PDA

View Full Version : so if germans won bob...



thefruitbat
07-17-2007, 05:18 PM
Just a curious question really, i was reading another thread about bob, where someone pointed out that USSR, was the real goal. I am wondering what barbarossa would have been like if the Germans had won bob, and successfully pacified Britain in 1940.

No thorn in their side, probally no USA involved in europe, what would those differences have made? Would it of been enough to capture moscow '41. Stalin always maintained that he would stay(although to say i am sceptial about this, is to say the least).

Basicaly, how much of a difference, do you think having the UK out of the war would of made on the German invasion of the USSR?

Just a curious hypothetical,

cheers fruitbat

thefruitbat
07-17-2007, 05:18 PM
Just a curious question really, i was reading another thread about bob, where someone pointed out that USSR, was the real goal. I am wondering what barbarossa would have been like if the Germans had won bob, and successfully pacified Britain in 1940.

No thorn in their side, probally no USA involved in europe, what would those differences have made? Would it of been enough to capture moscow '41. Stalin always maintained that he would stay(although to say i am sceptial about this, is to say the least).

Basicaly, how much of a difference, do you think having the UK out of the war would of made on the German invasion of the USSR?

Just a curious hypothetical,

cheers fruitbat

faustnik
07-17-2007, 05:27 PM
If the Germans captured Moscow, the Soviets would move back another 50 miles. They had a lot of miles.

Even if the RAF was wiped out, and German bombers ranged freely, how would German invade England? The RAF did a lot to save England, the Channel did more.

WOLFPLAYER2007
07-17-2007, 05:28 PM
If the Germans had won bob, probally Germany wouldnt had invaded URSS at 1941, maybe later...the invasion of URSS by the nazi Germany was a desperate strategy of Hitler.

Maybe the Germans would be busy dominating the entire Africa, and after yes, could easily knock down the russians.

SeaFireLIV
07-17-2007, 05:35 PM
They`ll probably be much debate on this to come.

But if Germany did win the battle of Britain and forced a peace out of Britain either by capture or negotiation then I believe it would have changed things quite radically for the war.

For one, I doubt the US would have been able to prosecute war against the Germans very effectively, even if Germany declared war on it after Pearl harbour- no close land base. This would easily delay and lengthen the war big time.

Russia would probably find it very tough going. Lend-lease from Britain would be non-existant, so too the moral support of another nation close by that was Germany`s enemy. Churchill`s missions to harass Germany continuously in Europe would be gone.

Germany could put it`s full might on the Soviet Union.

From here it`s very hard to say what might happen. Russia`s resources are still huge and they could afford the loss of men. If Stalin held his ground as he did at Moscow, it`s possible that the Germans would still have ground down to a crawl (with General winter too). However, in this case, I believe the war would drag on beyond 1944 and by 1946, germany could still be in the Soviet Union having occupied parts almost permanently. By this point the US may have even decided that it`s not feasible to have a drawn out battle with the Germans and agreed to a ceasefire.


If, on the other hand, Stalin folded and ran - as he very well might have done. Germany may have taken the whole of Russia by mid 1942 with only pockets to mop up. With this, I`m convinced that the US would simply draw back and we`d have a COLD WAR... the USA vs NAZI GERMANY.

A far scarier prospect imho.

Th

3.JG51_BigBear
07-17-2007, 05:38 PM
IMH arm chair warrior opinion:

Pacification of Britain would have sapped a lot of the Wermacht's resources. The people of Britain would have fought the Germans tooth and nail and the Germans would have had one heck of time trying to supply forces on the British Isles.

After that I think Hitler would have waited just long enough to refit and resupply before heading off into Russia though. He appears to have had an obssession with the Russian front and felt that Germany needed access to Russia's oil fields before it could continue on to world domination. I doubt Hitler would have moved into Russia with any more forces that he actually did given the amount of men and equipment it would have taken to "govern" Britain and he would still have gotten kicked out of the east by the Ruskies.

Also, the majority of German forces held on the Western front from 42-44 were air units. They were mostly fighter units and I don't know how big an impact they would have had on the Russian front.

I still think at some point us Amis would have gotten in on it attacking from the South through Africa and Italy even though Africa would probably have been a real tough nut to crack by that point. Americans would probably had to have staged out of South Africa or something.

thefruitbat
07-17-2007, 05:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
If the Germans captured Moscow, the Soviets would move back another 50 miles. They had a lot of miles.

