King edward are pro-germany and i think accept enter in the government.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Understatement of the year.
Edward VIII is incredibly pro-Nazi, not pro-German. He gave up the throne to marry a woman of low morality, who receives 17 carnations a day from Ribbentrop because that is how many times they slept together. Edward and Wallis go to Nazi Germany on their honeymoon, and are treated like royalty by Hitler and the German population when in Britain she is villanized.
The question is how did the report, written by Edward VIII as an acting Major General in the British Army that analyzes the defensive structure of the French forces during the Phony War and clearly identifies the area behind the Ardennes as the major weak point, get into German hands. Was it given to them by the King, or his wife?
Regardless, they both spend the war in Bermuda under a form of 'island arrest' under pain of court-martial for their little antics. And if Walter Schellenberg had been half an hour earlier, Edward could easily have sat out the war in his home in Vichy France and used as an anti-British asset and the new King assuming a Nazi victory going forward rather than sweating in Bermuda.
Edward had abdicated and removed himself from the succession. He was no longer king, and while he might have become involved in a puppet government, that doesn't give them legitimacy. George VI was the actual king, and both he and Churchill (as well as the rest of the government) could and would be evacuated if an actual invasion came. Even if we somehow handwave the Germans into being able to invade (which, again, they never came close to doing), they're not going to do it by sailing up the Thames and unloading their troops at Buckingham Palace. They'll be plenty of time for the government to evacuate north, and from there to Canada or wherever. Governments in World War II were only captured when they chose to be (so, Christian X stayed in Denmark because that seemed the proper role for a monarch in an occupied country to him, while his brother Haakon VII evacuated Norway to join the government in exile, because that seemed appropriate to him). None of the British colonies is going to recognize such a Mosleyist puppet government, anymore than the Dutch East Indies recognized the German occupation authorities in the Netherlands. So the Japanese aren't getting Malaysia/etc. without an invasion.
As noted, Australia, Canada and New Zealand will react to a British collapse by drawing closer to the US. They more or less did this after WWII anyway, as the Pacific War demonstrated that their security rested on American support more than the weaker British; this will just expedite the process. They certainly won't voluntarily become Japanese puppets, and will likely "take over" the defense of various British colonies in Asia (as those are a direct threat to Australia/New Zealand should they fall into Japanese hands).
Again, Japan's failure to conquer China had little to do with the lack of oil/rubber/technology (Japanese tanks were not particularly good, but they were vastly superior to anything the Chinese could field in any numbers) and everything to do with the fact that China is huge, has a much larger population than Japan, has terrible infrastructure making it extremely difficult to supply invading soldiers, and had been utterly alienated by previous Japanese actions. None of those factors is going to change.
Another flipside to consider: while Barbarossa will be somewhat larger without the need to garrison the Atlantic Wall as strongly against British invasion, the Soviets will also likely be better prepared. Both because an invasion of Britain likely takes some time (to plan, conduct, arrange the aftermath, and redeploy any forces involved afterwards), and because Stalin will be much more willing to believe intelligence reports the Germans are about to invade when it no longer seems that doing so would be the strategic lunacy of opening a second front before the first is completed.
The biggest difference (aside from the additional death and destruction) would be on the post-war. With the victory in WWII more obviously a US-USSR joint effort (rather than the British feeling they contributed an equal share), the UK will be much less politically influential (and certainly not in any position to try anything like the Suez Crisis). You probably see less ambivalent US support for decolonization (the need to placate European colonial powers is much less, while both the ideological imperatives and the need to counterbalance the USSR's influence among many of the supporters of independence remains). Likewise, because the US will have taken longer to invade Europe, the Soviet occupied part of Europe likely ends up significantly larger.
