Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

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

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Kenttäharmaa said:
Ah yes, a Europe that would have remained white, Eurocentric and morally traditional. Such a long night indeed. Heavens forbid, we might even be watching some German films instead of American ones. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Living under a brutal dictatorship that happily murders everyone who doesn't fit in their narrative of Aryan supremacy is nightmarish indeed.
 
Almost as bad as living in a society built on lies and con artistry surrounded by brainwashed pinko snowflake cowards who applaud the impending destruction of their ancestors civilization because it is popular and safe to do so.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Please tell me what lies and 'con artistry' you mean. I'll ignore the incoherent, though certainly ironic rambling that constitutes the rest of your post.
 
Andre Bolkonsky said:
I am uncertain Russia could overrun a united and industrialized Western Europe without Britain to keep the Murmansk/Archangel route viable. Without Western material - especially trucks, radios and Spam - Russia will not win. It seems to me that Germany would take the logical step and reorganize during '41 and '42. Let I.G. Farben and Krupps sort out the industrial logistics and begin sucking fuel out of the Middle East. Heydrich and Mueller would work out internal security because controlling Britain will be a nightmare for the Germans. RSHA will plunder Europe and turn the money over to the Party Chairman, Martin Bormann, who would control Europe through an iron control of the banking system. And Goebbels will tell the world how the new Europe basks in this new era of peace while showing pictures of conquered peoples casting laurels and flowers at the feet of Germans. Meanwhile, the Wehrmacht would arm and train for an eventual Push to the East while fortifying the coastlines. The Luftwaffe would get buff on a steady supply of aviation fuel. The Kreigsmarine would prepare to harass American shipping at the drop of a hat. And Haushoffer's AO would continue creating fifth columnists and strong Nazi enclaves for future expansion at an alarming rate. Germany crosses the border of Russia the moment the rasputista ends during the summer of '43 highly mechanized and well provisioned. Good luck, Stalin. You'll need it.

As you said, all speculation of course, but that is how I see it IF Britain fell.
Click to expand...

Or industrialised Europe starves and collapses due to the economic mismanagement of the Nazis. Europe was already a significant net importer of food (particularly when European Russia is excluded) even before the Nazis de-mechanised French agriculture. The plunder and steal methods of the Germans also destroyed the agricultural productivity of the Ukraine in OTL and I can see no reason for this to change.

Hence, almost regardless of the outcome of the war against Britain, Europe was facing mass starvation and economic collapse (at least outside Germany), meaning that Germany would never have much more than the German economy to fight the Soviet Union. Whether this economy, when focused exclusively on the Soviet Union, is sufficient to win the war is an open question.

Of course if the Germans are able to import goods from the rest of the world (i.e. not British blockade and no American hostile neutrality) then this could change. However, even in this best case scenario the Germans would have to divert manufacturing capacity to goods for export to pay for increased imports as by about 1938 the Germans had already run out of cash and credit. The scenario where Britain collapses so badly that it agrees to effectively subsidise the German economy to the extent that it can actually continue to function by importing the extra resources needed, is so advantageous that it is entering alien space bat territory.

So, could Germany beat the Soviet Union without external support for the Soviet Union? If the Germans attempt a Barbarossa style operation they will likely produce the same result - there is simply not enough supply throughput to sustain extended mechanised operations across a front of that size. However, if the victory against Britain takes the pressure off the German leadership, and they plan a multi-stage campaign designed to run over several years, then it seems more likely that they can cause the Soviet Union to collapse.
 
Kenttäharmaa said:
Once the war would have been won and living space in the East attained, other functions in society would have become increasingly relevant. I'm sure the glorification of militarism wouldn't have disappeared, but Germany would have had its hands full for decades, if not centuries in digesting and developing her newly acquired territories.
Click to expand...

By digesting and developing, I assume you mean murdering and raping the local population and then stealing their sandwiches?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
infractions handed out, posts deleted, Kenttharama banned from the thread for continual derail
 
I'd say if the Alien Space Bat Shipyard Company built enough landing craft for the Germans and they did everything right and took Britain I think the US would come to an accommodation with the 3rd Reich and fight it's own war against Japan, while Germany and the USSR beat on eachother till the Soviets collapse, then you have the Fatherland scenario with an endless insurgency in the east. Germany economically collapses at some point when the plunder runs out and it's either global nuclear war or detente after that.
 
