What If.....

Lockstep

The RAF had failed in the battle of Britain and Germany had invaded and conquered England.

I'd be interested to see how people feel the world would have changed.

Cato

Ireland would be next, to deny any form of base of operations for the Americans, with out any place to consolidate forces in western Europe America would more than likely base their operations in northern Africa, Germany would crush Russia as it only has to concentrate on its eastern front with all of Europe and Russia secured i believe the war would come to a stand still both sides tired from the long war would be unable logistically to keep attacking each other from across the Atlantic, German U-boats would keep America looked in their ports and then there would be some uneasy ceasefire between America and Germany and that would be then end to the war unless one of the sides decides to nuke Europe or America ( i don't think the Americans would be capable of this politically this would be suicide)even in this case i foresee a ceasefire.This ceasefire would favor Germany imposing humiliating terms on America as a result of the Versailles treaty in 1918, disarmament of America by Germany, and gradual integration into the Reich. then a push for the middle east to secure all the worlds oil supply resulting in world domination by the Germans. i believe the the japanese would still be nuked but not have surrendered.

Lockstep

Yeah, I would definetely see an uneasy truce occuring between the Reich and USA with both sides pressing for nukes.

TerrorFirmer

Germany would probably have invaded Ireland to secure the frontier, but have left countries like Spain independent provided they agreed to ally themselves to Germany (and they would have done so willingly, in such a scenario).

They would have invaded Russia as per reality, and most likely, with the exact same outcome owing to Hitlers obscene lack of consideration and context, albeit at a later date and just possibly, without actually suffering complete defeat but forced into containment rather then expansion.

I suppose there's a large chance Spain would have openly joined with the Axis, and with Africa seized if Britain had fallen in 1940, Turkey might have followed suit and allowed a deeper and much faster circulation of the Red Army and/or industry before it could be moved, which would have been far more likely to result in the defeat of Russia - but as I said, what the German army did and could do were equally hampered entirely as long as Hitler remained in overall command of the army.

Agent Smith

Boards.de Anyone?

the_syco

I'd say if Japan attacked attacked the USA, I'd say they'd still nuke 'em. And with a working bomb, why stop there? Bomb, I don't know, Germany, and any ceasefire would be to the allies favour.

TerrorFirmer

the_syco wrote: »

I'd say if Japan attacked attacked the USA, I'd say they'd still nuke 'em. And with a working bomb, why stop there? Bomb, I don't know, Germany, and any ceasefire would be to the allies favour.

And how would you propose the united states delivers an atomic weapon all the way to occupied Europe, protected by an air force far that would realistically been better then their own had the air campaigns of 1943/44 never happened?

dogmatix

Read Robert Harris's book Fatherland - I think this gives a realistic what if scenario for a German victory in Europe. It's set in 1963 and the US and Nazi Germany are in the middle of a cold war.

I think a German victory over Britain would have enabled them to defeat the USSR by 1942 at least and no later then 1943. They would have had a lot more options into russia also, such as pushing up through the middle east and of course they would have had no need to maintain significant forces in the west and North Africa after a british defeat.

The US could not have easily delivered an atomic bomb to europe from the east coast of America - the B29 did not have the range, and the B36 which did was still a few years away from service and could never have gotten through a heavily defended German airspace anyway.

Dinter

Sorry for the size of it. I've time on my hands today as I'm out of work sick.

With the total destruction of the RAF in 1940, Germany is free to land troops in England and after the establishment of Luftwaffe forward operating bases is capable of blitzkrieg against poorly armed and equipped British troops still reeling from the materiel loss at Dunkirk. Germany negates Roosevelt's unpopular appeals for war against her as Britain as an entity is gone and it is decided that trade agreements with Europe will make more sense to ensure there is not another catastrophic depression Especially as an embargo would cripple the American economy.

To sweeten the deal for the American public, Germany refuses to honour it's treaty with Japan when it goes ahead with the attack on Pearl Harbour. This allows it time to settle Western Europe and rearm and refit. However there is still agreement between the two and in a secret clause Germany must be prepared for all out war should the Americans get within landing distance of the Japanese home islands.

The British government, having withdrawn to Canada, continues the war against Germany through its colonies in Asia and raids from naval bases in Halifax. In this it is aided by secret American lend lease aid and begins to entertain thoughts of strangling German trade to the US by building bases in Greenland. This would allow it to raid into the Channel and North Sea.

However with the threat posed by British flights and commando assaults against her heavy water research facilities in Norway and Heisenberg negated, Germany is soon capable of creating a working, low yield, atomic bomb. In 1943 it launches several squadrons of JU390 V3's equipped with the new weapon, from airfields in Iceland. These obliterate Halifax and the surrounding areas and the threat forces the US to renege on its agreement with Britain. Without American aid and with her colonies in Asia in the midst of being overrun by Japanese troops, Britain is forced to sue for peace. As a condition of this she is stripped of her colonies and vast military bases are established in Australia and New Zealand.

In North Africa, well-supplied Axis forces destroy the diminutive and badly equipped “Free Britain” and “Free French” troops. North Africa falls and with it the Axis powers gain access to the massive Middle East oil fields whilst driving the Allied presence into the Pacific. Although commando raids will continue against Axis installations the Allied forces have lost all viable forces except in Russia, North America and the Pacific.

Meanwhile in 1943, Germany invaded Russia with the start of operation Barbarossa. This had been delayed until the successful completion of operation Sea Lion and as such they were able to choose to go earlier in the year. Without the thousands of vehicles, tonnes of food and miscellaneous supplies that should have come from Britain and America via the Artic convoys, Russia is not in as strong a position to recover from the initial Blitzkrieg assault. Also Germany has specifically asked for Japanese help if she wants aid against America. Japan masses armies withdrawn from areas seceded by Britain to Germany and holds them in Manchuria, thus keeping Russian forces trapped in the Far East. Without these trained troops Russia cannot mount the successful counter attacks that in an “alternate reality” occurred in December 1941. Her forces are soon pushed back to the A-A line and Moscow is taken in the first push.

As Lebensraum is no longer the political priority for Germany due to commanding Western Europe, the SS and Eisensatz are not given the free hand to massacre everyone that they would have had had otherwise and the Ukraine becomes a fertile recruitment ground for the Wehrmacht. Divisions raised from the west of Russia are added to the 5.5 million Axis troops already involved. These troops are valued highly as the Germans recognise that in their skewed racial values, it is better for Slav to kill Slav. To this end they are specifically recruited and the native populations are treated well to ensure the flow continues. Hitler and the other racial purity hawks are content with the realisation that they are going to die anyway.

Russia will not sue for peace but will continue to be driven back. Without the direct supervision of the NKVD and with the purges and gulags fresh in mind some areas secede from the Soviet Union. These throw in their lot with the invaders. At the end of 1942 the Caucasus oilfields are captured and the Urals are within range of the Luftwaffe. Although Russia will never formally surrender, her ability to resist is destroyed and the harsh winter of 1943 ironically wipes out tens of thousands of her disorganised and impoverished soldiers. By the beginning of 1944 dishevelled Russian troops are being pushed out of Russia proper, where unable to rally, they are assaulted continuously.

Germany finally settles along the A-A line to regroup and although a massive garrison force is needed Russia’s Western Republics are held. Beyond the A-A line, V3’s carrying atomic warheads immediately target any military build-up. With this impediment Russian armour cannot ever be as decisive as it could have been.

At the end of 1944 Germany is poised at a crossroads. It can commit to an aerial bombardment against America, allied to armoured thrusts down from Canada along the Eastern and Western seaboards. America is not stretched, as yet, in the Pacific although the growing German presence in Canada is forcing it to divert troops to protect the homeland. Alternatively Germany could also sign a non-aggression pact with America thus guaranteeing a free hand for her to assault Japan and once they’ve bloodied each other, attack.

Without the ceaseless air assaults against her factories, Germany’s new wonder weapons such as the V3 etc are online and American cities down to Houston are in range. However it is probable that Germany will instead consolidate her forces and with the threat of her atomic weaponry force a peace on the rest of the world that suits her.

CerebralCortex

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

They would have invaded Russia as per reality, and most likely, with the exact same outcome owing to Hitlers obscene lack of consideration and context, albeit at a later date and just possibly, without actually suffering complete defeat but forced into containment rather then expansion.

I suppose there's a large chance Spain would have openly joined with the Axis, and with Africa seized if Britain had fallen in 1940, Turkey might have followed suit and allowed a deeper and much faster circulation of the Red Army and/or industry before it could be moved, which would have been far more likely to result in the defeat of Russia - but as I said, what the German army did and could do were equally hampered entirely as long as Hitler remained in overall command of the army.

With Hitler's ineptitude in the eastern considered would he still not have more material and air power with the British out of the way? In the battle of the Kursk (I'm lead to believe) they were outnumbered slightly in the ground and air but with the defeat of Britain and thus victory in Africa they would have more aircraft, less bombing of their industry and no worries about an invasion of Italy possibly leading to a victory in that crucial battle.

TerrorFirmer

@ Dinter...I realise that we're talking about alternate history but that seems a bit unrealistic....you've not only changed the timeline, but all of Hitlers policies and priorities as if he didn't exist.

As Lebensraum is no longer the political priority for Germany due to commanding Western Europe, the SS and Eisensatz are not given the free hand to massacre everyone that they would have had had otherwise and the Ukraine becomes a fertile recruitment ground for the Wehrmacht. Divisions raised from the west of Russia

This would have been completely impossible, being oblivious to reality was Hitlers speciality. Principle always overrode common sense, context, rationality, etc. The whole principle of Barbarossa was not just to create space, but to completely edradicate communism and Jewry from Europe and destroy what the Nazi's preceived as inferior peoples. Hitler could have easily raised these divisions you speak off from the Ukraine and even Russia itself in 1941 after the invasion easily; he didn't because his blinding hatred of them refused to let him cede even to logical steps and foreigners didn't really enter the Germany army until much, much later in the war when the war was effectively lost. His irrationality and refusal to give priority to tactics over ethics are what lost Germany the war.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

With Hitler's ineptitude in the eastern considered would he still not have more material and air power with the British out of the way? In the battle of the Kursk (I'm lead to believe) they were outnumbered slightly in the ground and air but with the defeat of Britain and thus victory in Africa they would have more aircraft, less bombing of their industry and no worries about an invasion of Italy possibly leading to a victory in that crucial battle.

He would have had more material, that's for sure, but not enough. By 1944, the massive bulk of the Germany army was in the east, at one stage only 10% of armoured vehicles were being sent to the West Wall despite the same proportional losses in that theatre compared to the east. Also, a lot of the forces in the West were units being replenished, units that were understrenght and under armed, volksgrenadier, etc. Towards the end of the war, without any air cover, armour support, or artillery, most of these army groups surrendered in huge numbers....literally hundreds of thousands. Most of the defenses were constructed by slave labour, which wasn't used in the east and industrial output grew until the end of the war, so in that regard construction of the atlantic wall wasn't much on a drain on the eastern war effort as a whole. Same with Italy - nature of terrain meant little defenders could stage effective defense, and largely infantry based, vast bulk of armour was in the East. So while it would have helped, what the Germans needed was better strategic and tactical direction in the east, with which they could have - of course, ignoring the atomic bomb which would have ended the war anyway - held out until late 1945/early 1946 at least, and - although it's open to discussion as to if the German army could have defeated Russia in 1941 under it's own nominal command - they could have, at the very least, exercised a successful containment policy and blunted the Red armys attempts at attack.

As for Kursk both Air Forces were, despite maybe a variance in numbers, evenly matched, neither could acheive aerial supremecy. The Soviets never really made effective use of their air force; neither could the Germans in the east, they had complete aerial domination until mid 1943 and still couldn't use it force any sort of decisive outcome on events.

CerebralCortex

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

....As for Kursk both Air Forces were, despite maybe a variance in numbers, evenly matched, neither could acheive aerial supremecy. The Soviets never really made effective use of their air force; neither could the Germans in the east, they had complete aerial domination until mid 1943 and still couldn't use it force any sort of decisive outcome on events.

Are you saying that left to concentrate on Russia that Germany under Hitler would have still lost to the red army? Hitler's tactics in the eastern front were nothing short of crazy but with enough steam, for example not having to send a his panthers to Italy at the end of the battle of the kursk he could have come out on top. Maybe my knowledge is to limited on the subject.

TerrorFirmer

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Are you saying that left to concentrate on Russia that Germany under Hitler would have still lost to the red army? Hitler's tactics in the eastern front were nothing short of crazy but with enough steam, for example not having to send a his panthers to Italy at the end of the battle of the kursk he could have come out on top. Maybe my knowledge is to limited on the subject.

In my opinion, anyway. Hitler did withdraw forces to deal with the allied Invasion of Italy, but the German attacked had been decisively beaten by then and one corps wasn't going to make or break the battle - though I suppose might have been vital in stopping the Soviet counter offensive that followed Kursk...plus, at this stage, the Panthers were completely unreliable, and a lot of them broke down due to mechanical failure rather then being knocked out in battle.

The order of Kursk was terrible anyway, the Germans attacked a well defended, multiple line deep Soviet salient - with vastly inferior numbers. It's surprisingly they managed to penetrate as far as they did in the south, but even if they had acheived a very limited breakthrough they didn't have enough reserves to make the best of it or make a proper encirclement, whereas the soviets had a relatively vast reserve pool.

Mainstein had an alternative plan that favoured a war of manoverability rather then attacking static positions but it was refused by OKH in favour of attacking the salient.

Dinter

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

@ Dinter...I realise that we're talking about alternate history but that seems a bit unrealistic....you've not only changed the timeline, but all of Hitlers policies and priorities as if he didn't exist.

Well I thought that was the point. Sea lion would have had a much better chance of succeeding if Hitler hadn't personally removed the emphasis from destroying airfields to cities.

Also I am of the opinion that Barbarossa would have been delayed should Britain have been conquered. I base this on the fact that it would have cost the Wehrmacht heavily and those losses would need to have been made up. Also taking into account the whole Untermenschen idea. Hitler did not expect communism nor the “subhuman” Slavs to stand against him. There was no overriding reason to hurry. Success in Britain would have given him the distraction from Russia his Generals wanted. Old kicking in the door quote comes to mind.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

This would have been completely impossible; being oblivious to reality was Hitlers speciality. Principle always overrode common sense, context, rationality, etc. Hitler could have easily raised these divisions you speak off from the Ukraine and even Russia itself in 1941 after the invasion easily; he didn't because his blinding hatred of them refused to let him cede even to logical steps and foreigners didn't really enter the Germany army until much, much later in the war when the war was effectively lost. His irrationality and refusal to give priority to tactics over ethics are what lost Germany the war.

