of 171.25.

However while GB spent 28 billion and the US 84.5, France only spent 3.75 because they 'they rolled over an all'.

midgie
03-10-2006, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
Suprised at how little Great Britain spent, seeing as she was on it from start to finish. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same point as above. Britain was the 4th largest spender at 28 billion after US (84), Germany (68) and Russia (48). Which when you consider their relative sizes wasn't bad going.

joeap
03-10-2006, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Well, it`s pretty much accepted that for a winning country, Britain was crippled financially and never really recovered, although, morally they scored the biggest (standing out against the enemy alone for so long). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

standing out against the enemy alone for so long

Um, Seafire, are you sure you meant that or was that a typo? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope so too, Brits always forget about the Commonwealth, and all the Poles, Czechs, Free French etc. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Plus there was a second seperate war going on in China.

panther3485
03-10-2006, 09:46 AM
Britain (with some help from Commonwealth, and small groups of others such as Poles and Czechs) was nevertheless effectively pretty much alone from about the middle of 1940 to about the middle of 1941. Roughly, one year out of a six year war.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

However, I venture to suggest that at the time, it must have felt like a very long year indeed!

Immediately following that, apart from the odd bright spot like the successful defence of Malta, there was almost nothing but bad news for the British until November 1942 (El Alamein).

And, while the Soviets had been 'on board' (albeit in desperate straits to begin with) since mid 1941 and the USA fully entered by end '41/beginning '42, some time would pass after that before the pendulum was seen to swing clearly back in favour of the Allies.

IMHO, this was from end '42/beginning '43, starting with Stalingrad, then the Axis defeat in North Africa, Kursk, Sicily, 'gearing up' of the combined Anglo-American bombing offensive etc.

Britain holding out for that year, when she could have thrown in the towel, was IMHO instrumental in helping to assure the Allied victory that came later. Depending on the situation, stubbornness is sometimes a negative quality, sometimes positive. On that particular occasion, it was undoubtedly positive!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

OldMan____
03-10-2006, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
Britain was effectively pretty much alone from about the middle of 1940 to about the middle of 1941. Roughly, one year out of a six year war.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

However, I venture to suggest that at the time, it must have felt like a very long year indeed!

Immediately following that, apart from the odd bright spot like the successful defence of Malta, there was almost nothing but bad news for the British until November 1942 (El Alamein).

And, while the Soviets had been 'on board' (albeit in desperate straits to begin with) since mid 1941 and the USA fully entered by end '41/beginning '42, some time would pass after that before the pendulum was seen to swing clearly back in favour of the Allies.

IMHO, this was from end '42/beginning '43, starting with Stalingrad, then the Axis defeat in North Africa, Kursk, Sicily, 'gearing up' of the combined Anglo-American bombing offensive etc.

Britain holding out for that year, when she could have thrown in the towel, was IMHO instrumental in helping to assure the Allied victory that came later. Depending on the situation, stubbornness is sometimes a negative quality, sometimes positive. On that particular occasion, it was undoubtedly positive!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best regards,
panther3485 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think overall resould would have been the same. If Uk had collapsed, this would be enough to gear public and politiocal opinion to US get into war even without japanese attack. Us would probably make a more direct and solid alliance with SU and Axis would loose anyway (against these 2 toghether... only godly intervention would change the outcome).

panther3485
03-10-2006, 11:14 AM
Hi, OldMan_

Quote:
"I think overall resould would have been the same. If Uk had collapsed, this would be enough to gear public and politiocal opinion to US get into war even without japanese attack. Us would probably make a more direct and solid alliance with SU and Axis would loose anyway (against these 2 toghether... only godly intervention would change the outcome)."

We are all entitled to our opinions, but I disagree very strongly and for what I sincerely believe are good reasons.

Had Britian come to terms with Germany in 1940 (which was, after all, what Hitler really wanted), the Axis would have had a completely free hand not only in Western and Central Europe, but also in North Africa, the Mediterranean and the Middle East. They would have consolidated their hold over this vast area and secured important resources, including vital oil.

The Soviets would have had to face stronger and better resourced Axis forces which, for a good time at least, would not have had to worry about diverting significant resources to any other front.

As it was, the Soviet Union was in desperate straits towards the end of 1941 and there is significant evidence that they came close to defeat, or at least to making serious peace overtures, which would have involved the surrender of vast tracts of territory - with yet more resources - to Axis control.

Under the scenario we are looking at here, their early defeat/surrender would have been very much more likely.

Without being able to operate from the UK as a base, the USA would have had the very greatest difficulty launching an effective invasion of a continent that was securely in Axis hands. [This is assuming the Americans would have wanted to intervene at all, which is questionable IMHO.]

And, even if the USA finally chose to intervene, it is doubful if they could effectively do so without at least 2 or 3 years of careful buildup, preparation and planning. This would leave the Axis effectively uncontested on the continent for a while (and therefore, temporarily at least, victorious).

Then, if the USA launched an invasion, the cost in American lives would have been very much higher and the outcome less certain. It seems improbable to me, that US public opinion would have sanctioned this, unless it was to thwart a perceived direct threat against the USA itself.

I hold the opposite opinion, about US involvement in Europe, if British resistance had collapsed in 1940. I strongly believe that the Americans were very reluctant to become involved in a European conflict and would have been even less likely to do so with Britain out of the fight. It is much less probable, IMHO, that they would go to a full-scale and very bloody war for the sake of trying to help the Soviet Union!

Far more likely, IMHO, would be for the USA in this scenario to ensure its own security in the West (which might involve eventual conflict, but not for some time), while concentrating in the short term on the potential threat from the Japanese Empire.

Under no circumstances whatsoever, should we entertain the idea that the outcome would have been 'overall the same' and I sincerely believe that the World would be a very different place today.

The Axis forces Generally, and Nazi Germany in particular, were far from easy to defeat. Even with the combined manpower, industry and resources of all the Allies (primarily, the British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union and the USA), it still took the best part of six years to beat them. In the process of doing so, around 55 million people died and 44 million of those were on the Allied side.

The Allied alliance contained three vital partners (listed in order of entry date, not size):

Great Britain and its Commonwealth
The Soviet Union
The United States of America

It is my contention that the early defeat or the non-involvement of any one of these three key partners would have made Axis victory almost certain. The partners may have varied in size, strategic positioning and the nature of their resources, but each one, in its own different way, was vital to the Allied cause!

It actually ticks me off a lot, when people try to suggest that we could actually have done without the efforts of any one of those three vital partners, to defeat Nazism/Fascism.

Although this is my opinion , it is one that I believe to be generally well supportable by historical analysis. Of course, you have the right to disagree, in which case we can both be civilized and simply 'agree to disagree' on this matter.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-10-2006, 11:32 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

OldMan____
03-10-2006, 11:40 AM
Of course you are free to have your opinion... everyone is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I like a lot this subject of what if "during war" would create. My point is, US was not unaware of the world situation, it was not in war because it would not be able to hold public opinion favorable to it. US would have its future treatned if it simply awaited. If soviet union collapsed.. no way US could win alone. Imagine if germany captured Su in 41, had 2 or 3 year to prepare itself... wow.. then US would be &$!@*$*!@.

Everything also depends a lot on when Uk would collapse.. in 40? first half of 41? Mainly because with England crushed, Stalin would not be fooled to think germany would wait much longer to take action against them. Do you get this point? This is crutial since it could change the overal effectivennes of first part of war against SU.


You are right that wihtout england tatics would need to be different. Probably a direct full help to soviet union would be best choice. Maybe even seding troops. Other option is trough north africa using Brazil as maisn operation base (they in fact biult bases in north of Brasil thinking that would happen).

Also they could use same tatics, but from greenlandattacking UK soil etc... (the tru impact of US air war was not really on german industry but on diverted resources and completely crippling their air force.

Also an important point is, how much of RN would germany capture?... if scutled or deserted (probably to US) US would still hold all ocean and would surely capture mediterran in not longe time. If germany captured most RN, then US would have a really hard time.

Probably war would be much harder, but I really think it would have same outcome. US would have lost huge amount of soldiers, but they could probably do it, at least if they made an war effort comparable to what SU did.

horseback
03-10-2006, 11:55 AM
In a general way, I agree with panther, but had Britain collapsed in say, September 1940, the building US-Japanese tensions in the Pacific and the still likely attack on Pearl Harbor might have led Hitler to declare war. If he were fully in control of Europe, North Africa, Arabia and all the attendent resources, it is unlikely that he could pass up the opportunity to attack this jumped-up nation of mongrels...

The relative threat posed by the Germans would have been much greater, particularly if the terms with Britain included turning over the Royal Navy's warships to the Kriegsmarine. Therefore, even with a two-front war, the US would have still have concentrated its power on Germany, with a MUCH greater emphasis on naval forces (and make no mistake; the US Navy was the biggest and best in the world even before the US entry into the war. The RN and IJN had their good points, but the USN got off to a flatfooted start and still kicked @ss after the initial setbacks of December '41 to February '42) and held the Japanese at arm's length until things looked manageable in Europe.

Hitler in control of Europe would have given Roosevelt much more political capital to work with, and I can't see us being as unprepared for war as we were with the British Commonwealth holding the line until we realized it was our war too. The moment Britain collapsed would have made it obvious to the most devout isolationist that we would have to, eventually at least, confront and help destroy fascism, or be consumed by it.

cheers

horseback

LUFT11_Hoflich
03-10-2006, 12:38 PM
Wow.. very, very interesting points of view.

Maybe If he axis powers had the control over alll europe and asia, and most africa, I think that would make AMERICA (I'm talking about the whole continent, not about just a country that happens to include that name) would be like GB, a big island united, maybe making a fortress of the whole continent, the whole continent has lots of resources.

My 2 cents, for which I was based in absolutely nothing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

H¶f... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

jarink
03-10-2006, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">War Costs, who lost, who gained... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say Northrop/Grumman made, and is still trying to make, quite a pile of money from WWII.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

panther3485
03-10-2006, 01:01 PM
Hi again, OldMan_

I do appreciate what you are trying to say, and some of your points are reasonable enough as far as they go, but I do not believe your overall postion is tenable here. (Again, my opinion, but we can agree to disagree if necessary.)

For a start, this is based on Britain giving up the struggle in the summer/early autumn of 1940. If they held out and made it OK through the Battle of Britain to October/November 1940 (when the Luftwaffe shifted the main emphasis to night bombing), it is hardly likely that they would 'throw the towel in' at that point and certainly not during 1941, when Hitler's attention had by then turned towards the East.

1940 was the critical year, when Hitler had to force a decision against Britain or start to lose his timetable.

For Germany, timing was everything. She was not ready to attack the Soviet Union before the Spring/Summer of 1941 and it would almost certainly have been too late if she left it until the Spring/Summer of 1942.

Hitler appreciated Britain's vital strategic position and he dreaded the propect of an Anglo-American force being launched from there at some future date. His plan, then, required Britain to be effectively 'out of the picture' before the end of 1940. The fact that he failed to achieve this would turn out to be the first serious setback to his dream of dominating Europe.

Had Britain been out of the war in 1940, the USA would, IMHO, have continued to adopt a stance of guarded neutrality vis-a-vis Germany. I do not believe the US would have made any large-scale pre-emptive moves in anticipation, as you appear to suggest. (Nor do I believe the US could have effectively done so any time soon).

If the US took the decision to intervene in force, it would take quite a bit of time to prepare and the defeat of the Soviet Union would most likely have been completed before the USA was capable of launching a successful invasion of Europe (which I don't think they would have wanted to carry out in any case).

