The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 14 Apr 2020 20:11

Sid Guttridge wrote:
14 Apr 2020 17:40
Hi Ружичасти Слон,

I have already answered your points in posting:

You post, "I not agree 45 millions population on 1939 was small." I did not say it was. I said it was small compared with the German Reich's population, which was nearly twice as large.

You post, "Small size land = easiest for to defend". If you have a large enough army. However, in late June 1940 the UK had only one fully equipped division, because most other equipment had been lost in France.

You post, "Isolated?". Well, the UK is on an island and the entire Atlantic oast of Europe was in German hands or that of unfriendly neutrals like Spain. At the same time the USSR was cooperating with Hitler under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the USA was still isolationist.

You post, "Illequipped was be everything about choices." Yes, but that dsoesn't alter the fact that briefly in mid 1940 the UK coulds field only one fully equipped infantry division, and this was Canadian.

You post, "I not understand why you must to ignore Empire." I didn't. I explained why it was of limited value in 1940, the year this thread is about.

You post, "British goverment was be government for 500 millions people not 45 millions." True, but less than 10% of them were in the UK. The rest were one or more oceans away and even less prepared for war than the UK.

You post, "Was be Empire that was give resources and safe spaces for to train prepare and build." True, but that took time and did not much apply in 1940, which is the year this thread is about.

You post, "Germany was not have such places." In 1940 Germany had the whole continent of Europe west of the USSR available, if it so desired.

You post, "On 1940 British empire was be much bigger than German empire on population and size." Yes, but over 90% of that population was not in Europe and one or more oceans away; most of that population was not usable militarily,b ecause it could not be equipped even minimally; and virtually none of the few trained and equipped Dominion and Colonial troops were available in 1940 because the Empire also had to defend itself. For example, the entire Indian Army was designated for Imperial defence around the Indian Ocean in order to releae British Army units for home service.

Remember, this thread is specifically about 1940, which is what I am talking about. The Empire became increasingly useful as it mobilised in later years, but in mid 1940 this was much more promise than reality.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. You might also like to consider that the USSR lost nearly 30 million lives in a four-year war largely against Germany out of a population of 180 million. (About 17%).

By contrast, the British Empire achieved the same goal with the deaths of about 2,000,000 lives in a six year war against Germany, Italy and, latterly, Japan from a population of some 500 million in the entire Empire. (About 0.4%).

Looked at that way, British policy doesn't look so stupid - and it never had an arrangement with Hitler like the Molotv-Ribbentrop Pact.

The mass expenditure of lives is not a merit in itself.
Topic is The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

I not agree island was tiny on population or area.
I not agree island was lonely.

Population on island was be 45 millions. Not tiny.
Population on empire was 500 millions. Not tiny.
Island was be part of biggest empire and was have many friends not on empire.

In 1940 army was be small. In 1940 equipment was be little. All was be choices what not make island tiny or lonely.

Britain was can to have big army and much equipment like Germany when was make different decisions.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 2121
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 14 Apr 2020 20:58

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
14 Apr 2020 17:23
Britain was have small army by choices of British government.
I completely agree.
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
14 Apr 2020 17:23
45 millions peoples was be big enough population for to make army big enough to stop and defeat Germany army invasion.
Well, arguably, but the better choice would be to have a big enough air force and navy to prevent a German army invasion as it would have hardly been sensible to let the German land. Which is exactly what did happen of course.
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
14 Apr 2020 17:32
Choice for tiny army and no equipment.

Choice for army location and role.
Again I completely agree, that is until suddenly in April 1939 the British government realised that it couldn't limit it's "continental commitment", and at that point the British government made a decision to attempt to build a relatively large army. Unfortunately, they had left it too late and, due to the Russo-German non-aggression treaty in August 1939 the British and French ended up in exactly the situation their diplomats had struggled (unsuccessfully and perhaps not that cleverly) to avoid - facing a resurgent Germany which didn't have to fight a war on both eastern and western fronts at the same time.
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
14 Apr 2020 20:11
In 1940 equipment was be little.
Well, Britain did have 103 cruisers, 132 infantry tanks and 252 light tanks left at home after the fall of France in June 1940 (figures from Churchill Vol II - slightly different figures in British Official History for 10 June 1940 were 103 cruisers and 114 infantry tanks). And Britain was producing tanks in 1940 at such speed that in August 1940 they sent 100 to the Middle East (50 cruisers and 50 infantry tanks).

