What IF canada stayed out of the war(IF)

@Zhukov_2011:

@FieldMarshalGames:

Correction I think here?  UK?  The war would have been lost in 1940 without Britain and the Commonwealth.

No, no correction needed I think. I never said the war could have been won without Britain. The OP asked what would have changed if Canada had not contributed its military to the conflict, and I said very little. I believe most would agree with me. We are not talking about the numerous contributions made by other Commonwealth countries like Burma, India and Australia (and I never said anything about Canada’s resources, his post referenced Canada’s military contributions).

Without a military contribution from Canada, the UK would have still been able to hang on. Understand that undertaking Sea Lion is more complex than purchasing transports for seven IPCs on round two and loading them up with troops based in Normandy. Germany did not have the transports, the navy, the landing craft, the close-support vessels, or the air force to have successfully undertaken such an operation. Nor did it have a firm grasp of what kind of water separates the Isles from the Continent or the tenacity of the foe that opposed her, and that would’ve meant many German boats on the bottom of the sea.

It may be fun to play what-if, but it is a terribly misleading way of understanding the realities of WWII and you have obviously fallen into that trap. If this, than that, and this, and that, and then this again would have happened… well, that’s somewhat hard to say, wouldn’t you agree? You have a better understanding of the British mindset than I do. Would England have laid down its arms and just let the Gerrys walk over them if Canada had not supplied a few divisions and an RAF base?

I don’t think that is the case.  Why don’t you hear it from Winston Churchill himself.  Read his Pulitzer Prize winning History on the Conflict The Second World War, Vol 2 ALONE.  Then you will discover just how un-prepared and at the mercy of the enemy Great Britain was.  Second to the Military support received by the UK in the Early war from Canada was the Moral support that England was not Alone…  Winston Churchill would not have been called to form a Government after the fall of Neville Chamberlain, but rather Lord Halifax, who was committed to a peace settlement with Germany in the face of what seemed impossible odds for victory and utter defeat and destruction.

In this fragile period after the Fall of France and the evacuation from Normandy, with Luftwaffe attacks nightly on British cities…  Great Britain was near the point of collapse and most of the powers that be agreed a negotiated peace settlement was the only way out.  It was the Solidarity of the Commonwealth and Empire (thus the declaration of support from Canada also) that gave the United Kingdom any slight hope of final victory or even holding out.

In conclusion; Being the largest British Dominion and closest to Great Britain, Had Canada not declared war on Germany in 1939 and began logistical and military support for the United Kingdom…  the British ability and will to stay the course and continue the conflict is in doubt.  Regardless if it was from actual Military defeat and invasion, or the internal victory of the Defeatist block who wanted to end the war and negotiate with Hitlers Germany.

Canada’s support in the dark days of 1940 would of been one of the deciding factors as to whether the U.K would remain at war with the Nazi’s. We talk about it today like the U.S joining the war is a given, the British government in 1940 while desperately wanting American assitance knew that it was far from a certainty. Without the collosally misguided Japanese attack on the United States Britain would of been forced to fight on alone and without the resources of the dominions like Canada, Britain would of been up shit creek without a paddle. Canada proving 7-8% of manpower and industrial capacity doesnt seem like much but in 1940 there was no U.S involvement in the war or the Soviet Union so Canada’s share of manpower and resources would of been far greater than 7 or 8%. Without the support of Canadian and Australian forces its possible British would of been defeated in North Africa.

Also its not like the United States were willing to escort the Atlantic convoys during the early days of the war, without the mass produced Canadian corvettes and the other ships of the Royal Canadian navy Britain quite arguably could of starved in the early days of the Nazi U-boat campaign.

I truly admire the Canadians for getting involved in the war, unlike Australia and South Africa its geographical location gave it a choice as to whether or not it wanted to fight the war. Had Australia or South Africa gone it alone they would of likely been conquered by another foreign power, while Canada could of just as easily come under the protection of the United States thanks to its proximity to the U.S.

You really have to ask yourself could Britain of truly gone it alone without its English speaking dominions? I suppose you could think about like AAA, if Britain lost Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in the first turn they would be pretty much finished. I personally believe without the help of the English speaking dominions Britain would of sued for peace sometime after Dunkirk.