The Ukrainian National Army and the corresponding units that were created in Latvia, Estonia and Belarus by 1943 would be a case in point and probably beg to differ.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

He would have had more material, that's for sure, but not enough. By 1944, the massive bulk of the Germany army was in the east, at one stage only 10% of armoured vehicles were being sent to the West Wall despite the same proportional losses in that theatre compared to the east.

Without having to hold forces in Western Europe against invasion Hitler could have turned against the Soviet Union with a higher proportion of his army far earlier. Also some people seem to think that Stalin pulling his factories back behind the Urals is how he survived. It isn’t. The Allies supplied them with thousands of tonnes of materiel throughout the War from the Arctic convoys and through the Black Sea. These would have been negated with the fall of Britain.

If we believe that Germany could have succeeded in reaching Moscow with the increased invasion force that came from pacifying Western Europe earlier than Japan would have invaded Russia. It was her main condition and a two-pronged attack would have seriously hurt the Russians, as it would have split their forces.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Also, a lot of the forces in the West were units being replenished, units that were understrenght and under armed, volksgrenadier, etc.

There were several important Panzer divisions thrown away due to Hitler’s stupidity during D-Day 1944 that would never have occurred. Also, apart from one massive raid on the Oder and Berlin at the close of the war is there one example of the Russian air force having any effect on German productivity.

British and American bombing crippled German industry, which wouldn’t have occurred had Britain been knocked out. So those excellent Panthers and Tigers etc would have been out in far bigger numbers and more effective now that spares and parts etc are widely available. Think even of the thousands of German 88’s employed as AA guns around German industry to counter American and British bombers. Imagine what half of them would have done entrenched at Kursk.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Most of the defenses were constructed by slave labour, which wasn't used in the east and industrial output grew until the end of the war, so in that regard construction of the Atlantic wall wasn't much on a drain on the eastern war effort as a whole.

Yes but these defences weren’t just dragon’s teeth and barbed wire. There were hundreds of guns and thousands of men to man them.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

As for Kursk both Air Forces were, despite maybe a variance in numbers, evenly matched, neither could acheive aerial supremecy. The Soviets never really made effective use of their air force; neither could the Germans in the east, they had complete aerial domination until mid 1943 and still couldn't use it force any sort of decisive outcome on events.

The biggest problem the Germans had was oil despite their ingenious ersatz petrol. Imagine what they could have done with Middle Eastern oil and tens of thousands more skilled British Todd workers. Russian pilots were no match for the trained German pilots that were lost during the Battle for Britain. In air combat quality does count as against numbers, but to have any effect there must be useable planes. Without the gutting the Luftwaffe received from the RAF, Russia would have faced a far more formidable and overwhelming Luftwaffe. A Luftwaffe that fielded jet propelled Stukas and wire guided, air to ground missiles designed specifically to counter the Russian T34’s. (Both of which projects were stopped by allied bombing.)

Frankly I think Russia could not have survived without American and British help. There are too many factors to ever know for certain which is why I make my own interpretations.

TerrorFirmer

The Ukrainian National Army and the corresponding units that were created in Latvia, Estonia and Belarus by 1943 would be a case in point and probably beg to differ.

That was exactly my point; the ethnic formations could have been made in 1941, and with a bit of tact, Hitler could have raised large volunteer armies to fight against Stalin and stripped the Red Army before a pitched battle was even fought, and then have liquidated them after victory, if he so wished. But he didn't permit so until much later into the war, and after the tide had turned against Germany - the reason being his hatred of Communism and the slavic people override any sense of rationality.

Without having to hold forces in Western Europe against invasion Hitler could have turned against the Soviet Union with a higher proportion of his army far earlier. Also some people seem to think that Stalin pulling his factories back behind the Urals is how he survived. It isn’t. The Allies supplied them with thousands of tonnes of materiel throughout the War from the Arctic convoys and through the Black Sea. These would have been negated with the fall of Britain.

If we believe that Germany could have succeeded in reaching Moscow with the increased invasion force that came from pacifying Western Europe earlier than Japan would have invaded Russia. It was her main condition and a two-pronged attack would have seriously hurt the Russians, as it would have split their forces.

True regarding the supplies from the Allies, but equally, it was not a war winning factor either - the withdrawl of the factories was far more important then the Arctic convoys. Allied military hardware helped but was next to useless; the Soviets sent British and American hardware straight into battle without even modifying the markings, they were knocked out almost instantly by superior German weapons. What they valued was clothing, and hat also helped enormously was trucks, but this mostly had the effect of accelerating their offensive progress in 1943-45 rather then saving them from total defeat.

Regarding the draw of the Atlantic Wall/Western europe, by the invasion in 1941, the state of the Atlantic defenses were nothing like they would be in 1944 - and did not consume remotely as much manpower as they did in 1944 either. Besides, by 1944, the Germans in the West were crippled by a lack of Petrol, Gas, and armoured vehicles - should, theoretically, the Western frontier have been secured via repulsion of D-Day, the Germans would have benefited primarily from increased numbers in manpower but not necessarily significant armour owing to the fuel shortages, which in itself wasn't overly helpful.

Then again, if Western europe was secure in the sense that Sealion was a success, I suppose that the Germans supply of fuel and gas wouldn't be precarious as it was in 1944 in reality. Either way, the increased manpower wouldn't have made an overly large difference - the fuel would have. So it depends on what sort of alternate you're looking at....a pacified Britiain, or a defeated D-Day.

There were several important Panzer divisions thrown away due to Hitler’s stupidity during D-Day 1944 that would never have occurred. Also, apart from one massive raid on the Oder and Berlin at the close of the war is there one example of the Russian air force having any effect on German productivity.

British and American bombing crippled German industry, which wouldn’t have occurred had Britain been knocked out. So those excellent Pumas and Tigers etc would have been out in far bigger numbers. Think even of the thousands of German 88’s employed as AA guns around German industry to counter American and British bombers. Imagine what half of them would have done entrenched at Kursk.

In fairness, the confusion on D-Day wasn't solely attrituable to Hitler - Rommel also wanted reserves kept around Calais. True though, that there were several panzer divisions tied up - most of which were destroyed by air power.

I assume Puma means Panther, but as for the 88's, again, they were defensive weapons, and until literally forced to the defensive owing to an exhaustion of supplies, Hitler insisted on attack. In fact, he insisted on this anyway, right up until April 1945. Retreat, defense, these were not words in Hitlers accepted vocabulary. The only way that the Eastern front could have been contained would be in the event of Hitlers death, and the adoption of a defensive line as advocated by the likes of Rommel, held by screens of anti-tank guns. It simply couldn't and didn't happen with Hitler in charge.

So I suppose on the Eastern front they would have fared far better. But you have to look at the way in which the war progressed - after 1943, the Russian's didn't just drive the Germans ahead of them, they virtually annihilated them. This wasn't owing to technical German inferiority, it was Hitlers refusal to cede ground and disasterous micro management. So, as I was saying earlier, with Hitler in charge, it probably would have almost led to even more forces being encircled, and an even larger Army Group Center being annihilated in Summer 1944.

Hitler was the inherent problem, not a lack of Armour - although that was also critical, if they were free to shorten lines, attack and retreat as they saw fit, the high command would have not fallen victim to half the blunders it found itself in in 1944/45.