Regards

Tom

You must realise that Britain knew it did not have the resources to fight a major land war against Germany at the same time as defending its empire from Italy and Japan. As the war progressed this becomes clearer and clearer.

Regards

Tom

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 14 Apr 2020 21:59

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
14 Apr 2020 20:58
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
14 Apr 2020 17:23
Britain was have small army by choices of British government.
I completely agree.
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
14 Apr 2020 17:23
45 millions peoples was be big enough population for to make army big enough to stop and defeat Germany army invasion.
Well, arguably, but the better choice would be to have a big enough air force and navy to prevent a German army invasion as it would have hardly been sensible to let the German land. Which is exactly what did happen of course.
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
14 Apr 2020 17:32
Choice for tiny army and no equipment.

Choice for army location and role.
Again I completely agree, that is until suddenly in April 1939 the British government realised that it couldn't limit it's "continental commitment", and at that point the British government made a decision to attempt to build a relatively large army. Unfortunately, they had left it too late and, due to the Russo-German non-aggression treaty in August 1939 the British and French ended up in exactly the situation their diplomats had struggled (unsuccessfully and perhaps not that cleverly) to avoid - facing a resurgent Germany which didn't have to fight a war on both eastern and western fronts at the same time.
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
14 Apr 2020 20:11
In 1940 equipment was be little.
Well, Britain did have 103 cruisers, 132 infantry tanks and 252 light tanks left at home after the fall of France in June 1940 (figures from Churchill Vol II - slightly different figures in British Official History for 10 June 1940 were 103 cruisers and 114 infantry tanks). And Britain was producing tanks in 1940 at such speed that in August 1940 they sent 100 to the Middle East (50 cruisers and 50 infantry tanks).

Regards

Tom

You must realise that Britain knew it did not have the resources to fight a major land war against Germany at the same time as defending its empire from Italy and Japan. As the war progressed this becomes clearer and clearer.

Regards

Tom
Yes. I agree with most what you was write.

About topic:
Island was not be tiny and was not be lonely. Words was be myth.

But what about point of words and idea for cartoon? Was it be propaganda to try to get Amerika for to be in war? Maybe. Was it be defeatest message to peoples after Dunkirk to say was be impossible to win war and best idea must to be surrender? Maybe.

Army was small by choice. But island was not need big army. Island was need big navy and airforce. Small army was not be problem. Germany was not can invade for 100 divisions in 1940. Channel was like 80 divisions for Britain.

Cartoon was want to give problems was be very difficult. I disagree. In june 1940 after Dunkirk Britain still was have all strategic advantages. If Britain was choose it can to have industrys in Britain and Canada and Australia and South Africa like size in Amerika. It was take time but with Channel and navy always have time. If Britain was choose it can to make 200 or 300 divisions from mens in empire. Was take time but was not impossible. And remember Britain can build industrys and biggest army ever in peace away from warfighting in Canada in Afrika in India in Australia. At same time British airforce can to be dropping bombs on Berlin every night and every factory and every training depot.

So i think Britain was have resources for to fight biggest land war. Not in 1940 but maybe 1944 or 1945. Even without Amerika. But it was not need to do all that because Japan and Germany was so stupid to start war against Amerika and Soviet union.

Situation for Britain was be all about choices. Most choices was be right.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15170
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Andy H » 15 Apr 2020 13:24

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
14 Apr 2020 21:59
. If Britain was choose it can to have industrys in Britain and Canada and Australia and South Africa like size in Amerika. It was take time but with Channel and navy always have time. If Britain was choose it can to make 200 or 300 divisions from mens in empire. Was take time but was not impossible. And remember Britain can build industrys and biggest army ever in peace away from warfighting in Canada in Afrika in India in Australia. At same time British airforce can to be dropping bombs on Berlin every night and every factory and every training depot.

So i think Britain was have resources for to fight biggest land war. Not in 1940 but maybe 1944 or 1945. Even without Amerika. But it was not need to do all that because Japan and Germany was so stupid to start war against Amerika and Soviet union.

Situation for Britain was be all about choices. Most choices was be right.
Hi

I'm not sure where our basis for 2-300 divisions comes from, given the actualities of the time.

