If the UK loses the Battle of Britain where would the US concentrate its troops?

[Director]

There were historically warm relations between the US and Ireland, not least because of the large numbers of Irish who immigrated here and the relatives they had at home. The Irish Brigade of the Civil War and the post-Civil War Fenian quasi-invasions of Canada, launched from US soil, underscore this.

And, to be cynical, if Germany did occupy the British Isles it would find the holding of them more difficult and costly than the taking... those long coastlines are ideal for submarine deliveries of weapons. At the risk of being trite and stereotypical it can be said the Scots and Irish have been known to fight just for the fun of it, and what they might do to a German garrison should give one pause.


I've just finished reading a biography of George Marshall and a work on the command relationship between Marshall and Eisenhower. I can't see Marshall agreeing to a major invasion in North Africa without the serious historical British pressure for it (or away from a cross-channel invasion; not quite the same thing). The true purpose of Torch was to break up the Axis threat to Egypt and it did so - German and Italian losses in the Tunisia pocket were larger than at Stalingrad. But it took armies coming from BOTH directions to make that happen -

The problem is simply strategic: there is no place to the east of North Africa with military significance short of Suez; nothing to the south or, obviously, the west... No invasion of Sicily or southern France is possible without the Royal Navy and British bases in the Mediterranean. Even taking French bases at Algiers and Oran would be insufficient - you'd need Gibraltar, Malta and Alexandria for air cover, scouting, repair and fueling.

And, frankly, the ability of the Italian Navy is often overlooked, but no invasion of Sicily or Southern France will happen without significant naval superiority. Italian light forces and mini-subs were superb, and if the battle fleet had had the fuel it would likely have been more aggressively handled. Despite their accuracy problems, the Littorios were big, fast, powerful ships - arguably more so than Bismarck.

If you can quash the Italian Navy and open the Med you'd still have to take Sicily, work your way up the boot and/or take Sardinia and Corsica for aircover over Southern France. Remember that Dragoon (the invasion of southern France) was not intended to be the main effort - for these strategic reasons - but was instead to be a relatively small commitment that would, along with Overlord, lever the Germans out of France.

Politically, militarily and strategically, I think the odds of Marshall agreeing to an attritional dead-end in the Med are scant. he might use North Africa as a testing and training exercise but I think the real thrust would go to Ireland, Scotland or Cornwall. (Post-Torch he and Eisenhower admitted the US Army was not as ready as they had thought and that Torch was important for getting the Army up to fighting standard).

 

[Kovax]

One point to keep in mind is that Marshall and Eisenhower DID feel that the US Army was ready, until proven otherwise during operation Torch. Going into Scotland or Ireland, rather than North Africa, they would very likely have been rather rudely informed by the garrison of their true status. It might have turned into a much bloodier and tougher fight than what was anticipated. US troops in North Africa quickly learned to fear German air strikes, as well as artillery, and it would be a while until the US could establish or capture and repair sufficient airfield facilities to gain air superiority. Meanwhile, it would be limited to carrier-based aircraft. Ultimately, I do think the US and its allies would be able to re-take the British Isles, but the price might have been painful.

 

[Rubidium]

I think we're working from somewhat different premises. My assumption is that we've magically allowed the Germans to invade/conquer the British Home Islands, but the rest of the British Empire + the Commonwealth is still fighting on. In which case the Allies would still have access to those bases, as well as Commonwealth forces in Egypt. In which case a Mediterranean strategy looks attractive in a way that it really didn't in 1942. The US wanted an invasion of France as soon as possible because it already had a perfectly good base (Britain) to launch one. In this scenario, Britain is no longer a base they can use, so they'll need to capture one somewhere. The US was very well aware of the importance of air superiority/supply lines/etc. for an amphibious invasion from its experiences in the Pacific (I can't imagine that the US will be in a position to launch an invasion of Europe/North Africa until after they've already gotten a few Pacific campaigns under their belt; they didn't historically, and they'll certainly be slower here). In which case North Africa is a much easier base to capture and hold than launching an invasion of the UK (or even Ireland) directly, and can then be used for further operations in the Mediterranean aimed at an Operation Dragoon-style landing. Sure, the historic Operation Dragoon was a secondary effort (although a very successful one, and one put together with minimal resources/planning), but that's again because the Allies had a much better base in the UK already in their hands. If they have to capture the UK first, it's a very different scenario.

I'm also skeptical of the military effectiveness of a putative British resistance movement. Resistance movements in WWII, for all their romanticism, tended to be of dubious effectiveness in terms of actually causing casualties. That's especially the case in more urbanized areas (unless you expect a repeat of the Warsaw Uprising, which seems highly unlikely unless the Americans are actually at their door). They'll provide good intelligence on Nazi operations, and will tie up a large garrison, but the latter actually works against any Allied invasion (as those troops would also be available to oppose it). Meanwhile the infrastructure would favor the defender being able to reinforce much more easily than the attacker, while North Africa would see it much more balanced.

Yes, the Irish had good relations with the US, but that doesn't mean they will be willing to backstab a Nazi Germany that is literally on their doorstep (and could and would launch a terror bombing campaign that would devastate the country, even if they couldn't repeat whatever miracle allowed them to conquer Britain in this timeline). Ireland never had any interest in joining the Allies historically, and I doubt that changes when the situation looks much more grim for them.

If all of the British Empire and Commonwealth lays down their arms, I honestly think the US would switch to a "Japan First" strategy, lend-lease to the Soviets like crazy, and then come back in 1945 with nukes and zillions of carriers and go straight for France.

 

[Director]

Ireland never had any interest in joining an alliance that had Britain in it... my idea was that might change with Britain out.

I wouldn't disagree with what you say and do agree that we were coming from different first precepts. A thoughtful and well-reasoned response.

 

[Emre Yigit]

Had Britain lost tha air battle and been successfully invaded - which is the premise of the original post - then WW2 is, for all intents and purposes, over.

With an industrial base more or less equal to the American, the Germans would proceed to terrify any nearby neutral countries and annex those who resist. Spain and Turkey join the Axis, Sweden, Portugal and Switzerland are annexed. A very straightforward and easy pincer movement into the Middle East gains access to oil and the Suez canal. Self-sufficient in pretty much everything and with German industrial ingenuity at its peak, after a short breathing space, Russia is next. With all of the resources of Europe available, Barbarossa is at least a partial success, though commando raids and counter-raids continue. The Commonwealth splinters, and the remaining British troops, ill-supplied and stretched out, are knocked out of India. China is partitioned.

With her European enemies knocked out, normal trade resumes. In which case, South American nations, in particular Brazil, do not feel they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by aligning with the US.

The big question is whether the US would enter the war, and I suspect they do. But not because of the Japanese, but because their interests are challenged in the Americas. The Azores are not an ideal staging post, notr is Iceland, for an invasion of Europe, which is never even on the cards.

But stalemate ensues. A Cold War starts after the Germans and the US within days of each other use atomic weapons on New York and Hamburg.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Had Britain lost tha air battle and been successfully invaded - which is the premise of the original post - then WW2 is, for all intents and purposes, over.

With an industrial base more or less equal to the American, the Germans would proceed to terrify any nearby neutral countries and annex those who resist. Spain and Turkey join the Axis, Sweden, Portugal and Switzerland are annexed. A very straightforward and easy pincer movement into the Middle East gains access to oil and the Suez canal. Self-sufficient in pretty much everything and with German industrial ingenuity at its peak, after a short breathing space, Russia is next. With all of the resources of Europe available, Barbarossa is at least a partial success, though commando raids and counter-raids continue. The Commonwealth splinters, and the remaining British troops, ill-supplied and stretched out, are knocked out of India. China is partitioned.

With her European enemies knocked out, normal trade resumes. In which case, South American nations, in particular Brazil, do not feel they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by aligning with the US.

The big question is whether the US would enter the war, and I suspect they do. But not because of the Japanese, but because their interests are challenged in the Americas. The Azores are not an ideal staging post, notr is Iceland, for an invasion of Europe, which is never even on the cards.

But stalemate ensues. A Cold War starts after the Germans and the US within days of each other use atomic weapons on New York and Hamburg.

Britain doesn't give Germany an industrial base to conquer Russia and the world, because without resource imports from the rest of the world all those industries in the British isles are just going to sit idle, workers starving and and the machinery catching dust.

 

[Director]

And, candidly, "A very straightforward and easy pincer movement into the Middle East gains access to oil and the Suez canal " says you know how to read a map but perhaps have not looked at the mileage and terrain between Suez and, say, Iraq... not to mention the mileage from Iraq to Berlin. Also do not overlook sabotage of the fields and refineries and pipelines, similar to what the Dutch did in Indonesia. Such damage is easy to inflict and extremely expensive and time-consuming to correct.

Germany needs oil to win a war but they cannot get oil without peace and trade - they can neither conquer oil-bearing land, hold it or transport the oil back to Germany. Herein lies the greatest indictment of the German move to war.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

Had Britain lost tha air battle and been successfully invaded - which is the premise of the original post - then WW2 is, for all intents and purposes, over.

As long as Soviets and America are still in play, nothing's over.

With an industrial base more or less equal to the American

Nothing to me indicates that Germany would have this even if they could have gotten Britain's full production. Which of course, they could not, since they would not have the resources, workers, etc. and much would likely be destroyed in combat or through resistance movements. Germany got fairly little out of most of its occupied territories' industries (excluding those they annexed during peacetime of course).

Germans would proceed to terrify any nearby neutral countries and annex those who resist.

Well yes, but most of these same neutrals were already terrified of Germany. Sure all of them are going to be whistling a more pro-German foreign policy tune and make huge amounts of money selling resources but that's still a ways from joining the Axis and further from participating in Barbarossa.

Sweden, Portugal and Switzerland are annexed.

So Hitler might push for annexation of the Swiss (though can't see him going through with it lightly - he may not respect Swiss neutrality, but a lot of Nazi leadership has significant funds in Swiss banks, and Switzerland serves as a useful conduit to utilize seized gold reserves. Not to mention it could turn into a real hassle sieging down Swiss mountain redoubts while the Soviets are still around and would also make the German-Italian trade routes for things like coal more congested.

A very straightforward and easy pincer movement into the Middle East gains access to oil and the Suez canal.

The Germans found out this really was not as straightforward as you are implying, in no small part due to terrain and supply. Even more so with the British Mediterranean Fleet presumably still intact. And even if they can somehow do all this, it's still a long way to bring all that oil back with little infrastructure unless you can secure the Red Sea/Arabian Gulf shipping routes the British use.

Self-sufficient in pretty much everything and with German industrial ingenuity at its peak, after a short breathing space

Self-sufficiency (which again, I'm not so sure Germany really achieves - the UK doesn't have that many resources that Germany didn't already have) still won't defeat Russia on its own.

With all of the resources of Europe available, Barbarossa is at least a partial success, though commando raids and counter-raids continue.

I mean, Barbarossa was a major success in history. The initial invasion went far better than many anticipated. The issue is winning the long war on the Eastern Front, with all its supply, infrastructure, and weather issues while facing the massive Red Army.

The Commonwealth splinters

Not sure I really see this. As long as the US is still in play to back the Commonwealth up until it formally enters the war anyways. Again, the only Commonwealth PM who is really going to consider peace might be Mackenzie King, but even he is going to find it near politically impossible in the short term with the British Government in Exile taking up residence in Canada and refusing to end the war.

the remaining British troops, ill-supplied and stretched out, are knocked out of India.

Wait, are you implying the Germans would somehow manage to take India? Because Japan isn't in the war yet. Also, with the only active front being Egypt, British troops are actually less stretched out, although less troops and equipment will be available.

As for Japan, I'm less certain whether the US will still push for an oil blockade in such a scenario, and less certain still Britain/Netherlands will follow it (though they probably would). Another question is if Britain would resist if Japan just moved in to occupy the East Indies in such a scenario. India is far away from Japan and has a massive manpower pool, and decently difficult terrain.

Regardless, it's going to take an awful lot to actually knock them out, especially if Japan is also committing troops to China and the Pacific.

China is partitioned.

Nothing in our scenario suggests Japan will do any better against China than what it actually achieved (actual British support is much less than US and Soviet, and even without them, terrain, infrastructure, and manpower are big constraints on Japan).