The 'imagine if' idea you mentioned, of Britain out of the war, the Soviet Union 'down for the count' and the Axis with a couple or so years to prepare (at least) before any possible large scale American invasion, is in fact the very scenario I am putting forward. With Britain out of the equation, it would have been more feasible for Hitler to defeat the Soviets after one campaigning season (1941), before the Americans could effectively intervene , even if they wanted to! That is my point exactly!

In other words, Axis victory in Europe!

As for Stalin, he was aware that there would probably be a showdown against the Germans sooner or later, but he needed time to prepare and re-organize his forces, which, though large, were in a serious state of decay and disarray. The Soviet Union was embarked on a vast program of modernization, re-armament and re-organization but there was no hope of being properly prepared by mid 1941. Stalin needed one more year at least, so had to 'buy time' as much as he could. With Britain out of the war, it is likely that Operation Barbarossa would have been launched slightly earlier that it actually was (though, not too much earlier, for reasons of weather). Either way, the Soviets would have been woefully unprepared to resist such an assault.

Meaningful or useful amounts of 'direct help', of any sort, from the USA would have been highly unlikely, not to mention extremely difficult to achieve, and sending troops? No chance IMHO.

As for other points regarding Royal Navy etc, Germany would no doubt have taken such factors into account and Britian would have to satisfy the terms of the agreement. There is some evidence that Hitler had it in mind, initially at least, to allow the British to continue to administer their Empire, which would have involved some retention of Naval assets, but anything that could concievably become a serious threat would be excluded. In any event, the Germans would not allow a situation to arise that would impede or delay the rapid Eastern conquests that were planned. But even if RN ships were scuttled or 'escaped' somehow, it is difficult to see how any of that could have seriously hampered German plans for Eastern expansion.

Whichever way you cut the cake, no way could the outcome have been the same, with Britain out of the fight in 1940.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

johnbn
03-10-2006, 01:15 PM
My bet is Hitler wanted to kick the **** out of his Japanese allies for dragging USA into the war when they did.

I don't think USA would have got involved at all without direct action against them.(Thats my tuppence worth based on nothing but six pints of Stella!!)

Although there was some of the goverment of the time trying to help the Commonwealth and its allies, there was a lot of industrialist's making a lot of money out of the "European War"
and the horror of WW1 was still fresh in everyone's mind.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to badmouth USA here, there was a lot of Americans fighting the Axis powers long before USA entered the war officially.

Also the USA like the British Commonwealth was not really ready for war when it was thrust upon them. It takes a long time for countries to mobilise their forces, get industry changed to produce for war and get the populations mindset right for war.

Hitler was doing all this from the early 30's.

This really is a fascinating subject and time in history, just a great, great pity that it had to happen at all.

The foundations of ww2 were built in the armistice of WW1 when the conditions imposed on the German nation allowed crackpots like Hitler to sow the seeds of evil.

Ah well time for another beer!!!

OldMan____
03-10-2006, 01:19 PM
I just think you underestimate how much fear of a total germany domination would force US to move quickly. That is main point we diverge, I really think US would NOT accept an UK anexation by germany, it would for sure want to e on negotiation table when treaty was made.

MB_Avro_UK
03-10-2006, 01:23 PM
Hey panther3485,

Excellent posts. Well thought out and lucid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

panther3485
03-10-2006, 01:24 PM
Hi, horseback

I would sort of agree, except that Hitler's Declaration of War was only in very small part motivated by notions of supporting the Japanese. Mainly, it came because Hitler was thoroughly angered by the USA's continual and blatant support for Britain, while still professing to be 'neutral'. By then, he had also come to the conclusion that war with the USA was now not only inevitable, but imminent. It is as if by declaring war, Hitler was saying, "Alright, you bastards, now it's out of the closet!"

But with Britain already out of the war for more than a year, it is very doubtful, to say the least, if any of this would have boiled up in that way; the USA would not have been angering the Germans by supporting their enemy.

Hitler declaring war when he could see it as a 'fait accompli' is one thing, but he would be very unlikely to do so under this scenario, IMHO. In fact, quite the opposite. He would as far as possible try to curry good relations with the USA (while knowing that in the long term, there might be conflict with them). He would do what suited his purpose at the time.

Hitler in control of Europe, under these circumstances, would not IMHO have stirred any immediate aggressive reaction from the USA. Long term, a different story perhaps. But it would then be a whole different ball game and with no Soviet Union as such. Whoever won in the end, a very different World from the one we are familiar with!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
03-10-2006, 01:46 PM
Hi there, OldMan_

No, I don't think I've underestimated that at all. I believe I've estimated it correctly. The USA, while it may not have felt itself immediately ready for direct conflict on the distant European continent, by the same token did not have any immediate grounds for fear as such, but would simply need to be guarded and cautious for the time being.

Realistically, it was not feasible for Germany to carry an effective war against the American continents for some time. And in the short term at least, why would they want to? The Germans (from 1940) would be busy elsewhere for quite a while. Long term, of course, it might be a different story.

And as for the USA mediating in a treaty between Britain and Germany, sorry, don't think so! Germany would be 'calling the shots' in Europe and American 'interference' would not be accepted, nor could it be enforced.

But, like we've said already, we can agree to disagree, right? No problem there!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
03-10-2006, 01:52 PM
Hi, MB_Avro_UK

Quote:
"Hey panther3485,
Excellent posts. Well thought out and lucid

Best Regards,
MB_Avro"

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thanks mate! Nice to have one's efforts appreciated. But I've stayed up waaaaaaay past my bedtime and I'm exhausted. Will retire now and have another look after some sleep!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

horseback
03-10-2006, 01:57 PM
Panther (sorry, we seem to have hijacked this thread) I think you forget who the driving force for war between Hitler's Germany and the USA was. it wasn't Churchill. FDR was personally very supportive of Great Britain and France from the very start, and he would have used the collapse of Britain to energize an anti-fascist sentiment and rearmament. We had received a great deal of intelligence and technology before the Battle of Britain, and I suspect that if defeat seemed imminent, Churchill might well have sent as much and as many key technologies, scientists and persons with special skills to Canada and the US as he could manage.