In Sept'39 the Government set an ambitious figure of fielding 55 Divisions (32 British, 14 Dominion, 4 Indian and 5 'Allied') but the realities of war soon saw this revised to 36 Divisions, though 55 would remain the ultimate goal.
The raising of 55 Divisions in terms of manpower alone would have had serious effects on the other Service requirements, especially the Air Force.

A good solid book on this matter is 'Raising Churchills Army' by David French

Regards

Andy H

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 2585
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Sheldrake » 15 Apr 2020 13:53

There is a case to answer. The USSR had not much more than half of the population or economy than the British Empire. The USSR mobilised three times as many servicemen, built over twice as many tanks, SP guns and artillery pieces and almost as many aircraft. Sure, Britain had a very big navy and merchant marine but not one that absorbed 75% of the economic output. Figures from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... rld_War_II

One hypothesis is that the British Empire was a very inefficient structure. For all the flag waving and individual sacrifices there wasn't as much binding the dominions and colonies to Britain as bound the Soviet Union. There were a lot of people in India, but the majority were unwilling subjects, as were most of Britain's African colonies. British mobilised a large colonial army, but only a fraction of that of the white dominions. It was tottering in the 1930s and waiting to collapse, which it did in two decades after the war.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 15 Apr 2020 15:48

Andy H wrote:
15 Apr 2020 13:24
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
14 Apr 2020 21:59
. If Britain was choose it can to have industrys in Britain and Canada and Australia and South Africa like size in Amerika. It was take time but with Channel and navy always have time. If Britain was choose it can to make 200 or 300 divisions from mens in empire. Was take time but was not impossible. And remember Britain can build industrys and biggest army ever in peace away from warfighting in Canada in Afrika in India in Australia. At same time British airforce can to be dropping bombs on Berlin every night and every factory and every training depot.

So i think Britain was have resources for to fight biggest land war. Not in 1940 but maybe 1944 or 1945. Even without Amerika. But it was not need to do all that because Japan and Germany was so stupid to start war against Amerika and Soviet union.

Situation for Britain was be all about choices. Most choices was be right.
Hi

I'm not sure where our basis for 2-300 divisions comes from, given the actualities of the time.

In Sept'39 the Government set an ambitious figure of fielding 55 Divisions (32 British, 14 Dominion, 4 Indian and 5 'Allied') but the realities of war soon saw this revised to 36 Divisions, though 55 would remain the ultimate goal.
The raising of 55 Divisions in terms of manpower alone would have had serious effects on the other Service requirements, especially the Air Force.

A good solid book on this matter is 'Raising Churchills Army' by David French

Regards

Andy H
Germany army high command was have simples calculation for to assess potential mobilize war state for enemy. 1 million population = 2 divisions. For Soviet union was estimate 370 divisions.

I was write 200-300 for conservative using of same calculation. British empire population not including dominions was be about 500 million = 1.000 divisions.

In real history British government was choose for 55 divisions like you was write. Who know what was possible if was make decision to mobilize maximum from empire populations in Afrika and India and other places. But in real history British government was choose not to educate mobilize and train populations for to make biggest Afrika and India armys. It was be not necessary to make that choice because Amerika was give so much industrys and troops instead.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 15 Apr 2020 15:53

Sheldrake wrote:
15 Apr 2020 13:53
There is a case to answer. The USSR had not much more than half of the population or economy than the British Empire. The USSR mobilised three times as many servicemen, built over twice as many tanks, SP guns and artillery pieces and almost as many aircraft. Sure, Britain had a very big navy and merchant marine but not one that absorbed 75% of the economic output. Figures from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... rld_War_II

One hypothesis is that the British Empire was a very inefficient structure. For all the flag waving and individual sacrifices there wasn't as much binding the dominions and colonies to Britain as bound the Soviet Union. There were a lot of people in India, but the majority were unwilling subjects, as were most of Britain's African colonies. British mobilised a large colonial army, but only a fraction of that of the white dominions. It was tottering in the 1930s and waiting to collapse, which it did in two decades after the war.
Most i agree.

But it seems to me it was not be so much about inefficiant structure but was be about choices. Was choice not to educate and arm millions and millions of Afrika peoples and millions of India peoples.

