The British Empire During World War II

[Godwynn]

This is not exactly a "what if" as I have a lot of serious questions in here that do not deviate much from the actual events of the war.

Did the British Empire, by itself, have any real chance of liberating Europe from the Germans? I mean this as if the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did not get involved. What was their long-term strategy? Wait out the Germans until one of those two power-houses got involved? I know the Germans had no way of invading the Isles because of the Royal Fleet.

Along the same line, I know the Germans were developing an atomic bomb, were the British doing the same? I can imagine nightmare scenarios where the US and USSR are not involved but the Germans were able to develop the bomb.

Thirdly, could the British have used Indian troops if the Japanese continued their expansion?

Thanks ahead of time!

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I don't see how the British Empire had any chance of liberating Europe from the German Empire alone. Most of the German military was fighting on the Eastern front against the USSR and without this I do not see how any Normandy type invasion could possibly succeed.

There are a lot of other reasons too but that seems to be the most straight forward.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Thirdly, could the British have used Indian troops if the Japanese continued their expansion?

Indian troops were used extensively in Southeast Asia. In some cases they changed sides and fought for the Japanese (Indian National Army).

 

[Knighterror1013]

No, it took "Allies" to invade and defeat Germany. The other poster hit it right on the head about the eastern front. It was the U.S who really tipped the balance of power, they supplied the Soviets and British with aid of weapons, hardware, money and food, and kept the Russians going. Then, they had to send hundreds of thousands of U.S soldiers to England to take part with the British in launching the largest amphibious invasion ever well the Russians launched millions of men straight into German postions. Many did not make it. Thats what it took to defeat the Germans, and no nation, let alone the British would have been able to do it at that time.

 

[Shekwan]

If the British were able to hold out in Europe and defeat the threats to the empire then perhaps they would have had the resources to put up a good fight. Commonwealth and US forces had a tough time on the western front against second rate opposition so I doubt the Britsh empire alone would have a chance against the full resources of a Nazi Europe.

I guess their long term strategy would have had to be to maintain the empire so they'd have the resources to resist anyt Nazi attacks. It's pretty unrealistic that they'd have no allies though.

 

[carmen510]

No. The USSR kept Germany's resources away from the Western Front and the United States supplied much of the manpower and war materials.

The British Empire may be able to keep soldiers on the Isles to prevent invasion. However, the British fleet, while strong, was scattered all over the globe. While the Home Fleet is nothing to sneer at, it is possible that if there was more investment in the Kreigsmarine, Hitler could've gone on with Operation Sealion.

Remember that Britain also relied on US imported food. Unless there would still be neutral trading, it is likely the British would be starved.

 

[aronnax]

They could at most fight it out to a stalemate.

 

[RedRalph]

I question wether the Brits and the US would have been able to win had the USSR been knocked out.

 

[aronnax]

I question wether the Brits and the US would have been able to win had the USSR been knocked out.

Well Probrably. I suspect that even if Germany captured Moscow, Russia would still be a threat. Much of the country's war industry had been relocated East of the Urals. Aside from a major propagandic and moral lost, the Germans would still need to cross the mountains to bring Russia entirely on the knees. In that case, German troops would police lands from Brittany to the Volga, a large stretch. I would believe, like Russians are, would start a guerilla war that would tie down many German Divisions.

And like the Penisular War, there would be more troops hunting down rebels and Guerillas than fighting actual an Standing Army. And with US Might, they could just as well assault Italy and France. However, more time and lives would had been lost as the Russians were like a "swarm of disease-ridden flies" to the Nazi, deadly and annoying. Without their massive amounts, it would be harder

 

[Dragonlord]

Did the British Empire, by itself, have any real chance of liberating Europe from the Germans? I mean this as if the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did not get involved. What was their long-term strategy? Wait out the Germans until one of those two power-houses got involved? I know the Germans had no way of invading the Isles because of the Royal Fleet.

Along the same line, I know the Germans were developing an atomic bomb, were the British doing the same? I can imagine nightmare scenarios where the US and USSR are not involved but the Germans were able to develop the bomb.

After the Fall of France and the Balkan Campaign? With German troops poised near the Suez Canal?
Noooo way would the British Empire alone have liberated Europe alone at this point! In fact, Britain would probably have had to make terms at some point, if they didn't want to starve..

I bet Churchill was never so relieved as when he heard Germany had attacked the Soviets - from this point on Britain had hope again ... and the US coming in was the icing on the cake.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Well Probrably. I suspect that even if Germany captured Moscow, Russia would still be a threat. Much of the country's war industry had been relocated East of the Urals. Aside from a major propagandic and moral lost, the Germans would still need to cross the mountains to bring Russia entirely on the knees. In that case, German troops would police lands from Brittany to the Volga, a large stretch. I would believe, like Russians are, would start a guerilla war that would tie down many German Divisions.

And like the Penisular War, there would be more troops hunting down rebels and Guerillas than fighting actual an Standing Army. And with US Might, they could just as well assault Italy and France. However, more time and lives would had been lost as the Russians were like a "swarm of disease-ridden flies" to the Nazi, deadly and annoying. Without their massive amounts, it would be harder

Definitely possible..........And if people started propoganda or civil unrest in Germany, we might have turned up with more commanders willing to assassinate HItler.

After the Fall of France and the Balkan Campaign? With German troops poised near the Suez Canal?
Noooo way would the British Empire alone have liberated Europe alone at this point! In fact, Britain would probably have had to make terms at some point, if they didn't want to starve..

I bet Churchill was never so relieved as when he heard Germany had attacked the Soviets - from this point on Britain had hope again ... and the US coming in was the icing on the cake.

Churchill is the one of the weirdest men in history............for reference look at my thread about the jews

 

[Taras Bulba]

Well... personally, I believe that Great Britain was saved from Nazi Germany because they were lucky enough to develop Radar at the right time (whether or not they were the FIRST to develop it, I'm still not sure)

Had the British never developed radar, I don't believe they would've been able to beat the Luftwaffe, and with the RAF completely out of the way, the Royal Navy wouldn't have had a good chance of beating the Luftwaffe AND the Kriegsmarine... but despite the fact Britain held the Nazi's on the continent, that didn't mean that they really had that strong of a capability to fight back. Had the USSR or the USA NOT gotten involved, Great Britain would've EVENTUALLY fallen, so yes, in a way, Great Britain was only holding off the Nazi's until someone strong enough to fight back would do something

as to whether or not Great Britain had an atomic program, I'm not sure whether or not they had their OWN, but I know they did share in the efforts of the Manhattan Project

I strongly believe Japan's fall was inevitable. Even without American efforts, I don't believe Japanese troops were much good outside of jungle warfare, and the British troops (and Indian-British (Indo-British?) troops) would've been able to beat them back, especially with help from Australia, and if you include other nations, China, European Colonial Powers, and the USSR.... I mean, think about it logically, in times of WWII, it was the transition between strong Navy rules the day and a strong airforce rules the day. Seeing as their navy AND airforce was currently trying to control pretty much all the Pacific, to extend that power over the Indian Ocean AND keep the Pacific perfectly safe would be alot to ask for, especially seeing the Japanese view of their airforce.

 

[nonconformist]

In some cases they changed sides and fought for the Japanese (Indian National Army).

My friend, the vast majority of those troops fled right back over to the english the first chance they got. Ther only reason they joined the INA was to rejoin the Brits and kick Jap arse.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

The British and US together could never have been able to land sufficient forces on the continent to make and hold a bridgehead if the Germans had millions of soldiers to defend the landing points. They could have beat Germany given sufficient preparation in a straight-out land war in Europe, as they did in Africa, but they needed some stable base on the continent first. Without the diversion of the German army East, they would not have been able to gain a foothold on the continent. The German coastal defences could not be penetrated if the bulk of the German army was in them.

As for Germany invading Britain, it's a nonsense scenario. Britain had, and continued to build, more than enough planes and ships to make such a landing impossible.

A war between Britain and Germany would be decided in the Middle East, North Africa and south-east Asia (provided the Japanese join the German alliance) and would probably end in a status-quo peace.

 

[aronnax]

The British and US together could never have been able to land sufficient forces on the continent to make and hold a bridgehead if the Germans had millions of soldiers to defend the landing points. They could have beat Germany given sufficient preparation in a straight-out land war in Europe, as they did in Africa, but they needed some stable base on the continent first. Without the diversion of the German army East, they would not have been able to gain a foothold on the continent. The German coastal defences could not be penetrated if the bulk of the German army was in them.

As for Germany invading Britain, it's a nonsense scenario. Britain had, and continued to build, more than enough planes and ships to make such a landing impossible.