Agree about the bombing, but right throughout the entire Allied bombing campaigin, German industrial output in terms of ammunition and armour actually increased to a high point in 1945 - what they needed, and lacked, was petrol to drive them, and even if they had had that in the event of a successful Sealion, by fall 1944 they were desperately short of crews. Poorly trained crews accounted for the loss of thousands of tanks.

The biggest problem the Germans had was oil despite their ingenious ersatz petrol. Imagine what they could have done with Middle Eastern oil and tens of thousands more skilled British Todd workers. Russian pilots were no match for the trained German pilots that were lost during the Battle for Britain. In air combat quality does count as against numbers, but to have any effect there must be useable planes. Without the gutting the Luftwaffe received from the RAF, Russia would have faced a far more formidable and overwhelming Luftwaffe. A Luftwaffe that fielded jet propelled Stukas and wire guided, air to ground missiles designed specifically to counter the Russian T34’s. (Both of which projects were stopped by allied bombing.)

Yeah that's true. I did say myself that in the event of Sealion being successful, Germany could have pushed through the middle east and linked up with Turkey, who could probably be persuaded to enter the war - which would be overwhelmingly in Germanys favour at this stage.

Regarding the air force though, initially the Luftwaffe decimated the Red air force - but the battlefields were so large, and the armies involved so huge, that neither side, even the Russians at massive ratios in their favour in 1945, could actually use it to force any sort of decisive outcome on a battle, let alone on an entire campaign.

Really, I just thought your interpetation of the Eastern Front was just a bit off, because it didn't take Hitlers ethics and behaviour into account. In my opinion. The rest of it is fine!

CerebralCortex

Puma was a wheeled tank.
http://www.southeasthobbies.com.au/catalogue/italeri/7029S.jpg

TerrorFirmer

I know what a Puma is but in the context of what he said - Germanys best tank being Tiger and Puma - Puma was obviously a mistake. It wasn't even a tank, and was very lightly armored.

Dinter

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

That was exactly my point; the ethnic formations could have been made in 1941, and with a bit of tact, Hitler could have raised large volunteer armies to fight against Stalin and stripped the Red Army before a pitched battle was even fought, and then have liquidated them after victory, if he so wished. But he didn't permit so until much later into the war, and after the tide had turned against Germany - the reason being his hatred of Communism and the slavic people override any sense of rationality.

I agree with that assessment up to a certain point however in my opinion local raised troops would not have been that necessary against a Russian Army caught between two Axis forces. Remember Barbarossa involved 5.5 million soldiers (of varying quality) not counting a single solitary Japanese. Had they invaded too things could have been very different. I fully believe that solely concentrating on Russia the Wehrmacht could definitely have captured Moscow. Stalin knew that Japan was not going to invade if Moscow held due to a high placed German spy in Japan reporting to him. Something Sorge I think. He was thus able to strip his Eastern flank to reinforce the West.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

True regarding the supplies from the Allies, but equally, it was not a war winning factor either - the withdrawl of the factories was far more important then the Arctic convoys. Allied military hardware helped but was next to useless; the Soviets sent British and American hardware straight into battle without even modifying the markings, they were knocked out almost instantly by superior German weapons. What they valued was clothing, and hat also helped enormously was trucks, but this mostly had the effect of accelerating their offensive progress in 1943-45 rather then saving them from total defeat.

A lot of that opinion is based on Soviet propaganda that grew up during the Cold War. Russia claiming it needed nothing but it’s own resources to survive. In actual fact they were of desperate import to the Soviets at the beginning of the war purely for the food and munitions they carried and it is recognised that Leningrad would have been forced to surrender without them. When we think that the civilians and soldiers there were reduced to eating corpses imagine what would have happened without Allied intervention.

Interestingly Allied military hardware was offloaded directly into battle in much the same way that Russian hardware came off the production line and was driven to the trainyard and hence to battle by the fitters who assembled it!

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Either way, the increased manpower wouldn't have made an overly large difference - the fuel would have. So it depends on what sort of alternate you're looking at.... a pacified Britiain, or a defeated D-Day.

With a pacified Britain there is no D-Day. Germany has ample fuel and access to new oil fields in the Middle East. This is easily transported as the Mediterranean is now an Axis pond! Trust me I see the success of Sealion solely in the oil it allows access to.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

In fairness, the confusion on D-Day wasn't solely attrituable to Hitler - Rommel also wanted reserves kept around Calais. True though, that there were several panzer divisions tied up - most of which were destroyed by air power.

Rommell wanted his Panzer Divisions spread out around Calais but ready to respond immediately on the “Longest Day”. When he ordered this thrust against the beachheads he was overruled by Hitler who postponed the manoeuvres for three days. Normandy was broken up into several channels bordered by man made lakes that would funnel the Allies into the maw of his armour. When he finally got the go they Allies had breached this line.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

But as for the 88's, again, they were defensive weapons, and until literally forced to the defensive owing to an exhaustion of supplies, Hitler insisted on attack. In fact, he insisted on this anyway, right up until April 1945.

Highly mobile, quick to set up, exceedingly accurate and with a massive velocity, 88’s were attributed by Rommel as the reason the Africa corps was so effective. Surprisingly he does not give the credit to his tanks. They were defensive in that they covered the fake withdrawals that the corps made and then unleashed hell on the British tanks. That happened through Wavell and Montgomery until lack of replacement and supplies forced the Corps into retreat after El Alamein. Actually though that raises an interesting point. Without the threat of invasion from the West, would we have seen the Desert Fox on the steppe? Imagine him against the psychotic Zhukov.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Retreat, defense, these were not words in Hitlers accepted vocabulary. The only way that the Eastern front could have been contained would be in the event of Hitlers death, and the adoption of a defensive line as advocated by the likes of Rommel, held by screens of anti-tank guns. It simply couldn't and didn't happen with Hitler in charge.

But would they have needed to defend if they had already turned the Russian Northern flank with the destruction of Leningrad? In reality Hitler’s Generals were always happiest at attack. The whole Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe doctrine was blitzkrieg. Although capable at defence they preferred attack. Even if it was their very successful “paper bag” defensive tactic, that necessitated a counter attack. Germany’s problem was that later in the War it just didn’t have the fuel for a war of manoeuvre and this contributed directly to the Kesselring doctrine that was also supported by many of Hitler’s generals. Also Rommel and Guderian as well as several of the more successful German general had absolutely no problem ignoring Hitler’s orders when it suited them.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Agree about the bombing, but right throughout the entire Allied bombing campaigin, German industrial output in terms of ammunition and armour actually increased to a high point in 1945 - what they needed, and lacked, was petrol to drive them, and even if they had had that in the event of a successful Sealion, by fall 1944 they were desperately short of crews. Poorly trained crews accounted for the loss of thousands of tanks.

I just don’t think you’re seeing the knock on impact that the freedom from air assault would have given the Germans. Think off all the wonder weapons you’ve heard of destroyed or limited by the Allied bombing. Whilst Germany’s output may have remained high they were chopping and changing their equipment as certain raw materials, like rubber or zinc, ran out. This led to the shoddy workmanship so familiar to anyone who looks at the German output at the end of the war.

Dinter

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I know what a Puma is but in the context of what he said - Germanys best tank being Tiger and Puma - Puma was obviously a mistake. It wasn't even a tank, and was very lightly armored.

