Taiwan: Would War be viable?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


, and this with the British moving the bulk of their army there, while the Germans were adding a small portion of their to stiffen the weak Italian forces.

No, the bulk of their army was in the UK.

You really need to learn more about amphibious warfare. It doesnt matter if UK has only 50 divisions, and Germany has a 150. If they can only land 2 or 3, and can only quickly follow up with a few more, you only need enough forces to beat those few. thats why the Brits were MOST anxious about invasion in May - August 1940 - when there were only a couple of intact divisions available in the UK. Once the UK forces reached 30 or 40 divisions invasion was out of the question. The Germans would have needed the kind of air and sea dominance, and amphibious ships (instead of rhine river barges) and logistical abilities that the UK AND US brought to bear in 1944. Maybe they could have managed that, by building up over say, 15 or 20 years. But why would the USSR sit back and watch that happen, when Soviet power is growing every year?

All of which assumes that the UK with a developed nuclear program that contributed signficantly to the US program, doesnt build an A bomb first.


Look Britain may not be number one power in 1940. I dont think i said they were. It was a multipolar world. In terms of GDP US passed Britain earlier as I said. Britain was certainly the dominant power diplomatically and politically in the interwar period. By 1943 or so the world was bipolar, and id venture the US was essentially the number one power. If you want to quibble about relative UK vs German power year by year you can, going by either size of armed forces (which means Germany shoots up in the lates 30s while britain starts to catch up later) or by GDP controlled (which would add to Germanys power as she conquers in 1940) This is a quibble. Germany had no extended period as the worlds number one power. Essentially the US succeeded the UK.


And what the hell does this have to do with China?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Imagine if Germany had fully mobilized its economy for war in 1940, and not 1942

then the possibility of the UK landing in Europe without either US or Soviet help approaches zero.

So?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


then the possibility of the UK landing in Europe without either US or Soviet help approaches zero.

So?

You base your arguement of the UK being a greater power than germany on the fact the Uk outproduced Germany during the war. Yes, it did, I have seen the numbers myself plenty of times.

What that ginores is that german production numbers were low thanks to immense Nazi incompetence and savegery, NOT because somehow the British empire had greater potential.

Germany had much greater potential than the UK- we should all be glad that Germany's expansionistic rulers circa 1940 were as incompetent as they were, had they been 80% as ruthless but twice as competent Germany would have won.

As for the other implication of your "so", without being able to invade Europe the Uk would have been wiped out in the end- Theoretically Germany would have been able to utelize the full industrial might of all of Europe, secured the oil fields of the Caucases, and then broken the Brits in the Middle east. Certainly, the Germans would not be able to beat the UK outright for a while, the the relative power balacne would have only been getting worse and worse for the UK.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Imagine if Germany had fully mobilized its economy for war in 1940, and not 1942

Imagine that Germany had mobilized as per OTL, but that UK had received no assistance whatsoever from Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa or India.

Things look real scary in summer of 1940, without the Canadian division. Suez falls. The Italians stay in Ethiopia. Without the RCN, winning the battle of the Atlantic is that much more difficult. Its a mess.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

You base your arguement of the UK being a greater power than germany on the fact the Uk outproduced Germany during the war. Yes, it did, I have seen the numbers myself plenty of times.

What that ginores is that german production numbers were low thanks to immense Nazi incompetence and savegery, NOT because somehow the British empire had greater potential.

Germany had much greater potential than the UK- we should all be glad that Germany's expansionistic rulers circa 1940 were as incompetent as they were, had they been 80% as ruthless but twice as competent Germany would have won.

actually the problem is that i misrembered Paul Kennedy. He shows Germany plus occupied lands, i think, as having a larger war making potential than uk + the Commonwealth. I got confused, mea culpa. Shows why its better to check books than to just argue.