With her European enemies knocked out, normal trade resumes.

I mean, this isn't going to be that easy unless the Royal Navy has been knocked out. And even then, Britain has a lot more ways and bases to interdict trade to Europe than Germany ever did.

But stalemate ensues. A Cold War starts after the Germans and the US within days of each other use atomic weapons on New York and Hamburg.

A Cold War developing is plausible if the German-Soviet War goes nowhere and the US stays out or doesn't get significantly involved. No idea how this is going to drastically speed up the German atomic program though, or give Germany bombers (and air superiority) anywhere near the American Eastern seaboard. American long-range bombers may be able to hit Germany, though again, air range and superiority would be an issue (though high altitude bombers, which America was pretty good at, could help alleviate this).

 

[Director]

I am really not certain that the US comes into the war against Germany if Britain is overrun, assuming of course that Japan doesn't kick-start it and Germany join in as they historically did (which I think is more likely if Britain collapses, not less).

Marshall and the other service heads were strongly opposed to sending war materiel to Britain as they expected the Germans to win, and to do so pretty quickly.
They also expected Germany to roll over the Soviets without much trouble, sharing that opinion with Germany.
The main strategic idea for the US was a cross-channel invasion, at the earliest possible moment that it could be successfully done.

So: if Japan and the US do not go to war, and Germany has conquered France and the Netherlands and Britain, the US would certainly recognize a legitimate British government-in-exile in Canada and would undoubtedly provide support for India, South Africa, Egypt and Australia-New Zealand. A German invasion of Egypt could be accepted, but German or Japanese attempts at the Dominions would probably bring the US into the war.

But... assuming Japan stays quiet... with France and the Netherlands and Britain gone, what is there for the US to fight Germany over?

I do think Germany might eventually lose a protracted war with the Soviets, or perhaps make some sort of peace after a five or six year struggle. But peace with the US means the potential of trade with the US - including vital oil supplies - and that could tip the war into a German victory in Russia.

 

[Emre Yigit]

As long as Soviets and America are still in play, nothing's over.

With the German air force deployed entirely to the Eastern Front, I can't see Russia lasting long.

Nothing to me indicates that Germany would have this even if they could have gotten Britain's full production. Which of course, they could not, since they would not have the resources, workers, etc. and much would likely be destroyed in combat or through resistance movements. Germany got fairly little out of most of its occupied territories' industries (excluding those they annexed during peacetime of course).

I agree. And yet Germany managed to hold out against the Allies despite an even greater mismatch of production. With Speer not despairing, I see things differently to the way you do.

Well yes, but most of these same neutrals were already terrified of Germany. Sure all of them are going to be whistling a more pro-German foreign policy tune and make huge amounts of money selling resources but that's still a ways from joining the Axis and further from participating in Barbarossa.

The Germans had already issued not-so-thinly-veiled warnings to the Turks to let them do much much more. The only reason İnönü was able to dance around those requests (though caving in on a few, like the transit of a few military ships through the Straits, to the Soviets' righteous anger), was because England was fighting on. No England would probably mean that the traditional pro-German forces in Turkish politics would come to the fore.

So Hitler might push for annexation of the Swiss (though can't see him going through with it lightly - he may not respect Swiss neutrality, but a lot of Nazi leadership has significant funds in Swiss banks, and Switzerland serves as a useful conduit to utilize seized gold reserves. Not to mention it could turn into a real hassle sieging down Swiss mountain redoubts while the Soviets are still around and would also make the German-Italian trade routes for things like coal more congested.

Switzerland as a whole is a redoubt, and I doubt that it would have been at all easy. And I doubt it would have been first on the menu. But if there were no country in Europe left that was neither occupied nor in the Axis, their position would be untenable.

The Germans found out this really was not as straightforward as you are implying, in no small part due to terrain and supply. Even more so with the British Mediterranean Fleet presumably still intact. And even if they can somehow do all this, it's still a long way to bring all that oil back with little infrastructure unless you can secure the Red Sea/Arabian Gulf shipping routes the British use.

This is predicated on the Turks joining the Axis. It would then have been quite straightfoward to seize the coastal strip, threaten Persia and Arabia, and attack Suez from the East. Nor were those colonies enamoured of their overlords.