Yes it was indeed a mistake. Meant to be Panther. Fixed it now anyway. Sorry. . . I'll get my coat

Although I think Puma's looked great they couldn't really stand up to a T34!!

CerebralCortex

Yes also think of all the fighter aces available to the Luftwaffe for deployment of the ME 262.

Lockstep

I have to say, I'm extremely impressed by the ideas here.

meathstevie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The RAF had failed in the battle of Britain and Germany had invaded and conquered England.

I'd be interested to see how people feel the world would have changed.

I suppose you should add the following as well. The Russians didn't have the T34 and winter proof clothing and weaponry.

Lockstep

Meh, it would be unlikely for the Russians not to have winter proof clothing at all due to the climate they live in.

Logistically, sure, maybe they wouldn't have enough.

Very interesting read guys, dont have the time to reply to some of the more detailed stuff. WWII would be a subject that I would have a broad knowledge from reading so many bloody books on the subject & alot of these points were very accurate with some good opinions on what could have happened.

Dinter

meathstevie wrote: »

I suppose you should add the following as well. The Russians didn't have the T34.

When the first Wehrmacht divisions rolled into the Soviet part of Poland at the outset of Barbarossa, the T34 made up a tiny percentage of the Russian armoured might.

However, whilst it is true that the T34’s or KV1’s in existence outclassed the German tanks of the time, an obvious parallel must be drawn with the British Matilda II’s and French S35’s that were swept aside by German tactics. Panzer I’s and II’s were outclassed by what faced them and yet still carried the day.

It was not superior German armour that did it but Guderian’s principle of combined arms and tactics that surpassed the outdated static defence and counter that the Russians, French and English proscribed to.

With an overwhelming air force and massed artillery, on a par with that fielded during the invasion of France, who knows if the 45% of Russian armour that escaped when the winter of 1941 brought operations to a halt would have done so.

The T34, although an excellent tank could not by itself, have done much to halt a German advance. By the advent of Barbarossa the Germans were familiar with destroying larger and better armour. The Russian tankers, although courageous, were not. In all fairness they didn’t even have radios to communicate with their commander.

I would definitely think the Germans capable of reaching Moscow and reducing Leningrad if their “backdoor” was firmly bolted. I have already stated the consequences that would have brought about for Russian scorched earth policies as they back-pedal towards waiting Japanese troops.

meathstevie wrote: »

. . . and winter proof clothing and weaponry.

Actually the winter proof clothing is a moot point.

Firstly, I don’t think Barbarossa would have occurred so late in the year if Sealion had succeeded. It would probably have begun in early 1942. I would think this a fair estimate if you consider the logistics of moving men and materiel back from France and Britain to their jump off points.

Secondly, I don’t believe Russia would have really have improved defences a huge amount. If you remember, Stalin had the correct start date for Barbarossa and yet allowed little or no military build up.

Thirdly, the Allies delivered much of the Russian heavy weather gear. This would also have not occurred.

It’s all meant as conjecture though.

kowloon

As I happen to have them beside me I will add some figures that you might find interesting:

Tank Strengths by military district June '41, figure in brackets is modern vehicles, T-34s and KVs

Leningrad MD: 1,506 (15)
Baltic Special MD 1,393 (109)
Western Special MD 2,201 (383)
Kiev Special MD 4,525 (758)
Odessa MD 769 (60)
Moscow MD 1,134 (9)
Kharkov MD 300 (20)
Orel MD 413 (11)
North Caucasus MD 184
Trans-Caucasus MD 869
Central Asian MD 2,602
Far Eastern MD 2,969

Kaiser_Sma

The industrial muscle of the united states is often underestimated, the pacific war could only last so long, the japanese possition was unsustainable. It is entirely probable that had russia or britain fallen that america would still have defeated the germans. It is even still a close run race if both the european allies were defeated, although it probably would have waited untill after the pacific war was over. This of course all depends on the war weariness of the american people.

The dominion states and the colonies probably would have fought on as well, after the pacific theatre ended, it is likely that a larger force from india and australia could have been brought to bear. Maybe even free russians from beyond the urals, though i don't know how effective this would be.

The result would have been an all the more bloodier conflict however. Ireland probably would have been invaded, it would also be the perfect place for a counter invasion from america as it's defences would be the least prepared and it's landscape hard to defend.

TerrorFirmer

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

The industrial muscle of the united states is often underestimated, the pacific war could only last so long, the japanese possition was unsustainable. It is entirely probable that had russia or britain fallen that america would still have defeated the germans. It is even still a close run race if both the european allies were defeated, although it probably would have waited untill after the pacific war was over. This of course all depends on the war weariness of the american people.........

How would the United States actually fought Germany/occupied Europe? If the pacific war had broken out as per reality, but Germany defeated Russian and Britain, there would be no real alternative to peace apart from a prolonged naval based war, which Germany would not fight anyway owing to the much smaller navy.

The result would have been an all the more bloodier conflict however. Ireland probably would have been invaded, it would also be the perfect place for a counter invasion from america as it's defences would be the least prepared and it's landscape hard to defend.

That would be completely impossible, an invasion force across the entire Atlantic against occupied Europe? It would be annihilated in hours...

Firstly, I don’t think Barbarossa would have occurred so late in the year if Sealion had succeeded. It would probably have begun in early 1942. I would think this a fair estimate if you consider the logistics of moving men and materiel back from France and Britain to their jump off points.

I think that's the best chance Barbarossa ever had of success, even with Hitlers irrational leadership still firmly in place. I actually don't know much about the pacific war or the politics surrounding it (save for the basic timeline); why didn't Japan invade Russia from the east? If it was oil they were after, surely the defeat of the Soviet Union would have yielded sufficient quantities to offset the necessity of attacking America over the embargoes.

Saabdub

Interesting, the invasion of North Africa was mounted directly from the US across the Atlantic with no staging in the European theatre. The other option would have been to use the Suez Canal and operate from Egpyt. If Egypt was lost they could have come up the Red Sea. The Ultimate objective would have been to capture Tunis, Sicily and southern Italy as a staging area to mount an invasion of Southern France.

Saabdub

peasant

I'm not so sure that the eastern front would have happened at all.

If Germany had managed to overrun England straight after the debacle of Dunkirk, they still would have had to spend a lot of energy and manpower into consolidating the the UK (and Ireland with it in one swoop)

You don't just conquer an island of 50 million people, leave a few administrators behind and run off to fight another war on a different front.

I'd say Germany might have been very content to slowly germanise the UK and include its existing colonial infrastructure into its fold. This would have meant sending troops and weapons to far away places in Asia and Africa.

With access to British colonies, the need for oil and other raw materials would have been met and the only reasons to invade the Soviet union would have been political and ideological ones.

Yes, Hitler was a maniac, but every now and then he also had notions of being a benevolent world leader.

It is imaginable that Hitler would have just built strong defences in the east and just coaxed / strong armed places like Romania, Bulgaria into the Reich rather than fall victim to a predatory USSR.

As for the Americans ...with the Japanese to worry about to the east and the west basically consisting of Germany with a very strong U-boat fleet and the British navy under the German flag ..they might have been quite happy to leave Hitler at it, let him worry about the Soviets and go about their business of selling Coca-Cola to the Germans.

We' ll never know.

