Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What If.....
Options
Comments
-
-
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.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
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
0 -
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!
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.
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.
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
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.0 -
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.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement