Most powerful country

So Blenheim was a French victory?

And it was the French, not the British that conquered India and most of the West Indies?

And Nazi Germany was never going to beat either the British Empire or the Soviet one. Not enough raw materials and resources. Or people for that matter.

 

Shouldn't this be in the alternative histories forum?

 

There is written Spain 1571-1588(biggest empire and much silber best fleet), and after 1588, because the Armarda was destroyed England got the first navy-power!

I think that after 1588 England and Frace were both the strongest....England had the biggest Empire and largest fleet and Frace had the most powerful army in Europe.

 

This has been argued here before.

 

However, by the winter of 40/41 the western European theatre was at a standstill. Britain had recovered from its bad start, and was holding - thanks as usual of course to the Channel.

 

St Vincent's dictum 'I cannot say they will not come. I can only say they will not come by sea' still held. And the Battle of Britain had shown they would not come by air either.

 

And Britain still hadn't fully mobilised its Imperial and Commonwealth forces but it had got itself into a position to blockade Germany the way it had France in Napoleonic times.

 

Frankly, at that point, with no-one else intervening, it looked like a standoff in the west, which is, I suspect, why Hitler felt free to turn to Russia.

 

Thereafter, don't forget that Japan and the US entered the war simultaneously. Without Japan's intervention, Britain would have been able to concentrate on North Africa, before turning to the possibility of invading in the West.

 

Don't forget either that the British had, de facto, after Alamein, won in North Africa already beforeany US troops were involved in Europe or Africa.

germany: 212 divisions and 38 Luftwaffe-relays

uk:             54 divisions and 16 RAF-relays

 

Germany also was able to use the French, the Czech, the Polnish and the Benelux industry!

 

On the Soviet border was precisely where Hitler wanted them. The war in the West was not something Hitler wanted. Once he was satisfied the west was stagnating, he turned on the Soviet Union, his prime target.

 

If you want to ignore that, and assume Hitler would have still tried to occupy England (why?), then you have to face the fact that Germany lost the Battle of Britain, and did not have either air or naval supremacy in the Channel or North Sea, so all the armies in the world in northern France wouldn't get him anywhere. Much the same goes for the Mediterranean, once the British had destroyed the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir and put the Italian one effectively out of action at Matapan and elsewhere.

 

But, as a duel, you couldn't give Germany the French and Italian fleets anyway.

 

So it's a standoff, because of course the British alone probably could not have invaded the continent.

 

If Germany gets no help from anyone, and Britain gets no help from anyone (except the Empire/Commonwealth) then Germany is blockaded rigid (unless it goes for Soviet resources), which means in the long term Germany would probably have folded due to internal discopntent, as in 1918, but it would have been a long time coming.

 

PS A further thought is that if it is to be strictly a duel between the two, you can't give Western Europe to Germany, because that would put all the French, Dutch and Belgian possessions at Britain's disposal - as indeed they were in real life.

 

And the British Empire never was able to defeat Germany alone in 1941.

 

Britain could not win but neither could Germany.

 

Also if you want to expand from the duel then you have to take; Commando raids, SOE and the growing groups of partisans and the British use of Empire.

 

Put it this way, we have a blockade on Germany that weakens them (remember Napoleons Continental Bloackade- sometimes all of Europe is not enough) (also remember Britians blockade of WW1).

 

Next think of it this way- how could Germany win in North Africa, not only did Britian nearly do it on her own before America joined but consider Hitlers preoccupation with Russia (which would have continued, even if only defensively as they were the only opponent to fear) and the British infliction of losses on Rommels shipping. Rommel got I believe less than a third of what set out. Nor was Malta or Gibralter captured. So North Africa is a British victory. And think what would have happened with all the Commonwealth troops (Indian, Springboks, ANZACS) around. Africa would essentially be British.

 

Next Europe. Britain could not conquer but she could be very annoying. SAS, LRDG (have to be renamed!), SOE, partisans are not much fun for the Germans. Enigma still comes our way (thanks Poles!), the Atlantic has still been won and Resistance movements would be widespread.

 

I know that a duel between two states is unreal(in every war a country took other weaker countries or other countries sent supplies or troops into war).

But the Germans developped the me 262, V2 missels and Arado bombers....I think that Uk without US suplies and other US help could't win alone.