As for Germany winning - against UK + comm alone, IF no uk A bomb, and IF theyre left alone by the USSR for at least 10 years, to build the shipyards, to build the ships, etc, yes they can win. Not a plausible set of conditions, though.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

- Theoretically Germany would have been able to utelize the full industrial might of all of Europe, secured the oil fields of the Caucases, and then broken the Brits in the Middle east. Certainly, the Germans would not be able to beat the UK outright for a while, the the relative power balacne would have only been getting worse and worse for the UK.

howd they secure the Cauc while staying at peace with the USSR? Is this a timeline where the USSR has failed to retake the Caus republics in the 1920's?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
All of which assumes that the UK with a developed nuclear program that contributed signficantly to the US program, doesnt build an A bomb first.

Or the Germans...

Look Britain may not be number one power in 1940. I dont think i said they were. It was a multipolar world. In terms of GDP US passed Britain earlier as I said. Britain was certainly the dominant power diplomatically and politically in the interwar period. By 1943 or so the world was bipolar, and id venture the US was essentially the number one power. If you want to quibble about relative UK vs German power year by year you can, going by either size of armed forces (which means Germany shoots up in the lates 30s while britain starts to catch up later) or by GDP controlled (which would add to Germanys power as she conquers in 1940) This is a quibble. Germany had no extended period as the worlds number one power. Essentially the US succeeded the UK.

This is were you again are wrong. You are wrong first to count production in the dominions and in Britain's colonies, because a significant portion of that was for local use (for exmaple, the UK's PCI would have to be vastly smaller than is usually given, snce one would have to include 400 Million subject peoples) and the few places with any real industry were self-ruling by 1940.

Once we give up the notion that oversea's empire's are a significant add on to GDP, we see that Germany byspassed the UK by 1900. This power differential can be seen by for example the massive expansion of the German navy, and the fact the German army was avastly more powerful force than the British army ever was from 1900 on. The British army in 1916 was still significantly smaller than the German army, and this was certainly true through all of WW2, until the very end collapse. BY 1940 you could say that not only had Germany and the US surpassed the UK, but the USSR under Stalin had as well. By your innitial GDP and production based arguement, the USSR outproduced the UK.

And what the hell does this have to do with China?

You brought this up- it is tangentially valid because it goes to the heart of your statements about transfers of power. You keep claiming world leadership passed from the UK to the US in 1942 and want to compare than to China's rise. I am saying that it is wrong to claim the US surpassed the Uk as the world's leading power in 1942, because the US had passed the UK at least 4 decades before. This brings into question your arguments about power transfers.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Germany had much greater potential than the UK- we should all be glad that Germany's expansionistic rulers circa 1940 were as incompetent as they were, had they been 80% as ruthless but twice as competent Germany would have won.

we should also be glad that Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, and India were part of the British empire, and were able to lend there considerable weight to the allied side at its darkest hour.

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by GePap
actually the problem is that i misrembered Paul Kennedy. He shows Germany plus occupied lands, i think, as having a larger war making potential than uk + the Commonwealth. I got confused, mea culpa. Shows why its better to check books than to just argue.

by 1944 most of the occupied lands were under direct threat, Note the germans had less territory in 1944 than 1943, and the Germans were really never able to squeeze much out of their empire, specially in the east. The conquered areas that did make a significant difference woould be the lands taken prior to ww2 itself, Austria and Bohemia.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


howd they secure the Cauc while staying at peace with the USSR? Is this a timeline where the USSR has failed to retake the Caus republics in the 1920's?

I assume a German war with the USSR, since it is utterly implausible to think of a Nazi Germany without it getitng into war with the Soviet Union.

What I assume is no US involvement.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Or the Germans...

The weakness of the German nuke program relative to the UK program has been discussed at great length on SHWI, IIRC. Im not going to google for you.

Look Britain may not be number one power in 1940. I dont think i said they were. It was a multipolar world. In terms of GDP US passed Britain earlier as I said. Britain was certainly the dominant power diplomatically and politically in the interwar period. By 1943 or so the world was bipolar, and id venture the US was essentially the number one power. If you want to quibble about relative UK vs German power year by year you can, going by either size of armed forces (which means Germany shoots up in the lates 30s while britain starts to catch up later) or by GDP controlled (which would add to Germanys power as she conquers in 1940) This is a quibble. Germany had no extended period as the worlds number one power. Essentially the US succeeded the UK.

