Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

[Readie]

The scenario was Britain and the Commonwealth, plus a US involvement in late 1941, with Japan and the USSR in neutrality. The Soviet Union would pose it's problems in the defense area for Germany, and Japan perhaps would pose a problem for the Soviets as well. It was a world war after all. That's it.

Thanks, in your scenario I believe that the allies would prevail by sheer industrial might and manpower.
Whatever method of war was chosen Germany would be defeated eventually.

Imagine the massive resource of the USA without the distraction of the Japanese !

We have to remember that the Soviets had their own agenda in WW2 so, with such a scheming nation we can never really rely on them as allies.

John

 

[Jenisch]

I belive that Stalin would attack Europe, as he mentioned in two times:

"Nonintervention represents the endeavor... to allow all the warmongers to sink deeply into the mire of warfare, to quietly urge them on. The result will be that they weaken and exhaust one another. Then... (we will) appear on the scene with fresh forces and step in, naturally "in the interest of peace," to dictate terms to the weakened belligerents."

"It must be our objective that Germany wage war long enough to exhaust England and France so much that they cannot defeat Germany alone.... Should Germany win, it will itself be so weakened that it won't be able to wage war against us for 10 years.... It's paramount for us that this war continues as long as possible, until both sides are worn out."

Stalin's Secret War Plans: Why Hitler Invaded the Soviet Union. Richard Tedor.

I belive a perhaps help from Japan would be very interesting for the Allies in this scenario. Despite the beating at Nomonhan, the IJA historically started a program for it's modernization right after. And the IJA never gave up of the Russian question, which as also a national security problem for Japan. The Japanese belived it would be completed by 1943, without the Pacific war (again, also historically). Also, the Western Allies, if using Japan, could try make Chiang sign peace with the Japanese, ending the "Chinese Incident" and putting an additional pressure in Stalin in order to him not invade Europe because the risk of a Japanese invasion.

 

[Readie]

Did Japan honestly think they could invade and keep Siberia?

John

 

[Jenisch]

Take a read at this: Japanese-planned Republic of the Far East

The Japanese militarists were not the type of individuals you can expect much coherence (as the Pacific War ultimately demonstrated). So yes, they not only thought could, but the the IJA High Command used to have orgasms imaginating Siberia in their hands. In fact, they did not wanted to attack the US and Britain if the diplomacy managed to lift the oil embargo. Therefore, I don't think it's unrealistic to belive that the Japanese would try invade Siberia. Specially with my scenario. And Stalin knew this. Another consideration is that despite Siberia being so big, it was dependent on the Transiberian railway. This would be a primary Japanese target. A very bloody war could be expected there if happened. This, together with the full US and British/Commonwealth presence in Europe, perhaps would disencourage Stalin to advance over Europe. Even so, I think he could have occupied much more than he did historically.

 

[parsifal]

orgasms imaginating ....dude....i mean absolutely no disrespect over this one....probably language misunderstanding.....but I laughed so much when I read that I fell off my chair

 

[Jenisch]

I really use this to describe something one likes fanatically. lol

 

[Jabberwocky]

Big enough to hold most of Europe for 4 years. The Germans did not want the world.. the russians did. What about Neville Chamberlain?.. His role was slightly more then minor in Germanys invasion of Chez republic etc..

Why single out Chamberlain? The French and British governments BOTH agreed to German demands.

Chamberlain had a purely reactive role in the crisis. He was desperately and increasingly frantically trying to avoid a general European war. One of the very first examples of shuttle diplomacy was exhibited by Chamberlain as he hopped around Europe trying to save Czechokslovakia.

Hitler had a pro-active role, he demanded and eventually got, controll of what little remained of Czechokslovakia. Germany and Poland had already taken slices of Czech land. Italy and Hungary had their roles in the fall of the second Czech republic as well.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I belive that Stalin would attack Europe, as he mentioned in two times:

"Nonintervention represents the endeavor... to allow all the warmongers to sink deeply into the mire of warfare, to quietly urge them on. The result will be that they weaken and exhaust one another. Then... (we will) appear on the scene with fresh forces and step in, naturally "in the interest of peace," to dictate terms to the weakened belligerents."

"It must be our objective that Germany wage war long enough to exhaust England and France so much that they cannot defeat Germany alone.... Should Germany win, it will itself be so weakened that it won't be able to wage war against us for 10 years.... It's paramount for us that this war continues as long as possible, until both sides are worn out."

Stalin's Secret War Plans: Why Hitler Invaded the Soviet Union. Richard Tedor.

Any article that uses Surovov as one of its main sources should be questioned deeply...

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... Any article that uses Surovov as one of its main sources should be questioned deeply..."

Perhaps, but the article quotes David Glantz way more extensively than Surovov. It's actually a pretty reasonable argument for Stalin's objectives -- without flying tanks or other strange mutations. . You should give it a quick read, Jsbberwocky.


MM

 

[tomo pauk]

...
We have to remember that the Soviets had their own agenda in WW2 so, with such a scheming nation we can never really rely on them as allies.

John

Thankfully only the Soviets were the only ones with the agenda. Soviets nobody can count in as allies for more than 20 years.

