UK staging Overlord without US?

[ickysdad]

How hard would it have been for the UK/Commonwealth to stage Overlord if the US doesn't get involved in WW2?

[EchoFiveMike]

It would have simply been impossible without any US support. It would have been nearly impossible with US material support. The fortunes of the Eastern front would have huge influence on any possible UK success. S/F.....Ken M

[Argus]

I don't think they would have even tried

 

It's the classic case back to Elizabeth, the UK has just never been in the business of going it alone head to head with a dominant continental power on land. I suspect if this situation had arisen during WWI rather than WWII, with the resources and enthusiasm of the time, they might have tried it, and even in this case we'd be looking at a very different situation*, but I'm doubtful. On the other hand I'd disagree with E5M to a point, the CW could have put an army ashore in France from its own resources, and supported it too, but it doubt it would have been a big enough force to be worth the effort - so I'm really only quibbling here, the net result is the same.

 

shane

 

* By different, if we presume a CW only 'Second Front' it implies (IMHO) no strife with the Japanese and the Italians cleared out of Africa +/- Sicily. In other words, no other serious commitments. I'd suggest London would clear anything else of their plate before even thinking about a D-Day, even if that took a number of years - this is a long war by default. Russia in the war is a given. Under these circumstances an Italian or Greek effort, seeking another 'Peninsular Campaign' would be more likely than a direct assault on France IMHO.

 

Edit: and yes Russia would be the critical element as per historical (x2).

Edited June 30, 2008 by Argus

[ickysdad]

Well as far as equipping an army alot of British & Canadian Armored forces were equipped with Shermans in 1943 & 1944. I also don't see an invasion working without control of the air so the Luftwaffe will be in much better shape during an invasion without the USAAF getting involved. Furthermore alot of the landing craft came from the US.

[Argus]

Yeah, but you have to eliminate things across the board and take a different time scale into account.

 

For Sherman see Churchill, Cromwell and Comet, and the UK did make a fair slice of their own landing craft. So its just a matter of time to build up the numbers at a slower rate. Time that would also play in attriting the Lw etc and other build up measures. Without US involvement it would be a very different operation in a very different world so there's no stright application of historical events to be made here. I mean for a start, we're presuming the Cw on its own could win the battle of the Atlantic without serious US assistance, so the ultimate time line is most likely longer than @ anyway, as the invasion is dependent on the build up and so imports one way or another.

 

As I say the Cw could mount an invasion, but there probably wouldn't be much point until the Russians had hit Berlin and it was time to club baby seals. I mean what sort of force could be mustered? No Italy/CBI/SWPA should give the UK 2-3 Army Groups IIRC if everything was stripped bare. 1x Canadian, 1x Aust, so say 4 with the 3rd UK filling out the Dominion AG's and providing the usual 1/3rd of an Indian AG, for a total of 5. Not a bad effort. But it would be a one shot job with few reserves and I doubt the log support would be there to allow them to going romping about too far from their port head/s.

 

Better to get Mussolini or Franco to turn coat and form an anti-communist alliance, then land an army with them - 1812 redux

 

shane

[ickysdad]

Shane,

I can agree with most of what you say however just how much of a victory would it be for say the Red Army to be right across the channel or occupying all of Germany or even all of the low countries? What would stop Stalin from getting Greece,Norway,Sweden ,Italy, and Switzerland to boot? If the Soviets do prevail what shape are they in? What happens in the Mid-East if Stalin wants to try & conquer that region? What if Stalin decides to negotiate ?

All in all it would be asanine IMHO for the US not to help the UK that's much is for sure , again IMHO.

[Guest aevans]

How do the Soviets get to Berlin in the first place without these Lend-Lease supplies:

 

Aircraft 14,795

Tanks 7,056

Jeeps 51,503

Trucks 375,883

Motorcycles 35,170

Tractors 8,071

Guns 8,218

Machine guns 131,633

Explosives 345,735 tons

Building equipment valued $10,910,000

Railroad freight cars 11,155

Locomotives 1,981

Cargo ships 90

Submarine hunters 105

Torpedo boats 197

Ship engines 7,784

Food supplies 4,478,000 tons

Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000

Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons

Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons

Chemicals 842,000 tons

Cotton 106,893,000 tons

Leather 49,860 tons

Tires 3,786,000

Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

 

Not to mention no second front even in the air, as minimal a help as it was in the beginning?