A war between Britain and Germany would be decided in the Middle East, North Africa and south-east Asia (provided the Japanese join the German alliance) and would probably end in a status-quo peace.

Sicily? Italy? Greece? I can see possible assault points from there

 

[silver 2039]

My friend, the vast majority of those troops fled right back over to the english the first chance they got. Ther only reason they joined the INA was to rejoin the Brits and kick Jap arse.

Sounds like Imperialist propaganda to me.

 

[Tee Kay]

I strongly believe Japan's fall was inevitable. Even without American efforts, I don't believe Japanese troops were much good outside of jungle warfare, and the British troops (and Indian-British (Indo-British?) troops) would've been able to beat them back, especially with help from Australia, and if you include other nations, China, European Colonial Powers, and the USSR.... I mean, think about it logically, in times of WWII, it was the transition between strong Navy rules the day and a strong airforce rules the day. Seeing as their navy AND airforce was currently trying to control pretty much all the Pacific, to extend that power over the Indian Ocean AND keep the Pacific perfectly safe would be alot to ask for, especially seeing the Japanese view of their airforce.

The problem wasn't terrain - there aren't any jungles in Japan itself, after all, and Japanese troops have proven competent from places as far apart as Siberia and China and Alaska and Assam. The problem was, as you said later in your post, distance. Japan fell into the same trap as Napoleon in 1812 and Nazi Germany at around the same time by fighting a two front war and overstretching its forces and supply lines. Japan consists of small islands with limited resources. The Japanese navy and airforce was the strongest of its day but even that couldn't give them mastery over the vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean. The war with China tied down large number of troops and aircrafts, where Japanese control was limited due to China's size, poor infrastructure and partisan activity. Then the Japanese carriers were wiped out at Midway and with it Japan's chance at winning the war.

 

[luiz]

The British and US together could never have been able to land sufficient forces on the continent to make and hold a bridgehead if the Germans had millions of soldiers to defend the landing points. They could have beat Germany given sufficient preparation in a straight-out land war in Europe, as they did in Africa, but they needed some stable base on the continent first. Without the diversion of the German army East, they would not have been able to gain a foothold on the continent. The German coastal defences could not be penetrated if the bulk of the German army was in them.

As for Germany invading Britain, it's a nonsense scenario. Britain had, and continued to build, more than enough planes and ships to make such a landing impossible.

A war between Britain and Germany would be decided in the Middle East, North Africa and south-east Asia (provided the Japanese join the German alliance) and would probably end in a status-quo peace.

As aronnax said, they wold probably have used Italy or some other point in Southern Europe as an "european base". I think it's quite clear that the british and the americans could have defeated the germans without the soviets (the US had more manpower and far more industrial capability than Germany), it would just have been longer and bloodier and would have demanded a larger commitment of the US. Ultimately though there was no reason why it could't be done.

Conversely, there is no way Germany could have defeated the US. They could at most hope for a stalemate.

 

[Renner]

Assuming the USSR was not tearing down Germany from the east there would be a hell of a lot more Axis Soldiers to lock down southern Europe as well. I don't think Italy/Greece or any location in Nazi held Europe would be a great landing spot in that case.

In that situation though, perhaps Spain could be used as a base for an invasion (willingly or unwillingly). I am not sure how likely an event that would be however.

 

[luiz]

Assuming the USSR was not tearing down Germany from the east there would be a hell of a lot more Axis Soldiers to lock down southern Europe as well. I don't think Italy/Greece or any location in Nazi held Europe would be a great landing spot in that case.

In that situation though, perhaps Spain could be used as a base for an invasion (willingly or unwillingly). I am not sure how likely an event that would be however.

It wouldn't be easy. But I have no idea of why some people believe in the crazy notion that without the USSR, Nazi Germany could not be defeated.

Let us think for a second:
-The USA had more industrial capabilities, and the gap only got bigger
-The USA had more people
-Add the rather impressive power of Britain and the Commonwealth

How does this ammount to "impossible to defeat Germany without the soviets"? It makes no sense. It would be bloodier*, and longer, but the outcome would be the same.

*for the westerns; the total death toll would be lower because, never forget, many soviet soldiers charged virtually unnarmed and were little more than target practice; Stalin's purge of competent officers and idiotic tactics of the early stages didn't help either