TerrorFirmer

Saabdub wrote: »

Interesting, the invasion of North Africa was mounted directly from the US across the Atlantic with no staging in the European theatre. The other option would have been to use the Suez Canal and operate from Egpyt. If Egypt was lost they could have come up the Red Sea. The Ultimate objective would have been to capture Tunis, Sicily and southern Italy as a staging area to mount an invasion of Southern France.

Saabdub

That would be completely impossible....looking past the African idea even, how an earth would they stage a military build up in Egypt of all places? Even, if we entertain the possibility they could somehow do that, how an earth would they make the remotest headway against the German and Italian army in France/Italy? They had enough trouble as it was in Normandy fighting the shadow of an army and with overwhelming air superiority. Pretending for a moment that the Germans had no military forces in Africa and this build up went ahead, somehow unhindered, can you being to imagine the annihilation that would take place, launching an invasion against a superior enemy with massive air and numerical superiority?

Saabdub

It's a what if:D It requires that Germany be at war with the Soviet Union or have substantial forces deployed along the frontier. The Royal Navy escapes the loss of Mainland Britain and stages to Canadian/US ports, where it is in a position to support the build up of forces either on the Atlantic coast of Africa or in Egypt. If it's on the Egyptian side oil won't be a problem, so it's a matter of deploying sufficient troops, material and air and naval forces to overcome the Axis advantages in the Med. Difficult yes, but not beyond the resources of the US in the 1940s.

Saabdub

Dinter

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

The industrial muscle of the united states is often underestimated, the pacific war could only last so long, the Japanese position was unsustainable. It is entirely probable that had Russia or Britain fallen that America would still have defeated the Germans. It is even still a close run race if both the European allies were defeated, although it probably would have waited until after the pacific war was over. This of course all depends on the war weariness of the American people.

I’m not too sure if the Americans would have attacked Germany if the Reich hadn’t thrown down the gauntlet by declaring war on them. There had not been much success up until then in convincing the public to back one. This is illustrated by the secret lend lease programme. As well as keeping the Germans in the dark about a blatant breach of neutrality it also meant that Congress did not have to deal with an angry or vocal public.

As Terror rightly points out the logistics would have been a nightmare. The Atlantic differs from the Pacific in that there is no way to “island hop” any closer. It’s something crazy like 1 in 10 American troops were sent to Europe as against the Pacific during WWII. America would have been extremely stretched if it had to commit to fighting a war on two fronts thousands of miles from one another or their home base.

Imagine the D-Day Armada sailing from the east coast of America across to invade Ireland. We have thousands of ships, many of them overloaded with the extra supplies needed for a month long voyage. They must dodge German U-Boats that have been informed of their departure and are operating out of Northern Ireland. The men exposed on deck must suffer storms, freezing fog and seasickness. The convoy will travel slowly so the outer cordon of destroyers and cruisers can ensure all ships are in their rightful place. Like dogs herding sheep. Although they will have air cover from the accompanying carriers they know their planes will be vastly outnumbered when they attempt landfall. They know that if a large enough wolf pack scatters the convoy or even part of it (happened sometimes in the Arctic convoys) very few of the transports will survive. As they get half way they will become fodder for German medium bombers and from then on every day will bring fresh attacks from E-boats, manned chariots and fighter-bombers as they get closer. They know that if the landing fails the chances of any of them returning home is very slim.

I don’t think it’s viable.

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

The dominion states and the colonies probably would have fought on as well, after the pacific theatre ended, it is likely that a larger force from India and Australia could have been brought to bear. Maybe even free Russians from beyond the Urals, though I don't know how effective this would be.

Their troops will face the same trouble getting to Europe. Personally I don’t have a clue how colonies etc are transferred from one nation to another. However after WWI Germany’s were divvied up among the Allies and after WWII Italy and Japan’s were shared amongst the Allies as well. I assume if Britain has gone her colonies will be gone too. Even if they only have gotten self determination and not a “jackboot on their necks” I don’t see calls to send troops to Europe being especially popular. I think if I was leader of one of these colonies I’d be looking to my own defence and not sending my troops off on hopeless assaults thousands of miles away.

Also how would you sell this idea to your people? The War with Britain would be over. There would be a settled peace. It's as easy to find Quislings in Britain as it was in Norway or Vichy. It would be exceedingly difficult to explain why it is incumbent on your country to send troops to take part in a war that's already over. To fight and die for a motherland that most of them have never even seen!

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Ireland probably would have been invaded, it would also be the perfect place for a counter invasion from America as its defences would be the least prepared and it's landscape hard to defend.

I’m not at all sure we would have been invaded by Germany. This is a point I left out of my original concept because it’s sure to be controversial and based purely on what I’d do, although as has already been pointed out Hitler’s mental.

Anyway according to Plan Green, German troops were only to come here if invited. I don’t think the Germans saw us as natural allies of the British and after the destruction of Britain I think they would expect us to accept them being next door.

However what I do feel might have happened although I have no evidence for it, is that we might have been bribed into allowing a heavy German military presence. Namely offered the six counties back in return for allowing German garrisons around the treaty ports and probably Shannon as well for the duration. Although Ireland being an island might be difficult to defend, the Germans could easily thwart an American landing travelling thousands of miles through their wolf packs and land based aircraft.

If we refused I would think we’d have a situation like Plan W. The Allies plan. Ensure that you have enough men in Northern Ireland so they can push the Irish army out of the way and continue on to assault a landing should the situation arise.

In all fairness though, I don’t see the German army as being able to conquer the world. I really do think we’d be looking at an organised peace. However that peace would be very much in Germany’s favour.

Dinter

Saabdub wrote: »

Interesting, the invasion of North Africa was mounted directly from the US across the Atlantic with no staging in the European theatre.

Operation Torch left from Britain. Sure there were paratroopers involved. It was an Anglo American joint invasion. Maybe there were some elements that came directly from America but not enough to say it had no staging in Europe.

Saabdub wrote: »

The other option would have been to use the Suez Canal and operate from Egpyt. If Egypt was lost they could have come up the Red Sea.

Who's coming from the Red Sea? The Americans?

Saabdub

Actually transport wasn't a problem. The Allies used converted Ocean Liners like the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth that could carry up to 15,000 troops each in relative comfort. The British Government had subsidised the construction of the ships for that very purpose. The liners were so fast that no Uboat could catch them so they usually sailed out of convoy. Just two liners could have transported a million troops across the Atlantic in just over 30 return trips.

Saabdub

Saabdub

It's surprising but the Western Task Force which consisted of the 2nd armoured and 3rd and 9th infantry divisions, which landed on the Atlantic coast, came directly from the US. See Wikipedia for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch There was discssion of bringing them to England first but the Americans argued that to take the pressure of 8th Army they might as well just bring them direct to Africa:)
Saabdub

Dinter

Saabdub wrote: »

Actually transport wasn't a problem. The Allies used converted Ocean Liners like the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth that could carry up to 15,000 troops each in relative comfort. The British Government had subsidised the construction of the ships for that very purpose. The liners were so fast that no Uboat could catch them so they usually sailed out of convoy. Just two liners could have transported a million troops across the Atlantic in just over 30 return trips.

Saabdub

They were intended to leave the convoy when they passed out of the air umbrella of America or Canada and go as fast as they could until they reached the air umbrella operating out from Britain. Without that cover they are travelling unescorted on the run in.

Best case scenario is they avoid German coast watchers, slip secretly over to a landing area where they offload their men in a dribble via Higgins boats. This means they've to sit stationary in the water for conservatively, an hour with whatever cover their smoke blowers can produce.