[ickysdad]

Well another thing thats bought up is about the US only becoming a superpower because of WW1 & WW2 . To some extent that's true BUT in 1913(before WW1 even started) the US produced more steel then the next 5 countries combined , it produced 32% of all the world's manufactored goods compared to all of Europe's 49%, and in GNP it was as large as the UK, France, Germany,Italy, Russia and Austria-Hungary combined while it's per capita income was much higher then anybody else's. Compare those figures to ones at the turn of the century and you'll see how fast the US was expanding. In 1938(before WW2 erupted) still at the hieght of the depression the US still produced 31.4% of the world's manufactoring output to Europe's 39%(and the US was at best probably half capacity with most of Europe at full capacity due to rearmament) while it's GNP was equal to the UK's, Germany's, France's, Italy's and the USSR's combined. The US also din't really mobilise it's industry like others did in WW2 they just merely converted thier consumer type industries over to wartime uses.

The US was definately getting to superpower status sooner or later anyways.

[Guest aevans]

The US also din't really mobilise it's industry like others did in WW2 they just merely converted thier consumer type industries over to wartime uses.

 

Now that's a bold statement. US industrial employment grew substantially during the war. That suggests that the economy expanded to some degree.

[ickysdad]

Now that's a bold statement. US industrial employment grew substantially during the war. That suggests that the economy expanded to some degree.

Well just read "Mobilising US Industry in World War Two" by Alan L. Gropman . It's not that I'm saying the US econpmy /industry didn't expand but it didn't expand like the SU, Germany or the UK. Other countries expanded by building new factories as such whereas the US would take say a company making juke boxes and have them build M1 carbines or the US would use automakers to build tanks & B-24's whereas other countries would use locomotive or other heavy equipment firms to make things like tanks. I guess what I'm really trying to say is the so-called miracle of US production in WW2 was nothing of the such . I think it was in 1938 the US produced something like 26.4 million tons of steel compared to Germany 20.7 million, USSR 16.5 million and Japan's 6 million tons BUT the latter 3 countries steel industries was at full capacity while the US's steel industry was at only 1/3 capacity. Further in 1928 the US produced over 43% of the world's manufactored products and in that year the whole world was doing much better then 10 years later in 1938 . The previous two statements show just how much slack there was in US industry/economy in 1938 despite it's still huge advantage over it's contemporaries even when in a severe depressed state. Now figure in just how self sufficent the US was in just about all raw materials along with having such superb interior lines and 2 oceans protecting it.

Now compare that to Germany, Britain and USSR being bombed ,invaded or having to import all thier materials.

[swerve]

Try these -

 

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economic...p/palgrave3.pdf

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economic...wwitoronto2.pdf

 

Oh, & in 1913 the USA produced as much steel as the next 3 countries, not more than the next 5 -

 

1913

USA 31.3 million tons

Germany 18.9

UK 7.7

France 4.7

 

http://www.nber.org/databases/macrohistory.../chapter01.html

 

And GDP was less than Germany, the UK & France combined in 1913.

 

I see the book you cite is available as a free download at http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair50/mcnair50.pdf

 

I'll have a look at it

Edited July 1, 2008 by swerve

[Argus]

How do the Soviets get to Berlin in the first place without these Lend-Lease supplies:

 

Not to mention no second front even in the air, as minimal a help as it was in the beginning?

 

By waving the same magic wand that created this whole question.

 

But I don't see where you get the 'no second front even in the air' (I'm reading that as an absolute).

 

No second front on LAND is a given, this is what we're talking about launching after all. But with the best will in the world I can't see how the basic premise here excludes an air campaign from the UK, quite the reverse. With no prospect of an invasion in the short term, the RAF's SBC would gain even more impetus or how they would avoid cross channel an air campaign prior to the invasion running back to our analogue of the BoB.

 

I'll agree the Russians don't benefit from any German distraction in North Africa or Italy, and an air effort over Europe isn't the most effective distraction either. But by the same token, the CW would have fewer distractions of its own, and so could provide more support to Russia with less blollocking about, as such a measure would be clearly in line with Britannia's continental warfighting policy. All this might be less than historical in total, yet we've not looked at the German side of the equation either, or much of wider context at all.

 

shane

 

PS:

Oh and if we're waving our national steel production willys here, circa 1939 Australia was fifth in terms of steel per head of population and 13th overall in tonnage with reputably the cheapest steel in the world

 

U.S.A - 0.601 tons per head of population, Belgium - 0.445, Germany - 0.306, Britain -0.300, Australia - 0.246, Canada - 0.229

D.P Mellor The Role of Science and Industry Vol.V Civil Series, Aust Official Histories 1939-45.

 

Edited July 1, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

Shane,

I can agree with most of what you say however just how much of a victory would it be for say the Red Army to be right across the channel or occupying all of Germany or even all of the low countries? What would stop Stalin from getting Greece,Norway,Sweden ,Italy, and Switzerland to boot? If the Soviets do prevail what shape are they in? What happens in the Mid-East if Stalin wants to try & conquer that region? What if Stalin decides to negotiate ?

All in all it would be asanine IMHO for the US not to help the UK that's much is for sure , again IMHO.

 

God only knows Icky, we'd need to reconstruct the whole scenario from the ground up, picking a PoD and working though various drivers as they spawn.

 

But, perhaps a weaker Russia might not get so far or have the umph (or should that be Urah) to cross the Rhine, they might not even cross the Oder or be able to spare the resources for diversions into Scandinavia, the Balkans or Italy. We'd still end up with a situation allowing the Cw to lob in and deliver the coupe de gras (abit perhaps not in Normandy), and still leave the Russians with something like their historical footprint.

 

shane

[ickysdad]

Well just read "Mobilising US Industry in World War Two" by Alan L. Gropman . It's not that I'm saying the US econpmy /industry didn't expand but it didn't expand like the SU, Germany or the UK. Other countries expanded by building new factories as such whereas the US would take say a company making juke boxes and have them build M1 carbines or the US would use automakers to build tanks & B-24's whereas other countries would use locomotive or other heavy equipment firms to make things like tanks. I guess what I'm really trying to say is the so-called miracle of US production in WW2 was nothing of the such . I think it was in 1938 the US produced something like 26.4 million tons of steel compared to Germany 20.7 million, USSR 16.5 million and Japan's 6 million tons BUT the latter 3 countries steel industries was at full capacity while the US's steel industry was at only 1/3 capacity. Further in 1928 the US produced over 43% of the world's manufactored products and in that year the whole world was doing much better then 10 years later in 1938 . The previous two statements show just how much slack there was in US industry/economy in 1938 despite it's still huge advantage over it's contemporaries even when in a severe depressed state. Now figure in just how self sufficent the US was in just about all raw materials along with having such superb interior lines and 2 oceans protecting it.

Now compare that to Germany, Britain and USSR being bombed ,invaded or having to import all thier materials.

 

 

Well the US produced 31.8 million tons of steel in 1913 . Germany's 17.6 million, UK's 7.7 milliopn, France's 4.6 million, Russia's 4.8 million ,Austria-Hungary's 2.6 million, Japan's .16 million and Italy's .73 million equals a little over 38,000,000 tons & that's 7 country's outputs. I in my original statement was saying or at least meant to say the US produced as much steel as the next 5 countries did . Now if you go to the USGS website you'll see just how dominate the US was in just about every type of mineral production there was ,the US mined it, processed it and made it into final products.. As far as GNP in 1914 I have the US at 37 billion, UK at 11 billion, France at 6 billion, Japan at 2 billion, Germany at 12 billion, Italy at 4 billion, Russia at 7 billion and Austria-Hungary at 3 billion. The total of non-US countries is 45 billion so in essence the US's 37 billion is pretty compatible with those 7 country's 45 billion. Now alot of times the GNP figures for the empires of France & the UK are added in BUT you really can't include them because the profits from those empires are already included in thier national figures. Furthermore the rest from the empires only provides subsistence for the people's of those empires. The per capita figures are what is illuminating for the US.

Now I've used Mark Harrison & Paul Kennedy for my sources. Now even if your figures are right it still shows how dominant the US was compared to the next 3-4 countries after her at least as far as industrial production & GNP were concerned.

Anyways my whole point is that the US was headed towards being a superpower ,at least in the economic sense, with or without either of the world wars occuring though those wars certainly accelerated the happening.

Edited July 1, 2008 by ickysdad

[Guest aevans]

But I don't see where you get the 'no second front even in the air' (I'm reading that as an absolute).

 

I wasn't speaking in absolutes, but in comparison to what happened historically. With all due respect to British air efforts, which were substantial, without a clear prospect of entering the Continent in any kind of foreseeable time frame, one wonders whether the SBC would have ammounted to much. Without the US there is no real prospect of winning on the ground in Western Europe, and the temtation would, I think, have been irresistable to mount a desultory harassment campaign while sticking to SLOC protection and Imperial security knitting.

 

Just speculation, of course, but it's hard to see a justification for an unwinnable all-out strategic air campaign.

[Guest aevans]

Well just read "Mobilising US Industry in World War Two" by Alan L. Gropman...

 

They built the equivalent af a major automobile plant at Willow Run to build B-24s. And that wasn't the only green fields project undertaken. The nuclear plants represented an entirely brand new industry. Many preexisting factories and yards (especially along inland waterways) may have served as the nucleus for war production facilities, but most of those were significantly expanded. The US had a big head start thanks to realtively modern, but idle, civilian capacity. But after 1943 a lot of war goods were coming out of new construction plant.

 

BTW, the US production "miracle" seems to me to be mainly the product of cheap, breathless exploitation "history" and wartime propaganda. I've never heard it described as a miracle by serious commentators. If anything, the prevailing attitude is one of mystification at what exactly the various Axis government could have been thinking to challenge the well known and superior US economic strength.

[ickysdad]

They built the equivalent af a major automobile plant at Willow Run to build B-24s. And that wasn't the only green fields project undertaken. The nuclear plants represented an entirely brand new industry. Many preexisting factories and yards (especially along inland waterways) may have served as the nucleus for war production facilities, but most of those were significantly expanded. The US had a big head start thanks to realtively modern, but idle, civilian capacity. But after 1943 a lot of war goods were coming out of new construction plant.

 

BTW, the US production "miracle" seems to me to be mainly the product of cheap, breathless exploitation "history" and wartime propaganda. I've never heard it described as a miracle by serious commentators. If anything, the prevailing attitude is one of mystification at what exactly the various Axis government could have been thinking to challenge the well known and superior US economic strength.

 

Oh I agree with what your saying I'm just saying that other countries expanded far more in relation to thier existing industry.

[swerve]

Well the US produced 31.8 million tons of steel in 1913 . Germany's 17.6 million, UK's 7.7 milliopn, France's 4.6 million, Russia's 4.8 million ,Austria-Hungary's 2.6 million, Japan's .16 million and Italy's .73 million equals a little over 38,000,000 tons & that's 7 country's outputs. I in my original statement was saying or at least meant to say the US produced as much steel as the next 5 countries did . Now if you go to the USGS website you'll see just how dominate the US was in just about every type of mineral production there was ,the US mined it, processed it and made it into final products.. As far as GNP in 1914 I have the US at 37 billion, UK at 11 billion, France at 6 billion, Japan at 2 billion, Germany at 12 billion, Italy at 4 billion, Russia at 7 billion and Austria-Hungary at 3 billion. The total of non-US countries is 45 billion so in essence the US's 37 billion is pretty compatible with those 7 country's 45 billion. ...

Now I've used Mark Harrison & Paul Kennedy for my sources. Now even if your figures are right it still shows how dominant the US was compared to the next 3-4 countries after her at least as far as industrial production & GNP were concerned.

Anyways my whole point is that the US was headed towards being a superpower ,at least in the economic sense, with or without either of the world wars occuring though those wars certainly accelerated the happening.

 

You said the USA produced more steel than the next 5 countries. According to the NBERs estimates, it produced about the same as the next 3. According to the slightly different figures you give above, it produced slightly more than the next 3, but less than the next 4.

 

Mark Harrison & Stephen Broadberry use different GDP estimates in the paper I've linked to above, mostly derived from Angus Maddison. In modern (1990) prices, they are - .

USA 511.6 billion USD

Russia 257.7 bn excluding Finland, or 264.3 including.

Germany 244.3 bn

UK 226.4 bn

France 138.7 bn

Austria-Hungary 100.5 bn

Italy 91.3 bn

Japan 76.5 bn

 

All excluding colonies.

 

While these figures unequivocally place the USA as the leading economic power, by a very wide margin, they do not place it in as dominant position as you claim. Its GDP is almost exactly the same as (well within the margin of error of the estimates) the next two countries, and far from comparable with the next 7. Note that your next 7 aren't actually the next 7 economies in terms of size: both China (at about 240 bn) & British India (204 bn) dwarfed some of them, and India could supply a considerable amount of military muscle for the use of the UK. The "real" next 7 had 2.8 times the GDP of the USA.