Self-sufficiency (which again, I'm not so sure Germany really achieves - the UK doesn't have that many resources that Germany didn't already have) still won't defeat Russia on its own.

No, I don't think there's anything that the UK has that the Germans had a shortage of. But with neutrals collapsing, oil (and therefore rubber) from the Middle East, chrome (Turkey and Sweden(?)) and tungsten (Portugal) become much more readily available.

I mean, Barbarossa was a major success in history. The initial invasion went far better than many anticipated. The issue is winning the long war on the Eastern Front, with all its supply, infrastructure, and weather issues while facing the massive Red Army.

I wouldn't wish in any way to imply that the Red Army would be a pushover. But the Turks could have been made to bleed (probably unsuccessfully) against the Soviets in the Caucasus, widening the front to beyond the Soviets' capacity to sustain.

Not sure I really see this. As long as the US is still in play to back the Commonwealth up until it formally enters the war anyways. Again, the only Commonwealth PM who is really going to consider peace might be Mackenzie King, but even he is going to find it near politically impossible in the short term with the British Government in Exile taking up residence in Canada and refusing to end the war.

Canada, Australia, NZ, etc are only important as long as the British Isles exist as a staging post. With Ireland also in the Nazi camp (yes, I am going for full Nazi domination of Europe), German U-boots would be able to operate much more efficiently. The US was isolationalist, though Roosevelt did all that he could short of declaring war.

Wait, are you implying the Germans would somehow manage to take India? Because Japan isn't in the war yet. Also, with the only active front being Egypt, British troops are actually less stretched out, although less troops and equipment will be available.

No, but again I assume the Germans would be able to do to Iran what the British and Soviets did. And that with the Mediterranean locked up, the nexct logical extension is the Indian Ocean. I also don't assume that the Indians were thrilled at being ruled by the British. But the Japanese, instead of uselessly getting bogged down in Java, could just as easily have swerved west so that...

As for Japan, I'm less certain whether the US will still push for an oil blockade in such a scenario, and less certain still Britain/Netherlands will follow it (though they probably would). Another question is if Britain would resist if Japan just moved in to occupy the East Indies in such a scenario. India is far away from Japan and has a massive manpower pool, and decently difficult terrain.

... Persian oil runs more or less uninterrupted. Ceylon would be enough; no need to try to take the whole of India. The Japanese fleet, instead of fighting the US, takes the RN on - I'm willing to bet they do rather well.

Nothing in our scenario suggests Japan will do any better against China than what it actually achieved (actual British support is much less than US and Soviet, and even without them, terrain, infrastructure, and manpower are big constraints on Japan).

Free of worries about oil, not concerned with the US supplying the now fragmented British Empire, Japan has no need to attack the US.

I mean, this isn't going to be that easy unless the Royal Navy has been knocked out. And even then, Britain has a lot more ways and bases to interdict trade to Europe than Germany ever did.

Like Singapore? And where do the new ships get built? Canada has decent capacity, but it wouldn't be enough. The RN would be subject to diminution by attrition.

No idea how this is going to drastically speed up the German atomic program though, or give Germany bombers (and air superiority) anywhere near the American Eastern seaboard. American long-range bombers may be able to hit Germany, though again, air range and superiority would be an issue (though high altitude bombers, which America was pretty good at, could help alleviate this).

On the one hand, Germany's resources wouldn't be anywhere near as stretched, trying to fight the British on the one hand and the Soviets on the other in an ever-lengthening war. On the other hand, the Americans might not even start the Manhattan Project if they're not at war. And those bombers would have had far greater difficulty than they did when taking off from across the Channel. And finally, instead of outspending the Manhattan Project developing missiles, they redirect their efforts to atomic weapons.

So, yes, I do believe that if Britain had been knocked out, the dice would have been loaded in the Axis's favour. Just as the American entry into the wat (one which I'm assuming would have happened much later, if at all) changed the equation.

 

[LizarDAMN]

Wow, been a while since I have seen a post with so many factual errors in here. Real war isn't map painting like Paradox games, where resources move with magic and logistics aren't thing. None of your scenarios are realistic nor feasible. Germans didn't have enough troops for Russia and had huge problems supplying even those. This is full alien space bat territory.