I agree with you except for one statment. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think there were any Canadians involved in the North Africa campaign.

@Pvt.Ryan:

I agree with you except for one statment. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think there were any Canadians involved in the North Africa campaign.

No troops I believe but in the early days of the North Africa campaign the Canadians helped supply much of the equipment used by allied forces after the destruction or capture of much of the British army’s equipment at Dunkirk.

@Octospire:

@Pvt.Ryan:

I agree with you except for one statment. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think there were any Canadians involved in the North Africa campaign.

No troops I believe but in the early days of the North Africa campaign the Canadians helped supply much of the equipment used by allied forces after the destruction or capture of much of the British army’s equipment at Dunkirk.

And the Canadians fought in the Italian campaign also remember! But that is moving towards mid to late war and not part of this argument.

@Octospire:

Canada proving 7-8% of manpower and industrial capacity doesnt seem like much but in 1940 there was no U.S involvement in the war or the Soviet Union so Canada’s share of manpower and resources would of been far greater than 7 or 8%.

Thanks Octospire for joining the discussion and for your input.  This is the point I was trying to make.  In the overall conflict 1939-45 it is true that Canada only contributed 7-8% of manpower and industrial capacity.  But in the Early stages of the European conflict it was a much higher percentage when only Great Britain and Canada were fighting the Battle of the Atlantic, and the Air war over the UK.  This contribution at this crucial time was enough to keep the British in the “game”.

Great point also about the equally important role of South Africa and ANZAC troops in the African campaign.

So arguably, the Allies could have lost the war in 39-40 “IF Canada stayed out of the war”.

Aside: This has been a really good discussion.  We should have more on this board like this!

Canada’s main effort in helping Britain say in the early parts of the war was mostly moral support.  Canada had a whole 6 old destroyers and 5 old minesweepers and wouldn’t have had enough personal in the navy to main a US aircraft carrier as there were only 1800 regular and 1700 reservists in the navy on Sept 10, 1939 when Canada declared war on Germany.  This declaration was 1 week after the British declaration, 1 week to show we were not a puppet of the British.

The Canadian navy had to retreat from the Atlantic and convoy duty to retrain and retool end of 41 I believe.

So while I am proud of the Canadian contribution and the fact we ended up with the third largest navy in the world, I would not expect the British to have surrendered without the Canadian declaration of war 1 week after the war started.

Even if Canada remained technically neutral, our industrial capacity would have been tapped for the war effort.  Even if we didn’t fight, we know how to make money and there is money to be made in war.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Even if Canada remained technically neutral, our industrial capacity would have been tapped for the war effort.  Even if we didn’t fight, we know how to make money and there is money to be made in war.

This is true, however you can only make money in war if the nation you support ends up on the winning side. If the British had of lost all the money lent to Britain by Canada, U.S etc would of been lost.

I dont think Britain would of surrendered at the beginning of the war without having Canadian support but in the dark days of late 1940 and early 1941 fighting alone would of looked a lot more bleak than it otherwise would have without the English speaking dominions on side. Also had Canada or one of the other dominions not supported Britains declaration of war it may of had far reaching consequences for other British dominions. India, Malaya and Egypt for example (I realise Egypt isnt technically a dominion) may of seen Canada’s example of staying out of the war as a precedent for them also staying out of the war, perhaps even to the point of outright revolution against British rule when Britain looked its weakest during the war.

Edit: Semi off topic thought. Without Australia the United States would of found it incredibly difficult to win the Pacific war due to the vast majority of the early Island hopping invasions beginning in Australia. Most likely they would of had to fight the large naval engagement in defence of the Phillipines the Japanese envisioned in their plans for the war. Regardless it would of been interesting the full might of the IJN and U.S navy duking it out for control of the Pacific in one large all encompassing battle.

@FieldMarshalGames:

I don’t think that is the case.  Why don’t you hear it from Winston Churchill himself.  Read his Pulitzer Prize winning History on the Conflict The Second World War, Vol 2 ALONE.  Then you will discover just how un-prepared and at the mercy of the enemy Great Britain was.  Second to the Military support received by the UK in the Early war from Canada was the Moral support that England was not Alone…  Winston Churchill would not have been called to form a Government after the fall of Neville Chamberlain, but rather Lord Halifax, who was committed to a peace settlement with Germany in the face of what seemed impossible odds for victory and utter defeat and destruction.