 

The USAs economic peak, relative to the rest of the world, was at the end of WW2, when its economy was at least as large as the next 10 countries combined. That degree of dominance did not appear possible in 1913.

 

Harrisons latest paper on this topic, dated 30-May-2008 -

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economic...integration.pdf

Still using Maddison as his source of GDP estimates.

 

Angus Maddisons latest published GDP estimates - http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/ - under "Historical Statistics".

[Guest aevans]

Oh I agree with what your saying I'm just saying that other countries expanded far more in relation to thier existing industry.

 

I think that's fair to say of the Soviets, but they did it at the cost of turning their industrial worker population into slaves in the salt mines.

 

The British expanded their industrial economy somewhat.

 

The Germans did a lot of realligning of industrial capacity, and then only very late.

 

The Japanese expanded military production capacity while they had resources, but they also must have accomplished this by a lot of realigning of existing plant in their small subcontractor system.

[swerve]

...

The British expanded their industrial economy somewhat....

 

And realigned production massively. British industry and agriculture underwent massive restructuring to support the war effort, with huge re-direction of resources. Civilian production was cut back sharply, except where we needed to replace imports, e.g. food. Raleigh bicycles turned their factory over to making parts for weapons (I'm not sure what), for example. Production of private cars ceased, many other consumer durables were diverted to industrial or military use, or production cut back, & factories turned over to military production. BSA resumed making guns, cutting back on civilian goods, after years of not (despite the name) making a single one. Its motorbike & cycle range were redesigned for military use (& cycle production sharply cut, IIRC), & its car works turned over to making armoured vehicles. Etc., etc. Civilian consumption was cut drastically, with food, clothing, & fuel rationed.

 

Some industries contracted, as restrictions were placed on their supplies of raw materials, e.g. furniture. New furniture was restricted to newly-weds & people who'd been bombed out. Government-approved clothing & furniture designs were produced, which used less materials than previous styles. I rather like some of the "utility" furniture.

 

Yes., British industrial production expanded overall, but it was achieved prtly by working existing machinery harder (24 hour working).

[ickysdad]

You said the USA produced more steel than the next 5 countries. According to the NBERs estimates, it produced about the same as the next 3. According to the slightly different figures you give above, it produced slightly more than the next 3, but less than the next 4.

 

Mark Harrison & Stephen Broadberry use different GDP estimates in the paper I've linked to above, mostly derived from Angus Maddison. In modern (1990) prices, they are - .

USA 511.6 billion USD

Russia 257.7 bn excluding Finland, or 264.3 including.

Germany 244.3 bn

UK 226.4 bn

France 138.7 bn

Austria-Hungary 100.5 bn

Italy 91.3 bn

Japan 76.5 bn

 

All excluding colonies.

 

While these figures unequivocally place the USA as the leading economic power, by a very wide margin, they do not place it in as dominant position as you claim. Its GDP is almost exactly the same as (well within the margin of error of the estimates) the next two countries, and far from comparable with the next 7. Note that your next 7 aren't actually the next 7 economies in terms of size: both China (at about 240 bn) & British India (204 bn) dwarfed some of them, and India could supply a considerable amount of military muscle for the use of the UK. The "real" next 7 had 2.8 times the GDP of the USA.

 

The USAs economic peak, relative to the rest of the world, was at the end of WW2, when its economy was at least as large as the next 10 countries combined. That degree of dominance did not appear possible in 1913.

 

Harrisons latest paper on this topic, dated 30-May-2008 -

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economic...integration.pdf

Still using Maddison as his source of GDP estimates.

 

Angus Maddisons latest published GDP estimates - http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/ - under "Historical Statistics".

 

Well I've used "The Rise & fall of the Great Empires " mostly. I've used the term "Next 7" mainly referring to European countries & Japan. Paul Kennedy's book is considered pretty reliable and he lists the GNP's of said countries on page 243. On steel production I used the wrong terms (I should have said "produced almost as much" depending on your definition of that term)) but however you cut it the US steel output is pretty much equal to the next 5 or even the next 7. Now as far as India is concerned it's like I said before the profits the British derived from her shows up in her GNP alot of India's GNP goes into subsistence. I was never really comparing US dominance in post WW2 to what it was in 1913 just showing the US was well on it's way even in 1913.