Roosevelt would not have hesitated to make full use of these things to strengthen the military or to use the propaganda opportunities that Germans' behavior in their occupied territories would give him. Any news of how the Germans were behaving in occupied territories would have provoked the average American with family ties in those territories (and that would have been most of them).

The collapse of Britain would have signalled the start of the race for America to gear up fully for war before the Germans could digest their conquests and develop the reach necessary to wage war against us, and it would have been obvious to almost anyone in the western hemisphere who was willing to pay attention.

Hitler would have been feeling just as harassed, poked and prodded by the time the Japanese Empire got around to starting something with the US in the Pacific. Having the full resources of Europe at hand and a string of victories, even while fully involved in a fight to the death with the USSR I would expect him to jump the gun and declare war too early.

cheers

horseback

shotdownski
03-10-2006, 02:12 PM
Who profited? The following regards WW I, I suspect the pattern continued...

War is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War (WW I) a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few €" the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits €" ah! that is another matter €" twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent €" the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.

Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket €" and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people €" didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump €" or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.

For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.

Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.

And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public €" even before a Senate investigatory body.

But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.

Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought €" and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.

Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 €" count them if you live long enough €" was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.

There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.


From "War is a Racket" by Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, US Marine who received two Medals of Honor for separate acts of outstanding heroism.

Ernst_Rohr
03-10-2006, 02:16 PM
Interesting thread, interesting to see folks perceptions.

Couple of things to point out though;

The UK was still an "empire" at this point in time. Canada, South Africa, Australia were Commonwealth countries, but India, the British possessions in Africa, and the Pacific were not. The biggest GDP pre-war was the UK, and by a long ways. Economically, the UK was the pre-war powerhouse.

The downside for the UK was the fact that this economic empire was based on a geographically vast area, and lived on maritime trade. A good portion of British trade also relied on foreign shipping, since the UK didnt have enough native capacity to fulful demand.

The UK was also suffering due to the effects of the depression. The UK was the major player in the world of international finance and banking, as well as insurance. They took a serious hit as a result of the depression, and they lost a signifigant amount of capital when some of their investments overseas went bust.

The same time that was happening, they were also shelling out a fair amount of money to first supress a rebellion in Ireland, then paying out large sums to cover the upheaval surrounding the end of the Anglo-Irish war and the subsequent formation of the Irish Republic and the seperation of Northern Ireland. Then scrambling to make up for the losses in the agriculture market after the Irish Republic formed and several major landholders in Ireland lost property. (Churchill incidently hated the Irish, and resented the hell out of the Republic. He actually discussed invading the Irish Republic, but it was more fantasy than reality.)

On top of that, there was rumblings of disconent in Egypt and India at the same time. The UK had tried to make up for some of their economic losses by squeezing the colonies, India in particular, and it was causing a great deal of unrest. Particularly after the 1919 Jallianwalla Bagh massacre, where British troops had fired on Indian civilians, India had become increasingly restless. The British response had been to send more troops (which incidently probably helped save India from Japanese occupation) to keep order. (As a sidenote: the problems in India continued through WW2, there was actually a famine in Bengal in 1942, where approximately 1 to 3 million people died of starvation, exacerbated by British handling of food stocks)

Basically, the UK just didnt have the cash reserves to spend on WW2. It had already been spent, or been spoken for. Economically, the UK was in a pretty precarious spot fiscally when the war broke out. This fiscal crisis was also one of the reason that the military was stretched so thin, the previous administrations had been levelling off forces, reasoning that their wasnt any real reason to keep standing troops in Europe.

So, in context, wartime spending in the UK was even more severe on their economy that is actually represented, and one of the reasons that recovery after the war took so long. In terms of privation, only Russia exceeded them. Even Germany continued to spend large sums on consumer goods a resources, all the way up till 1943, when the truly began running a "wartime" economy.

Particularly, when you look at the primary British military arm at the start of the war (the Royal Navy), the war wasnt going well at all from 39 to 41. These losses were mirrored in the British Army and the RAF after the fall of Norway and France, in both cases, the British military lost a great deal of equipment.

British naval losses from 39 to 41 were signifigant:
BB/BC: 5
CV: 4

danjama
03-10-2006, 02:18 PM
Alot of ****** have shown themselves in this thread. I dont know why im so surprised. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

OldMan____
03-10-2006, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Panther (sorry, we seem to have hijacked this thread) I think you forget who the driving force for war between Hitler's Germany and the USA was. it wasn't Churchill. FDR was personally very supportive of Great Britain and France from the very start, and he would have used the collapse of Britain to energize an anti-fascist sentiment and rearmament. We had received a great deal of intelligence and technology before the Battle of Britain, and I suspect that if defeat seemed imminent, Churchill might well have sent as much and as many key technologies, scientists and persons with special skills to Canada and the US as he could manage.

Roosevelt would not have hesitated to make full use of these things to strengthen the military or to use the propaganda opportunities that Germans' behavior in their occupied territories would give him. Any news of how the Germans were behaving in occupied territories would have provoked the average American with family ties in those territories (and that would have been most of them).

The collapse of Britain would have signalled the start of the race for America to gear up fully for war before the Germans could digest their conquests and develop the reach necessary to wage war against us, and it would have been obvious to almost anyone in the western hemisphere who was willing to pay attention.

Hitler would have been feeling just as harassed, poked and prodded by the time the Japanese Empire got around to starting something with the US in the Pacific. Having the full resources of Europe at hand and a string of victories, even while fully involved in a fight to the death with the USSR I would expect him to jump the gun and declare war too early.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that is the vision I have (and several history annalysts as well). FDR would not just sit and see Hitler total domination.

Xiolablu3
03-10-2006, 03:56 PM
After taking the moral high ground and defeating the 'evil occupying aggressor' Britian had no choice but to give the countries back it had 'stolen' during its Empire days.

It would have ben hypocritical not to and quite right too.