In this fragile period after the Fall of France and the evacuation from Normandy, with Luftwaffe attacks nightly on British cities…  Great Britain was near the point of collapse and most of the powers that be agreed a negotiated peace settlement was the only way out.  It was the Solidarity of the Commonwealth and Empire (thus the declaration of support from Canada also) that gave the United Kingdom any slight hope of final victory or even holding out.

In conclusion; Being the largest British Dominion and closest to Great Britain, Had Canada not declared war on Germany in 1939 and began logistical and military support for the United Kingdom…  the British ability and will to stay the course and continue the conflict is in doubt.  Regardless if it was from actual Military defeat and invasion, or the internal victory of the Defeatist block who wanted to end the war and negotiate with Hitlers Germany.

Suppose Canada had refused to declare war on Germany, and suppose that had led to Halifax, not Churchill, becoming the British prime minister. Britain would have negotiated a peace treaty with Germany.

What would have happened then? Would Hitler still have invaded the Soviet Union? Would that invasion have occurred in 1941, or would he have waited? Or, conversely, would the Soviet Union have invaded Germany?

If a war between Germany and the Soviet Union did occur, how much American aid would the Soviets have received? There can be no doubt which side FDR personally would have favored in such a war. But if the Soviet Union was the only nation with which Germany was at war, would he have been able to sell the American public on what would have boiled down to military aid to protect and spread communism? (As opposed to spreading Western democracy and communism, as the historical Lend-Lease program achieved.) Without British naval involvement, how able would Germany have been to sink those Lend-Lease shipments as they crossed the Atlantic on their way to the Soviets? Would those attacks let FDR get away with bringing the U.S. into the war?

If no war between Germany and the Soviet Union occurred, and if the British had agreed to peace, the Cold War era would have had three sides: the Western democracies, the communists, and the Nazis. Most or all of the illegal killing within Germany would likely have ended once the British food blockade had been lifted. Hitler would eventually have died, and would likely have been replaced with a milder man. (Just as Stalin’s successors were more cautious and less murderous than Stalin himself.) The massive wave of Third World immigration into Western and Central Europe which began in the post-WWII era, and which continues today, would not have occurred. The Red Army would have been kept out of the heart of Europe, thereby preventing countless atrocities. Eugenics had been socially acceptable prior to WWII, and would likely have remained so during this postwar era. Even in Western democracies, programs might have been put in place to encourage more intelligent people to have more children, and less intelligent people to reduce their reproduction. (Such programs were favored by John Keynes, the most influential economist of the 20th century, and Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University.) Communists’ influence in the postwar era might have been weakened, and there is at least the chance that the social revolution of the '60s might not have occurred. (Or might have been milder and more moderate if it did occur.)

@FieldMarshalGames:

Why don’t you hear it from Winston Churchill himself.  Read his Pulitzer Prize winning History on the Conflict The Second World War, Vol 2 ALONE.  Then you will discover just how un-prepared and at the mercy of the enemy Great Britain was.  Second to the Military support received by the UK in the Early war from Canada was the Moral support that England was not Alone…  Winston Churchill would not have been called to form a Government after the fall of Neville Chamberlain, but rather Lord Halifax, who was committed to a peace settlement with Germany in the face of what seemed impossible odds for victory and utter defeat and destruction.

Churchill also said, “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” [the full version expounds this idea of ultimate determination in typical Churchillian speak.]

To say the absence of Canada’s military in the British effort against Germany would have led to Lord Halifax as prime minister is just too much speculation to argue on. How would that occur? Remember, Churchill became prime minister a month before the French surrender, so at that point Britain was not alone (if I recall right, Churchill was named prime minister on May 10, 1940, the same day as the German invasion). While the French Army was resoundly beaten in the first few weeks of battle, there was much hope on the British side that the French would invoke the elan that saved them from defeat two decades earlier. At least on paper the combined Franco-Anglo army possessed a numerical advantage in almost everything but aircraft, and some equipment, like the latest French tanks, were superior to what the Germans developed themselves and captured from Czechoslovakia.

