Would the Allies have won WW2 if the UK had fallen?

[Deleted]

The battle Britain was a very close thing, and we got very lucky in Dunkirk saving as many as we did. If the UK had fallen would the US forces have had a staging area to invade Europe?

I personally think the Soviets would still have won, but would have created the greatest super power ever if they had all of Europe under their control.

Thoughts anyone?

[TJ]

Can only end badly, but yes, I'd say the Allies still would've won.

[Deleted]

Agreed with above poster, I think the Sovjet and the US would've been too strong for Germany/Italy/Japan/the rest of the axis.

[Deleted]

How would the US have managed a beach head without the UK? It took months of planning for D-day, with a huge amount of logistics, you cannot just sail over the ocean with lots of landing craft.

[Julian Rayne]

They would have. The conquest model of the Third Reich was not sustainable. Even if Germany had won the war, it would have all fallen apart sooner rather than later.

[Gabronthe]

I think they couldn't have done it without any of the super powers. (Soviet union, UK, and the USA) I think if one fell the axis powers would've one the war.

[Deleted]

I don't think it would have been considered a "win" without the UK. The Invasion on Europe was only possible because of the UK still on the allies side. Without the UK germany could have conquered whole europe without a big problem, but with Russia in the east there would have been no way to go even mor east than that...

Not considering Japan, but they were just a bunch of Morons :P

[Deleted]

I think they couldn't have done it without any of the super powers. (Soviet union, UK, and the USA) I think if one fell the axis powers would've one the war.

Not sure about that, the Soviets were doing major damage to the 3rd reich. It would have been even more costly but the Soviets still could have taken Berlin. On the other hand, it may have given Germany enough time to complete their experimental weapons, Including Nukes. They were damn close, the USA only just pipped them to the post.

[artemishunter1]

Not sure about that, the Soviets were doing major damage to the 3rd reich. It would have been even more costly but the Soviets still could have taken Berlin. On the other hand, it may have given Germany enough time to complete their experimental weapons, Including Nukes. They were damn close, the USA only just pipped them to the post.

The soviets were canon foddler. without the allied weapons, soviets had only numbers going for them. the damage was done in the soviet front, because of the harsh weather, soviet forces were in retreat. At best, they could have only defended in their homes till the supplies run out.

[Shiny212]

I still think the allies, namely the Soviet Union would have beaten or at least severely crippled Germany, but it's another thing how D-day would have turned out without the UK; the US would no doubt sustain massive casualties,(even greater than those in reality) if they attempted D-day without UK logistics/support they could possibly have been denied ever invading Europe. We might be living in a commie society;p

[Deleted]

The soviets were canon foddler. without the allied weapons, soviets had only numbers going for them. the damage was done in the soviet front, because of the harsh weather, soviet forces were in retreat. At best, they could have only defended in their homes till the supplies run out.

The soviets also Inflicted 7 times the casualties than the US forces, once Stalingrad was secure they would like a steam roller. Slow but crushing everything. It is entirely possible they could have been routed but I would not bet my life on it.

[Blobfish]

the Russsians where the ones that kicked ass against the Germans in the end

So know, the Russkies saved our sorry Butts

[loganroth51]

Without the Uk na they wouldnt have won. It was a combined effort by all the allies and if any peice of that puzzle was removed it would have crippled the ally attack incredibly. D- Day was a hard landing in itself and without the Uk it would have been much harder.

[Easo]

Depends if Soviet Union holds. After all, it was close enough to collapse. But then again, what losses Germany would sustain, when invading Britain? Too many unknowns IMHO.

[Reg]

I think Britain holding out for as long as they did was really a major factor in the downfall of Germany's Western front. Could the Soviets have finished them off alone? I kind of doubt it. They were taking heavy military and civilian casualties and if Germany only had one front to deal with if Britain collapsed, I don't think the Soviets would have been able to push to Berlin.

[Shiny212]

Depends if Soviet Union holds. After all, it was close enough to collapse. But then again, what losses Germany would sustain, when invading Britain? Too many unknowns IMHO.

Well, if Germany had won the Battle of Britain it's fairly certain that they would have destroyed most military opposition there, and taken it for themselves to prevent the US from using it as a staging area. Unlikely there would be much German casualties on the ground after extensive bombing from uncontested skies.

[Deleted]

Looking at both industrial output and available manpower it's obvious the Germans didn't stand a chance. Not to mention that even if the British isles had fallen the allies would've still had a foothold in northern Africa and many other places. The war would've played out differently but the outcome would've been similar.

Also, their nuke research was far behind the US and had low priority compared to the US project.

[Lefthandpath]

well, a couple things:

1. dunkirk was a colossal screw up by the germans, as they had their tanks pull back and assigned their planes to finish off the folks there. they wanted to show how kickass air power could be, but the strat was stupid, and they failed to wipe out the brits when they had the chance. had they just rolled in the tanks, im sure the brits would have sued for peace.

2. if the brits sued for peace, im almost certain the U.S. wouldnt have gotten involved in the european theatre.

3. france was not the only route into europe, remember that the U.S. took back north africa (after monty screwed the pooch down there), and from there moved into italy. in fact, germany was convinced for quite some time that the major U.S. invasion of europe was going to come from a force led by patton in the south, probably in greece.

4. russia pulled back and made factories on the eastern side of the urals. creating the largest tank army the world has ever seen, then or since. the germans failed to make a long range bomber capable of reaching these factories, thus sealing the germans fate.

so really, russia beat the germans with that massive tank army, and the U.S. stopped russia from taking over the entire european continent, all the while the brits took a pounding and never surrendered, showing the world what the term "hard nosed brit" really ment.

[Palmatum]

Without the UK? Yes.

Without Soviets? Definitely not.

[Bakis]

Without UK in allied hands I dont see how the US would be able to help at all with either selling equipment-> leasing it -> helping out with troops since the logistics would be non existant.

I feel pretty sure that the allies would have won without US troops but without the support in materials and arms, I doubt it. With England under the allied boot... naa wouldnt have worked.