Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

[parsifal]

Yes the germans are the bad guys and the allied are the good guys, it doesn't matter how and why are the circumstances!
Mr. Parsifal you make me sick with your argumentation! Believe your mystery myths and I believe in reality!

I never said the Germans were the bad guys and the allies were the good guys, but now that you mention it, after the war, Germany as a nation was found guilty of waging an aggressive war, and from that war guilt was found to be the fault of the Germans. Since you are the anti-Nazi that you claim, you should have no problem accepting that

There is no argument, no mystery. Germany undertook unrestricted U-Boat and surface raider attacks on neutral shipping both inside and outside declared neutrality zones. Ther were reasons for doing that. I am not arguing that. However the point at contention her has nothing to do with that. In the first instance the relevant issue is whether German actions caused or influenced a neutral block like the American states to drift to a pro-allied stance, not who committed war crimes, or who likes strawberry ice cream or who had honour and who didnt. And neither does whether you like me, or not. Frankly, I get a sense of achievment from the fact that i have made you sick.

In the second instance the issue is whether the germans were acting legally or illegally in attacking neutral shipping in a declared neutrality zone. You call that hocum and "mystery". I call that the difference between the western allies and Germany. Germany never cared about any nation but itself, and was prepared to say anything, do anything, to get its way. The German state had no respect for national decency or moral standards, and that my friend really ticks you off, i can tell. It certainly mattered to a country like the US, so deeply embedded with ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, righteous and evil. By the time the germans declared war on the US, I think it fair to say that the majority of US citizens viewed Nazi germany as an amoral state, that they would have to take action against sooner or later.

You don't get it! I hate nazis but I'm an idealist and that will include all perspective's of the war in WWII and the given history!
You can argument till the next century about german "piracy" and the "spirit" of US neutrality"!
For me I did doesn't count! The facts are counting nor more no less!

Your right I dont get it. You say that you are interested in the truth, but when it hits you in the face, you dont like it. After all the filibustering and aggression, this is waht it all boild down to

1) Did the german conduct of anti-shipping operations influence US attitudes towards the germans. Speicifically were the attacks on US shipping having a good effect or a bad one

2) Were unrestricted Uboat (and surface raider) attacks on neutral shipping legal under international law in the context of the war.

Ther is no inference on German honour or whatever the hell else you want to try to introduce into this argument. Concentrate on the issues at hand and see, if in that foggy thing you call your consciousness, whether you can figure it out or not

There are more then 100 issues were the US Navy radio reported the station of axis ships, to be secure that GB or Commenwealth ships hit the goal. The Us neutralty was on very weak feets at the chasing of Bismarck and the Larconia incedent will tell you very much!

The minutae of the American response to unrestricted U-Boat attacks against their shipping included closer co-operation with the Allies. The harder the Germans cracked their (illegal) whip, the closer the Americans drifted to the allied camp. Allied submarines and ships were not sinking without warning US ships ouside of a declared war zone. Neutral shipping within a declared war zone were sunk....without warning i might add, by the british, but that is a completely different circumstance to the one faced by the US.

This was stated from many historian all over the world! And now I'm out! Believe in your mystery myths, every normal member or guest of this forum, can get his own opinion with a little research! But please you should be secure when you raise the next mystery myth, I'm in!

Enjoy your holiday. Dont lose any slep about me will you..... ciao for now

 

[jim]

Mr DonL
Dont waste your time.... It ss pointless...

 

[Shortround6]

Going to the original question (post 1) the Allies, without the Russians, could have beaten the Germans, it might have taken until 1947 or so but it would have happened. US war production didn't peak until 1944.

The american steel production per year equaled the rest the world put together with a fair amount left over.

The bombing campaign didn't really get going until 1944. over 3 1/2 times the tonnage of bombs were dropped in 1944 as in 1940,41, 42 and 43 put together.

Airpower alone would not have defeated the Germans but such overwhelming airpower would have paved the way for invasion and defeat on the ground.