- 3
- 2
I think that the UK, with all those resources (from the UK, from France etc) I think that Portugal (which was "fascist") and Spain also join the axis, as well as the whole Middle East ... the axis does not he would have difficulty beating the USSR having all the oil he wanted and the rubber. As for accepting the government of Mosley ... it depends, I want to remember that shortly after the fall of France, the population of London took to the streets to ask for peace. If the UK falls, there is a huge chance that the population will take to the streets in the colonies to make peace because the war is lost. Churchill struggled and kept the country on its feet, when it was alone against the rest of the axis and only the military victories in North Africa gave hope, let alone with the "home islands" in German hand, there you go down to the square with "the war" written on it is over! ", in southern Italy (there are testimonies from my friends' grandparents, because I lost them too young) and in Italy in general, the" Anglo-Americans "were welcomed, not because they were" liberators "but because it meant one thing: "the war was over". Similar happened also to the Germans when they attacked the USSR. The Poles under Russian territory, and the Ukrainians, welcomed the Germans as "liberators from the communist yoke", I remind you that if all hope is lost, realistically you don't send your best youth to die (unlike the AI that also joins nations that are close to capitulating ...)
It's important to distinguish between the "colonies" like Malaysia, Nigeria or India, and the Dominions (Canada, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa). The former will have little say in whether the war continues or not (although their governments might decide to side with the puppet government, that's unlikely for reasons I've described earlier), as they are explicitly not self-governing. Now, the populace is not negligible (especially India, where political concerns will be a problem keeping support for the war effort, but that won't translate into support for the Axis), but it's also not the deciding factor (any more than it stopped the "Free French" from recruiting heavily in the French colonies, which provided the vast majority of their pre-1944 manpower). The Dominions are autonomous democracies (with varying degrees of representativeness) and will have to answer to their governments, but their governments (especially New Zealand and Australia, who would recognize a Japanese force in Southeast Asia as a direct threat) are going to be extremely unwilling to hand over former British colonies to the Axis. They also are not particularly affected by the war at the moment; Germany can't invade any of the Dominions, and while there have been some losses, they haven't been nearly as many as were to come (especially if the hypothetical invasion of the UK is pre-Greece). So while the fall of the Home Islands will be a major shock, there won't be a great deal of war weariness as yet (in comparison, Italy had been at war for 3 years by the time of the Allied invasion, had lost its African colonies and a significant portion of its army, and had been under Allied blockade since it entered).
The Germans invading the USSR is a different matter; they didn't welcome the Germans because they wanted the war to be over (by the time the Germans invaded, the war for them had barely begun), but because they hated the Soviets and hoped the Germans would be better (and when it turned out they weren't, you saw one of the largest and nastiest partisan campaigns in history).
It's certainly possible that the UK government (the legitimate government, not some Mosleyist puppet) decides to negotiate for peace after the fall of the Home Islands, in which case the rest of the British Empire probably agrees. Indeed, it's precisely the hope for this that will likely cause the Germans to be reluctant to actually go ahead and create a Mosleyist puppet government (as that would complicate negotiations). But that would require a peace that essentially leaves Britain intact and independent (without an occupation force or German access to British materials), not one that renders Britain a German puppet (or allows Japan to occupy Britain's Asian colonies). In which case Germany gets no additional resources, still has to guard against a British reentry into the war (which they almost certainly will do if the US joins, in which case the US can use them as a springboard into Europe as OTL) and facing a USSR that is still probably capable of surviving Barbarossa (they had essentially halted the initial German advance before Lend Lease really became significant), while Japan is still without oil, trapped in a quagmire in China, and on the road to Pearl Harbor.
If the government refuses to make peace (or the Germans insist on terms that the British can't accept), then Germany can continue to occupy the Home Islands, but the rest of the Empire remains hostile. And frankly, there's very little on the Home Islands proper that the Germans would want. Great Britain is not particularly blessed with natural resources (other than things like coal, which the Germans already have plenty of), and can't even feed itself (already a problem for the Germans). While the factories might be of use, the record of all sides in terms of using factories in occupied territories is not particularly good: the populace is hostile meaning you either have to import your own workforce or deal with uncooperative local workers (slow and inefficient at best, actively sabotaging at worst), the factories use different methods/equipment (and in the UK, a completely different system of measurement), and produce different types of equipment (which is a logistical complication for a German army that is already a logistical nightmare).
