I'm not knocking your country or your will to fight. I'm just talking fact. The UK had to disband its infantry divisions because it just didn't have enough able bodied men left to man all those ships, fly all the planes, and fight a ground war. There is no shame in that. Germany ended up with the same issue, hence the mass employment of MG42s and SMGs. The germans had twice the number of automatic weapons in their TOE as the Americans or Brits. Also, the germans were using conscripts from other nations with german NCOs.

US population 1935 127 million
UK population 1935 62 million

As discussed above, bombers were nearly in the early 30s what they were just a few years later. Second, artillery of the 30s had a range of about 12kilometers. Obviously, most american factories are a spread across a huge country and as I pointed out, the massive border would make it non linear and manuver war. Your soldiers would overrun factories before they fired artillery at them.

Actually, I was in fact pointing to your militia. Thats what partisians are. Go back and read what I wrote again.

First of all, please don't insult my intelligence by saying that I can't do simple research. That is obviously not true. I am a 20 year military veteran to include attending several military schools. Please, allow me to debunk your simple theory.

I'll begin with your "navy that ruled the world". England signed the London naval treaty in 1930 and the Washington treaty in 1922. In signing these treaties, the UK agreed not to build additional ships. Further, they agreed to a ration of 5:5 with the US in terms of battleships as well as limits on tonnage, gun sizes and so on. The UK fleet was then based on the 5 Rs, the three BCs and the 5 QEs, where the US fleet was then based on the 12 standards, Arkansas, Wyoming, Utah and Florida.

Do you think that 10 battleships and a handful of old cruisers could blockade of US east coast that is 2500 miles long???? Do you think that the UK could indefinitely support these ships with fuel all the way across the Atlantic Ocean????? Do you think that a battle damage ship would have a better chance of surviving a short tow to the US or a thousand mile journey back to England???? This comment is obviously made because you are not educated in either strategic or logistical thinking. A world war is marco, not micro.

I find it comical that you said I can't do simple research yet the site that you gave me as what you were using was from World War one. As pointed above, all the battleships were scrapped except the Rs, the QEs, Hood, Repulse and Renown. The huge list on that website did not exist in 1931. Also, all the smaller ships like destroyers and cruisers were vastly over rated by the 30s. Do your own research and compare a WWI destroyer or cruiser and a cruiser built in the 30s. Its not even close. BBs only managed to survive because of sheer mass of armor and firepower.

My next point was not the actual US ships but rather the manufacturing capability that constructed them. I am grateful to the soldiers and people of the UK for their sacrifice in WWI, but they were quite exhausted at the end of the war. The UK signed the naval treaties knowing that they didn't have the capability to build all new ones. I recommend that you do some googling or go to the library and find a good book. The UK agreed to not build new ships because they didn't have the capability and they hopped that by getting the US, France, Japan and Italy to sign, then they would be able to keep up.

I listed out the ships so that you could see the difference in wartime production (which started in the 30s as both countries geared up for war) The US just flat out made more ships and planes. Finally, I refuse to get into a debate about which nations sailors had superior skills. Both sacrificed and served under hardships and did both great and honorable things.

"I can't find the EXACT RN ship numbers in 1930, so that figure above is pretty much bang on, give or take a few hundred" That really made me laugh when you are hundreds of ships off, including 10 battleships but you say I can't do research. You've got to do better than that if you are going to hurl insults.

This is an interesting point. What makes you think that France, Belgian and Dutch armies would have helped England? What if Germany and Italy decided that while England was in a war with the US that it was the perfect time for Hitler to attack? Where would you have ended up???

Also, I get a kick out of the comment about the skyscrapers. The bulk of the US population prior to the 60s was actually in small towns.

well i am annoyed that you hanent addressed the facts in this, so let me put them straight, the reason why as i posted before was the lack of money to rebuild not a lack of manpower to man the armed forces, the 'demob' was started in june 1945 and lasted 18 months returned 4.5 million men and half a million women from armed forces to civillian life. please note this figure does not include those too injured to return to duty, so it a fit for duty(including light) number.

with around 10,000 too 15,000 men per division or around 1,500 needed for a CV or BB so want to divide 4.5 million by those numbers and see where you end up? still too few to do all those things?

the 4.5 million are the ones who left the army, and at this time there was still conscription so the true number reduction is less than the 4.5 million.

The main cities did have skyscrapers, maybe not to the extent that came to be after the 60s however as I said they will have been densely populated enough to cause severe casualties.

Considering they were Britains allies throughout that time frame I think its safe to assume they would aid Britain in such a war. Hitler would most likely have attacked Poland as he did in the late 30s. However, since we are going with 'what if' scenarios what if Germany considered the US to be good enough for her breathing room instead of Poland and/or Russia with the vast amount of land and resources there?

Hitler actually never wanted to go to war with Britain and is quoted as saying such, so chances are they would have expanded across eastern Europe and most likely have sided with Britain and France in going to war with America. Also, since Japan became allies with Germany wouldn't it be safe to assume Japan would have declared war on America too?