Anyways we're getting into splitting hairs here since my main point is that the US was well on it's way being a superpower before either of the world wars.

Edited July 1, 2008 by ickysdad

[ickysdad]

Well another thing thats bought up is about the US only becoming a superpower because of WW1 & WW2 . To some extent that's true BUT in 1913(before WW1 even started) the US produced more steel then the next 5 countries combined , it produced 32% of all the world's manufactored goods compared to all of Europe's 49%, and in GNP it was as large as the UK, France, Germany,Italy, Russia and Austria-Hungary combined while it's per capita income was much higher then anybody else's. Compare those figures to ones at the turn of the century and you'll see how fast the US was expanding. In 1938(before WW2 erupted) still at the hieght of the depression the US still produced 31.4% of the world's manufactoring output to Europe's 39%(and the US was at best probably half capacity with most of Europe at full capacity due to rearmament) while it's GNP was equal to the UK's, Germany's, France's, Italy's and the USSR's combined. The US also din't really mobilise it's industry like others did in WW2 they just merely converted thier consumer type industries over to wartime uses.

The US was definately getting to superpower status sooner or later anyways.

 

 

yeah I did say "more then the next 5" didn't I ???? LOL !!! Sorry about that!!! LOL !!!!!

Where did you get your figures for 1913-1914? I looked at the links you provided but couldn't pull them up. Never mind finally found it !!! sorry!!!! lol !!!!

Now as far as your source goes to give Russia a higher GDP then the UK seems absurd to me because even if Russia had almost 4 times more people I imagine it's per capita wasn't even 1/5 that of the UK's. You also show Germany being inferior to Russia now Russia has almost 3 times the population but I bet the German per capita was also every bit 4 times as much but JMHO. Your source also shows that Russia, the Uk and France still have the same population,GDP and per capita income in November,1916 as they did in November,1914 which is rather hard to believe.

Your source shows the US with 96.5 million people out of a world population of 1.8 billion so the US has around 5% of the world's total population. Your source also shows the US with a GDP of 511 billion dollars BUT a world total of around 2.7 billion ,in other words the US has around 18-20% of world's total GDP with just about 5% of the world's population just about where we are today.

Edited July 1, 2008 by ickysdad

[Colin Williams]

In answering this question it's possible to put together a British Overlord scenario, but it seems to me there are some basic requirements that have to be fulfilled.

 

In particular, consider a scenario in which the Japanese back down from confrontation with the US and do not start a Pacific War. This might keep the US out of WW2 altogether. Let's further assume that the US still provides Lend-Lease to both the UK and USSR. Without significant Lend-Lease aid I can't see Britain playing a significant offensive role in the war.

 

Now, with Lend-Lease and no war with Japan, the British would have more resources to apply in the war against Germany in the 1942 timeframe. During 1943 that improvement relative to historical Allied capabilities would decline dramatically in the absence of American military forces. The key to a British Overlord then becomes a question of taking advantage of a fleeting opportunity in 1942 to set up favorable strategic conditions for a landing in France. Here is a scenario -

 

The British manage to defeat Rommel, capture Tripoli and liberate North Africa through their own implementation of Operations Acrobat and Gymnast. This frees up the forces and resources needed to deploy approximately 30 British, Commonwealth and Allied divisions against Germany. Taking out Italy would require at least half of these forces, so any hope for Overlord would require skipping the Italian campaign altogether. Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia are reasonable options for 1943, followed by an invasion of France no earlier than the late summer/fall of 1944. This makes the British Overlord contingent on the success or failure of the Soviet summer offensive. A crushing blow like Bagration could draw enough German panzer divisions away from France to allow for a British landing. However, it's difficult to see how the British would be able to liberate more than a defensible portion of France (say Normandy or Normandy and Brittany), as they would be hard-pressed to provide the manpower needed to sustain months of offensive operations. Alternatively, the British could wait until early 1945, implementing their original plan (Operation Roundup??) of moving into France and the Low Countries with a German collapse. In this case, the westward limit of the Soviet advance might be the Rhine.

[ickysdad]

In answering this question it's possible to put together a British Overlord scenario, but it seems to me there are some basic requirements that have to be fulfilled.

 

In particular, consider a scenario in which the Japanese back down from confrontation with the US and do not start a Pacific War. This might keep the US out of WW2 altogether. Let's further assume that the US still provides Lend-Lease to both the UK and USSR. Without significant Lend-Lease aid I can't see Britain playing a significant offensive role in the war.