In any case, I am not convinced that Britain would have capitulated or been captured without the military and moral support from Canada. Canada’s vast resources would still have been available (like Mr. Marachi said, there was money to be made by selling those resources and Britain was buying). Octospire said something about Britain losing all its money and America being lost, which doesn’t make any sense unless he thought this is an old AA strategy thread. Besides, Swedish armament companies supplied arms to all sides during the war, and made bank in the process. To the managers and factory owners and the people who needed the paycheck to survive, it didn’t matter who won or lost as long as they paid. :roll: Also, the cost of occupying Britain would have far outweighed whatever booty the Germans received, and would have left Germany spread even thinner in the approaching war against Russia.

Back to the topic, in those early pre-Pearl days the U.S. was still providing limited, but effective, convoy services for ships inbound for England, so the loss of the RCN in convoy escort operations would not have meant a West Atlantic devoid of Allied warships. Furthermore, it would seem unlikely for the U.S. to stand by as Germany mounted an invasion of Britain (which would not have been an easy operation to disguise). From all the determined and patriotic rhetoric heard in England during those days after the Fall of France, I don’t believe capitulation was even an option despite the loss of its official allies.

You must ask yourselves, could Germany have staged an invasion of Britain in the summer of 1940? To see even the slightest chance of success Sea Lion needed to commence right after the Dunkirk evacuation, when Allied forces were still licking their wounds in humiliation. Waiting any longer would have allowed the British to rearm and fortify the Island (as happened in real life). Since Germany had no strategic bomber capability, British factories were allowed to operate unimpeded and quickly made up the losses suffered in France.
Nor did Germany possess the dedicated landing craft or the innumerable support craft to aid an invasion fleet. How could the Germans land enough troops to matter? Would they swim?
The invasion would have required the Luftwaffe and the small Kriegsmarine to win superiority over both the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy - an impossible feat. Even if the transports made it thought, the Germans would face opposition from an enemy more numerous than themselves who were fighting on their own soil (or for some, like the French soldiers fighting to recapture theirs) and had nothing more to lose. Such an operation would have made the losses at Tarawa insignificant in comparison.

FM, you say the Allies could have lost in 1939-1940 (I assume you mean by losing England). Germany couldn’t have done this without knocking France out of the war, so 1939 is out of the question. In 1940 Germany did not possess the craft necessary to invade Britain or to supply its forces when it got there (any invasion would probably have been a one-way trip), and it would taken months at least to refocus the country’s factories towards producing the necessary equipment, and I doubt that would have even been a possibility. By then its probably 1941, Britain would be impregnable and the threat from the USSR could no longer be ignored. At that point, Sea Lion would be forever dropped from the war plans shelf and the conflict would progress much like it really did.

Fairly complete analysis Zhukov, I see no flaws and your premises or conclusion.  An interesting note, the US had to dramatically reduce Atlantic convoy protection post Dec 7, 1941.  So in a time of peace they provided MORE protection to their allies than during the initial phases of the declared war.

Most or all of the illegal killing within Germany would likely have ended once the British food blockade had been lifted. Hitler would eventually have died, and would likely have been replaced with a milder man.

Revisionist garbage, Kurt. Where do you get this stuff from?

One day me and you will go to the Holocaust Museum in D.C. with lots of duct tape wrapped around your mouth and we’re going to learn a few things about what happened inside Nazi-controlled Europe.

Hitler was the man behind the Holocaust. He was responsible for all those killings. He gave to orders. Without him none of that would have happened.

It was more insidious than you say Pvt. Ryan.  It would be difficult for Hitler to be found guilty of ordering the killing of a single Jew in a court of law.  There are no direct orders from him to construct the concentration camps, ship people there or even to kill any single Jew.

What Hitler DID do, by hate-filled rhetoric and control over the media (among other things too numerous to list here) was make taking these actions acceptable, even desirable behavior on the part of those underneath him and German society at large.  He corrupted the entire German nation.

Yeah but when it all boils down to it he’s the one responsible. You can’t argue with that.

No, he is not the ONE responsible, but he was one of the responsible, if not the most responsible.

I believe he was the ONE responsible even though others were responsible as well. No Hitler, no Holocaust.

No arguement with that.  Hitler was the main person behind WWII and the holocaust.  But many others were also guilty.

Yes.

If Canada would have stayed out of the war…. oh, the poor Dutch girls would have been so sad…  :-D