Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power? (1 Viewer)

[pbfoot]

could 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.

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 turf

 

[Sagittario64]

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

Thanks for this view on the economic side of germany in wwii. i had always wondered how they paid for all the stuff they were building.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... 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

 

[Siegfried]

"... 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

If you are going to seed an off topic anti-german post I will seed a counter.

The Franco-Prussian war can in no conceivable way be blamed on the Prussians or Germans.

It is entirely a French caused war.

The Franco Prussian war of 1870 was a direct result of French apprehension
over the dominance of Prussia over the newly created North German
confederation. (I.E. a united Germany) that was voluntarily forming.

Emperor Napoleon III of France attempted to humiliate the Prussians
over the issue of a successor to the Spanish throne and when Bismarck
refused to grovel the French declared war.

It was a disaster for the French. The other great powers of Europe
clearly seeing France as the aggressor stayed neutral while the
still independent southern German states allied themselves with
the North german confederation setting the stage for German
unification

The war was 100% foly of Napoleon III. The crisis arose
as the result of the deposition of Isabella II of Spain.

A distant relative of the King of Prussia , Leopold Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen
was offered the throne in 1870. Napoleon III threatened war and the
result was that Leopold refused the offer as a result of 'advice' from
Bismarck.

That should have satisfied the French but they decided to rub the
noses of the Prussians in the dirt and their ambassador
Count Vincent Benedetti intercepted the Prussian King while he
was strolling on the on the promenade of the Kursaal and issued
a curt demand that the king should guarantee that he would never again
permit the candidacy of a Hohenzollern prince to the Spanish throne.

The king declined to do so pointing out that he could not possibly
make any declaration that would last in perpetuity. The French ambassador
the departed in a huff and the King made it known via his adjutant he would
have no further dealings with Benedetti. This was made known to Bismarck via
telegram.

Bismarck issued a statement to the press of the incicent which read.

"After the news of the renunciation of the Prince von Hohenzollern had been
communicated to the Imperial French government by the Royal Spanish
government, the French Ambassador in Ems made a further demand on His
Majesty the King that he should authorize him to telegraph to Paris that His
Majesty the King undertook for all time never again to give his assent
should the Hohenzollerns once more take up their candidature. His Majesty
the King thereupon refused to receive the Ambassador again and had the
latter informed by the Adjutant of the day that His Majesty had no further
communication to make to the Ambassador."

The French then misstranlated the Ems dispatch to make it sound somewhat insulting.

Had Bismarck wanted a war he could have pressured Leopold
to accept the Spanish throne. The reality is that Napoleon III was
set on a building a new empire. In addition to the disastrous
Mexican adventure the French seized French IndoChina, made
Rome and the papal states subject to French rule and fought
a war against Austria.

Napoleon III wanted to intervene on the Confederate side in the
American Civil War but was forced to rethink that when the
British made it clear that they would not support such a
move. In short he had the ambition of Napoleon I but not
the ability. After the Austro Prussian war of 1866 the French
demanded "compensation" for France's neutrality this was to
be Prussian agreement for a French annexation of Belgium and
Luxembourg.

Bismarck took the view that if the French were intent on war now was
as good a time as any but he would have been equally happy had
the French simply replaced their ambassador.

The demand for war came about as a result of the (French) edited
version of the text of the Ems Dispatch in which the demands
made of the Prussians were portrayed as a request and false
claims were made that the Prussian King had publically insulted
the French Ambassador. In fact he had been rather polite given
the tone of the French demands.

There was plenty of wiggle room, the French had already won
their points regarding the Spanish throne, it was their decision
to further humiliate the Prussians that was the big mistake.

France was just as expansionist and in Europe following the Napoleonic
wars was regarded with deep suspicion. To get some idea of this
envisage a situation in the 1980's in which Germany is ruled by
a relative of Adolf Hitler who has declared himself Fuhrer with the
title Adolf II. The guarantees to Belgium that drew Britain into WW1
had originally been made in part due to the threatened annexation
of Belgium by France.

This is why the rest of Europe, including Britain were quite happy
to see the French defeated in this manner.

I would alose steer you towards

Dealing in Hate: The development of anti-German propaganda

It has been estimated that there were "about twenty-six hundred
important battles involving European states" in the 460 years between
1480 and 1940. Of these, France participated in forty-seven percent,
"Germany (Prussia)" in twenty-five percent, and England and Russia in
twenty-two percent each. The Prussian record can hardly be described
as uniquely warlike on the basis of such evidence! It might also be
added that geographic factors, like Britain's insular position and
Russia's remoteness from the mainstream of European history during the
period, doubtless helped considerably to reduce their percentage of
involvement.


