No, they can’t. Both the US and the UK (including the Empire/Commonwealth) contributed to the victory, plus of course the massive contribution of the Soviets. On their own none of the Allied nations could have won the war (IMO), together they were unstoppable by Germany.
Not sure I folow that argument. They helped in the battle of the Atlantic. They invaded Scicily and Italy, after the Normandy breakout they were the strongest non Soviet army, the 8th and 9th Air Forces carried out mass bombings - so where is the, they done nothing?
What if…
The RAF had complete air supremacy and if the Lancaster force could have been tripled.
Could the war have been won by bombing alone?
To deal with you original question Staffs no - I don’t believe that Britain could have effected the Eastern front either by bombing (even with increased resources going to Bomber Command) or by opening a secondary front.
Without American help (though lets assume lend lease continues) British Priorities would be:
-
Battle of the Atlantic - winnable, German successes in 1942 are mostly against unconvoyed US ships. The Royal Navy (and the Canadians) were big enough and competent enough in 1942 to keep losses at an acceptable level. This also begs the question would the U-boats have dragged America into the war even without Peal Harbour?
-
North Africa - Again winnable Panzer Armee Africa (or whatever it was calling itself by then) was largely defeated by the time of the Torch landings. Only a massive German reinforcement and 1st Army failures prevented a total collapse in Nov 1942. If the British were being very bold they could have attempted An Algerian landing without the US components of 1st Army.
I Discount the threat of German invasion of Britain. These priorities are defensive in nature. Given that they both become a lot harder without US help would Britain have had anything left in the box to attack Germany with?
-
Night time bombing. This was independent of the US daytime effort so I don’t see any reason why it should cease or be any less effective without the US.
-
A second front. Its well known that the British favoured the Mediterranean approach. Without the Americans they would be free to pursue this. If we assume that North Africa had been cleared of German troops by Summer 1943 it leaves Eighth Army and First Army (-) free for other operations. However two problems: Firstly without the Americans the British are unlikely to have the reserves of material needed for constant operations. Secondly Italy looks considerably less of a soft underbelly without the US. Any British attack in the Med is more likely to be against an occupied territory such as Yugoslavia or Greece where they might get some local support. All in all I think the level of risk compared to the return would be too high. The only viable alternative target would be Norway and only if the lack of Norwegian coal and iron ore would have hurt Germany’s economy. The advantage of Norway is that the Royal Navy might be able to interdict German reinforcements.
Niether of these are going to change the outcome of the war. Stalin would be demanding a viable second front. Not something I believe Britain would ever have been capable of. However the threat of British invasion may have been sufficient to keep large numbers of Germans in France and Norway away from the Eastern Front. At some stage German Armies in the East would collapse and they would have to be reinforced from Western Europe. Once the balance of forces were sufficiently in their favour the British could invade and liberate Western Europe without the hard graft at Normandy and elsewhere.
It seems to me that despite the huge effort put into the war by the US the lack of involvement would merely increased the length of the war not its eventual outcome.[/i]
Well the UK did not suffer after the war like the Commonwealth gave alot to the war effort for the UK and thus had problems after the war because of it. I think that the UK would never had made it if the US gave them the things they did and if the U-Boats cut of shipping the Commonwealth would not have got there stuff to the UK.
The UK would never have masde it without outside help.
Henk
War studies? You’re not at king’s are you? And if so I assume you’re either doing WW2 in Europe or America in WW2, correct?
If the UK had to fight without US military involvement, then I think we would have survived but the Iron Curtain’s edge would have been the Atlantic coast of Europe.
Triumphing over THAT disaster is a whole different ball game.
FW-190 Pilot already has a dagga problem - ag pleeze don’t join him !
??? Apart from a shattered economy, major cities half in ruins, a significant section of the population wiped out, food rationing until 1953, land-lease will be paid off later this year I believe. My father and his parents lived in prefab until the late 1960’s. Sure other European countries had it far worse nevertheless WWII was not something which the UK benefited from in any shape or form.
PsyWar.Org I meant they did not suffer like some of it colonies that had to feed the Uk and supply them of material.
Oh by the way mate welcome here adn you must change your Avatar to a WW2 one before the Mods will order you to.
Henk
Thanks for the welcome Henk and the heads-up on Avatar but surely a picture of a Sturmabteilung is kind of WWII related? 
FW-190 Pilot already has a dagga problem - ag pleeze don’t join him ![/quote]
hmmm?
whats that suppose to mean?
Where did the UK get it’s war material? Except for the US. The commonwealth. They milked the dominians and did not give a dam what happend to them after the war, just as long as they get their war material.
Henk
[quote=“PsyWar.Org”]
Thanks for the welcome Henk and the heads-up on Avatar but surely a picture of a Sturmabteilung is kind of WWII related? [/quote]
:lol: No, not realy but I know what your trying to say. It is all my pleasure mate.
Henk
Would you care to back this up with some factual information?
Well did you know that South Africa was part of the Comonwaelth? Well the stuped dum idiot named Jan Smuts who joined the UK in the war costed the country dearly after the war and brought the country back ro its knees just like it were in the 30’s wiht the big depresion.
So yes I can back it up wiht all the shit that happend here and the other countries who were still under controle of the UK that had to help in the war effort.
Henk
And how is this any worse than what the UK suffered after the war (your original contention)?
Was there rationing in South Africa, if so when did it end?
How much South African industry was destroyed by bombing?
How many square miles of South African cities were bombed out?
How many South African civilians were killed in bombing raids?
We had big time rations her, you could not get feul, normal stuff you could normaly get like cloths, tea, plates, material, car parts just like in the UK. It all ende way after the war and that made sure Jan Smuts does not win the election of 1948. He did not even care what happend to his country after the war.
Peolpe did not have work, industrys whent bankrupt, soldiers came home without work or houses. Many other thing happend after the war to the country that took years to rebuild. Where were the support from the UK then after we helped them during the war?
No citys were bombed or industrys or civilians were killed.
I understand that the UK sufferd more, but what about the countries who helped her during the war?
Henk
IIRC virtually all of these things were either rationed or unavailable (car parts). I’m not sure about plates however.
Errr… what would we have supported you with? The UK was bankrupt at the end of the war (to the extent that the RN was selling ships for scrap to pay for the crews of the rest of the fleet) so financial aid was simply not possible. When it comes to housing the UK was in an even worse state - a far higher proportion of the population had been under arms, and IIRC something of the order of half a million houses had been destroyed during the war.
Incidentally, South Africa benefited at least as much from UK support as the UK gained from South African support. Of all the dominions South Africa contributed IIRC the smallest per capita, and was of course protected from German expansionism. There may have been a lot of Africa in the way, but noting with a prayer of stopping the Germans outside France and the UK.