The Lionization of Neville Chamberlain

[Irbis]

If we remove american support does that not also mean that there are no supplies coming from america to brittain at all? As in no raw materials and no food. Can Canada and the colonies really feed the isles?

Well, if this study is to be believed, UK and Ireland could actually feed themselves even in the case of 100% naval blockade. The only question was population morale.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Try Seafire. Then, there is the fact the Japanese carriers would be launching fighters blind, while by 1944 allied fighters were accompanied by targeting planes carrying radars. That was massive advantage.

Oh, and 1945 Sea Vampire comes online. What exactly Japanese can throw against it?

This bit of what-if is ridiculous. And it is not as if the Japanese were sitting still. They were working on a successor to the Zero fighter, the A7M, but the Americans bombed the factory that was working on the prototype.

And if you want to take this ridiculous what-if even further, let's throw in the fact that the Japanese at their peak had a well trained attack bomber force which could pull of Pearl Harbor. The best the British could do at that time was bomb Taranto which was a substantially smaller operation in comparison.

But they don't really need to. UK carriers can provide better air cover with smaller fighter wings, because you can't surprise them and there is no real way for conventional navy to win the battle with radar armed one. See Duke of York vs Scharnhorst, plus I'd say UK carriers that were cancelled because war was won by then were better than Japanese ones, too.

Again so? What use is that radar if they cannot get close enough to attack the Japanese battleships? You do recall that many of the major battles fought in the Pacific war did not have any Battleship-Battleship engagements and they were fought by fighters alone?

Let's try this. Do you think the British could have pulled off the Battle of Midway with what they had in 1942? What with the only torpedo bombers they had being a bunch of bi-planes?

[Irbis]

This bit of what-if is ridiculous. And it is not as if the Japanese were sitting still. They were working on a successor to the Zero fighter, the A7M, but the Americans bombed the factory that was working on the prototype.

What what-ifs? The history of British fighter planes is pretty well documented, if anything, UK would accelerate the 1945-48 programs had war continued. They were able to deal with German planes just fine, equal to or better than Japanese.

A7M? By all accounts I saw, it was worse plane than Fw 190, two years too late. Moreover, British started heavy strategic bombing before Americans did, if they fought the war against Japan the overall course would be probably similar. Japanese air home defence was very bad.

And if you want to take this ridiculous what-if even further, let's throw in the fact that the Japanese at their peak had a well trained attack bomber force which could pull of Pearl Harbor. The best the British could do at that time was bomb Taranto which was a substantially smaller operation in comparison.

The "best" if you ignore several carrier strikes against battleships in Norway and France, such as Operation Tungsten. Also, Taranto was night bombing that did far greater damage with much smaller force than Pearl Harbor did. If anything, British demonstrated much bigger skill executing their attacks. Yes, their attacks were smaller in scale, but only because most of carrier force was busy elsewhere then and they had to do with less.

Again so? What use is that radar if they cannot get close enough to attack the Japanese battleships? You do recall that many of the major battles fought in the Pacific war did not have any Battleship-Battleship engagements and they were fought by fighters alone?

Why not get close? Japanese pushed to get close, see Battle of Leyte Gulf, for example, which also proved just how effective radar battleship is against conventional one. Why it wouldn't end the same, British radar armed battleship force slaughtering its Japanese equivalent?

If we assume purely carrier to carrier battle, UK had massive advantage in best radars in the world by then and could win the war purely by adopting more defensive battle stance in first half. Merely targeting and destroying air wings means by 1943 Japanese carriers are mostly irrelevant.

Let's try this. Do you think the British could have pulled off the Battle of Midway with what they had in 1942? What with the only torpedo bombers they had being a bunch of bi-planes?

They would obviously try to adopt a bit different strategy, but the battle would probably end up about the same. Remember, plan was to trap allied carriers (wouldn't happen, British had cracked Japanese codes), and the response was to try and destroy Japanese ones. The same strategic result could have been achieved with destruction of their irreplaceable air wings, something Royal Navy was definitely capable of.

Carrier sinking was secondary, but could have been achieved seeing Japanese had no radar and very small reconnaissance force, fighting virtually blind. Remember, their numerical advantage was nullified by need of keeping substantial part of air wing in reserve, while Allied commander would be able to commit all of it, as demonstrated in Battle of Britain.

Yes, British torpedo planes were worse, at least before Barracuda, but did it matter any? Zero was capable of shooting down any WW 2 naval bomber anyway, if RN fighters can outfight them, the bomber qualities don't matter, if not, well, it doesn't matter either. There was a reason why they were kept so long while carrier fighters were constantly upgraded.

[Thanas]

There is no way Britain can really win a fight against Japan. Not with having to fend off Germany, which takes 3 times the forces of Germany just to keep up a blockade of equal numbers, not with having to fight a war with logistics that stretch halfway around the globe while being attacked by Germany still.

[Irbis]

There is no way Britain can really win a fight against Japan. Not with having to fend off Germany, which takes 3 times the forces of Germany just to keep up a blockade of equal numbers, not with having to fight a war with logistics that stretch halfway around the globe while being attacked by Germany still.

Britain alone? No. Britain with France, Soviet Union, Netherlands and China? I'd say yes.

By the way, 3 times the forces of Germany is not much. In 1941-42, this can be a problem, 1943-44 with U-bootwaffe rapidly losing steam, Regia Marina out of combat and most of Nazi battleships either sunk or staying damaged and not sea worthy in port at leisure of British bombers? Not really.

Royal Navy even alone was stronger than all of Axis fleets combined, on top of enjoying substantial experience and technological advantage. If we add to it all the ships that were cancelled before the end of war, IMHO they can't lose without Japan pulling out another Tsushima.

[Thanas]

There is no way Britain can really win a fight against Japan. Not with having to fend off Germany, which takes 3 times the forces of Germany just to keep up a blockade of equal numbers, not with having to fight a war with logistics that stretch halfway around the globe while being attacked by Germany still.

Britain alone? No. Britain with France, Soviet Union, Netherlands and China? I'd say yes.

I thought the scenario Stas describes explicitly means the USSR does not enter the war at all and continues to sell supplies to Nazi Germany.

By the way, 3 times the forces of Germany is not much. In 1941-42, this can be a problem, 1943-44 with U-bootwaffe rapidly losing steam, Regia Marina out of combat and most of Nazi battleships either sunk or staying damaged and not sea worthy in port at leisure of British bombers? Not really.

Royal Navy even alone was stronger than all of Axis fleets combined, on top of enjoying substantial experience and technological advantage. If we add to it all the ships that were cancelled before the end of war, IMHO they can't lose without Japan pulling out another Tsushima.

Without the US and USSR, the British would have to base their fleet out of India or Australia. That are extremely long supply lines, especially if the med is crawling with enemy airplanes. Transferring stuff to Gibraltar will be much harder (much stronger Luftwaffe). And it is very likely that the Kriegsmarine would not lose that many units with much stronger Luftwaffe support, nor risk so many of them on foolhardy missions to destroy Arctic convoys as there would be none.

Japan will still eventually collapse but I doubt it will be due to the RN, it would probably be due to China bleeding them dry.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

What what-ifs? The history of British fighter planes is pretty well documented, if anything, UK would accelerate the 1945-48 programs had war continued. They were able to deal with German planes just fine, equal to or better than Japanese.

A7M? By all accounts I saw, it was worse plane than Fw 190, two years too late. Moreover, British started heavy strategic bombing before Americans did, if they fought the war against Japan the overall course would be probably similar. Japanese air home defence was very bad.

It is ridiculous because you are busy shifting goal posts by the years and you expect the Japanese to be sitting still. Youassume the British themselves could find the ways and means to project power across the world and assume that they have the production capability to ramp things up the way the Americans did on their own! Everything you say is based on assumptions on possiblities and you assume those possibilities exist. Only the Americans in WWII could do what they did. There is no bloody way the British could match what the Americans did and that is why the British are no longer a superpower, but the Americans were post WWII.