How many total was be willing? I not know. But on India was much more willing peoples than accepted. In Southern Rhodesia was be same.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 2585
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Sheldrake » 15 Apr 2020 16:31

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
15 Apr 2020 15:53
Sheldrake wrote:
15 Apr 2020 13:53
There is a case to answer. The USSR had not much more than half of the population or economy than the British Empire. The USSR mobilised three times as many servicemen, built over twice as many tanks, SP guns and artillery pieces and almost as many aircraft. Sure, Britain had a very big navy and merchant marine but not one that absorbed 75% of the economic output. Figures from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... rld_War_II

One hypothesis is that the British Empire was a very inefficient structure. For all the flag waving and individual sacrifices there wasn't as much binding the dominions and colonies to Britain as bound the Soviet Union. There were a lot of people in India, but the majority were unwilling subjects, as were most of Britain's African colonies. British mobilised a large colonial army, but only a fraction of that of the white dominions. It was tottering in the 1930s and waiting to collapse, which it did in two decades after the war.
Most i agree.

But it seems to me it was not be so much about inefficiant structure but was be about choices. Was choice not to educate and arm millions and millions of Afrika peoples and millions of India peoples.

How many total was be willing? I not know. But on India was much more willing peoples than accepted. In Southern Rhodesia was be same.
Stalin could educate and arm millions of Soviet subjects regardless of their wishes for any alternative political leadership or independence. He used the NKVD and the Gulag system to impose his will on a racially and culturally diverse empire. Maybe the British Empire would have survived had the British been as ruthless as Stalin or if Bolshivism had emerged in Britain rather than Russia.

British Imperial policy was muddled and inconsistent because Britain was a divided society. In the C19th there was a difference between i|Imperial hawks who wanted to expand the Empire and Doves who thought the whole thing a waste of money. Some Britons were purely interested in exploiting the commercial potential - short term or long of the colonies as the European overlords of territories occupied by force. There was also a strong Christian Liberal streak that opposed exploitation of native people. A large part of the Empire was administered for the good of its subjects by well meaning administrators with a faith in god and country. One of the biggest opponents of the Zulu War was the Bishop Colenso of Natal. This was a country which had outlawed slavery in the UK in the C18th and campaigned to end the slave trade. But, when slavery ended in the empire, the owners were compensated by the British tax payer. Corelli Barnet in "Audit of War" argued that the British Empire might have endured but for Methodists, socialists and muscular Christianity. There would not be gulags in Gujerat or Ghana.

The largest potential source of manpower was India. Had the British government agreed to agree to Indian independence as the price for full support for the war effort, far more of its resources could have been mobilised. Churchill was implacably opposed to Indian independence, which was one of the policies that left him in the wilderness in the 1930s. Mainstream politicians thought that it was inevitable - just a question of timing. Churchill hated Ghandi. "A jumped up middle temple lawyer"

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 15 Apr 2020 20:08

Sheldrake wrote:
15 Apr 2020 16:31
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
15 Apr 2020 15:53
Sheldrake wrote:
15 Apr 2020 13:53
There is a case to answer. The USSR had not much more than half of the population or economy than the British Empire. The USSR mobilised three times as many servicemen, built over twice as many tanks, SP guns and artillery pieces and almost as many aircraft. Sure, Britain had a very big navy and merchant marine but not one that absorbed 75% of the economic output. Figures from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... rld_War_II

One hypothesis is that the British Empire was a very inefficient structure. For all the flag waving and individual sacrifices there wasn't as much binding the dominions and colonies to Britain as bound the Soviet Union. There were a lot of people in India, but the majority were unwilling subjects, as were most of Britain's African colonies. British mobilised a large colonial army, but only a fraction of that of the white dominions. It was tottering in the 1930s and waiting to collapse, which it did in two decades after the war.
Most i agree.

But it seems to me it was not be so much about inefficiant structure but was be about choices. Was choice not to educate and arm millions and millions of Afrika peoples and millions of India peoples.

How many total was be willing? I not know. But on India was much more willing peoples than accepted. In Southern Rhodesia was be same.
Stalin could educate and arm millions of Soviet subjects regardless of their wishes for any alternative political leadership or independence. He used the NKVD and the Gulag system to impose his will on a racially and culturally diverse empire. Maybe the British Empire would have survived had the British been as ruthless as Stalin or if Bolshivism had emerged in Britain rather than Russia.