The only bad thing I have to say is abot people who complain when people from former countries in teh Empire want to come and live here and 'pure British' people get upset. Britian was built on Indian wealth and that of many other empire countries, its only fair that these people share in its gains today.

horseback
03-10-2006, 04:20 PM
Oldman__ wrote:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">that is the vision I have (and several history annalysts as well). FDR would not just sit and see Hitler total domination. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Must say that it feels a little strange to have you agreeing with me on any subject, Oldman. Still, the endorsement is nice, and I'm sure we are both reassured about each other's intellectual honesty.

I should also have pointed out that the Germans were working under severe manpower constraints as it was; I shudder to think what their problems would have been trying to absorb the Royal navy's best ships (but NOT their sailors-reliability, don't you know) into the Kreigsmarine, while the USN would have already had a significant ability to project its power into Axis territories and would have been rapidly expanding upon that.

As an aside, Xiolablu3, I think that the objection of the native British to immigration from the former countries of the Commonwealth is not so much to the people (or their races), but to their general failure/refusal to assimilate. Like some immigrant groups in the US, they seem to the native born to taking part of rather than part in the fruits of English speaking democracy.

cheers

horseback

panther3485
03-10-2006, 06:30 PM
Hi there, horseback

Quote:
"Panther (sorry, we seem to have hijacked this thread) I think you forget who the driving force for war between Hitler's Germany and the USA was. it wasn't Churchill. FDR was personally very supportive of Great Britain and France from the very start, and he would have used the collapse of Britain to energize an anti-fascist sentiment and rearmament. We had received a great deal of intelligence and technology before the Battle of Britain, and I suspect that if defeat seemed imminent, Churchill might well have sent as much and as many key technologies, scientists and persons with special skills to Canada and the US as he could manage."

Er, no, I didn't forget FDR's role here. But the idea that he would have used Britain's fall in precisely that way, and to such effect, is not only speculative. It is highly optimistic. Also, the sending of key personnel etc to the USA preceding a British collapse might have a helpful long-term effect, but could hardly influence short-term events.

"Roosevelt would not have hesitated to make full use of these things to strengthen the military or to use the propaganda opportunities that Germans' behavior in their occupied territories would give him. Any news of how the Germans were behaving in occupied territories would have provoked the average American with family ties in those territories (and that would have been most of them)."

News of German behaviour in occupied territories would eventually have its effects, but again, not quickly enough to stop the Soviet Union from falling first, or to stop the Axis from consolidating their grip on Europe.

"The collapse of Britain would have signalled the start of the race for America to gear up fully for war before the Germans could digest their conquests and develop the reach necessary to wage war against us, and it would have been obvious to almost anyone in the western hemisphere who was willing to pay attention."

Yes, it would have given the USA warning of the need to gear up for war, but again, not to immediate short-term effect and certainly not sufficient to enable rapid response to the conquest of Europe. The Germans would have time to consolidate their conquests before there was any serious counter-threat from the USA. The long-term Axis threat against the USA itself would be a different matter and the Americans would have time to prepare for that.

"Hitler would have been feeling just as harassed, poked and prodded by the time the Japanese Empire got around to starting something with the US in the Pacific. Having the full resources of Europe at hand and a string of victories, even while fully involved in a fight to the death with the USSR I would expect him to jump the gun and declare war too early."

First, the 'fight to the death' with the Soviets would very likely be all but over by the beginning of 1942. Second, there is no evidence to suggest that Hitler would have been feeling any such thing, were the USA not helping Britain. Your expectation that he would 'jump the gun' by declaring war, in such a scenario, is wildly optimistic IMHO.

In fact, this whole viewpoint, IMHO, is based more on hindsight about the Third Reich and what some people believe the USA 'should' have done based on such hindsight, rather than a realistic appraisal of what the USA most likely would have done in reality.

As I said, just my opinion but I strongly believe it's a well thought out one, based on reasonable historical analysis. Nothing has been convincingly put forward yet, on this thread, to prompt a change of mind. But if somebody comes up with something convincing, my mind is open to persuasion.

Nevertheless, regardless of such details, it remains self-evident IMHO, that the course and outcome of WW2 must of necessity have been very different with Britain dropping out in 1940!

But in the meantime, we too can agree to differ on this, of course.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-10-2006, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and I suspect that if defeat seemed imminent, Churchill might well have sent as much and as many key technologies, scientists and persons with special skills to Canada and the US as he could manage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This actually happened, to an extent - Britain shared a lot of its technology and reasearch with the US, including work on jet engines and radar

http://www.warbirdforum.com/whittle.htm

horseback
03-10-2006, 07:21 PM
Panther

Not being optimistic at all about US public opinion at the beginning of WWII. After all, my parents, both sets of grandparents and aunts & uncles were there at the time (and all of my uncles on both sides of the family had already volunteered and were serving in the Navy at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack), and I have had several discussions with them about these very subjects. I've also had the opportunity to read a great many books and contemporary articles from that time before the US entry into war, and a very pro-Allied attitude is evident, although the assumption is usually made that it (Fascism) couldn't happen here, and that it was a European issue, none of our business, at least not worth spending our sons on (with the implied "again").

My reading of a number of historians makes it clear to me that FDR was doing his level best to get the American people over the bad taste WWI had left in their mouths (both of my grandfathers had served in France in the Great War and the one who was in the Flying Service heartily despised the French and the one who fought in the trenches had nothing but contempt for the British upper classes) and prepared for the inevitable war with fascism.

If anything, I believe that you are optimistic about the Germans' ability to capitalize quickly on their acquisitions in Europe; I can't picture them being able to motivate the conquered workers to anything like German efficiency for some time (much less to wartime British efficiencies). In fact, I think that they would have experienced some real problems with corruption and sabotage (as they did). A great deal of manpower would be tied up in occupation, the German public would have been reluctant to work harder without an obvious threat on the horizon, and Hitler's thugs would have continued to screw the military over even more than they did in RL.