The "best" if you ignore several carrier strikes against battleships in Norway and France, such as Operation Tungsten. Also, Taranto was night bombing that did far greater damage with much smaller force than Pearl Harbor did. If anything, British demonstrated much bigger skill executing their attacks. Yes, their attacks were smaller in scale, but only because most of carrier force was busy elsewhere then and they had to do with less.

So fucking what if it is a night bombing? So fucking what if it is one with greater skill? The attack on Pearl Harbor demanded a long logistical train with no pit stops along the way and yet the Japanese could pull it off. And that's the bloody point. the Royal Navy could only manage small scale operations whereas the Japanese could perform large scale ones and with a long logistical train. This shows the gap in doctrine which the British could not match because they made design choices such as an armored flight deck which severely hampered their ability to bring to bear the firepower the Japanese could.

Why not get close? Japanese pushed to get close, see Battle of Leyte Gulf, for example, which also proved just how effective radar battleship is against conventional one. Why it wouldn't end the same, British radar armed battleship force slaughtering its Japanese equivalent?

Surely you have not forgotten the sinking of the Repulse and Prince of Wales by Japanese airplanes? You do realise that battleship to battleship ops were far outnumbered by carrier ops in the Far East and that it is because of the Pacific War that indicated that the Battleship has finally reached its obsolence?

If we assume purely carrier to carrier battle, UK had massive advantage in best radars in the world by then and could win the war purely by adopting more defensive battle stance in first half. Merely targeting and destroying air wings means by 1943 Japanese carriers are mostly irrelevant.

More ridiculous drivel. Radars are only a means to find airwings. There's still the bloody question of having to send enough aircraft to fend off the enemy airwings in question and only the United States in WWII managed to field a competent air defense screen and an anti-air defense with destroyers forming a very effective air defense perimeter. The Royal Navy never managed to achieve this level of competency and if by anything, its experience in the Mediterranean shows the Royal Navy would most certainly have a hard time fighting off mass air attacks.

They would obviously try to adopt a bit different strategy, but the battle would probably end up about the same. Remember, plan was to trap allied carriers (wouldn't happen, British had cracked Japanese codes), and the response was to try and destroy Japanese ones. The same strategic result could have been achieved with destruction of their irreplaceable air wings, something Royal Navy was definitely capable of.

Carrier sinking was secondary, but could have been achieved seeing Japanese had no radar and very small reconnaissance force, fighting virtually blind. Remember, their numerical advantage was nullified by need of keeping substantial part of air wing in reserve, while Allied commander would be able to commit all of it, as demonstrated in Battle of Britain.

Bullshit. Radar is not a panecea and it had limited range and the Royal Navy still had problems trying to find the damn Italian fleet in the Meditareanean and you are just pulling rubbish out of your arse. Never mind hey, the Royal Navy could not fucking find the Bismarck and lost contact with it a few times during the chase.

Yes, British torpedo planes were worse, at least before Barracuda, but did it matter any? Zero was capable of shooting down any WW 2 naval bomber anyway, if RN fighters can outfight them, the bomber qualities don't matter, if not, well, it doesn't matter either. There was a reason why they were kept so long while carrier fighters were constantly upgraded.

Yeah yeah, you have a credibility of a dead rat as far as I am concerned.

[K. A. Pital]

I thought the scenario Stas describes explicitly means the USSR does not enter the war at all and continues to sell supplies to Nazi Germany.

That is correct. On the East it is bound by a neutrality pact, for which there's hardly a reason to break, at least in the meantime. There's no big coalition pushing it to do so. In the West it's not fighting. There's hardly a point in going against Japan recklessly, especially in the early 1940s.

By the way, 3 times the forces of Germany is not much. In 1941-42, this can be a problem, 1943-44 with U-bootwaffe rapidly losing steam, Regia Marina out of combat and most of Nazi battleships either sunk or staying damaged and not sea worthy in port at leisure of British bombers?

