forumstalker
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2011
- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 0
Should probably put an argument forward for Britain had the USA not decisively joined the war; decisive as in the western European/north African theatre.
Britain could not have been invaded successfully by Germany; the majority of the German fleet was destroyed during the Norwegian campaign. The Bismark-class ships, battlecruisers/pocket battleships that survived would not have been sufficient enough to protect a landing force. Mining the approaches to the landing zone would have been effective, but not enough. A lack of dedicated amphibious shipping fleet took years for the western allies to build up; the German effort was rushed, and would not have been able to deliver enough men and material without a port facility which they would not have had from day 1 or a Mulberry like the allies did.
Had the USA not militarily intervened in the war, Britain would have continued the ground war in Africa, most likely successfully but taking longer as there would have been no Operation Torch. Therefore, no strategic outflanking of Rommel. Maybe we might have launched an Italian campaign anyway, who knows...
But in any case, had the USSR been defeated (a big 'if', but nonetheless), I think Britain would have carried on the fight for Europe under Churchill's leadership. It would have taken a disaster of huge proportions (a failed British Empire-only D-Day attempt?) to convince the leadership that liberating Europe would be impossible, and lead to peace terms. Britain would have been the outcast of Europe, and a much different Cold War developing. In fact, that might have the case had we sued for peace after Dunkirk.
I'm firmly in the camp that we could have repulsed a German invasion, although at a cost that it would have been our own bloody equivalent of the Russian front, just not on such a vast scale. "If Britain or the USSR fell..." As a witty Spartan once said: "IF".
Britain could not have been invaded successfully by Germany; the majority of the German fleet was destroyed during the Norwegian campaign. The Bismark-class ships, battlecruisers/pocket battleships that survived would not have been sufficient enough to protect a landing force. Mining the approaches to the landing zone would have been effective, but not enough. A lack of dedicated amphibious shipping fleet took years for the western allies to build up; the German effort was rushed, and would not have been able to deliver enough men and material without a port facility which they would not have had from day 1 or a Mulberry like the allies did.
Had the USA not militarily intervened in the war, Britain would have continued the ground war in Africa, most likely successfully but taking longer as there would have been no Operation Torch. Therefore, no strategic outflanking of Rommel. Maybe we might have launched an Italian campaign anyway, who knows...
But in any case, had the USSR been defeated (a big 'if', but nonetheless), I think Britain would have carried on the fight for Europe under Churchill's leadership. It would have taken a disaster of huge proportions (a failed British Empire-only D-Day attempt?) to convince the leadership that liberating Europe would be impossible, and lead to peace terms. Britain would have been the outcast of Europe, and a much different Cold War developing. In fact, that might have the case had we sued for peace after Dunkirk.
I'm firmly in the camp that we could have repulsed a German invasion, although at a cost that it would have been our own bloody equivalent of the Russian front, just not on such a vast scale. "If Britain or the USSR fell..." As a witty Spartan once said: "IF".