 

[Glider]

Its possible that you might have had a similar situation as at the end of WW1 where Germany surrendered without being invaded. Germany wasn't self sufficient in any area including food and a heavy sustained bombing campaign would eventually resulted in a breakdown of the infrastructure. This might have led to a breakdown similar to the end of WW1 with starvation and unrest.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... Its possible that you might have had a similar situation as at the end of WW1 where Germany surrendered without being invaded."

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me .."

I don't think conditional surrender was in the cards ... ever. Even without the Death Camps.

MM

 

[Jenisch]

The resources the US would be able to turn against the European Axis if only had to fight them surely would be significant. The bombing campaign for example, probably would started sooner. Aircraft like the B-29 and the B-36 perhaps also would appeared sooner.

Parsifal, you that are/was a naval man, any plausible chance of a US assault in Norway with the full power of the USN in your view?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Very very last time.

1. Get back on topic.

2. Quit flaming each other.

The next time, both parties will have a short vacation to the beach. Both parties...

Ignore me once, shame on you. Ignore me twice...

 

[parsifal]

The resources the US would be able to turn against the European Axis if only had to fight them surely would be significant. The bombing campaign for example, probably would started sooner. Aircraft like the B-29 and the B-36 perhaps also would appeared sooner.

Parsifal, you that are/was a naval man, any plausible chance of a US assault in Norway with the full power of the USN in your view?

One of the reasons I keep saying its hard to predict, is because both sides of the ledger will have significantly greater forces. An allied force, reinforced with the materiel that would have otherwise gone to the pacific and the USSR ranged against the historical forces of the third reich will not have any difficulty in defeating the Germans. Against a reinforced german position it would be much more problematic.


Its harder than it looks to predict this scenario.

 

[Readie]

One of the reasons I keep saying its hard to predict, is because both sides of the ledger will have significantly greater forces. An allied force, reinforced with the materiel that would have otherwise gone to the pacific and the USSR ranged against the historical forces of the third reich will not have any difficulty in defeating the Germans. Against a reinforced german position it would be much more problematic.


Its harder than it looks to predict this scenario.

Not only hard, damn nearly impossible Michael.
There are so many variables involved.
How Hitler Could Have Won World War II by Bevin Alexander
This book poses some interesting and well considered points.
But, at the end of the day its all speculation.
John

 

[Jenisch]

Not only hard, damn nearly impossible Michael.
There are so many variables involved.
How Hitler Could Have Won World War II by Bevin Alexander
This book poses some interesting and well considered points.
But, at the end of the day its all speculation.
John

I agree. Interesting book BTW, will add it to my list.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Mr DonL
Dont waste your time.... It ss pointless...

That goes for you too. Don't put fuel on a fire. If you are not going to say anything that pertains to the topic, don't say it.

 

[bobbysocks]

Parsifal, you that are/was a naval man, any plausible chance of a US assault in Norway with the full power of the USN in your view?

i think that the allies would have to replicate the russian scenario...by that i mean open other fronts to draw troops into the fray and stretch supply lines. if not in norway then??? the allies could do that because they had the men and resources to do that. with out the war in russia, and the LW in better position to stymie a cross channel invasion, germany's only front then would have been africa. another front would have had to been instigated if only to redirect resources from that theater. norway would have opened up more bomber routes to the heart of germany that the LW would have to defend. it would have been a COLD and brutal campaign for all parties involved. other than there where do you go....spain? turkey? options are limited...

 

[Readie]

i think that the allies would have to replicate the russian scenario...by that i mean open other fronts to draw troops into the fray and stretch supply lines. if not in norway then??? the allies could do that because they had the men and resources to do that. with out the war in russia, and the LW in better position to stymie a cross channel invasion, germany's only front then would have been africa. another front would have had to been instigated if only to redirect resources from that theater. norway would have opened up more bomber routes to the heart of germany that the LW would have to defend. it would have been a COLD and brutal campaign for all parties involved. other than there where do you go....spain? turkey? options are limited...

There are limited but, we assume that Hitler carries on with his attacks.

I wonder if Hitler and the Herman high command had consolidated the 1940 victories and used the undoubted might of the panzers for protection rather than assault whether the allies could have broken through...