- 2
A shock, that's the point! Psychologically, I think that if the UK enters the war again, (after such a blow, I remember that the UK does not receive an invasion by the Normans!) It would find itself before the morning of the day after the entire population under west minister to lynch " the mad warmonger ". I want to remember Hitler's Nazism: he would never have allowed "yellow muzzles", however honorable and allied, to "rule over whites". One thing I notice, in this forum, and that in the axis, you never enter their "way of thinking", which I think is necessary, especially for What if.
England was actually invaded (and successfully!) many times since the Normans. Off the top of my head: William and Mary, Royalists during the Protectorate, multiple claimants during the Wars of the Roses, Empress Matilda during the Anarchy, plus plenty of failed invasions that nonetheless seized large parts of the British Isles before they were defeated (such as various Jacobite risings, or the invasion by the future Louis VIII of France that briefly installed him as king of England). The English just retroactively describe them as "liberations" or otherwise forget about them and move on.
But a brief war that ends in British humiliation (which is what an invasion would be) probably leaves the British more hungry for revenge than dedicated to peace at all costs. No one actually trusts Hitler, and American propaganda/pressure would be huge in the event they enter the war. The British would be reluctant to go alone again, but if the US joins and the USSR is still in the fight, it's likely the UK is up for another go (only this time with more attention paid to preventing whatever alien intervention allowed the Germans to somehow invade the first time), even if their contribution is mainly limited to basing and self-defense. Obviously if the Germans have a significant occupation force in Britain that doesn't happen, but the British government would never accept a scenario that involves a German occupation force in Britain anyway, so we're then back to the "Government in Exile" scenario, in which case there's no peace.
As for Hitler, he might be somewhat uncomfortable with allowing predominantly "white" dominions such as Australia or Canada under Japanese rule, but that's it (and he'd happily sacrifice them to keep Japan on-side against the US). He had no trouble ordering the Vichy French to surrender territory to Thailand to keep Japan happy. Not that he would have any say in the matter of Australia/New Zealand, as both of them have their own governments, and neither is going to bow down to a hypothetical London government that sells them out to the Japanese (there was already historically grumbling about Australian troops being called away to fight in Europe or Africa while the Japanese were threatening in the Pacific). And the US is both very determined to oppose Japanese expansion (sympathy for China was extremely high even among those opposed to US involvement in Europe), and more than capable of defeating Japan without British help (Germany too, although they'd probably need Soviet help for that unless we're going for the "nuke everything" option).
- 1
- 1
- 1
Wasn't there a discussion here some time ago in which a well presented case was made for the land connection from Middle Eastern oil sources to Mediterranean being entirely insufficient, making command of the sea in the Indian Ocean (as well as an armada of oil tankers) a necessity for Axis to secure the oil there (mainly from Abadan IIRC)? So even if entire Middle East goes Axis, they still get no oil because the established supply chain doesn't work for them.
It's also worth noting that a scenario based on successful Sealion and occupation of Britain is really starting to stretch on "what if". Successful Sealion is the poster boy of implausible "what if". It's the very scenario that coined the term ASB, or Alien Space Bats, otherwordly agents who's intervention is the only realistic way to bring a scenario about. In reality Germans never predicted that France would fall so quickly, and had no realistic way of carrying out a successful follow-up invasion of British Isles on any kind of reasonsble time-frame. The actual historical invasion plan was the second best period joke after Chamberlain's "Peace in our time".