 

Now, with Lend-Lease and no war with Japan, the British would have more resources to apply in the war against Germany in the 1942 timeframe. During 1943 that improvement relative to historical Allied capabilities would decline dramatically in the absence of American military forces. The key to a British Overlord then becomes a question of taking advantage of a fleeting opportunity in 1942 to set up favorable strategic conditions for a landing in France. Here is a scenario -

 

The British manage to defeat Rommel, capture Tripoli and liberate North Africa through their own implementation of Operations Acrobat and Gymnast. This frees up the forces and resources needed to deploy approximately 30 British, Commonwealth and Allied divisions against Germany. Taking out Italy would require at least half of these forces, so any hope for Overlord would require skipping the Italian campaign altogether. Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia are reasonable options for 1943, followed by an invasion of France no earlier than the late summer/fall of 1944. This makes the British Overlord contingent on the success or failure of the Soviet summer offensive. A crushing blow like Bagration could draw enough German panzer divisions away from France to allow for a British landing. However, it's difficult to see how the British would be able to liberate more than a defensible portion of France (say Normandy or Normandy and Brittany), as they would be hard-pressed to provide the manpower needed to sustain months of offensive operations. Alternatively, the British could wait until early 1945, implementing their original plan (Operation Roundup??) of moving into France and the Low Countries with a German collapse. In this case, the westward limit of the Soviet advance might be the Rhine.

Another line of thought I was thinking about is if the British just completely push the Italians out of Africa before Rommel comes,i.e. don't waste time or resources on the Greek campaign.That could free-up alot of manpower & resources . Also what if the French fight on from thier colonies instead of dropping out of the war completely in 1940? Of course that means probably no LL from the US.

[swerve]

yeah I did say "more then the next 5" didn't I ???? LOL !!! Sorry about that!!! LOL !!!!!

Where did you get your figures for 1913-1914? I looked at the links you provided but couldn't pull them up. Never mind finally found it !!! sorry!!!! lol !!!!

Now as far as your source goes to give Russia a higher GDP then the UK seems absurd to me because even if Russia had almost 4 times more people I imagine it's per capita wasn't even 1/5 that of the UK's. You also show Germany being inferior to Russia now Russia has almost 3 times the population but I bet the German per capita was also every bit 4 times as much but JMHO. Your source also shows that Russia, the Uk and France still have the same population,GDP and per capita income in November,1916 as they did in November,1914 which is rather hard to believe.

Your source shows the US with 96.5 million people out of a world population of 1.8 billion so the US has around 5% of the world's total population. Your source also shows the US with a GDP of 511 billion dollars BUT a world total of around 2.7 billion ,in other words the US has around 18-20% of world's total GDP with just about 5% of the world's population just about where we are today.

 

That source is Angus Maddison, who is probably the most respected historian of economic growth alive today. When other economic historians disagree with him, as they sometimes do, their disagreement is usually phrased in respectful terms. Mark Harrison, whose particular area of expertise is the Soviet economy, & who you cite elsewhere, seems quite happy to use Maddisons figures for the size of the Russian economy in 1913.

 

Note that most of Maddisons figures on the size & growth of economies are derived from others, though some of them are or have been his students. Compiling that sort of collection isn't a job for one man. His chief role for some years has been to collate, evaluate, publish & encourage the work of others.

 

The US economy was more autarkic in 1913 than today, so had less influence on the world economy relative to its size, & as the various figures batted around here show, there were a few countries with GDPs of half or nearly so the US level, whereas today, the only country at around that level is China - and it's only recently got there. The UK dominated international communications in 1913, controlling the majority of undersea cables, & sterling was more important than the dollar internationally (WW1 changed that). The USA had only small land forces, & was not the chief naval power. A very different situation from today.

 

Certainly, the USA was on the up, but I'm sure the extent of its future dominance would have been surprising to most people in 1913. That dominance was to a large degree the result of the two world wars, which had disastrous effects on the economies of most other major countries, not only due to the direct effects of the wars, but the political aftermath of WW1.

 

Without the wars, the USA would still have had the largest economy, by a great margin, ever since 1913. But that margin would almost certainly have been much, much smaller than it actually has been.

 

BTW, those GDP figures are backward extrapolations from the present. Governments didn't make estimates of GDP, GNP, National Income etc. in 1913.