The US and the USSR are out of the war, remember. There is no "rapid losing steam". There is no "out of combat". If you want to say Britain could have won the real war in coalition - it did that. If you want to say Britain can win WWII on two fronts alone... Just see how this worked for Hitler. Unlike Britain, his empire was continental, which made things easier. Germany still lost. Same happens to Britain if it is alone. It won't fall, but it cannot win either.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The thought that occurs to me is that yes, Britain can't win alone, but it also can't really be defeated. And the longer it holds out and continues to resist, the greater the chance of America entering the war anyway. I mean, as far as I recall the US wasn't happy about Japanese actions in the Pacific and I can't imagine that opinion will change if Japan continues it's unchecked expansion.

I can see the war being much longer but I still think that America would wind up being drawn in anyway.

[Thanas]

It is really easy to see a defeat of Britain here. Just look at an Indian uprising with the British fleet suffering a few reversals. If Britain is killing tens of thousands of Indians to keep control of it (and quite possibly still losing) I doubt the USA public opinion would be willing to support it.

[Eternal_Freedom]

It is really easy to see a defeat of Britain here. Just look at an Indian uprising with the British fleet suffering a few reversals. If Britain is killing tens of thousands of Indians to keep control of it (and quite possibly still losing) I doubt the USA public opinion would be willing to support it.

Would the British do that if they're locked in a war with Germany? If nothing else, US public opinion doesn't have to support Britain, rather oppose Japan. They could wind up being allies of convenience like Russia was IRL.

EDIT: Just so it's clear I'm wildly speculating here. I'll quite happily be shown to be wrong, it's just an idea that occurred to me.

[Thanas]

It is really easy to see a defeat of Britain here. Just look at an Indian uprising with the British fleet suffering a few reversals. If Britain is killing tens of thousands of Indians to keep control of it (and quite possibly still losing) I doubt the USA public opinion would be willing to support it.

Would the British do that if they're locked in a war with Germany? If nothing else, US public opinion doesn't have to support Britain, rather oppose Japan. They could wind up being allies of convenience like Russia was IRL.

No, I think the realistic option is Japan being bogged down in Burma, wasting their strength on trying to take Australia and then being ground down by China. The true challenge of Britain would be to survive these years and managing to put a dent into Hitler Germany to get them to sue for peace. The first one I can see, the latter is a bit more difficult. I mean, what are they going to do? Their bombing campaign won't be that strong what with thousands of Luftwaffe fighters and pilots not being wasted on the Soviets. Invasion? Germany could probably disband a large portion of their army before such an invasion ever becomes a problem, especially with Germany having the resources to not only fortify Norway, but France too. Starving Germany out won't work that well either considering the German industry keeps running (see Norway) and the Soviets sell stuff to them. And if Germany can concentrate on the naval war, there is a high chance the type XXI subs enter the convoy battles far earlier. In the end, the financial impracticability of the German system will force the Nazis to bargain but they would be arguing from a position of strength not one of total defeat.

As to the US public opinion, the one keeping it geared for war was FDR. It is possible they declare war anyway (and he was pushing hard for a casus belli) as you say, but still, that does not really guarantee victory. You really think Operation OVerlord will work against a Wehrmacht in prepared positions and not bled dry in Russia?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Well of course Overlord wouldn't work in that situation, but we shouldn't expect Britain and potentially America to adhere to the same plan. They'd try something else.

Something else that just occurred to me: Hitler was no great fan of communism, so how long would he have kept his non-aggression pact? I can't see him keeping it for many years.

[Thanas]

Well of course Overlord wouldn't work in that situation, but we shouldn't expect Britain and potentially America to adhere to the same plan. They'd try something else.

What then? More bombing? Britain alone certainly won't do much there without the US and without the eastern front bleeding Germany dry. Invasion? Where?

I suppose if they have a nuclear program and if they suddenly have bombers reaching great heights and if the Germans are stupid enough not to ask "hey if we can theoretically fly that high why can't the allies" then you can get the allies gambling on a single trump card like in Stuarts TBO series, but I don't believe that.

Something else that just occurred to me: Hitler was no great fan of communism, so how long would he have kept his non-aggression pact? I can't see him keeping it for many years.

That is true, the insaneness of Hitler required Lebensraum in the east (as if territory, especially underdeveloped ones, ever mattered in the industrial age). The whole point of Stas scenario was that Hitler would start thinking rationally after France.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Hitler thinking rationally just because he's achieved success in the West strikes me as unlikely, what with that whole talk about "Juedeobolshevism" in the East and how it's his lifelong mission to destroy said judeobolshevism.