 

[Rubidium]

If Japan gets involved, it's because they've gone to war with the US a la Pearl Harbor. Which strikes me as fairly likely, to be honest; the US still has a fairly powerful China lobby, and German success will make the US more opposed to expansion by their fellow Tripartite members, which means an oil embargo almost certainly still goes down if the Japanese try anything aggressive, and the situation in China is such that the Japanese can't win if they don't try anything aggressive.

And Japan was never going to be able to conquer India; the infrastructure was terrible (there's a reason that the Japanese had to build that infamous railroad in Burma), and once they get out of Burma and into India proper the terrain gets much more favorable to a defender with armor and air superiority (which the British would have in India).

Ceylon is equally infeasible: Japan has neither the fuel nor the sealift to support an invasion and then maintain it as a base, with British forces right next door on the mainland able to launch regular airstrikes and threaten invasions. The Indian Ocean is fine for raiding, but not for an overseas invasion, and the Japanese Army knew it and made that clear whenever ambitious naval officers proposed operations.

And a German atomic bomb program was far behind an American one, even without the overblown British support.

 

[Easy-Kill]

With the German air force deployed entirely to the Eastern Front, I can't see Russia lasting long.

You piqued my interest. How was the German airforce going to change the course of the war in the East? The main challenge is that German offensive strength peaked in July 1941 and went down thereafter. This was an artefact of their economy and logistics. Having an airforce is just going to make life even more miserable for the soviet soldiers, but wont negate the fact that the German economy of 1942 could not support any offensive.

It is only after 1942 that Britain starts to have an effect on Germany ... so unless Germany can magically overcome Russia in 1941 it wont do them any good. Or are we going to magically make Germany have a better economy in the way that we magically made Germany able to beat Britain in the first place?

 

[Emre Yigit]

Wow, been a while since I have seen a post with so many factual errors in here. Real war isn't map painting like Paradox games, where resources move with magic and logistics aren't thing. None of your scenarios are realistic nor feasible. Germans didn't have enough troops for Russia and had huge problems supplying even those. This is full alien space bat territory.

Doesn't score high on the list of arguments that could be made.

You piqued my interest. How was the German airforce going to change the course of the war in the East? The main challenge is that German offensive strength peaked in July 1941 and went down thereafter. This was an artefact of their economy and logistics. Having an airforce is just going to make life even more miserable for the soviet soldiers, but wont negate the fact that the German economy of 1942 could not support any offensive.

It is only after 1942 that Britain starts to have an effect on Germany ... so unless Germany can magically overcome Russia in 1941 it wont do them any good. Or are we going to magically make Germany have a better economy in the way that we magically made Germany able to beat Britain in the first place?

German industrial capability peaked in 1941? Well, well. Tank production in 1943 was 3x the 1941 level, bomber production 50% higher, figher production nearly 3x higher. Tank output in 1945 was higher than in 1941; planes output nearly as high. They just got overwhelmed by the Soviets on the one side and the US&UK on the other; huge losses and unrelenting attrition. In my scenario, a well-oiled Japan does not attack the US, and Germany declares war on the US at a time of its own choosing, probably after Brest-Litovsk II.

As for their GDP, it may have peaked in 1942 (not 1941), but the declines in 1943 and 1944 are largely the result of Britain remaining in the war.

None of this is magic. And a Germany not harrassed from Britain would anyway have an easier time.

Ceylon is equally infeasible: Japan has neither the fuel nor the sealift to support an invasion and then maintain it as a base, with British forces right next door on the mainland able to launch regular airstrikes and threaten invasions. The Indian Ocean is fine for raiding, but not for an overseas invasion, and the Japanese Army knew it and made that clear whenever ambitious naval officers proposed operations.

In which Indian plane factories do the planes which get shot down by the Japanese get replaced? And Colombo is only 1700nm from Singapore. It would require co-ordination with the German Indian Ocean fleet, but against the extremely weak defences of the island, I don't think it's an issue.