This is were you again are wrong. You are wrong first to count production in the dominions and in Britain's colonies, because a significant portion of that was for local use (for exmaple, the UK's PCI would have to be vastly smaller than is usually given, snce one would have to include 400 Million subject peoples)

lotm - Yes, and a considerable part of most countrys GDP in 1940 was for subsistence. So instead of GDP wed have to look at other measures. Do that if you will, dont just focus on UK's GDP.


and the few places with any real industry were self-ruling by 1940.


LOTM - internally, but they supported UK virtually automatically at war. Even in 1939. Much more so in 1914.

Once we give up the notion that oversea's empire's are a significant add on to GDP, we see that Germany byspassed the UK by 1900. This power differential can be seen by for example the massive expansion of the German navy, and the fact the German army was avastly more powerful force than the British army ever was from 1900 on. The British army in 1916 was still significantly smaller than the German army

LOTM - cause UK in WW1 continued its classic strategy of funding allies, using seapower, etc.




BY 1940 you could say that not only had Germany and the US surpassed the UK, but the USSR under Stalin had as well. By your innitial GDP and production based arguement, the USSR outproduced the UK.

LOTM - it certainly did.

You brought this up- it is tangentially valid because it goes to the heart of your statements about transfers of power. You keep claiming world leadership passed from the UK to the US in 1942 and want to compare than to China's rise. I am saying that it is wrong to claim the US surpassed the Uk as the world's leading power in 1942, because the US had passed the UK at least 4 decades before. This brings into question your arguments about power transfers.

No I did not. I said that leadership passed from the UK to the US. Broadly speaking thats true. And that the US did not effectively become number 1 till 1943. Which is also true.

But I was perhaps being overly helpful to you in recognizing that the period from 1900 to 1943 was complex, since you have latched onto this, and it adds nothing to your argument. Lets simply say that the transition from the UK to the US happened in 1900, and forget the mess of the early 20th century. Now which of my points about China is weakened?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I assume a German war with the USSR, since it is utterly implausible to think of a Nazi Germany without it getitng into war with the Soviet Union.

What I assume is no US involvement.

Then Germany loses. in one of several ways. UK builds up while they are invading the USSR. Germany takes Moscow in October 1941. They either make a compromise peace or they dont. IF they make a compromise peace, the USSR goes on building up in whatever is left of the USSR. UK has been building up meanwhile, and bombing Germany, and preparing for Torch. Germany will now have to demobilize to free up resources for the naval drive. eventually the USSR will attack, if they havent made peace with the UK.

OTOH its hard to imagine a peace that Hitler would accept that any USSR leader, Stalin or post-stalin could accept. So the war goes on in the east. Eventually the USSR builds up enough strength and attacks, in conjunction with UK strength in the west.

See, youve got to assume an unrealistic USSR end game to make this work. Basically you need a guy whos gonna make a very gentle peace with russia, and practically make the USSR an ally. this may not be feasible after June 1941 even if Hitler gets a brain transplant. THe ussr simply isnt going to be fooled again. And it requires a German leader of a type who probably wouldnt have gone to war this way to begin with.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Yes, and a considerable part of most countrys GDP in 1940 was for subsistence. So instead of GDP wed have to look at other measures. Do that if you will, dont just focus on UK's GDP.

Like what? The only thing you brought out was war production- which is a flawed tool at best, and would contradict you anyways, specially with regard to the relation of power not only of the UK to Germany, but the UK to the USSR

LOTM - internally, but they supported UK virtually automatically at war. Even in 1939. Much more so in 1914.

They still had independent production. If you look at troop numbers from WW1 the number of troops from all the dominons was dwarved by the number of troops from home.

LOTM - cause UK in WW1 continued its classic strategy of funding allies, using seapower, etc.

Not true. First, the UK certainly did NOT "finance" its allies. The Uk and all its European allies were deep in debt by the time the US got involved. The UK had no money to bankroll. And the UK did fieled its first ever large conscript army in WW1- it became a significant player on the European battlefields, but well behind Germany.