It's also worth noting that a scenario based on successful Sealion and occupation of Britain is really starting to stretch on "what if". Successful Sealion is the poster boy of implausible "what if". It's the very scenario that coined the term ASB, or Alien Space Bats, otherwordly agents who's intervention is the only realistic way to bring a scenario about. In reality Germans never predicted that France would fall so quickly, and had no realistic way of carrying out a successful follow-up invasion of British Isles on any kind of reasonsble time-frame. The actual historical invasion plan was the second best period joke after Chamberlain's "Peace in our time".
Last edited:
- 1
@Antediluvian Monster - I agree with what you say, but my 'imp of the perverse' requires me to say that, immediately after Dunkirk, there was great concern in Britain that Germany would launch a 'reverse Dunkirk'. I do not believe it could possibly have succeeded; the RN and RAF would do whatever was necessary to stop, slow and hinder a German invasion. I just mention that, at least for a short while, Britons did have concerns. I do not think Germany actually could have 'jumped the ditch' at any time and I think it would have been a horrific disaster if they had tried. But... Britain did worry about it, seriously, at least for a while.
I quite agree that a German invasion of the oil-producing Middle East is a fantasy - and perhaps a less-possible one than SeaLion, if that is possible. If the Home islands are occupied or under serious and immediate threat, then perhaps I can see Rommel getting through to Suez. But Suez to Iraq is an immense distance, over difficult terrain, with no infrastructure worth mentioning and with Britain quite capable of blowing up the wells and refineries if somehow the Germans should get close.
WW2 was a war of logistics and oil. Germany, Japan and Italy lacked oil and were middling good to poor at logistics. Britain, the US and USSR all had oil and 2 of the 3 were outstanding at logistics (I rate the USSR as only middling there). Ready oil supplies and excellent logistics gave the Allies an enormous force-multiplier. The logistical challenge of driving a mechanized army across Egypt, Jordan, Syria and to the oil-fields of Iraq was probably beyond German and Italian capability... perhaps beyond Allied capability, to be honest.
And if the Germans had made it, they'd see burning oil wells and no working pipeline to the West, so the whole expedition would be pointless. If somehow Alien Intervention kept the wells from being destroyed, the Axis navies certainly could not convoy tankers (that they did not have) past a hostile South Africa, Nigeria and Sierra Leone - to mention just three points - while fighting off every remaining Royal Navy warship.
Germany could only win the war by seizing large amounts oil and moving it to Germany - but they could only get usable amounts of oil if they won the war and restored production and built infrastructure. It was an insoluble dilemma. So, please, no fantasies of Rommel dashing across the Middle East to grab the Iraqi oil.
Honestly, the best chance I see for an Axis victory in Europe is for the Libyan oil fields to somehow be discovered and exploited in the 1930s.
I quite agree that a German invasion of the oil-producing Middle East is a fantasy - and perhaps a less-possible one than SeaLion, if that is possible. If the Home islands are occupied or under serious and immediate threat, then perhaps I can see Rommel getting through to Suez. But Suez to Iraq is an immense distance, over difficult terrain, with no infrastructure worth mentioning and with Britain quite capable of blowing up the wells and refineries if somehow the Germans should get close.
WW2 was a war of logistics and oil. Germany, Japan and Italy lacked oil and were middling good to poor at logistics. Britain, the US and USSR all had oil and 2 of the 3 were outstanding at logistics (I rate the USSR as only middling there). Ready oil supplies and excellent logistics gave the Allies an enormous force-multiplier. The logistical challenge of driving a mechanized army across Egypt, Jordan, Syria and to the oil-fields of Iraq was probably beyond German and Italian capability... perhaps beyond Allied capability, to be honest.
And if the Germans had made it, they'd see burning oil wells and no working pipeline to the West, so the whole expedition would be pointless. If somehow Alien Intervention kept the wells from being destroyed, the Axis navies certainly could not convoy tankers (that they did not have) past a hostile South Africa, Nigeria and Sierra Leone - to mention just three points - while fighting off every remaining Royal Navy warship.
Germany could only win the war by seizing large amounts oil and moving it to Germany - but they could only get usable amounts of oil if they won the war and restored production and built infrastructure. It was an insoluble dilemma. So, please, no fantasies of Rommel dashing across the Middle East to grab the Iraqi oil.