They'll either get sank in any number of different scenarios on the way or while off loading or even if successful abandon 30,000 troops on an enemy shore with very little heavy equipment and frankly, very little chance of any helpful support coming within a meaningful timeframe.

As we're dealing with the American and not Russian army I'd find it hard to see that plan getting a green light.

Dinter

Saabdub wrote: »

It's surprising but the Western Task Force which consisted of the 2nd armoured and 3rd and 9th infantry divisions, which landed on the Atlantic coast, came directly from the US. See Wikipedia for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch There was discssion of bringing them to England first but the Americans argued that to take the pressure of 8th Army they might as well just bring them direct to Africa:)
Saabdub

Yes but the point that's being made is that you've now got U Boats operating out of Britain as well as Calais.

Your lines of supply are now across the Atlantic ocean.

You've got a Luftwaffe that's operating out of Britain and with regards to Torch, Malta.

You're assaulting a country of no strategic value along supply lines that mean you're armour will never have enough petrol nor your men food.

You face a formidable Italian and German Navy well supported by shore based aircraft.

You'll obviously face an army of some sort (Italian probably :rolleyes:) so your landings will be contested.

You've no real line of retreat.

I don't think Eisenhower (who delayed D-Day due to bad weather) would authorise that.

Saabdub

Or sail them into the harbour at Casablanca or Suez and offload the troops at the Quays:)

Saabdub

Dinter

Saabdub wrote: »

Or sail them into the harbour at Casablanca or Suez and offload the troops at the Quays:)

Saabdub

What sort of force would you think appropriate?

Saabdub

Dinter wrote: »

Yes but the point that's being made is that you've now got U Boats operating out of Britain as well as Calais.

Your lines of supply are now across the Atlantic ocean.

You've got a Luftwaffe that's operating out of Britain and with regards to Torch, Malta.

You're assaulting a country of no strategic value along supply lines that mean you're armour will never have enough petrol nor your men food.

You face a formidable Italian and German Navy well supported by shore based aircraft.

You'll obviously face an army of some sort (Italian probably :rolleyes:) so your landings will be contested.

You've no real line of retreat.

I don't think Eisenhower (who delayed D-Day due to bad weather) would authorise that.

Yea, that's fairly close to the historical situation, but you've got advantages. All the oil had to be brought through the Atlantic to Britian anyway. But with the Brits out of the war you don't have to divert any to the UK war production/civilian population and you don't have to feed them either, so the Atlantic convoys can go directly to support your forces on the Atlantic Coast of Africa.

Will the Italian Fleet sortie out of the Med into the Atlantic to oppose the landings, I don't think so.

Uboats are only a problem if Germany puts resources behind the building programme (Donitz never had enough boats) and the Bletchley Park Enigma programme has been captured. But they're the first guys I would have sent to the US (probabaly to MIT) if I couldn't stop the Wehrmacht on the beaches!

Historically the landings in Morocco were only opposed by Vichy French forces, there's no reason to presume that Italians would have been allowed enter former French colonies that were under German protection, espacially as this would have upset Franco.

And of course Ike wasn't in Supreme Command in '42. It would probabaly have been a Churchill/Roosevelt decision and Churchill loved to go for the soft underbelly:)

Saabdub

peasant

You seem to forget that pre Pearl Harbour the American public at large and quite a percentage of the leadership was against getting involved in WW2.

Yes, they felt some moral obligation to SELL aid and material to Britain ...but with Britain wiped off the map in one quick swoop shortly after France, I doubt that the Americans would have had the desire (or political will) to go into a full blown confrontation with a victorious Germany accross the Atlantic.

The only thing I see them doing is shore up their defences, while desperate to find out what they could SELL to the Germans instead of the Brits

Dinter

Saabdub wrote: »

Yea, that's fairly close to the historical situation, but you've got advantages. All the oil had to be brought through the Atlantic to Britian anyway. But with the Brits out of the war you don't have to divert any to the UK war production/civilian population and you don't have to feed them either, so the Atlantic convoys can go directly to support your forces on the Atlantic Coast of Africa.

I’ll agree that there are some advantages but some major disadvantages too. For me the line of supply is just too long. With American industrial might I think I’d be trying a landing into Russia via Alaska. Although difficult logistically you’re landing in friendly territory. Kind of!

I’d leave my Eastern seaboard open for Germany to invade if they wanted to try it. But that’s a war game for another day!

Saabdub wrote: »

Will the Italian Fleet sortie out of the Med into the Atlantic to oppose the landings, I don't think so.

I’m not so sure. They did have a capable and modern navy and would also have aerial cover up top. I would think they would definitely contest the landings.

Saabdub wrote: »

Uboats are only a problem if Germany puts resources behind the building programme (Donitz never had enough boats)

I’m going to have to stick to my guns about German industry. Without the intervention of the Allied bombing campaign I feel it would be well above the “real” 1942 figures.

Saabdub wrote: »

Historically the landings in Morocco were only opposed by Vichy French forces, there's no reason to presume that Italians would have been allowed enter former French colonies that were under German protection, especially as this would have upset Franco.

Oh I agree with that. I would be talking more about a large scale counterattack if the French buckle. I really think Gibraltar in Axis hands would go a long way towards closing off the Med. Therefore there are no landings further up the coast to outflank Axis forces. I think because of overstretched supply lines the Allies would be fixed into static defensive lines and we know how well Rommel deals with them.

Also Axis air force would be overwhelmingly powerful than anything carrier borne could be. I definitely don’t think they’d respect Moroccan air space

Saabdub wrote: »

And of course Ike wasn't in Supreme Command in '42. It would probabaly have been a Churchill/Roosevelt decision and Churchill loved to go for the soft underbelly

I thought Ike was Commander in Chief of Torch. Anyway sure I’d say Churchill would have been relegated to the same figurehead position of De Gaulle at that stage.

TerrorFirmer

None of those plans would ever work.

The Luftwaffe would dominate the skies, and in tandem with that, the Kriegsmarine would easily dominate the seas. Not to mention you'd have the support of the Italian airforce and navy, which were respectable and held potential, even if their performance was not.

Any cross Atlantic invasion force wouldn't even be able to land in any numbers, they'd be sunk before they could offload any substantial amount of supplies or armor.

Even if there was a successful build up in Africa, breaching Europe would be just as impossible. D-Day and the fighting in Italy were hard enough; imagine those same battles against an enemy with treble the amount of infantry, quadruple the amount of armor, and tenfold aircraft with air and naval superiority - not to mention the support of the Italian army, airforce and navy, whose morale would be sufficient to fight successfully unlike reality, owing to their hugely favorable position in the war. Not to mention their armed forces would probably be equipped with German weapons at this stage. And finally, the difficult terrain. It would be a complete disaster - Ireland would have had a better chance of trying to invade Britain.