Baron Jukaga said:
I'd say if the Alien Space Bat Shipyard Company built enough landing craft for the Germans and they did everything right and took Britain I think the US would come to an accommodation with the 3rd Reich and fight it's own war against Japan, while Germany and the USSR beat on eachother till the Soviets collapse, then you have the Fatherland scenario with an endless insurgency in the east. Germany economically collapses at some point when the plunder runs out and it's either global nuclear war or detente after that.
Click to expand...

Go back to your sci-fi threads. There were not "alien companies" on the planet of Earth in the 1930s or 1940s.
 
Gurkhal said:
Go back to your sci-fi threads. There were not "alien companies" on the planet of Earth in the 1930s or 1940s.
Click to expand...
'Alien Space Bats' is a colloquial way of saying that you alter things beyond what is reasonable or realistic.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It doesn't really matter if Germany gets the whole of Europe in their hands, at the end of the day the bottleneck is supply and logistics on the eastern front. A bigger army there wouldn't help very much.
 
Spelaren said:
It doesn't really matter if Germany gets the whole of Europe in their hands, at the end of the day the bottleneck is supply and logistics on the eastern front. A bigger army there wouldn't help very much.
Click to expand...
Supply and logistics can be overcome in time, and both Germany and the Soviet Union were pushing their economies and populations to the breaking point. Without a direct threat in the West, the German army in the East could afford to dig in and basically take a year to build up the infrastructure, in order to renew the offensive the following spring, rather than make the frantic, costly, and unsuccessful efforts it did at Kursk, Moscow, Stalingrad, and so on. The end result would likely depend more on whether or not the German economy at home collapsed before the Soviets' did, rather than on direct military success. Food and money were still going to be major problems for Germany.
 
Kovax said:
Supply and logistics can be overcome in time, and both Germany and the Soviet Union were pushing their economies and populations to the breaking point. Without a direct threat in the West, the German army in the East could afford to dig in and basically take a year to build up the infrastructure, in order to renew the offensive the following spring, rather than make the frantic, costly, and unsuccessful efforts it did at Kursk, Moscow, Stalingrad, and so on. The end result would likely depend more on whether or not the German economy at home collapsed before the Soviets' did, rather than on direct military success. Food and money were still going to be major problems for Germany.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#/media/File:Russia_Sex_by_Age_19460101.png

This is how the Russian population pyramid looked like in 1946 (ok it is Russia and not the Soviet Union, but as of 1942 Ukraine and Belarus is under German occupation). It is not that far away from reaching the point where you need women in the military to fill the ranks. A bit more organized German resistance, a bit less territory liberated (and population to be conscripted) and N^2 will do the trick.
IRL the Germans needed to win fast to have a chance in the West. Take the pressure away and they have a decent chance for at least a stalemate... if war happens at all (yes Lebensraum, and ideological difference and whatever... Germany winning in the West can easily afford to wait till the next rearmament cycle or just consolidate its holdings in Poland).
 
Jopa79 said:
1940. If the alternative occurs - Germany wins the Battle of Britain and occupies the British Isles during operation Sea Lion. How would the US intervention happen in the European theater in the WWII, or would it happen at all?
Click to expand...

Lol no. Germans had no means to occupy Britain by just winning an air war. As long as the Royal Navy is dominating the waters, the Germans have no chance to occupy Britain.

The US would use either Ireland or still Britain. The UK would be however, economically screwed.
 
I'm currently reading 'Partners in Command' about the interaction of Marshall and Eisenhower. The US was very concerned that Britain would not hold - US generals predicted defeat and British military leaders were very concerned that if Dunkirk could be done then Germany could pull a Dunkirk in reverse. The difference, of course, was that Germany did not have a navy in the Channel and Britain did.

Personally I doubt the premise - the Luftwaffe would have had to have far better intelligence and planning, and been far luckier, to shut down both the RAF and the RN. But that's the premise: Britain falls.

Here's what I think likely: most of all of the royal family and government relocate to Canada. A puppet government is set up in Britain and it demands control of the Royal Navy and the colonial possessions. They get none of it but Ireland is heavily pressured to join the Axis (no idea if that succeeds or if, like Spain, Ireland cavils).

The US sends military equipment to the Philippines instead of Britain and takes a slightly less hostile tone with Japan (probably not including an oil embargo since that was in error anyway). If Japan strike it might target British (Burma) and Dutch (Java/Sumatra) oil production and not the US, or it might go all-in as it di historically. If so it gets beaten worse and quicker - there is no 'Europe First' strategy and no pressing reason for Germany to declare war on the US.

Germany turns on the Soviet Union and, with Europe united behind it and any British oil supplies added in, might have a good shot at winning. Even if the US gets into a war with Germany there is no way to fight convoys from New York to Murmansk, so subtract all of that US fuel, trucks, radios and the like. At worst, the Soviets cut a 1917-style deal, give up everything through the Ukraine and promise oil in tribute. If the Soviets go down, the US cannot win a war against Germany. North African operations would not be enough; with the British Isles under occupation, Egypt falls and a revolution might succeed in Iraq.

If Germany gets a solid oil supply (from a beaten Soviet Union or Iraq) then WW2 is over and Germany wins a unified Europe. With years of quiet to prepare and no Eastern Front, no American invasion of Britain or North Africa will succeed. If Japan pushes the US too hard then Japan goes down. The fate of China rests on whether or not someone can clean out the corrupt mess of the Nationals (unlikely).

So... by 1944, Germany rules Europe except for tributary states like Spain and Sweden. Japan is either cautious with the US or dead, China is communist, the Soviet Union is a rump (possibly fighting the Japanese over Vladivostok) and the North/South America block stands alone.


The more likely point of departure, I think, is for Halifax to come to power instead of Churchill and for Britain to cut a deal with Hitler after the fall of France. Crushing the RAF would be incredibly hard for the Luftwaffe to do, and if they could it would require a long campaign with better planning, intelligence and command. Also smashing the RN and forcing it out of the Channel while an invasion was on-going... I strongly doubt it; the Navy frankly had better leadership than the Army and would just keep coming no matter the losses. Doesn't take much naval force to inflict disasters on an amphibious invasion.
 
Germany cannot wait to strike at the Soviet Union - it cannot supply its fuel needs from coal conversion and Romanian fields. It must either trade for oil (making the USSR stronger) or it must conquer it. So there is no way to put off Barbarossa for long, or to go part-way into Russia and wait a year on the defensive to regroup and build infrastructure. Standing on the defensive still means a lot of fuel is consumed - more than can be produced, and less then available for the next offensive. Occupying Britain might help a little by providing some oil (IDK what was on-hand in Britain but I'd think some-not-much and certainly not enough to fuel Barbarossa).

I agree that Europe was facing serious economic collapse as food and fuel become short and everything of value is hauled back to Germany.

I can't see how Germany solves her fuel crisis - short of getting the oil-producing states to trade for it on favorable terms.
 
With a few more years of Purges USSR would have even worse situation with officers.

On paper, USSR could defeat Nazis in 1941 alone. But reality had a pretty bad situation with commanders, officers, a lot of mismanagement. Would another bunch of tank brigades save USSR? No, it would be far worse for them if Nazis could come into war better prepared. Even attacking Nazis first would become a massive failure like the war was in 1941. Maybe worse since they would have to concentrate their numbers on border, making them more detestable.
 
Depends, if Germany sees the Soviet invasion coming and the Soviets think they have achieved surprise it could get really ugly.
 
Director said:
Here's what I think likely: most of all of the royal family and government relocate to Canada. A puppet government is set up in Britain and it demands control of the Royal Navy and the colonial possessions. They get none of it but Ireland is heavily pressured to join the Axis (no idea if that succeeds or if, like Spain, Ireland cavils).
Click to expand...

You overlook the elephant in the room, Edward VIII and the . . . woman . . . to whom he was married who made a habit out of seducing half the planet - the Aryan half, of course. The Duke of Windsor provides your ready made Pro-Nazi British monarch, and his pro-Nazi wife who quite probably handed the French defense plans over the Germans in the first place.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back