In this scenario, bomber attacks may have been the less costly option for the allies.

Having said that, Germany would have to ensure the supply of raw materials, food, fuel etc.

To keep on topic, I'll suggest that the supply of these essential materials was Germany's Achilles heel.

Do you think airpower could have disrupted the supply lines enough to weaken Germany enough to make a allied land assault possible?

John

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... In this scenario, bomber attacks may have been the less costly option for the allies.

Having said that, Germany would have to ensure the supply of raw materials, food, fuel etc.

To keep on topic, I'll suggest that the supply of these essential materials was Germany's Achilles heel.

Do you think airpower could have disrupted the supply lines enough to weaken Germany enough to make a allied land assault possible?..."

YES but with much delay ...

"Germany would have to ensure the supply of raw materials, food, fuel etc. [ ...] the supply of these essential materials was Germany's Achilles heel."

In ANY SCENARIO this is Hitler's AH That is why going to Russia was never an option. Open country where tanks and airpower could work together fitted into the quick war that Hitler fancied he wanted.

Without Hitler going to Russia, allied airpower has to deny him his oil from Romania (rail), his high grade industrial ores from Sweden and Norway (sea) and his 'food' from France, Holland, Denmark (road, rail, canal).

We know the Allies can shut down the railroads and canals in Western Europe ... they did so just before Normandy, June 1944. But can they totally blockade all traffic from Norway and Sweden (a neutral)? I don't believe so. With no resources spent in Russia, many other projects would have been conceived -- Germans would have developed freighter U boats for some cargoes (and I don't mean aero engines to Japan ).

There is no alternative for the Allies but to put boots on the beaches -- eventually, 1947 or so, without the Soviets, IMHO. Airpower (minus the big A) alone, cannot do the whole job.

MM

 

[Readie]

'There is no alternative for the Allies but to put boots on the beaches -- eventually, 1947 or so..'

The only example of unconditional surrender without a land assault would be the Japanese.
Now, if we spin forward to, say 1947,the A bomb would have available so, if Hitler was unchallenged and impregnable in his fortified domain what would be the allies choice?

1) Expend untold thousands of allied lives in a D Day invasion combined with 24/7 bombing?
2) Keep dropping A bombs on Germany till Hitler got the message?

John

 

[michaelmaltby]

I am unclear - in the current premise - what the status of the German-Russian MT Pact of September, 1939. Can someone please clarify this. ????

MM

 

[Jenisch]

I really doubt Hitler would not try develop an atomic bomb in this scenario.

 

[Readie]

I really doubt Hitler would not try develop an atomic bomb in this scenario.

The Germans would try, that was the point of the V1 rocket. Whether they would have the resources is another matter.
Had they succeeded then the Nuclear arms race would have started early.
Gulp
John

 

[Readie]

I am unclear - in the current premise - what the status of the German-Russian MT Pact of September, 1939. Can someone please clarify this. ????

MM

Try to keep up Michael

John

 

[Sagittario64]

This sort of pertains to germanys situation. If the western allies didnt use ground forces, italy wouldnt be invaded and the split wouldnt happen. aircraft production would still continue. Germany was trying to get several italian designs for its own use. these include the Re.2006, G.56, SAI.403. The G.56 was rated to be equal to the late 109 models, and equal or superior to the fw.190A. if germany had started producing these in the quantities they wanted, not only would the allies be dealing with bf.109s and fw.190s, they would have to deal with quite likely several JGs equipped with G.56s, if not SAI.403s and Re.2006s too. These fighters would not only boost the number of fighters germany had, but would also give them powerful bomber destroyers with more than adequate performance. The germans would also have the 4 or 5 hundred Re.2002s(equipped with BMW engines, possibly making them much more formidable fighter-bombers than the Piaggio engined ones) and CR.42LWs they wanted from Italy. correct me if im wrong with any of these assumptions, but i think that for any situation with germany fighting wwii hypothetical scenarios, her allies should be taken into consideration, as they significantly affected germanys fortunes in the war