Honestly, the best chance I see for an Axis victory in Europe is for the Libyan oil fields to somehow be discovered and exploited in the 1930s.
...or North Sea oil to be discovered, and tapped by a new generation of German submersible oil derricks. Forget the Type XXI, these would bring that priceless oil back to the Fatherland, a couple thousand gallons at a time, and change the balance of the war in no time.
Ok let's forget that Germany had absolutely no plan about an invasion... but can they force the Royal Navy/RAF for a pyrrhic victory? German invasipn thwarted but the losses made clear that the British Empire is gone?
@Kovax @bz249 - well, yes, I know Libyan oil wasn't discovered until 1956. I assume it didn't happen because the technology wasn't there though I don't really know why. I do know they couldn't have discovered or exploited the North Sea fields because the technology wasn't there. I was just making the point that Germany wasn't going to win without oil and that, barring the fantastic or ridiculous, there wasn't any oil they could get at and transport home.
No... The Kriegsmarine wasn't able to stand up to the Royal Navy in a fair fight and wasn't going to be allowed to have an unfair one. To quote Admiral Cunningham, "it takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition." And if the Royal Navy said, 'they will not pass' then they were d&$%ed well not going to pass... And there just wasn't that much left of the German Navy after the Norway campaign.
The Luftwaffe was not trained (or, really, equipped) for naval attack, and attacking ships does require special techniques and practice - especially so when attacking destroyers, which are fast, manueverable and very hard to hit. The Royal Navy would not like to lose a dozen cruisers and two dozen destroyers, but if that was the price of stopping an invasion they could and would pay it... twice over, and keep coming. And there was simply no way to push an invasion across the channel without sufficient control of the sea by naval and air forces. And the Royal Navy is large - not just compared to the German Navy but to anyone. Some hard choices would have had to be made - the Med temporarily evacuated - but the Royal Navy could throw in hundreds of warships if needed, and the Luftwaffe is not skilled or numerous enough to break them.
At best, it would be a humiliating defeat like Dieppe; if attempted on the scale the German Army wanted it could have seriously crippled German military strength and (I think) prevented Barbarossa for a year or more. Given British skill at PR and propaganda, any German defeat would be trumpeted to the skies - especially so coming soon after Dunkirk. If anything, some heroic victories would strengthen British resolve and make the Dominions and colonies more sure they were on the winning side. At the very least, a drowned or stranded SeaLion would have convinced the US that Britain could and would fight, and that would have made Marshall and the US Chiefs of Staff more willing to pass equipment on to Britain instead of holding onto it against a British collapse.
No... The Kriegsmarine wasn't able to stand up to the Royal Navy in a fair fight and wasn't going to be allowed to have an unfair one. To quote Admiral Cunningham, "it takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition." And if the Royal Navy said, 'they will not pass' then they were d&$%ed well not going to pass... And there just wasn't that much left of the German Navy after the Norway campaign.
The Luftwaffe was not trained (or, really, equipped) for naval attack, and attacking ships does require special techniques and practice - especially so when attacking destroyers, which are fast, manueverable and very hard to hit. The Royal Navy would not like to lose a dozen cruisers and two dozen destroyers, but if that was the price of stopping an invasion they could and would pay it... twice over, and keep coming. And there was simply no way to push an invasion across the channel without sufficient control of the sea by naval and air forces. And the Royal Navy is large - not just compared to the German Navy but to anyone. Some hard choices would have had to be made - the Med temporarily evacuated - but the Royal Navy could throw in hundreds of warships if needed, and the Luftwaffe is not skilled or numerous enough to break them.