As for landing in Russia and working westwards, a much better idea, but probably also doomed to failure. The United states gained experience in Normandy against a broken, largely poorly trained and equipped Germany army. Fighting against a Wehrmacht infinitely more powerful then it had been even at its height in 1941-42, the United states probably be decisively beaten in a war across such a vast landscape.

kowloon

If only they had listened to Stephen Ambrose! they would have realised all they needed to do was drop a single US parachute infantry company onto the roof of the reichstag and it would have been over by lunchtime

you may continue with your debate :pac:

Grizzly 45

With Britan invaded,and the royal family in relative saftey in Canada.Winston Churchill stays on to continue a resistance movement from Scotland in the occupied Uk. Ireland promptly becomes a next target for the 3rd Reich and quickly falls as well.
Edward the 7th is reinstalled as king,and Mosley s black shirts come to power,so Britan is now amore or less Vichy State as well.
Remember Hitler was a great admirer of Britan and would have sued for peace once the Germans had a foothold in Britan.
This now leaves the US in a position of isolation.At this point does FDR run again as president against Jack Kennedy or Charles Lindbergh.Both are known pro Hitler anti Semitic types.
Assuming either of those got into power,there would have been a peace agreement with Germany in the offing,as the US is still isolationist and a lot of Americans are sympathetic to the German cause. Dec7th 1941 still happens due to the fact the Imperial Japanese army do not have enough raw materials to continue a sustained campain against the US.Again the US fleet is destroyed ,and the carriers survive. This is still enough to push the US onto a war footing against Japan thus waking the sleeping giant. The Pacific war continues pretty much as history had it.
On the East front Hitler starts Barbrossa with the big push to Moscow.However this time the Germans make it to Moscow,only to find Stalin has fled with the Sov war production capabilities to beyond the Ural mountains.German transport and supply lines are being ripped apart by Russian partisans and the fierce winter.Due to his Lebensraum and ethnic policy,potential allies like the Ukranians,Bellarussians etc are turned against the Germans and continue to make life Hell for the German occupied forces.Spring finds the German army in a pretty over streched state not able to hold the vast terrority conquerd.They retreat and consoloidate their lines along a front stretching from Vilnus down to Rostov on Don as the next swing has to be into thre trans caucassus for oil.The oil fields will decide the fate of both the Red and German armies.Who holds these has fuel for their armies.
In Africa.Rommel is facing a problem again of over stretched supply lines.Egypt must be taken then onto Iraq,for the oil as well as pushing up to join with the German armies going South from Georgia and Azerbajan.

On the US side the Japenese are desperately working to develop a nuke device,they are in direct competition with the US.Germany has seen no great need for such and are only pottering around with this experimentally[historical fact].The heavy water is needed but a reactor pile is not considerd at all. The US wins this race as they have the better brains on this than Japan.The Bomb is used on Japan and effectively ends Japan as a participant.This then frees the British colonies under Jap rule to re construct,re group andstart planning a liberation attempt.While the US has the A bomb it is still no great threat to Hitler,as the US has no trans continental bombers.However Jack Northop is working on the flying wing bomber that would have had the range of east coast US to Berlin and back.Howard Hughes is as well working on air to air refuelling,as are the first prototype jet engines beginning to appear in the US as well.
At this stage V2 has become a reality,but it is still incapable of reaching The USA. The bomb has frightend Hitler to the point that a crash course is started in Germany with the intention to develop it in time to be operational in 1946 along with the New York bomber.the German flying wing.the Germans are too far behind to catch up.However president Lindbergh and Hitler form asecret nonaggression pact,and swop technology info so Hitler can use the bomb on Russia.It is in both Lbergh and Hitlers intrest to rid Stalin from the planet. The bomb is used against Stalin who was desperatly trying to develop his own.The post world powers are Germany and the USA.However it is not any peaceful in the greater reich.the British are still picking gureilla war fights with enslaved pouplations against the Germans from their colonies and occupied UK.
Situation gets so bad that the Germans are required to give more of these countries more and more autonomy again.

Belfast

the_syco wrote: »

I'd say if Japan attacked attacked the USA, I'd say they'd still nuke 'em. And with a working bomb, why stop there? Bomb, I don't know, Germany, and any ceasefire would be to the allies favour.

The Americans had only 3 Atomic bombs in 1945 and these were made using mostly captured German U235.

ejmaztec

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

With Britan invaded,and the royal family in relative saftey in Canada.Winston Churchill stays on to continue a resistance movement from Scotland in the occupied Uk. Ireland promptly becomes a next target for the 3rd Reich and quickly falls as well.
Edward the 7th is reinstalled as king,and Mosley s black shirts come to power,so Britan is now amore or less Vichy State as well.
Remember Hitler was a great admirer of Britan and would have sued for peace once the Germans had a foothold in Britan.
This now leaves the US in a position of isolation.At this point does FDR run again as president against Jack Kennedy or Charles Lindbergh.Both are known pro Hitler anti Semitic types.
Assuming either of those got into power,there would have been a peace agreement with Germany in the offing,as the US is still isolationist and a lot of Americans are sympathetic to the German cause. Dec7th 1941 still happens due to the fact the Imperial Japanese army do not have enough raw materials to continue a sustained campain against the US.Again the US fleet is destroyed ,and the carriers survive. This is still enough to push the US onto a war footing against Japan thus waking the sleeping giant. The Pacific war continues pretty much as history had it.
On the East front Hitler starts Barbrossa with the big push to Moscow.However this time the Germans make it to Moscow,only to find Stalin has fled with the Sov war production capabilities to beyond the Ural mountains.German transport and supply lines are being ripped apart by Russian partisans and the fierce winter.Due to his Lebensraum and ethnic policy,potential allies like the Ukranians,Bellarussians etc are turned against the Germans and continue to make life Hell for the German occupied forces.Spring finds the German army in a pretty over streched state not able to hold the vast terrority conquerd.They retreat and consoloidate their lines along a front stretching from Vilnus down to Rostov on Don as the next swing has to be into thre trans caucassus for oil.The oil fields will decide the fate of both the Red and German armies.Who holds these has fuel for their armies.
In Africa.Rommel is facing a problem again of over stretched supply lines.Egypt must be taken then onto Iraq,for the oil as well as pushing up to join with the German armies going South from Georgia and Azerbajan.

On the US side the Japenese are desperately working to develop a nuke device,they are in direct competition with the US.Germany has seen no great need for such and are only pottering around with this experimentally[historical fact].The heavy water is needed but a reactor pile is not considerd at all. The US wins this race as they have the better brains on this than Japan.The Bomb is used on Japan and effectively ends Japan as a participant.This then frees the British colonies under Jap rule to re construct,re group andstart planning a liberation attempt.While the US has the A bomb it is still no great threat to Hitler,as the US has no trans continental bombers.However Jack Northop is working on the flying wing bomber that would have had the range of east coast US to Berlin and back.Howard Hughes is as well working on air to air refuelling,as are the first prototype jet engines beginning to appear in the US as well.
At this stage V2 has become a reality,but it is still incapable of reaching The USA. The bomb has frightend Hitler to the point that a crash course is started in Germany with the intention to develop it in time to be operational in 1946 along with the New York bomber.the German flying wing.the Germans are too far behind to catch up.However president Lindbergh and Hitler form asecret nonaggression pact,and swop technology info so Hitler can use the bomb on Russia.It is in both Lbergh and Hitlers intrest to rid Stalin from the planet. The bomb is used against Stalin who was desperatly trying to develop his own.The post world powers are Germany and the USA.However it is not any peaceful in the greater reich.the British are still picking gureilla war fights with enslaved pouplations against the Germans from their colonies and occupied UK.
Situation gets so bad that the Germans are required to give more of these countries more and more autonomy again.

Excuse my ignorance, but who is Rommel fighting in North Africa and the middle-east in your scenario?

oops, just saw your geurillas in the mist - but Rommel wouldn't be wasted on these people, would he?