No I did not. I said that leadership passed from the UK to the US. Broadly speaking thats true. And that the US did not effectively become number 1 till 1943. Which is also true.

"Leadership", of what? Of the western allies? certainly. Of the world? Not for a second.

But I was perhaps being overly helpful to you in recognizing that the period from 1900 to 1943 was complex, since you have latched onto this, and it adds nothing to your argument. Lets simply say that the transition from the UK to the US happened in 1900, and forget the mess of the early 20th century. Now which of my points about China is weakened?

I don;t know, but it makes my point, since if we claim that transition, it happened completely peacefully, and was the result of the rise of the US economy even as the UK kept getting richer per capita.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Then Germany loses. in one of several ways. UK builds up while they are invading the USSR. Germany takes Moscow in October 1941. They either make a compromise peace or they dont. IF they make a compromise peace, the USSR goes on building up in whatever is left of the USSR. UK has been building up meanwhile, and bombing Germany, and preparing for Torch. Germany will now have to demobilize to free up resources for the naval drive. eventually the USSR will attack, if they havent made peace with the UK.

OTOH its hard to imagine a peace that Hitler would accept that any USSR leader, Stalin or post-stalin could accept. So the war goes on in the east. Eventually the USSR builds up enough strength and attacks, in conjunction with UK strength in the west.

See, youve got to assume an unrealistic USSR end game to make this work. Basically you need a guy whos gonna make a very gentle peace with russia, and practically make the USSR an ally. this may not be feasible after June 1941 even if Hitler gets a brain transplant. THe ussr simply isnt going to be fooled again. And it requires a German leader of a type who probably wouldnt have gone to war this way to begin with.

but wait a minute. the build up in 1940 isnt naval forces - Hitler is building up his ground and tactical air forces - even though he cant take britain, and britain cant land in europe. And stalin just watches, and keeps selling him resources. This happens cause, er, Stalin, well, er, cause Stalin really, really wants GePap to win this argument? Cause stalin is stupid?

Of course not. If Germany begins a massive ground force buildup in june 1940, Stalin takes not and responds. Either launches a premptive strike, or at least cuts off raw materials.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Then Germany loses. in one of several ways. UK builds up while they are invading the USSR. Germany takes Moscow in October 1941. They either make a compromise peace or they dont. IF they make a compromise peace, the USSR goes on building up in whatever is left of the USSR. UK has been building up meanwhile, and bombing Germany, and preparing for Torch. Germany will now have to demobilize to free up resources for the naval drive. eventually the USSR will attack, if they havent made peace with the UK.

The UK was NOT strong enough by iself to overcome the German armies in the west-and both the UK and the Soviets were heavily dependent on US material support, the Brits for war fighting equipment and shipping, the Soviets for logistical support (food and trucks).

OTOH its hard to imagine a peace that Hitler would accept that any USSR leader, Stalin or post-stalin could accept. So the war goes on in the east. Eventually the USSR builds up enough strength and attacks, in conjunction with UK strength in the west.

The UK had nothing to build up- it alone could not beat the Germans in France, even with the Germans occupied in Soviet Russia.

See, youve got to assume an unrealistic USSR end game to make this work. Basically you need a guy whos gonna make a very gentle peace with russia, and practically make the USSR an ally. this may not be feasible after June 1941 even if Hitler gets a brain transplant. THe ussr simply isnt going to be fooled again. And it requires a German leader of a type who probably wouldnt have gone to war this way to begin with.

This is what you are missing: Germany, once it beat France and became dominant on the Continent, was capable of keeping the Brits out, while focusing on the USSR, and against the USSR it had a fair chance, one that was certainly weakened by the inability of the Germans to fully mobilize their war machine, their ihumanity towards the populations of the East, and thier desire to waste resources on the Holocaust. Again, a more competent German leadership not as bent on beings as evil as possible to the "untermenschen" while still at war would have probably being ablt to create a New Europe to its liking, because they would have ben able to recruit the peoples of the east in thier anti-bolshevik campaign, while safetly isolating the UK to the side.