Yet another WW2 could Germany have won if... thread

[BBBD316]

Obviously the Germans really had little chance to win the war, for all the economic reasons that have been discussed before.

However after the Fall of France to many the German war machine seemed unstoppable. English morale would have been at its lowest ebb. So instead of the ruinous Battle of Britain, what if the Germans had used all their available paratroopers to capture the air bases in Cornwall.

A night attack and once the field had been captured the transport planes are used to bring in supplies and reinforcements. The Germans don’t have to win the entire country but just do enough to break British resolve.

Taking this part of the island means a small front but hinders the Royal Navy and would allow German AirPower to operate freely but with less risk.

Heck you could manage para jumps to other parts of the island. Take out Belfast and get Ireland on side, perhaps this brings Spain and Portugal into the Axis.

Even under pressure it may force enough people to give up and create an unlikely win.

Or am I dreaming?

 

[Sanny]

Only with a massive paratroop drop during night-time (an unproven German doctrine until Crete which was in daytime if I'm correct?) would you achieve victory on land in Britain. But without doing enough damage to the Royal Navy, Germany had no chance. You can actually simulate this in Hearts of Iron IV. On history side of things the British were actually expecting a paratroop drop or a naval invasion, as they had built secret 'underground' bunkers and shadow factories in the countryside to continue the war in an occupied Britain. Montgomery actually oversaw some of this building up between Dunkirk and North Africa campaign.

You've also forgot to mention about the Germans letting the BEF escape at Dunkirk was a massive strategical mistake, it's known that Hitler commanded for them to be spared as a warning to Britain in order to achieve an alliance (following this strategy is the only way Germany could have overcome Britain and have a better chance of winning the war). After all, some at the start of the war thought this would be a quick and actionless affair hence the "phoney war" name it was given after the lengthy period of time between invasion of Poland and the invasion of France without much going on.

Also important to note that the German army were doing drills for a naval invasion immediately after Dunkirk, and had the landing craft ready. The whole purpose of the Battle of Britain was to destroy the airfields, radar stations and coastal guns so they couldn't harm the landing craft. As for the Royal Navy interfering? I have no idea, my naval history knowledge is weak. I'm not sure what the Germans had planned in that regard. Mind you it doesn't take long to cross the channel, but to set up in any sort of supply would mean the German Navy would have to stay there for a long period of time (like Allies ships in D-Day).

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Without complete and total control of the air, the paratroopers would be shredded upon landing, and resupply and reinforcement would be highly problematic.

IF Hitler's ego had allowed the Prussian generals to finish off the British rather than allowing them to escape because he entrusted the job to the hero of the party, Goering, Britian has almost no army in England . . . .

IF Goering had won the Battle of Britain, and established air superiority, Germany could unleash a substantial and potent tactical air wing to cause any number of problems for the British and their Fleet when it came within range.

Given these circumstances, what you suggest is very possible, and highly probable.

With the Dunkirk sea lift, and Fighter Command winning the Battle of Britain; Germany does not have the assets required to hold off the British fleet and effect an invasion with sufficient supply to succeed.

 

[bz249]

Do we have IRL Germans who did not plan beyond the Low Countries (and that planning started in Automn 1939!) and not even realised that Britain is their No1 enemy? Like a snowball in hell chance... had they started to wargame such things in 1935 allocated resources whatever, then who knows. They might come up with a workable solution or they might scrapped it as impossible.

 

[thedarkendstar]

Honestly I dont see Britain capitulating I could see a possible capture of the British army at Dunkirk and using it for a favorable peace deal with the allies .

Imagine saving hundreds of thousands of British troops without giving up much in return (just stuff France Benelux and Polish stuff)

If Britain did reject such an offer imagine what it would do to the morale of the British nation knowing they could have their boys home.

I don't know what a peace under this circumstance would look like Hitler's reputation for upholding agreements was nonexistent at this point.

 

[Yakman]

If the British army is destroyed at Dunkirk, then it's possible that germany wins the war then and there. fortunately, they escaped.

after that, the british carried out the war with distinct advantages on land, sea, and air. but any german invasion of the uk, even with the most catastrophic Dunkirk scenario imaginable, was doomed to failure.