British Imperial policy was muddled and inconsistent because Britain was a divided society. In the C19th there was a difference between i|Imperial hawks who wanted to expand the Empire and Doves who thought the whole thing a waste of money. Some Britons were purely interested in exploiting the commercial potential - short term or long of the colonies as the European overlords of territories occupied by force. There was also a strong Christian Liberal streak that opposed exploitation of native people. A large part of the Empire was administered for the good of its subjects by well meaning administrators with a faith in god and country. One of the biggest opponents of the Zulu War was the Bishop Colenso of Natal. This was a country which had outlawed slavery in the UK in the C18th and campaigned to end the slave trade. But, when slavery ended in the empire, the owners were compensated by the British tax payer. Corelli Barnet in "Audit of War" argued that the British Empire might have endured but for Methodists, socialists and muscular Christianity. There would not be gulags in Gujerat or Ghana.

The largest potential source of manpower was India. Had the British government agreed to agree to Indian independence as the price for full support for the war effort, far more of its resources could have been mobilised. Churchill was implacably opposed to Indian independence, which was one of the policies that left him in the wilderness in the 1930s. Mainstream politicians thought that it was inevitable - just a question of timing. Churchill hated Ghandi. "A jumped up middle temple lawyer"
I not disagree.

At one moment after Dunkirk everything was look very bad. But strategical context was be always on British advantages because it was not be alone or tiny island.

It seems to me Britain was not have ever plan to defeat Nazi Germany on ownself. It was expect always to defeat Nazi Germany with French and after Dunkirk with Amerika. All efforts was made for to get Amerika to by ally not for to have to mobilize maximum from empire.

For me interested question was to be when Amerika was not become ally and Germany was not invade Soviet union. Was Britain to decide for mobilization of empire to defeat Nazi Germany alone or was to let Nazi Germany continue?

I will not be surprised if Britain decide to keep status quo of june 1940. It seems to me biggest priority was not educate and arm and to die Afrika and India millions. In real history it was Soviet and Amerika troops instead.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 2585
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Sheldrake » 15 Apr 2020 20:36

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
15 Apr 2020 20:08

I not disagree.

At one moment after Dunkirk everything was look very bad. But strategical context was be always on British advantages because it was not be alone or tiny island.

It seems to me Britain was not have ever plan to defeat Nazi Germany on ownself. It was expect always to defeat Nazi Germany with French and after Dunkirk with Amerika. All efforts was made for to get Amerika to by ally not for to have to mobilize maximum from empire.

For me interested question was to be when Amerika was not become ally and Germany was not invade Soviet union. Was Britain to decide for mobilization of empire to defeat Nazi Germany alone or was to let Nazi Germany continue?

I will not be surprised if Britain decide to keep status quo of june 1940. It seems to me biggest priority was not educate and arm and to die Afrika and India millions. In real history it was Soviet and Amerika troops instead.
Paradoxically a bias against using "non european troops in Europe in combat roles by the Americans and British meant that disproportionately high casualties would be borne by the white / european populations.

You mentioned the casualties suffered by US and Soviets. Britain lost more war dead (military and civilian) than the US from a much smaller population. When it comes to casualties the disproportionate casualties were suffered by the Poles and Ukrainians at the hands of both the Germans and Soviets.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 16 Apr 2020 18:54

Sheldrake wrote:
15 Apr 2020 20:36
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
15 Apr 2020 20:08

I not disagree.

At one moment after Dunkirk everything was look very bad. But strategical context was be always on British advantages because it was not be alone or tiny island.

It seems to me Britain was not have ever plan to defeat Nazi Germany on ownself. It was expect always to defeat Nazi Germany with French and after Dunkirk with Amerika. All efforts was made for to get Amerika to by ally not for to have to mobilize maximum from empire.

For me interested question was to be when Amerika was not become ally and Germany was not invade Soviet union. Was Britain to decide for mobilization of empire to defeat Nazi Germany alone or was to let Nazi Germany continue?

I will not be surprised if Britain decide to keep status quo of june 1940. It seems to me biggest priority was not educate and arm and to die Afrika and India millions. In real history it was Soviet and Amerika troops instead.
Paradoxically a bias against using "non european troops in Europe in combat roles by the Americans and British meant that disproportionately high casualties would be borne by the white / european populations.
Yes.