If Japan gets involved, it's because they've gone to war with the US a la Pearl Harbor. Which strikes me as fairly likely, to be honest; the US still has a fairly powerful China lobby, and German success will make the US more opposed to expansion by their fellow Tripartite members, which means an oil embargo almost certainly still goes down if the Japanese try anything aggressive, and the situation in China is such that the Japanese can't win if they don't try anything aggressive.

I don't see why, if Japan can get fuelled from the Persian Gulf, it needs US oil.

 

[Acheron]

You piqued my interest. How was the German airforce going to change the course of the war in the East? The main challenge is that German offensive strength peaked in July 1941 and went down thereafter. This was an artefact of their economy and logistics. Having an airforce is just going to make life even more miserable for the soviet soldiers, but wont negate the fact that the German economy of 1942 could not support any offensive.

It is only after 1942 that Britain starts to have an effect on Germany ... so unless Germany can magically overcome Russia in 1941 it wont do them any good. Or are we going to magically make Germany have a better economy in the way that we magically made Germany able to beat Britain in the first place?

I do wonder, too. The Eastern Front was enormous and could absorb huge amounts of troops with little effect. Though I understand that sizeable Luftwaffe assets were busy with the western allies and I also understand that air forces can have a remarkable impact on the ground.

 

[Acheron]

The main challenge is that German offensive strength peaked in July 1941 and went down thereafter.

German industrial capability peaked in 1941?

No, he wrote about Germany's OFFENSIVE capabilities. Yes, the industrial output actually increased in later years, but this did not result in stronger offensive power due to attrition and to rising strength of the adversaries.

 

[Emre Yigit]

No, he wrote about Germany's OFFENSIVE capabilities. Yes, the industrial output actually increased in later years, but this did not result in stronger offensive power due to attrition and to rising strength of the adversaries.

I'm sorry, my internet connection is acting up, so I may not be able to respond much longer, but does this not beg the question of why German offensive capabilities got reduced, and whether the same would have happened in Britain was knocked out?

And if the UK is out - basically, it becomes Canada - does this not reduce attrition on the Germans?

The thing is, the arguments that I'm hearing here essentially equate to this: You could take British industrial production against Germany out of the equation, as well as the fact that it was a very convenient place to strike Germany from, [edit and supply the USSR], and Germany would have still lost the war.

So the British must have been extraordinarily stupid. After all, why bother fighting the Germans at all? The Germans would have collapsed anyway.

How so?

 

[Rubidium]

In which Indian plane factories do the planes which get shot down by the Japanese get replaced? And Colombo is only 1700nm from Singapore. It would require co-ordination with the German Indian Ocean fleet, but against the extremely weak defences of the island, I don't think it's an issue.

American factories would do just fine (and would be more than happy to Lend-Lease airplanes for the purpose).

And what German Indian Ocean fleet? If the US is involved (which they absolutely will be in any war involving Japan, as the Japanese would never conduct a campaign against the British without first neutralizing American bases in the Philippines) no German fleet is going anywhere in the Atlantic outside of the bottom of the sea. Not that the American would need to get involved; the Royal Navy (or even the Royal Canadian Navy) would be more than capable of handling the job. The German surface fleet had been largely gutted during the invasion of Norway, and even if it is rebuilt it provides no particular advantage to the much larger, better equipped, better trained and better designed Japanese fleet.

Landing a force might be possible, but not supplying it, which is the problem. Japanese sealift capacity was stretched to the breaking point by the initial Japanese offensives, and the fuel situation was even worse (note that even if you handwave the Germans into somehow conquering more oil, it doesn't do the Japanese any good). They were largely unable to supply even the various outposts they already maintained. Adding another 1700nm of distance, out of range of air cover for most of it and easy pickings for any Allied submarines, would be a disaster. You'd end up with a bigger, even more disastrous version of Guadalcanal, as there wouldn't even be a safe way to withdraw the Japanese forces once everything turned into a disaster.

Which is why the Japanese Army, when approached about the feasibility of the project in 1942, after the stunning successes of the first 6 months and at a time when the Allies were believed to be on the run and cowering in fear of the Japanese fleet to the point that the entire Midway operation was conceived largely for the purpose of luring them out to fight, firmly rejected the possibility of invading Ceylon. There's no reason to believe they would change their mind in this scenario.