Meanwhile FDR could have more easily rallied a rapid turnaround of US production to a war footing.

Again, the advantage goes to the country with the longest reach, and with the US Navy already the world's foremost at the time of the invasion of Poland (bigger than the Royal Navy, far bigger than the IJN although slightly less good on a ship to ship basis until 1943), I don't see a relatively poor country like 1940 Germany was able to mobilize industrially on the same scale or pace that the much larger & more populous United States could. The first thing FDR would do is pump out more ASW ships to keep Hitler at arm's length.

Hitler would need to either acquire allies in this hemisphere (and you thought that the Italians were ineffectual allies? Wait 'til you try Mexico or Venezuela), or build a few more aircraft carriers and develop a naval aviation arm (much more easily said than done) to man them. They'd need something other than the 109T for a fighter force (the 109T was still far more fragile and even less suited for combat carrier ops than the Seafire), and I suspect that the Stuka would be less effective (and survivable) than the SBD. Throw in the Avenger, and German surface fleets are in very deep kimchi.

Especially while fighting the Soviets. I don't see Hitler being any more successful longterm against the Russians even without British hindrance (and that's all it was from 1940- early '43). In fact, I believe that the cost in manpower and war materials of conquering and occupying Britain might have delayed Barbarossa and given Stalin some useful breathing room.

WWII as it actually occured was earmarked by German blunders and Japanese miscalculations, not all of them due to some Allied influence. I just can't picture Hitler and his cronies becoming more competent in an alternate universe just because they got lucky with the Battle of Britain.

cheers

horseback

HellToupee
03-10-2006, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by midgie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
suprises me just how much france lost, much more than GB or the US, everyone always saying they rolled over an all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're confusing the gain/loss with how much they spent.

France lost 335 million from gold reserves because they were occupied by Germany who pundered their resserves. Compared with GB losses of 5 and US gains of 171.25.

However while GB spent 28 billion and the US 84.5, France only spent 3.75 because they 'they rolled over an all'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also death loss rates i belive are there at 600,000 much more than gb or US.

panther3485
03-10-2006, 10:44 PM
Hi again, horseback

Obviously we are not going to agree on this at all and, like the true gentlemen we undoubtedly both are, we shall have to agree to disagree. IMHO, your analysis of the situation contains some serious flaws and misplaced assumptions. Not intended as a put-down by any means; simply my honest opinion and you are of course entitled to yours, if you think I'm talking garbage!

A few points:

My reading of the evidence shows me that US public opinion at the beginning of WW2 was predominantly anti-involvement or at best, in some cases, ambivalent. The 'pro-allied' sentiments you speak of (if that meant joining Britain in a war against Germany in 1940 or 1941), if spoken of today, would likely be more retrospective than anything else, in light of hindsight re subsequent events.

At the time, IMHO, it was a very different story, despite Churchill's desire to bring the USA into the war and Roosevelt's sympathy for the British cause. Most Americans were happy with the British getting some support but few would have wanted to go to the extent of full-scale US involvement. US sympathies, such as they were, did not generally translate to widespread acceptance of direct involvement in a European war. (Though, the more realistic Americans would have realized it was likely in the long term). Pearl Harbor just hurried things along.

What you perceive as my 'optimism' about German conquests is based on their near unstopability in Blitzkrieg warfare and the fact that they gave every land-based opponent, regardless of size, a good hiding almost to the end of 1941, then after a brief setback did it again well into 1942. They would not have needed to fully 'capitalize' on their gains; merely to consolidate them enough to make re-taking the continent very bloody difficult (and it was difficult enough as it happened in 1944, with decisive air superiority and using Britain as the springboard - this alternate scenario would be much harder).

I have already explained how the absense of British influence and military power would have allowed the Axis to conquer or control all of the key regions they wanted in Western and Central Europe (most of which they held or controlled already), together with North Africa, the Med and substantial portions of the Middle East. The chances of the Soviet Union falling or seeking terms by the end of '41 would have been so much greater in this scenario.

Regardless of the stance taken by the USA, the Axis would be uncontested masters of the whole continent, with no effective opposition, well before there was any real prospect of a successful invasion from America.

The 'long reach' power, manpower and industrial might of the USA, if stimulated in the way you suggest, would certainly add stronger deterrent to Germany from aggression against the Americans, and help to assure US security while they dealt with Japanese expansion.

But in the short term, and without reasonable time for preparation and build-up, there would IMHO still not be any prospect of an effective US intervention in Europe for at least a couple of years. Sufficient time for the Axis to consolidate their gains and make any potential invader pay a very high price in blood.

Hitler would not really need Allies anywhere in the Americas unless he intended to prosecute an aggressive war against the USA - something that would not have been on the cards for quite some time.

Also, you appear to have misunderstood my proposed scenario vis-a-vis the 'conquest' of Britain. This is not what I'm saying at all. I was talking about Britain coming to the negotiating table without the need for German invasion (merely a strongly perceived threat of impending invasion, following defeat of the RAF). This is a fairly plausible scenario if the Battle of Britain had been lost. Hitler did not want to invade/conquer Britain. He just wanted Britain to quit on terms that would give him a completely free hand on the continent. This might have been achieved, had the British lost BoB.

Barbarossa would then have been launched slightly sooner, definitely not later.

If you can't see how all of this would have made defeat of the Soviet Union more likely, then you just haven't been paying attention. Hitler and his cronies would not have needed to be 'more competent' than they were. The windfall benefits from Britain quitting in 1940 would have been more than enough to swing a very high probability of Axis victory throughout all of Europe by the end of 1941.

The Americans would then have had a much more difficult time trying to re-take Europe, had they chosen to do so (which is far from certain IMHO).

Once again, I emphasize that this is just my opinion, but one that is well founded, not just on my analysis but that of a good number of historians around the World.