Maybe seem strange in 2020.

But was must to be good reason for to make choice for that in ww2. Probably was be different choice for Amerika to Britain. But times is now change.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15170
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Andy H » 17 Apr 2020 13:54

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
15 Apr 2020 15:48
Andy H wrote:
15 Apr 2020 13:24
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
14 Apr 2020 21:59
. If Britain was choose it can to have industrys in Britain and Canada and Australia and South Africa like size in Amerika. It was take time but with Channel and navy always have time. If Britain was choose it can to make 200 or 300 divisions from mens in empire. Was take time but was not impossible. And remember Britain can build industrys and biggest army ever in peace away from warfighting in Canada in Afrika in India in Australia. At same time British airforce can to be dropping bombs on Berlin every night and every factory and every training depot.

So i think Britain was have resources for to fight biggest land war. Not in 1940 but maybe 1944 or 1945. Even without Amerika. But it was not need to do all that because Japan and Germany was so stupid to start war against Amerika and Soviet union.

Situation for Britain was be all about choices. Most choices was be right.
Hi

I'm not sure where our basis for 2-300 divisions comes from, given the actualities of the time.

In Sept'39 the Government set an ambitious figure of fielding 55 Divisions (32 British, 14 Dominion, 4 Indian and 5 'Allied') but the realities of war soon saw this revised to 36 Divisions, though 55 would remain the ultimate goal.
The raising of 55 Divisions in terms of manpower alone would have had serious effects on the other Service requirements, especially the Air Force.

A good solid book on this matter is 'Raising Churchills Army' by David French

Regards

Andy H
Germany army high command was have simples calculation for to assess potential mobilize war state for enemy. 1 million population = 2 divisions. For Soviet union was estimate 370 divisions.

I was write 200-300 for conservative using of same calculation. British empire population not including dominions was be about 500 million = 1.000 divisions.

In real history British government was choose for 55 divisions like you was write. Who know what was possible if was make decision to mobilize maximum from empire populations in Afrika and India and other places. But in real history British government was choose not to educate mobilize and train populations for to make biggest Afrika and India armys. It was be not necessary to make that choice because Amerika was give so much industrys and troops instead.
Hi

That's a basic a simple/simplistic calculation and if your just putting people into uniforms and calling them soldiers/sailors/airmen, then feasible.
However the RAF pulled in over a million people by 1943 (when the Army strength was 2.7million) and AA Command drew enough people to have formed 12 more divisions. The relative 'complexity' of the machinery of war drew in more people to service and maintain, as did LoC and Supply services. Equally the % of civilian labour required to produce these more complex machines etc, drew down the manpower pool.
I don't have the specifics to hand, but I believe that the UK had one of the highest proportions of its popn involved in either the fighting or support therein of any western combatant.

Regards

Andy H

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 17 Apr 2020 16:28

Andy H wrote:
17 Apr 2020 13:54
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
15 Apr 2020 15:48
Andy H wrote:
15 Apr 2020 13:24
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
14 Apr 2020 21:59
. If Britain was choose it can to have industrys in Britain and Canada and Australia and South Africa like size in Amerika. It was take time but with Channel and navy always have time. If Britain was choose it can to make 200 or 300 divisions from mens in empire. Was take time but was not impossible. And remember Britain can build industrys and biggest army ever in peace away from warfighting in Canada in Afrika in India in Australia. At same time British airforce can to be dropping bombs on Berlin every night and every factory and every training depot.

So i think Britain was have resources for to fight biggest land war. Not in 1940 but maybe 1944 or 1945. Even without Amerika. But it was not need to do all that because Japan and Germany was so stupid to start war against Amerika and Soviet union.

Situation for Britain was be all about choices. Most choices was be right.
Hi

I'm not sure where our basis for 2-300 divisions comes from, given the actualities of the time.

In Sept'39 the Government set an ambitious figure of fielding 55 Divisions (32 British, 14 Dominion, 4 Indian and 5 'Allied') but the realities of war soon saw this revised to 36 Divisions, though 55 would remain the ultimate goal.
The raising of 55 Divisions in terms of manpower alone would have had serious effects on the other Service requirements, especially the Air Force.