I agree in that America had impressive manufacturing output however, how many bombs where dropped by enemy aircraft or shells fired by enemy forces on to mainland USA? One? Two? The manufacturing output would have been greatly reduced due to similar bombing and naval attacks that occurred in Europe during WWII. Also, your assuming Britain would have been hampered by the two London treaties that came to be in 1930 and 1936 as well as the Geneva Conference in 1932.

I especially like your final comment on your first paragraph about were Britain would have ended up if Germany attacked, considering Russia was the Primary reason Germany lost the war.

:EDIT:



You have only stated the population for mainland Britain. Not Australia, New Zealand, India, Egypt, Sudan, South Africa and all the other countries that were part of the British Empire during that period. Which also had their very own divisions within the British armed forces. The total population in the British Empire was 458 million people in 1938, which was 20% of the worlds population at that time. I think its safe to assume that population would not deviate by 200+ million from 1920 and even if it did deviate by 200 million the British Empire would still have a much greater pool of men than America.

I'm sorry that you are annoyed, but I keep presenting facts and you keep overlooking or misinterpreting them. I'm not talking about demobilization following the defeat of Germany, I'm talking about the strain that a massive war put on England and the fact that she simply ran out of me.

-Noted Author Ian Hogg, a specialist in WWII armored vehicles and ground combat noted that in early in 1945 the UK was algamating and disbanding units as they simply couldn't replace losses.

-Of 10 WW2 armored divisions, 5 were disbanded. At least 8 of 20 infantry divisions were also disbanded. Some of them were closed as early as '43.

- England was forced to utilized "the home guard" retired 60 year old soldiers to defend the coast as they were out of replacements.

- Field Marshal Montgomery, frequently criticized as being "too cautions" in combat and not exploiting opportunities (Caen is the most loudly complained about) was actually protecting his assets. Many writers have claimed that Montgomery was wise enough to know that he needed to preserve his resources as England was slowly running out (similar in a way to Jellicoe carefully preserving his BBs in WWI)

Compare that with Americans = Oversized infantry divisions, massive replacement depos, huge numbers of replacement tanks and crews, reckless commanders ordering advancing at all costs.... that is a massive difference. America not only won WW2 with mass production and (with some things) qaunity over quality, but we also helped win WWI that way and we won our own civil war that way.

I could go on and on, the bottom line is that England is just a smaller country. They ran out of people.

Really, none of these scenarios that were are discussing could be based in anything more than a guess. If you were the primeminister of england, would you want to trust your left flank to Hitler??? As far as some of the other things go, yes, there were sky scrapers in the 30s, but the bulk of the American population was rural. The move to the cities and urban sprawl wouldn't happen for years.

Regardless of the treaties, England would indeed be hampered by the treaties. Please, slow down and read what I just said. England actually was one of the main proponents of the "naval holiday" because they didn't have the $$$ or reasources for new ships. If you don't believe me, go read and learn for yourself.

I am not going to give credit to any one country for winning the war in Europe. I do think that Japan was able to be defeated by the US alone, but Europe was a whole different matter.

Talking about numbers, see my post above. Yes, I know that allied countries contributed to England's war effort and I didn't go way overboard with examples. But I will tell you that after 5 years of war, the empire as at the end. There were no more soldiers to throw into the breech.

I am a harsh critic of my own country's military and commanders as well, so in no way do I say that to disparage the UK or her armed forces. If you don't believe me, thats fine. Go start reading and learning on your own. Two world wars really devastated the empire. Its bad, I'm not from England and I don't like it but its what happened. Right now this retarded war is doing the same thing to my country as we are wasting our assets and gaining nothing. Same thing.

well lets see,

yes some armoured were disbanded in '43, once the north african part of the second world wwar was over. they were the 2nd, 8th and 10th if memory serves.

the home guard was a stop gap after the fall of france and while the new conscripts were being trained to fill the line, they were not all '60 year old retired soldiers' and to portray them as such is wrong. the home guard stood down in late 44 after D-day. in fact america still has there own version in the 'state defense force'

you still have not addressed why if we were short of man power we demobbed 4.5 million men, if we were short of fighing forces should we not have kept them in uniform? i still contend it is all down to 3 major expense items..............

1. keeping the equipment up and running and improving it
2. payment of wages to the forces
3. rebuilding Britian after WW2


as for your bottom line well the UK was fighting longer than america, suffered far more bomb damage and civilian dead and injured, so yes a smaller country, fighting longer, closer to the front line, which leads me back to the OP, and the trouble america would be in should the main indurtral areas in the north of the country have been bombed/shelled you could have move them south, but at a cost of time and during that time there would have been a struggle to hold the line and with civilian casualties mounting, maybe a clamor to end the war.

while Britian, and the Empire would have been mostly out of harms way and able to ramp up production and supply the field like america did in WW2.

and on a final note please stop saying England, thats one part of the union, there are 3 other parts to it as well.