As for what else the British might do, I don't know, I'm not a soldier. But i expect they would try something.

[Thanas]

Hitler thinking rationally just because he's achieved success in the West strikes me as unlikely, what with that whole talk about "Juedeobolshevism" in the East and how it's his lifelong mission to destroy said judeobolshevism.

Duh. Which is why this is a hypothetical.

As for what else the British might do, I don't know, I'm not a soldier. But i expect they would try something.

Sure. as everyone else would. But the Brits have a very bad position to start with.

[Eternal_Freedom]

All true. Anyway, I'm off to work now, but thanks for the answers.

[Metahive]

It wouldn't need Hitler to think any more "rational" than him being more pragmatic and cynical in his approach. What really undid him was that impatience and impulsiveness were two of his defining traits.

[Isolder74]

It wouldn't need Hitler to think any more "rational" than him being more pragmatic and cynical in his approach. What really undid him was that impatience and impulsiveness were two of his defining traits.

Indeed. In fact had he waited even just two years for his innovation of Poland his chance of winning would have really gone up. Not that I'm saying that he might have been able to win in the end but his chance would go up. His impatiance came into play once again with the innovation of Russia. He couldn't wait for the defeat of Britain before starting up an even bigger campaign. In many ways he was the best thing for the Allies because of his micromanagement.

[K. A. Pital]

Waiting is not the optimal strategy, though. Sometimes - in fact, most of the times - you have to make a call: now or never. In case of Russia, the best call would be 'never' - gross underestimation of Russia's industrial potential wouldn't change even if he starts the war two or three years down the line. Poland and France were territorially small enough for the concept of blitz to work, and work very well.

[PainRack]

If we remove american support does that not also mean that there are no supplies coming from america to brittain at all? As in no raw materials and no food. Can Canada and the colonies really feed the isles?

Well, if this study is to be believed, UK and Ireland could actually feed themselves even in the case of 100% naval blockade. The only question was population morale.

........ How was that a study?

There are two components to the question could Britain feed itself.

1. Could Britain import enough resources.
The question is undoubtably yes. At no point was the German U-boat blockade able to stop all convoys and by mid 1941, the threat was over.

Food imports were from the USA and Argentina for example....... an interesting question is how Britain switched food imports. Food subsitution miracle was not in swapping imported food for homegrown vegetables, rather, it was reforming British argiculture and diets so that they could import less bulky food. For example, removing horse feed and bulky grains by switching over to oil driven tractors and directly importing meat as opposed to growing mutton in Britain itself.

Most meat industry was reduced drastically, with only the cattle industry left intact so as to provide milk. Bulky vegetables were substitued with homegrown. Otherwise, the british kept up their meat rations by simply importing mutton and eggs/cheese from the US and Argentina.

2. And that leads to the second question. If America utterly fail to sell food to Britain........... Well....... that becomes nasty. A good portion of food grown was possible because Britain imported large amount of oil from the US for tractors, removing its horse driven carts which required bulky feed.

Also, Britain relied heavily on America for food supplies to replace supplies from Europe. Brazil and other countries might pick up the slack, or rely more heavily on Argentina.... but I hate to imagine what this would do to Britain severely overstretched shipping and the war effort.



3. A more serious question of course is munitions. Britain significantly relied on America for munitions by 1944 and of course, the massive expansion of US shipping allowed the Allies to fight its multi-front war theatre...... Removing USA will remove that from the British war effort.

[Zaune]

That still means that claiming he made hard, unpopular and difficult yet necessary decisions is wrong because he actually did what was popular and easy until he felt personally insulted by Hitler grabbing the rest of Czech and changed his tune out of a sense of personal betrayal.
I see nothing praiseworthy in there.

I don't think you quite appreciate the sheer scale of popular opposition to committing ourselves to war with Germany after the last one cost a million men's lives. He had to look for alternatives for as long as they still existed; if he'd tried to get the ball rolling on rearmament any earlier he'd have been lynched!