"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message
om...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

Germany looted a huge amount of gold, fuel, weapons, ammo, food,
trucks, and industrial production from occupied France. It came to
~15 gigabucks (1940 dollars) IIRC.

OTOH they alsoguaranteed a fight with the UK, then still (just!) the
world's
leading military power.


By what measure ?

The RN may have been arguably the strongest although
the USN was surely equal or better. The RAF was able
to hold its own on the defensive (just) but it was in no
shape to launch any real attacks on the nemey and the
army was pitifully small in comparison to that of Germany
and was for the most part less well equipped and led.


1) RN was still (slightly) stronger than the USN (see 3 below). RAF was, as
you say, able (just) to do its job in defending the UK. The army was not
nearly as pitifully small as in WW1 and could count on massive reinforcement
in logistics from the colonies, which the aforementioned RN and RAF would
guarantee would (mostly) get through.

2) Although leadership in all three services still had its share of idiots
(blame the class/caste system which was still a major factor then), we at
least had the advantage that most officers, particularly at higher levels,
had experience of fighting in WW1, an advantage shared only by Germany of
the other major participants.

In Churchill, once he was PM, and for all his many faults, we had a truly
great war leader with not only an intimate knowledge of the minutiae of
warfare but also a developing ability to delegate.

3) As far as equipment goes, while the army in particular was poorly
equipped and the RN still largely depended on WW1 vintage ships, the RAF had
(just!) begun to equip with truly first-rate kit, some exceptions like the
Battle and Stirling accepted. Unlike (for example) the US, we also had (2)
above which meant that particularly in ASW tactics and naval gunnery we had
very much more of a clue than in WW1. Radar was another good thing, as was
cryptography. Overall, these factors IMO gave us the edge over the US in the
1939-40 time frame.

Of course:

4) By the end of the war, the US had grown and left us way behind.

5) We couldn't possibly have prevailed without their (largely
self-interested) help.

Without these resources, the
German effort in the East is likely to fall a great deal short.

Japan consolidates in China

That will never happen.

Even without trying to take on the US?


Yes, the amount of help that reached the Chinese before the
repoening of the Burma Road in 1944 was little more than token
and the Japanese simply lacked the manpower to effectively
subjugate China.

then attacks Siberia.

And gets trounced as bad as they did in 1937 - 1939.

And there's no oil they can get to in Siberia, even if they do win,
which they won't.

Even without trying to take on the US?


Yep, there still wasnt any oil in Siberia and that was the limiting factor
for Japan.

Accepted. I still think it's an interesting thought experiment to imagine
what happens if Germany and Japan get their act together and do some proper
joint planning either before or even during the war. The Panama Canal comes
to mind.

John