Professor Quincy Wright offers this further statistical evidence for
the same period, that is, 1480-1940:

Of the 278 wars involving European states during this period, the
percentage of participation by the principal states was: England, 28;
France, 26; Spain, 23; Russia, 22; Austria, 19; Turkey, 15; Poland,
11; Sweden, 9; Netherlands, 8; Germany (Prussia), 8; Italy
(Savoy-Sardinia), 9; and Denmark, 7.7

In the circumstances, one is compelled to assent to Dr. Wright's
conclusion that "attribution of a persistently warlike character to
certain states ... seems not to have been based upon a comparison of
any objective criteria of warlikeness."8

These are some of Bismark's sayings:

1 The Herzegovina question is not worth the bones of a Pomeranian
Soldier.
[Fr., L'affaire Herzegovinienne ne vaut pas les os d'un fusilier
pomeranien.]
- [War]

2 some damn fool thing in the Balkans
[his prediction of what would ignite the next major European
war]

3 "Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying
on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war."

4 Beware of sentimental alliances where the consciousness of good
deeds is the only compensation for noble sacrifices.
[Otto von Bismarck, Bismarck and the German Empire by Erich Eyck]

5 "When you want to fool the world, tell the truth."
-Otto Von Bismarck

6 "Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially
denied."
-Otto Von Bismarck

7 When you want to fool the world, tell the truth.

8 People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an
election.
-Otto von Bismarck

9 Never believe in anything until it has been officially denied.

10 You see things; and you say, "Why"; But I dream things that never
were; and I say, "Why not?"
(obviously plagiarised by King speach writer)

 

[gjs238]

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?

Weren't there contingency plans to evacuate the Monarchy and Crown Jewels to North America in case this happened?

 

[gjs238]

i had always wondered how they paid for all the stuff they were building.

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.

 

[Readie]

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

Hi Michael,
Nazi Germany could not just stand still, Hitlers adoration was built on victorious campaigns and the sense that the German people were winning.
If, as you suggest, Germany was bottled up with limited choices Hitler could only choose the route to access raw materials in order to feed the 'war machine' and continue his own agenda.
I think that we over estimate the Russians ability to maintain a war without allied assistance.
I take allies to be The British, Commonwealth and the USA. The Russians greatest weapon was the sheer scale and harshness of their land.
Whatever Hitler decided to do you have hit the nail on the head with 'meat grinder'.
Unless Nuclear weapons were deployed to save allied casualties using the same rational as the USA commanders when face with the cost of a land invasion of Japan.
Regards
John

 

[Readie]

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.

A bit off topic but,
The Gnomes of Zurich should come clean with this vault of shame.
It has gone on long enough.
John

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... 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 to 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

 

[Readie]

".... 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

Siggy,

You have a pm from me on this very subject.

John

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Keep it on topic, or the thread will be closed.

Come on guys...

 

[iron man]

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.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... 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

 

[Jenisch]

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.

 

[iron man]

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.

I have done extensive reading on this "problem"...not on the internet either.

Hitler's opinions on (his words, not mine) "Jewish science" are a matter of record.

As he (Hitler) is the one (ultimately) holding the purse strings of Nazi procurment policies, this will require a fundamental shift in his "Weltanschaung"; and from my examination of the German leader's psyche, the likelyhood of this ever happening are remote.

Next?

 

[iron man]

".... 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

Once fully mobilized for war, the USA has the industrial power to squash Hitler...many times over.

If completely paving England over with airfields is seen as a requirement to meet these ends, then it will be done.

All the resources that the Third Reich can muster will do nothing to change this.

If a concerted industrial focus is applied by the USA towards the application of "bombing Germany into the stone age" (at the expense of any other war effort: is this not what the OP asked?) then IMO, all the Bf 109's, Fw 190's and FlAK guns in the world will not be able to stop them doing what it is that they want to do.

Also? Western development of nuclear weapons are an eventuality...not a "what if".

 

[Juha]

Hello Siegfried
not wanting to derail this thread I put my comment on the claim that Germany/Prussia participitate only 8 wars during 1480-1940 here
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/1800-1914/germany-vs-its-neighbours-31110.html#post846495
After all I counted Germany/Prussia participating 8 wars just during that period, ie 1800-1914.

Juha

 

[Readie]

'Once fully mobilized for war, the USA has the industrial power to squash Hitler...many times over.

If completely paving England over with airfields is seen as a requirement to meet these ends, then it will be done.

All the resources that the Third Reich can muster will do nothing to change this'.

Ironman, The problem is one of logistics. The USA's industrial power and manpower that can be brought to bear is well documented.
The problem is that Europe is a long way from Detroit.

I'm not convinced that Germany could be weakened enough to unconditionally surrender with conventional bombs.
If the allied decision was to attack by air alone that the final blows would have to be nuclear.
This would have been possible after the success of the Japanese A bombs.
When? Again that is uncertain, Maybe the late 1940's as already suggested on this thread,

Its interesting to speculate but, that is all we can do with any of the suggested scenarios.

John

 

[gjs238]

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.

 

[Readie]

But I think the question of the thread was meant to be, would this be sufficient to support an invasion.

Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

That was the original question gjs.
John