A good solid book on this matter is 'Raising Churchills Army' by David French

Regards

Andy H
Germany army high command was have simples calculation for to assess potential mobilize war state for enemy. 1 million population = 2 divisions. For Soviet union was estimate 370 divisions.

I was write 200-300 for conservative using of same calculation. British empire population not including dominions was be about 500 million = 1.000 divisions.

In real history British government was choose for 55 divisions like you was write. Who know what was possible if was make decision to mobilize maximum from empire populations in Afrika and India and other places. But in real history British government was choose not to educate mobilize and train populations for to make biggest Afrika and India armys. It was be not necessary to make that choice because Amerika was give so much industrys and troops instead.
Hi

That's a basic a simple/simplistic calculation and if your just putting people into uniforms and calling them soldiers/sailors/airmen, then feasible.
However the RAF pulled in over a million people by 1943 (when the Army strength was 2.7million) and AA Command drew enough people to have formed 12 more divisions. The relative 'complexity' of the machinery of war drew in more people to service and maintain, as did LoC and Supply services. Equally the % of civilian labour required to produce these more complex machines etc, drew down the manpower pool.
I don't have the specifics to hand, but I believe that the UK had one of the highest proportions of its popn involved in either the fighting or support therein of any western combatant.

Regards

Andy H
In real history Britain was make choices for mobilizations of manpower on British island and on other parts of British empire.

Not change fact that was be possible for to mobilize much biggest forces with different choices.

Some datas about India.
The army of 2.25 million that was created on the subcontinent was no small achievement. However, it came from a population of 390 million, and, thus, represented only a small proportion of potential Indian manpower. At the time, it was estimated that 12,957,811 of India’s vast population were between 18 and 30 years old and ‘had the required intelligence, aptitude and mechanical sense essential for service in the modern armedforces’. Taking this figure at face value, this means that 18 per cent of available manpower was tapped by the Indian Army during the war.86 However, the British assessment of available manpower was the product of deeply ingrained racial prejudices and it is likely that a far greater number of Indians could have made excellent soldiers; the ‘peasants’ of Russia, for example, proved more than capable of mastering the intricacies of modern warfare and there is no reason why Indians could not have done the same. As it transpired, the Army recruited only about 3 percent of the adult male population of the region in this period.87

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15170
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Andy H » 17 Apr 2020 17:40

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
17 Apr 2020 16:28
Andy H wrote:
17 Apr 2020 13:54
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
15 Apr 2020 15:48
Andy H wrote:
15 Apr 2020 13:24
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
14 Apr 2020 21:59
. If Britain was choose it can to have industrys in Britain and Canada and Australia and South Africa like size in Amerika. It was take time but with Channel and navy always have time. If Britain was choose it can to make 200 or 300 divisions from mens in empire. Was take time but was not impossible. And remember Britain can build industrys and biggest army ever in peace away from warfighting in Canada in Afrika in India in Australia. At same time British airforce can to be dropping bombs on Berlin every night and every factory and every training depot.

So i think Britain was have resources for to fight biggest land war. Not in 1940 but maybe 1944 or 1945. Even without Amerika. But it was not need to do all that because Japan and Germany was so stupid to start war against Amerika and Soviet union.

Situation for Britain was be all about choices. Most choices was be right.
Hi

I'm not sure where our basis for 2-300 divisions comes from, given the actualities of the time.

In Sept'39 the Government set an ambitious figure of fielding 55 Divisions (32 British, 14 Dominion, 4 Indian and 5 'Allied') but the realities of war soon saw this revised to 36 Divisions, though 55 would remain the ultimate goal.
The raising of 55 Divisions in terms of manpower alone would have had serious effects on the other Service requirements, especially the Air Force.

A good solid book on this matter is 'Raising Churchills Army' by David French

Regards

Andy H
Germany army high command was have simples calculation for to assess potential mobilize war state for enemy. 1 million population = 2 divisions. For Soviet union was estimate 370 divisions.

I was write 200-300 for conservative using of same calculation. British empire population not including dominions was be about 500 million = 1.000 divisions.