Nevertheless, I respect the fact that you have a different view, for reasons you hold to be just as valid. No problem there, mate!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

And, as said before, if somebody on this thread (or anywhere else) comes up with convincing evidence or arguments to the contrary, I am more than happy to reconsider my opinion. With all due respect, IMHO, nobody has done that yet.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


All the best,
panther3485

OldMan____
03-11-2006, 09:44 AM
No one will present proofs because war happened only one way :P


But there are many historians that suport theidea that Soviet Union would be better prepared in this scenario. Why? URSS was tryng to maximize time to war, so much that they even didn´t intercepted air incursions, didn´t made troops movements or even put them on defensive positioning while gemany was stockpiling on their frontier. That is becaus ethey were expecting Germany to attack only after Critain defeat. IF britain collapsed on 40, Sovets would be PRETTY sure that summer 41 would be THE FIRST DAY of their war.

On the other hand the support UK was able to give to SU during 41 was MINIMAL when comapred to overal scale of that conflict. The only heavy help SU received was US material.

IF UK collapsed AND RN went to germany, that would change things, becasue hardly US would be able to send help to SU. But I beleive in such situation RN woudl be infromaly instructed to "defect" to US.

All the german domination of europe would be "meaningless" as long as Soviet Union Survived until end of 41-42 winter. Whole europe resources are meaningless when compared to SU and US together.

horseback
03-11-2006, 11:21 AM
Panther

I see that we were making two different suppositions. You were assuming a bloodless capitulation by Britain, I was assuming a bloody and wasteful conquest. As to their relative likelihoods, I can only suggest to you that the attitudes of the people living in Britain and America were not remotely like those living there today.

I simply cannot imagine my grandfathers or uncles 'accepting' a Nazi hedgemony in Europe, any more than I could imagine the Englishmen I met there as an Air Force 'brat' in the early sixties giving up without a helluva fight. Southeastern England and East Anglia were studded with pillboxes, some carefully concealed in wooded areas, all showing that some thought was given to fields of fire. Some may still be there today; they're worth a look.

They didn't build these after the war, I assure you. I always took them as a pledge of a bloodyminded determination not to give in, and that certainly influences my attitude today.

However, I still don't buy into the idea that the Germans would have been able to defeat the Soviets; drive them east past Moscow, probably yes, but if the Brits had bloodyminded determination, the Russians had something a couple of orders of magnitude greater. I see them bending almost beyond recognition, but not breaking.

I also see the Trans-Siberian railway getting a LOT of heavy use with Lend Lease supplies from the USA, along with tremendous amounts of long range air transport. Bluntly, America would be literally feeding and clothing the Soviet Union for most of its war.

Oldman, the limiting problem for the Germans making use of the RN's ships is trained manpower. A battleship had a crew of over 3,000, cruisers over 1,000 men (depending on type; they could be over twice that), a destroyer up to 400 and they were mostly highly trained. Very simply, the Kriegsmarine didn't have enough trained, experienced officers and senior enlisted men to operate those ships, and it would take at least two years to train them up and become competent, starting from near zero, and they still would be a poor match for comparable USN units.

I don't think the Germans would be able to trust the RN to defend the approaches to Murmansk, so the most likely solution for them would be to take possession of the best British ships, leaving the RN a token self-defense force, put a core group of the best available officers and NCOs on a few combatants, and cycle a training and evaluation crew through an accellerated course for assignment to the rest of the ships waiting for them while giving extra combat power to the Kriegsmarine where it was most needed.

Even so, the German naval tradition is kind of light in the surface warfare area; they didn't have a 'blue water navy' from Day One like Britain or the US, and Hitler had no understanding or patience for the costs or limitations of building a real Fleet. U-Boats are cheaper and easier to man (submariners are elite troops, but you don't need as many of them per ship, and Germany already had an undersea tradition), so I think he'd be more tempted to scrap those big ships he couldn't man immediately, and go with a small boat, sea denial strategy.

Long-term, sea denial is a loser. There's too much ocean to be able to stop the enemy from using it to get around you, especially with the submarine technology of the 1940s.

cheers

horseback

panther3485
03-11-2006, 11:30 AM
Hi again, OldMan_

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yes, you are right up to a point, in that collapse of Britain would have made the Soviets more anticipative of a German attack. To that extent at least, they would have been somewhat better prepared.

However, their modernization/re-organization program was already proceeding as fast as they could make it happen. Stalin and a number of senior Soviet commanders were painfully aware that they could not be properly ready to deal with a full scale invasion in 1941, so the general strategy was to buy as much time as possible, by being 'very friendly' towards the Germans. Many aspects of Soviet preparation depended on being able to buy this time!

So for the purpose of analysis in such a hypothetical situation, it then becomes a matter of assessing whether the higher degree of Soviet anticipation would have been sufficient to offset the much greater advantage the Germans would have enjoyed, from the flow-on effects of Britain dropping out of the war in 1940.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

IMHO, based on the actual performance and condition of the opposing forces, it would not have been enough and the Germans would still have gained the upper hand quickly. {Again, this is well supported by many historians who endorse that particular school of thought. To be fair, however, there are different schools of thought supported by other historians. In other words, this is a somewhat greyer area, where not all historians would agree.}

Personally, I lean heavily towards the former school of thought and my money would definitely be on a decisive outcome, favourable to Germany, by the end of 1941.

The Soviets staying in the fight until only end '41/beginning '42 would not have allowed time for any effective intervention from the USA. For that to happen, they would need to keep fighting until at least the end of 1942 and preferably, for the best chance, well into 1943.

Therefore, in the scenario that I consider most probable (Soviet collapse or terms by end '41/beginning '42), that would still give the Axis domination of the entire continent, and sufficient time to consolidate, before effective US intervention became likely.

[As for Lend Lease aid to USSR, IRL, support for the Soviet Union (from all sources including the UK) was negligible in 1941 and relatively minimal even during 1942. It did not become truly significant until 1943, by which time the tide of war had already swung against Germany.]