 

[thedarkendstar]

If the British army is destroyed at Dunkirk, then it's possible that germany wins the war then and there. fortunately, they escaped.

after that, the british carried out the war with distinct advantages on land, sea, and air. but any german invasion of the uk, even with the most catastrophic Dunkirk scenario imaginable, was doomed to failure.

That's why I don't see defeat of the UK a peace but using the captured army of Dunkirk as leverage for peace seems like a possibility.

 

[keynes2.0]

You've also forgot to mention about the Germans letting the BEF escape at Dunkirk was a massive strategical mistake, it's known that Hitler commanded for them to be spared

This trope just won't die...

Real life isn't like HOI4 where an entire division reaches the province the moment you reach the movement time. The forward elements of a few panzer divisions launching an attack on a position defended by several of the best allied divisions and battleship support would not have forced the surrender of the Dunkirk pocket.

Taking this part of the island means a small front but hinders the Royal Navy and would allow German AirPower to operate freely but with less risk.

So what, you are going to air supply a forward operating base through hostile airpower before you have even finished capturing France? And putting a couple dozen aircraft there will scare away the royal navy? Even though you dont even have torpedo bombers? I wonder how many stukas dropping 250 pound bombs it would take to break through the 5 inch deck armor protecting the citadel of a Revenge class battleship (the oldest ones the Brits would have on hand.)

Or are you going to wait and then drop paratroopers without artillery onto an island where the british have several divisions defending it and quite a few tanks?

 

[D Inqu]

Capturing any singnificant part of Britain with paratroopers is in the realm of fiction. The most the Germans could realistically drop and supply in Summer 1940 is a few regiments. Unlike Crete, no naval support whatsoever and strongly contested air.

 

[Rich Oliver]

You've also forgot to mention about the Germans letting the BEF escape at Dunkirk was a massive strategical mistake,

How was that a mistake? They left behind all their equipment, the British had every intention of returning them to France, or keeping them as a reserve so as they could send other divisions in their place back to France, with yet more equipment. If there was any mistake in not destroying more of the British Army it was not focusing more on their destruction after the 4th June not before it. Even if we accept that the reduction of the British Army was the primary goal, a questionable assumption, then Germany should have struck West along the coast, while holding a blocking position in front of Paris.

Hitler's great problem was not getting military victories, but knowing how to use them. If he'd allowed self government in the bulk of Metropolitan France, Belgium, Holland Denmark and Norway, he could have got far greater economic benefit from his victories, required far less garrison forces and could have used those governments to pressure Britain to come to the peace table, end the blockade and allow the resumption of world trade. Until America entered the war there was never a shortage of people, in other European countries looking to compromise and willing to collaborate with Germany even in Britain.

If Hitler wanted to be ruler of half the world, he needed to make a much better job of concealing his goal, rather than going out of his way to confirm the predictions of his most intransigent opponents.

 

[yerm]

Taking any kind of staging position such as Cornwall is foolish because it is wholly impossible to supply a foray into the isles long term. Better off just dropping straight on London...

Also, Dunkirk COULD have been taken at enough cost. "Letting" them escape was not the strategic blunder, but, if the goal is a quick UK knockout maybe the absurd cost of cracking that nut might be worth it? Really though it was going to either be a miraculous escape morale boost, or a heroic last stand that bled Germany morale boost. There was no easy win for Hitler there.

I have to agree with others that Hitler not being Hitler was their way to win; conquest of Britain was impossible. Give vichy back its 1913 borders, withdrawal from Netherlands and Belgium, etc. My idea would be a gradual but public withdrawal plan that includes military staying for x time if and only if Germany is still at war with Britain. When the diplomatic position is "see, we are leaving, and the rest will leave too when London stops warmongering" it creates a much better negotiating point than "Hitler never keeps his word and Germany runs things" by a landslide. The added bonus of autonomous versus occupied is that Allied bombing becomes a heinous act.

TLDR Paradrop forward base will never work, not Cornwall, not anywhere. Germany can totally win, if Hitler isn't literally Hitler.

 

[fredinno]

The German Advance on the Dunkirk Pocket was slowed because the infantrymen had to catch up to the tanks to actually cause enough damage to the stationed troops there to force them to surrender.

But honestly, the best way to force Britain to surrender is either not being Hitler- or War Exhaustion. Simply drag it on until the British give up, and kick Churchill from office.

