Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Africa was controlled by by allied leaning countries save Vichy France. Aircraft were being ferried direct Africa very early on prior to Pearl Harbour ,Juan Trippe and Ferry Command worked together to routes up so that aircraft were Ferried to the Gold Coast and then to operational units . BOAC was upset at this as they Trippe was trodding on their turfcould allied air power cut the supply lines in africa? what bases are the allies flying out of? and can the allies keep those bases supplied. germany held much of north africa...so your operating sphere is limited. with out invading NA your aircraft are not even going to be a factor against the german supply lines. so you are speaking of allied submarines. without germany going into russia a NA landing would have been harder to mount.
Hi John
Nazi Germany was an unviable state in the longer term, without access to resources, and access to quick forms of cash, in the form of conquest money. Without access to Russian resources, on one side of her frontiers, and contained by the allied blockade on the western front front, that leaves only the southern front. We have already done quite a bit of bloodletting on that issue....but I remain unmoved by the counter arguments about the possibilities in this area. Most people seem to think long term gains on the southern front are not possible. i take an even more pessimistic view, I dont think anything much beyond the historical gains for the germans was possible. The main limiting factor is logistics....the italians merchant marines and the ports they could use were simply too limited to achieve much.
So at the end of all this we have germany bottled up and constrained by both a cash flow and import restrictions. It all gets down to whether the Russians give access to their resources to the germans.
This equation generates an awful equation for the germans, WWII was a war of machines, and without access to money and resources, germany and her axis partners are on the losing horse in this department.They have vastly improved nmanpower availability, and far less attrition to their tanks, trucks and aircraft reserves, but this is balanced against a much enhanced allied military capability and increased manpower reserves as well. The whole thing looks very meat grinderish to me.
Regards
"... the Nazi's tried to do everything too quickly and that was their undoing.".
That trait is not limited to the Nazis -- the modern German state Bismarck created was stamped with that impatience and cut-to-the-chase disposition from Day One: the Franco-Prussian War.
MM
Weren't there contingency plans to evacuate the Monarchy and Crown Jewels to North America in case this happened?If the Russians were not forced into the war by the ir invasion, I bleieve that Stalin would have continued to stay out of the fighting and re-equip and develop Russia and its infra-structure.
This would have allowed the LW to keep up the air attacks on Britain. If the LW had continued grinding down the RAF bases and Radar installations - then the Germans may have had an opportunity to invade Britain brfore the US could intervene.
That would have enabled Germany to pretty much do as she pleased for a number of years. No disruption to many resources by RAF or RN.
Germany develops stealth aircraft (Horton designs) and maybe the A bomb?
Now what does the US do?
Whoa! There was a great History Channel documentary on this. Plunder, and bank support from Switzerland. The Swiss had to walk a delicate line. Every now and then the issue of Swiss banking during the war, plundered gold from concentration camps, etc comes up in the press.i had always wondered how they paid for all the stuff they were building.
Hi John
Nazi Germany was an unviable state in the longer term, without access to resources, and access to quick forms of cash, in the form of conquest money. Without access to Russian resources, on one side of her frontiers, and contained by the allied blockade on the western front front, that leaves only the southern front. We have already done quite a bit of bloodletting on that issue....but I remain unmoved by the counter arguments about the possibilities in this area. Most people seem to think long term gains on the southern front are not possible. i take an even more pessimistic view, I dont think anything much beyond the historical gains for the germans was possible. The main limiting factor is logistics....the italians merchant marines and the ports they could use were simply too limited to achieve much.
So at the end of all this we have germany bottled up and constrained by both a cash flow and import restrictions. It all gets down to whether the Russians give access to their resources to the germans.
This equation generates an awful equation for the germans, WWII was a war of machines, and without access to money and resources, germany and her axis partners are on the losing horse in this department.They have vastly improved nmanpower availability, and far less attrition to their tanks, trucks and aircraft reserves, but this is balanced against a much enhanced allied military capability and increased manpower reserves as well. The whole thing looks very meat grinderish to me.
Regards
Whoa! There was a great History Channel documentary on this. Plunder, and bank support from Switzerland. The Swiss had to walk a delicate line. Every now and then the issue of Swiss banking during the war, plundered gold from concentration camps, etc comes up in the press.
".... If you are going to seed an off topic anti-german post I will seed a counter."
Seed away, my friend, after all it's summer in Australia .....and if not now, when ...?
Had I wanted t write an anti-German screed I would be using language much harsher than "impatient: and "cut-to-the-chase" to do it .....
I simply make the point that "Nazis'" traits were German traits in evidence longer than just 1933-45 .... and the last time I checked ... the Nazis were German.
I think your trigger-finger might be a little itchy this morning, Siggy -- can I call you Siggy.
(Your lengthy analysis is really off topic -- but a good read nonetheless. Why not start a thread -- England : the most war-like nation, Y/N? That will get a broad response)
MM
On topic:
In response to the initial question, posed at the head of this thread:
Could the (W) Allies defeat Germany only with air power?The answer is unequivocally yes.
Look at the historical bombing campaign for proof of this.
The ultimate collapse of the German war economy started in the period following the Normandy invasion, when the allied air forces were freed from pre-invasion duties and returned to the skies of Germany proper. There is a very good book on this subject, written by Alfred C. Mierzejewski. I would advise anyone with interest in the subject (ostensibly) being discussed here, to get a copy and read it: "The Collapse of the German War Economy, 1944-1945: Allied Air Power and the German National Railway". The summation of the thesis presented?
1. The German war economy ran on coal. Full Stop.
2. This coal was internally distributed by two means; The DRG (railways) and the network of interior waterways. Full Stop.
3. The Western Allied Air Forces (by a combination of both targeted attacks on infrastructure chokepoints, and fortuitous happenstance) completely destroyed this infrastructure in the period between August 1944 and early 1945. Full Stop.
The author's thesis is supported by his extensive study of the holdings (primarily BAMA) of primary operational records of the German Railways (DRG) and interior waterways during this period.
Expounding from recorded history into the provided hypothetical, it's my conclusion that with Germany having more resources to throw at the problem, the outcome would be far bloodier than it was in recorded history...but the persistence of effort towards these ends would have borne fruit in the long haul.
As one prior poster pointed out, the vast resources being directed towards the bombing effort were really only coming to fruition (in terms of meaningful tonnage) during the last calendar year of the war; i.e. the period that Mierzejewski considers in his analysis.
Secondly?
The recent poster with the "Germany's economy only continued to function on the plunder of her conquests" pov is most certainly referencing the 2006 work of J Adam Tooze: "The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi War Economy".
Anybody attempting to discuss Nazi Germany's "options" in war (without reading and understanding this work), is (IMO) treading on very thin ice.
My two cents, FWIW.
And we could expect an earlier and more intense bombing campaign in this scenario.
Even so, a major problem I see here is Hitler putting efforts in the nuclear weapons development.
".... The recent poster with the "Germany's economy only continued to function on the plunder of her conquests" pov is most certainly referencing the 2006 work of J Adam Tooze: "The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi War Economy".
Anybody attempting to discuss Nazi Germany's "options" in war (without reading and understanding this work), is (IMO) treading on very thin ice...."
I agree, i.m.
However, with the Soviets 'out' of the picture, per the premise of the thread, I don't agree with your "yes" (without resorting to the big A)MM
I'm not convinced that Germany could be weakened enough to unconditionally surrender with conventional bombs.
But I think the question of the thread was meant to be, would this be sufficient to support an invasion.