In real history British government was choose for 55 divisions like you was write. Who know what was possible if was make decision to mobilize maximum from empire populations in Afrika and India and other places. But in real history British government was choose not to educate mobilize and train populations for to make biggest Afrika and India armys. It was be not necessary to make that choice because Amerika was give so much industrys and troops instead.
Hi

That's a basic a simple/simplistic calculation and if your just putting people into uniforms and calling them soldiers/sailors/airmen, then feasible.
However the RAF pulled in over a million people by 1943 (when the Army strength was 2.7million) and AA Command drew enough people to have formed 12 more divisions. The relative 'complexity' of the machinery of war drew in more people to service and maintain, as did LoC and Supply services. Equally the % of civilian labour required to produce these more complex machines etc, drew down the manpower pool.
I don't have the specifics to hand, but I believe that the UK had one of the highest proportions of its popn involved in either the fighting or support therein of any western combatant.

Regards

Andy H
In real history Britain was make choices for mobilizations of manpower on British island and on other parts of British empire.

Not change fact that was be possible for to mobilize much biggest forces with different choices.
Hi

Well that logic can be applied to any nation but that application would have consequences as they don't exist in a vacuum.
It's like berating Russia for 'wasting' some of its manpower on its Navy, rather than forming X number of extra divisions with it.
Russia out of its popn of some 195million, around 30million served in the military equating to 15%. In the UK the figure was 13% with the US at 12%
Out of all the Allies, Australia mobilised the largest % to serve in the military at 18%, Germany was 23% and Japan around 12%

Regards

Andy H

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 17 Apr 2020 19:38

Andy H wrote:
17 Apr 2020 17:40
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
17 Apr 2020 16:28
Andy H wrote:
17 Apr 2020 13:54
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
15 Apr 2020 15:48
Andy H wrote:
15 Apr 2020 13:24


Hi

I'm not sure where our basis for 2-300 divisions comes from, given the actualities of the time.

In Sept'39 the Government set an ambitious figure of fielding 55 Divisions (32 British, 14 Dominion, 4 Indian and 5 'Allied') but the realities of war soon saw this revised to 36 Divisions, though 55 would remain the ultimate goal.
The raising of 55 Divisions in terms of manpower alone would have had serious effects on the other Service requirements, especially the Air Force.

A good solid book on this matter is 'Raising Churchills Army' by David French

Regards

Andy H
Germany army high command was have simples calculation for to assess potential mobilize war state for enemy. 1 million population = 2 divisions. For Soviet union was estimate 370 divisions.

I was write 200-300 for conservative using of same calculation. British empire population not including dominions was be about 500 million = 1.000 divisions.

In real history British government was choose for 55 divisions like you was write. Who know what was possible if was make decision to mobilize maximum from empire populations in Afrika and India and other places. But in real history British government was choose not to educate mobilize and train populations for to make biggest Afrika and India armys. It was be not necessary to make that choice because Amerika was give so much industrys and troops instead.
Hi

That's a basic a simple/simplistic calculation and if your just putting people into uniforms and calling them soldiers/sailors/airmen, then feasible.
However the RAF pulled in over a million people by 1943 (when the Army strength was 2.7million) and AA Command drew enough people to have formed 12 more divisions. The relative 'complexity' of the machinery of war drew in more people to service and maintain, as did LoC and Supply services. Equally the % of civilian labour required to produce these more complex machines etc, drew down the manpower pool.
I don't have the specifics to hand, but I believe that the UK had one of the highest proportions of its popn involved in either the fighting or support therein of any western combatant.

Regards

Andy H
In real history Britain was make choices for mobilizations of manpower on British island and on other parts of British empire.

Not change fact that was be possible for to mobilize much biggest forces with different choices.
Hi

Well that logic can be applied to any nation but that application would have consequences as they don't exist in a vacuum.

It's like berating Russia for 'wasting' some of its manpower on its Navy, rather than forming X number of extra divisions with it.
Russia out of its popn of some 195million, around 30million served in the military equating to 15%. In the UK the figure was 13% with the US at 12%
Out of all the Allies, Australia mobilised the largest % to serve in the military at 18%, Germany was 23% and Japan around 12%

Regards

Andy H
Yes. Logic do apply to everybody. Different choice = different consequence.

But how many countrys have 500 millions populations to tap?

London was capital of island and empire. Maybe was be 13% for island but was be under 2% of empire populations was mobilized for military service. I not include 4 dominions who was make own decisions.

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”