 

[BBBD316]

The paratroopers would only need to take and hold the air base at St. Eval.

The luftwaffe only need to hold superiority here and would be able to refuel and actually engage the RAF. The front would be very short at this point and harder for the brits to penetrate and retake.

The BEF was not exactly in good morale on its return.

 

[Eusebio]

The absolute best case scenario:
1) Somehow magic 10-15000 paratroopers over the channel without first winning the "Battle of Britain" (the whole point of which was to obtain control of the skies and make an air landing possible).
2) Have no way to resupply them.
3) ???
4) Lose hundreds of aircraft and an entire division of men in this quixotic scheme.
5) After its victory Britain feels emboldened and any possibility of a post-Dunkirk peace is lost.

 

[keynes2.0]

and would be able to refuel

And what will they do if the manager at the petrol station refuses to sell them any petrol without ration coupons?

 

[Sanny]

How was that a mistake? They left behind all their equipment

They destroyed most of the equipment they had, wrecked vehicle engines and shot their horses also, they had the intention to not let it fall into German hands.

As I said, Hitler was looking for a Peace deal with Britain, whilst his generals were looking to smash what was left of the mostly battered British at Dunkirk. Hitler muddled with military strategy all the way through WW2 you cannot deny that, Russia... Italy... then later France... he should have left strategy to his Generals. The idea to force a surrender or at least buy some time for Germany, would have been to smash through the perimeter at Dunkirk and trap them on the beach and capture them instead of just making them target practice for the Luftwaffe (as in history). You destroy your enemy at their weakest, not let them go to fight another day. Those saying Britain wouldn't have capitulated... I believe the BEF was pretty much the entire "British Army" in Western Europe at the time, Britain was under prepared for a war and the divisions weren't fully filled out with enough men and proper equipment to match the Wehrmacht. Losing the entire BEF may have called for Peace talks at home but that's hard to say.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

And what will they do if the manager at the petrol station refuses to sell them any petrol without ration coupons?

Black Market.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

As I said, Hitler was looking for a Peace deal with Britain

Yes.

Adolph was looking to make common cause with the UK (Edward and his . . . woman . . . were both big supporters) and the US (George Bush's father was tried for treason by the Senate) to materially support Germany in a full scale war against the Soviet Union. Hitler had plenty of supporters among the corporate elite in both nations.

Fortunately, the vast majority of the population of those two nations were firmly opposed to the idea in any way, shape, form or fashion.

 

[keynes2.0]

As I said, Hitler was looking for a Peace deal with Britain

-The order did not originate with Hitler, he was in fact the reason it was reversed so quickly
-There are no statements at the time that was the intention, Hitler only said that much later on when he was in the delusional phase of saying that Britain needed to help Germany against the Soviets
-Germany didn't have the ability to overrun the pocket in the first place
-Publicly boasting of your intention to slaughter people to the man with bombing from the air is not a common method of peace overtures
-AFAIK no serious history has advanced this thesis in decades

The idea is from top to bottom nonsensical and people really need to stop repeating this bad, bad history. It is an idea that rests entirely on the silly pop-culture notion that Germany was this amazing fighting force lightyears ahead of it's time. There are no conspiracy theories about why the allies took so long to capture the Tunisian pocket or the Germans took so long to capture Crimea. The whole thing is nonsense that is only treated as credible because it's repeated so much. Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true, it just makes it repeated.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

-The order did not originate with Hitler, he was in fact the reason it was reversed so quickly

All quotations taken from BH Liddel-Hart's History of the Second World War


'The Panzer leaders were told to hold their forces back behind the line of the canal. They bombarded their superiors with urgent queries and protests, but were told that it was 'the Fuhrer's personal order'
p 75

Quotation taken from Halder's diary:
'The left wing, consisting of armored and motorized forces, which has no enemy before it, will thus be stopped in its tracks upon direct orders of the Fuhrer: Finishing off the encircled enemy is to be left to the Luftwaffe'
p 81

Quote by General Warlimont:
'The other reason for the halt order was that Goering appeared to reassure the Fuhrer that the air force would be able to complete the encirclement by closing the sea side of the pocket from the air.
p 82

Quote by General Guderian:
'I think it is the vanity of Goering that caused that fateful decision of Hitler's'
p 82