At best, it would be a humiliating defeat like Dieppe; if attempted on the scale the German Army wanted it could have seriously crippled German military strength and (I think) prevented Barbarossa for a year or more. Given British skill at PR and propaganda, any German defeat would be trumpeted to the skies - especially so coming soon after Dunkirk. If anything, some heroic victories would strengthen British resolve and make the Dominions and colonies more sure they were on the winning side. At the very least, a drowned or stranded SeaLion would have convinced the US that Britain could and would fight, and that would have made Marshall and the US Chiefs of Staff more willing to pass equipment on to Britain instead of holding onto it against a British collapse.
- 2
Yes but in their mentality if france capitulate the allies surrender,i think in ww1 this happen if german succefflu shifflen (can fail only because retire troops at the end transfer to russia for not wait to arrive to paris,remember,german arrive 10 km soon to paris.)
You would have to define 'win' for me to comment any further. Roll over Poland? Sure - but it brings in the western allies. Defeat France? They did, but the war did not stop. Defeat Britain? Didn't do it and could not do it with the force mix they had or could reasonably create. Defeat the Soviet Union? Every military expert thought they would, but the Axis did not really ever come close. They bruised the Bear and broke some ribs but they did not kill him. Defeat the United States? Any glance at the productive capacity of the US would tell you that the only way to beat the US was not to fight them.
So - no, the Axis could not and did not militarily defeat the various Allies once the Soviet Union and United States were involved. IF they could have gotten a 'peace-out' from Britain after Dunkirk they would still have had a long, grinding war with the Soviet Union later - regardless of who started it - which they would still very likely have lost in the end. And they would still have needed massive amounts of oil that they did not have and could not get except from trade, and ironically their easiest trading partners for oil were the Soviets, the British and the United States.
So - no, barring miraculous stupidity from British leadership in making peace followed by miraculous stupidity from Stalin even greater than he actually showed... no, the Axis cannot win. They can run riot in the short term but they cannot force Britain, the Soviet Union or the United States to deal.
The Germans thought the Soviets would fold as the Russians had in the last year of WW1, true. They didn't collect much reliable data on what the Red Army had, or what arms the Soviets could produce. They were amazed when the Soviets didn't fold in 1941 and recognized by the end of 1942 that, barring a miracle, they were going to lose. So please don't say the Axis thought they were going to win. If they did in 1941, they knew better in a year.
So - no, the Axis could not and did not militarily defeat the various Allies once the Soviet Union and United States were involved. IF they could have gotten a 'peace-out' from Britain after Dunkirk they would still have had a long, grinding war with the Soviet Union later - regardless of who started it - which they would still very likely have lost in the end. And they would still have needed massive amounts of oil that they did not have and could not get except from trade, and ironically their easiest trading partners for oil were the Soviets, the British and the United States.
So - no, barring miraculous stupidity from British leadership in making peace followed by miraculous stupidity from Stalin even greater than he actually showed... no, the Axis cannot win. They can run riot in the short term but they cannot force Britain, the Soviet Union or the United States to deal.
The Germans thought the Soviets would fold as the Russians had in the last year of WW1, true. They didn't collect much reliable data on what the Red Army had, or what arms the Soviets could produce. They were amazed when the Soviets didn't fold in 1941 and recognized by the end of 1942 that, barring a miracle, they were going to lose. So please don't say the Axis thought they were going to win. If they did in 1941, they knew better in a year.
- 2
Depends...
Demographics of Russia - Wikipedia
I guess there was not a large pool of military aged men with 4 limbs in Russia by 1946... so an Axis vs Soviet Union match is winnable for the Axis on an attritional basis.
They will not be in a great shape after that, but they can bleed out the Soviet Union if there is a limited Western involvement.
- 2
in WW1 if german enter in paris UK and France make separate pace... the same mentality remain in WW2...
I’m not so sure this is a given. Like even if Germany took Paris with their last-ditch 1918 offensive, France would quite possibly stay in the war with all the American men and supplies flooding into the country and an imminent hundred days campaign-style counter-attack.
No...i say in 1914...schifflen fail because german move troops from the west front to est front before paris fall