4 ms·

This world view assumes that Britain was a tiny island with little to no influence. The GDP of the british empire was totally astounding, the navy was bigger t

This world view assumes that Britain was a tiny island with little to no influence. The GDP of the british empire was totally astounding, the navy was bigger than any other country. The british _funded_ the US war effort. it paid for the factories, the tooling etc. Lend lease was basically the british transferring its vast wealth to the USA in exchange for materials. The myth that the battle of Britain was the last line of defence is laughable. The RAF was the first line. To invade, the germans would have had to have eliminated the RAF, then eliminate the navy (bear in mind that at this point its still twice as big as anyone elses, and that uboats are still not very good at this point) Not only that they'd have to somehow get across the channel (which given that the germans didn't like standardisation and were nowhere near as mechanised as the french, would have been a challenge) Plus they'd have to over come the anti air defences. The _only_ doubt about WWII is whether britian would have signed a peace treaty.

DarkmSparks 6y ago
Britain was completely defeated by June 1940, after that until D day in June 1944 was pure survival tactics and nothing much else, without Bletchly the entire nation would have pretty much starved to death over those 4 years.
- KaiserPro 6y ago
  you mean dunkirk? Thats not completely defeated though is it. Thats the BEF stranded on a beach. Sure its a loss of equipment, but its not as much of a loss of man and machine as the nazis lost during the invasion of france They lost something like a third of their _entire_ mechanised army. Britain was still in possession of India, most of Africa inc Egypt, Hong Kong, Burma, canada and Australia in 1940 The fall of singapore wasn't until 1942. by 1943 the tide had turned, it was a case of when not if the nazis were defeated. As I said, the only risk was Britain coming to terms with the Nazis.
  - DarkmSparks 6y ago
    Pearl harbour changed the course of the war, before that America wouldnt get involved and Britain had no Army, no food and no air force. Germany had a plan to invade (Operation Sea Lion), and by the numbers it would have been a successful invasion. Dads Army would not have been any resistance. They didnt invade because they thought the RAF was much larger than it actually was, Britain knew they thought this because of Bletchly, and therefore didnt surrender, instead declaring the Battle of Britain won in October 1940, the day or so after they decoded the message saying the invasion was being delayed indefinitely until the Luftwaffe could defeat (the already defeated) RAF. If anything the role of Bletchly and Alan Turing is still under rated.
    - KaiserPro 6y ago
      > Pearl harbour changed the course of the war, agreed > before that America wouldnt get involved Kind of apart from they were building vast factories and re-arming at a spectacular rate > and Britain had no Army, False. the BEF was around 390k, or 13 divisions. The army at that time was around a million. Even accounting for losses in evacuation, (around 70k) There was still the Indian armies, the African armies and the various other imperial armies. More concerning was the loss of equipment. Even so, you seem to forget that the worlds biggest navy owned the channel. (the stuff that was patrolling the north sea wasn't even most of the navy) Then you forget that the british ports were well mined and defended. (just like the ports in normandy, hence the mulberry temporary ports to ship ammo, fuel and armour in, without which the effort would have failed, like market garden) > no food Again no, the blockade was later. Compared to the dutch, Belgians and the germans later on, england had loads of food. > and no air force. again, if the UK had no airforce, they wouldn't have had air superiority. Which meant that the german airforce could have dominated the channel and harassed the British navy. To tackle your point about sealion Without logistics it would have been very difficult for the germans to establish a beach head. First they would have tried to take a port. Ports that are well defended (they've had 200 years at this point to build defences against the french....) Second, should they take a port, they have to keep it stocked up with fuel, ammo and arms. All of which is very difficult when you being bombarded from sea, air and land. d-day only worked because they had complete control of the air, and almost complete control of the sea. Sealion was nowhere near close to any of those.
PaulAJ 6y ago
Operation Sealion (the German invasion of Britain) was war-gamed in 1974. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#Post-war_wargaming_of_the_plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#Post-war_wa... The invasion force surrendered after 6 days. And that assumed that the shambolic plans for establishing a beach head would have actually worked.
- KaiserPro 6y ago
  exactly, there is a reason why the allied went with the mulberries, because the harbours were either too vulnerable, or too well protected.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
What? Britain was bankrupted by the war effort. Lend-Lease was almost entirely donations, and only 10% of the US expenditure in the war.

DarkmSparks 6y ago

Britain was completely defeated by June 1940, after that until D day in June 1944 was pure survival tactics and nothing much else, without Bletchly the entire nation would have pretty much starved to death over those 4 years.

KaiserPro 6y ago
you mean dunkirk? Thats not completely defeated though is it. Thats the BEF stranded on a beach. Sure its a loss of equipment, but its not as much of a loss of man and machine as the nazis lost during the invasion of france They lost something like a third of their _entire_ mechanised army. Britain was still in possession of India, most of Africa inc Egypt, Hong Kong, Burma, canada and Australia in 1940 The fall of singapore wasn't until 1942. by 1943 the tide had turned, it was a case of when not if the nazis were defeated. As I said, the only risk was Britain coming to terms with the Nazis.
- DarkmSparks 6y ago
  Pearl harbour changed the course of the war, before that America wouldnt get involved and Britain had no Army, no food and no air force. Germany had a plan to invade (Operation Sea Lion), and by the numbers it would have been a successful invasion. Dads Army would not have been any resistance. They didnt invade because they thought the RAF was much larger than it actually was, Britain knew they thought this because of Bletchly, and therefore didnt surrender, instead declaring the Battle of Britain won in October 1940, the day or so after they decoded the message saying the invasion was being delayed indefinitely until the Luftwaffe could defeat (the already defeated) RAF. If anything the role of Bletchly and Alan Turing is still under rated.
  - KaiserPro 6y ago
    > Pearl harbour changed the course of the war, agreed > before that America wouldnt get involved Kind of apart from they were building vast factories and re-arming at a spectacular rate > and Britain had no Army, False. the BEF was around 390k, or 13 divisions. The army at that time was around a million. Even accounting for losses in evacuation, (around 70k) There was still the Indian armies, the African armies and the various other imperial armies. More concerning was the loss of equipment. Even so, you seem to forget that the worlds biggest navy owned the channel. (the stuff that was patrolling the north sea wasn't even most of the navy) Then you forget that the british ports were well mined and defended. (just like the ports in normandy, hence the mulberry temporary ports to ship ammo, fuel and armour in, without which the effort would have failed, like market garden) > no food Again no, the blockade was later. Compared to the dutch, Belgians and the germans later on, england had loads of food. > and no air force. again, if the UK had no airforce, they wouldn't have had air superiority. Which meant that the german airforce could have dominated the channel and harassed the British navy. To tackle your point about sealion Without logistics it would have been very difficult for the germans to establish a beach head. First they would have tried to take a port. Ports that are well defended (they've had 200 years at this point to build defences against the french....) Second, should they take a port, they have to keep it stocked up with fuel, ammo and arms. All of which is very difficult when you being bombarded from sea, air and land. d-day only worked because they had complete control of the air, and almost complete control of the sea. Sealion was nowhere near close to any of those.

PaulAJ 6y ago

Operation Sealion (the German invasion of Britain) was war-gamed in 1974. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#Post-war_wargaming_of_the_plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#Post-war_wa... The invasion force surrendered after 6 days. And that assumed that the shambolic plans for establishing a beach head would have actually worked.

KaiserPro 6y ago
exactly, there is a reason why the allied went with the mulberries, because the harbours were either too vulnerable, or too well protected.

srtjstjsj 6y ago

What? Britain was bankrupted by the war effort. Lend-Lease was almost entirely donations, and only 10% of the US expenditure in the war.