Anyway, like I said before, this is my opinion but I am open to the possibility of convincing argument or evidence that might lead my thoughts in a substantially different direction.

I respect the fact that some others think differently.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Thanks for your input,
Best regards,
panther3485

OldMan____
03-11-2006, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Panther

I see that we were making two different suppositions. You were assuming a bloodless capitulation by Britain, I was assuming a bloody and wasteful conquest. As to their relative likelihoods, I can only suggest to you that the attitudes of the people living in Britain and America were not remotely like those living there today.

I simply cannot imagine my grandfathers or uncles 'accepting' a Nazi hedgemony in Europe, any more than I could imagine the Englishmen I met there as an Air Force 'brat' in the early sixties giving up without a helluva fight. Southeastern England and East Anglia were studded with pillboxes, some carefully concealed in wooded areas, all showing that some thought was given to fields of fire. Some may still be there today; they're worth a look.

They didn't build these after the war, I assure you. I always took them as a pledge of a bloodyminded determination not to give in, and that certainly influences my attitude today.

However, I still don't buy into the idea that the Germans would have been able to defeat the Soviets; drive them east past Moscow, probably yes, but if the Brits had bloodyminded determination, the Russians had something a couple of orders of magnitude greater. I see them bending almost beyond recognition, but not breaking.

I also see the Trans-Siberian railway getting a LOT of heavy use with Lend Lease supplies from the USA, along with tremendous amounts of long range air transport. Bluntly, America would be literally feeding and clothing the Soviet Union for most of its war.

Oldman, the limiting problem for the Germans making use of the RN's ships is trained manpower. A battleship had a crew of over 3,000, cruisers over 1,000 men (depending on type; they could be over twice that), a destroyer up to 400 and they were mostly highly trained. Very simply, the Kriegsmarine didn't have enough trained, experienced officers and senior enlisted men to operate those ships, and it would take at least two years to train them up and become competent, starting from near zero, and they still would be a poor match for comparable USN units.

I don't think the Germans would be able to trust the RN to defend the approaches to Murmansk, so the most likely solution for them would be to take possession of the best British ships, leaving the RN a token self-defense force, put a core group of the best available officers and NCOs on a few combatants, and cycle a training and evaluation crew through an accellerated course for assignment to the rest of the ships waiting for them while giving extra combat power to the Kriegsmarine where it was most needed.

Even so, the German naval tradition is kind of light in the surface warfare area; they didn't have a 'blue water navy' from Day One like Britain or the US, and Hitler had no understanding or patience for the costs or limitations of building a real Fleet. U-Boats are cheaper and easier to man (submariners are elite troops, but you don't need as many of them per ship, and Germany already had an undersea tradition), so I think he'd be more tempted to scrap those big ships he couldn't man immediately, and go with a small boat, sea denial strategy.

Long-term, sea denial is a loser. There's too much ocean to be able to stop the enemy from using it to get around you, especially with the submarine technology of the 1940s.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree, butIf you take all the amount of training used on U boats being loast fast as hell, THese could be partially converted. Also Some crews could be mostly shifted from Italian Navy (they had far more at disposal) and medium sized ships.

Also I think the U boat force would still be a key factor. The new BB would be usefull on makign large comboys a not very smart idea. Dispersed ships woul be easier targets to uboats. At least once, a simple menace of the Tirptz moving to intercept a comvoy going to murmansk (it just started the move, never even got close to it) was enough to disperse it resulting in total anihilation of it by LW and U boats. I think more 3 or 4 BB there would give a lot of hard work.


US could probably FORCE a break trough, but would be coslty and not effective to be done in a regular basis. Ans Krigsmarine would not need to face them, just retreat to under LW protection if US sent a significant protection. If US had to send 2 carriers and 2 BB with each big convoy... that woud be a hellish expensive trade route.

Also kriegsmarine would be completely different evolution if this happened. Much more effort on it probably.


I agree that defeating SU is quite "impossible to grasp", but if there was a chance that would be to cut any material comming from US.

On the very end I think the ony piece of this chessboard that was impossible to replace was soviet union. But is very hard to think how that could be done "for sure".

One thing relevant is that I think germany could have made UK to submission if they had used the nerve gas (during BOB) they had (other countries did NOT had nerve gas, only other far less lethal chemicals or experimentations on nerve gas). But this would for 100% sure make US and every country in world declare war on germany. That would probalby be the blodiest course of war I can imagine.

panther3485
03-11-2006, 12:04 PM
Hi there, horseback

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I know the prospect of Britain coming to terms with Germany would seem inconceivable to many but there is evidence that this may indeed have happened if Britain had lost BoB. Churchill's government may well have faced a crisis of confidence, resulting in Churchill being ousted and a more 'pacifistic' leader taking over. You can work out the rest.

As for Americans 'accepting' German hegemony in Europe, no, I don't think they would like the idea at all, but in the short term would be able to do little about it.

What would happen in this interval (Between a British collapse and the point at which the USA could intervene decisively on the European continent, with a good chance of success), is the subject of my proposition.

IMHO, the Germans would have had time both to knock out the Soviet Union (or at least force them to terms) and to consolidate their hold on the continent. The USA could eventually prevail against the Axis, but the road would be a long and costly one, I believe. Much more costly to the USA, in terms of loss of life, than WW2 as it actually happened. This is part of my reason for believing in at least some continued reluctance to become involved in a European war and the possibility that such an invasion might not be launched at all, at least not for a good few years.

Back to the German/Soviet thing, opinions vary, but my firm belief is that the Soviets came close to collapse as it was. In this alternate scenario, that collapse would have been very much more likely IMHO.

Lend-lease aid could have only a limited effect on the outcome and in any case, would take a fair while to build up to significant levels. By the time this was achieved, the Soviets would already be defeated IMHO.


But, as I have said before and I shall say again, it's just my opinion (albeit very strongly held, etc etc).

Having said that, I respect the fact that your opinion is different and we shall simply be decent about it and agree to differ. Fair enough?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485