 

[Siegfried]

But in the real world, Hitler did declare war on the USA.

Lend Lease gave Britain vast amounts of military aid (aircraft, munitions, ships, financial aid) in return for access (lease) of a few islands.
The American Navy had been escorting British convoys almost to the West Coast of Ireland for 6 months prior to the war. They most
certainly did attack and depth charge u-boats. Even had a propganda campaigne to ensure Americans got their nose out of joint when a
u-boat fired back and a destroyer got sunk.

These were called "neutrality patrols" and most certainly weren't.

Certainly Hitler showed restraint and had plenty of reason to declare war. It would be interesting to speculate as to how damaging the lend lease funding of the British war effort and the neutrality patrols could be compared to outright war. Bomber commands efforts didn't require much manpower at all, it required bombers, foreign exchange to buy the aluminium needed for making the aircraft and the food for British workers who made them as well (and weren't exporting anymore) as well as fuel in large amounts: all of which US lend lease money could supply.

Would he have been better of NOT declaring war?

 

[Readie]

Certainly Hitler showed restraint and had plenty of reason to declare war. It would be interesting to speculate as to how damaging the lend lease funding of the British war effort and the neutrality patrols could be compared to outright war. Bomber commands efforts didn't require much manpower at all, it required bombers, foreign exchange to buy the aluminium needed for making the aircraft and the food for British workers who made them as well (and weren't exporting anymore) as well as fuel in large amounts: all of which US lend lease money could supply.

Would he have been better of NOT declaring war?

I don't believe that a non declaration of war was in Hitlers plan Siegfried. He must have known that the USA would not remain neutral.

I would take up one of your points about BC manpower though. The loss rate of crews was horrendous.

John

 

[Sagittario64]

Well we can look at what planes came from the us to britain at what time in significant numbers. like when the p-47, p-38, and p-51 appeared in british hands

 

[Ratsel]

N.African P-40's.. doubt the RAF/RCAF/RAAF/SAAF wouldn't have won anything without those L/L P-40s complimenting the Hurricanes.

 

[Readie]

Well we can look at what planes came from the us to britain at what time in significant numbers. like when the p-47, p-38, and p-51 appeared in british hands

The P51 (with the RR Merlin) was vital as a long range bomber protector.
We must not forget that lend lease was not a gift. It took us decades to pay for WW2 USA supplied armaments.
I know we have had a very long thread on LL which ended in tears....

John

 

[Sagittario64]

yeah. well how can we determine what would happen in north africa? does the original question say whether the british and commonwealth ground forces that were there could fight defensively but not offensively? on a side note if they have to pull out to satisfy the conditions of the question, the italians would have taken the whole of africa, or at least everything above Madagascar.

 

[Sagittario64]

The P51 (with the RR Merlin) was vital as a long range bomber protector.
We must not forget that lend lease was not a gift. It took us decades to pay for WW2 USA supplied armaments.
I know we have had a very long thread on LL which ended in tears so, all I will say is we ( British) may have paid for the metal but, I believe that we are forever in debt for the US blood lives expended.

John

yes this is true, but i like to think that simply by standing and fighting alongside america as it ground down the third reich, britain has paid its dues, and the friendship our two countries share is pretty strong. the p-51 was indeed vital, but i dont know how the earliest variants would face off against the fw.190s that came out in 1942 and forced advances in spitfire designs, and then the improved bf.109s around then

 

[Readie]

yes this is true, but i like to think that simply by standing and fighting alongside america as it ground down the third reich, britain has paid its dues, and the friendship our two countries share is pretty strong. the p-51 was indeed vital, but i dont know how the earliest variants would face off against the fw.190s that came out in 1942 and forced advances in spitfire designs, and then the improved bf.109s around then

I do too but, in the modern world people all too readily forget where their true friends and loyalties lay....
The early P51 had potential but, it needed more power. Enter the RR Merlin which enabled the P51 to become the iconic long range fighter it did. A true Anglo' American effort.
The Spitfire was developed throughout WW2 and for a short range interceptor it performed miracles in the ever changing conflict. It could fly to Berlin as PR but, not escort bombers. Range was its only shortcoming.
The seesaw of development between the Spitfire and its LW adversarial fighters came out in the Spitfire favour by 1944...the rest is history.
Cheers
John

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... Certainly Hitler showed restraint and had plenty of reason to declare war."

Yes - if he was prepared for prolonged war - which he wasn't. He wasn't in December 1941 when he did declare war against Mr. Roosevelt, but by then Japan had attacked the US in a manner very pleasing to Mr. Hitler's personal war philosophy. Hitler had no alternative other than 'restraint' - until then - Ruben James excepted ... .

MM

 

[Readie]

".... Certainly Hitler showed restraint and had plenty of reason to declare war."

Yes - if he was prepared for prolonged war - which he wasn't. He wasn't in December 1941 when he did declare war against Mr. Roosevelt, but by then Japan had attacked the US in a manner very pleasing to Mr. Hitler's personal war philosophy. Hitler had no alternative other than 'restraint' - until then - Ruben James excepted ... .

MM

USS Reuben James (DD-245) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brave men.

John