Even if the RAF was wiped out, and German bombers ranged freely, how would German invade England? The RAF did a lot to save England, the Channel did more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You miss one of my points at least, first we are assumming here that the Germans did win bob. I'm not sure personally that even if the raf had been knocked out, that the RN couldnt of really put there foot in it, but this is not important.

I am trying to imagine the effect of, if sealion had been sucsessfull, and what would of happened in the rest of the war.

As to the fact that the russians could of kept withdrawing, i agree, and think myself that is what would of happened, but Stalin made alot of talk of staying in moscow, yes/no?

cheers fruitbat

thefruitbat
07-17-2007, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
IMH arm chair warrior opinion:

Pacification of Britain would have sapped a lot of the Wermacht's resources. The people of Britain would have fought the Germans tooth and nail and the Germans would have had one heck of time trying to supply forces on the British Isles.

After that I think Hitler would have waited just long enough to refit and resupply before heading off into Russia though. He appears to have had an obssession with the Russian front and felt that Germany needed access to Russia's oil fields before it could continue on to world domination. I doubt Hitler would have moved into Russia with any more forces that he actually did given the amount of men and equipment it would have taken to "govern" Britain and he would still have gotten kicked out of the east by the Ruskies.

Also, the majority of German forces held on the Western front from 42-44 were air units. They were mostly fighter units and I don't know how big an impact they would have had on the Russian front.

I still think at some point us Amis would have gotten in on it attacking from the South through Africa and Italy even though Africa would probably have been a real tough nut to crack by that point. Americans would probably had to have staged out of South Africa or something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why do you think the USA would of still got involved at some point, particualy with the date of pearl in mind?

cheers fruitbat

Bo_Nidle
07-17-2007, 05:53 PM
If the Germans had won then there would have been nowhere for the Allies to base their European operations and the USA would more than likely not have engaged Germany in Europe at all leaving Hitler to use all his resources in Russia without having to worry about a western front.

Assuming Japan attacked Pearl harbour then the USA would have been free to devote all its resources in the Pacific so the same result would likely have been reached there....

...but:....

.... the Burma/India theatre would not have been fought by Britain and its Commonwealth allies leaving Japan with resources to devote to the invasion of Australia?

Assuming that Hitler successfully overthrew Stalin and defeated Russia would he have then had the resources of the Red Army to link up with the Japanese in China/SEA?

Thus the USA is left alone. Now if the combined axis powers invaded the lesser protected South/Central America region from SEA theatre and turned left......

Scary thoughts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

I have always maintained the BoB was the most strategically important battle of WW2. Few of the others would have been fought afterwards if the result was reversed.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-17-2007, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
IMH arm chair warrior opinion:

Pacification of Britain would have sapped a lot of the Wermacht's resources. The people of Britain would have fought the Germans tooth and nail and the Germans would have had one heck of time trying to supply forces on the British Isles.

After that I think Hitler would have waited just long enough to refit and resupply before heading off into Russia though. He appears to have had an obssession with the Russian front and felt that Germany needed access to Russia's oil fields before it could continue on to world domination. I doubt Hitler would have moved into Russia with any more forces that he actually did given the amount of men and equipment it would have taken to "govern" Britain and he would still have gotten kicked out of the east by the Ruskies.

Also, the majority of German forces held on the Western front from 42-44 were air units. They were mostly fighter units and I don't know how big an impact they would have had on the Russian front.

I still think at some point us Amis would have gotten in on it attacking from the South through Africa and Italy even though Africa would probably have been a real tough nut to crack by that point. Americans would probably had to have staged out of South Africa or something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why do you think the USA would of still got involved at some point, particualy with the date of pearl in mind?

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Had Britain fallen the British government, the Royal family, and the governments in exile of a number of European countries, including Poland, would have ended up in the US. I don't think that even the isolationist US would have allowed the entire British government to fall into the hands of the Germans.

With that much political pressure being exerted, the total destruction of "Allied" Europe and the Pearl Harbor attack I'm fairly certain that at some point America would have joined in the fun against Germany.

thefruitbat
07-17-2007, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
IMH arm chair warrior opinion:

Pacification of Britain would have sapped a lot of the Wermacht's resources. The people of Britain would have fought the Germans tooth and nail and the Germans would have had one heck of time trying to supply forces on the British Isles.

After that I think Hitler would have waited just long enough to refit and resupply before heading off into Russia though. He appears to have had an obssession with the Russian front and felt that Germany needed access to Russia's oil fields before it could continue on to world domination. I doubt Hitler would have moved into Russia with any more forces that he actually did given the amount of men and equipment it would have taken to "govern" Britain and he would still have gotten kicked out of the east by the Ruskies.

Also, the majority of German forces held on the Western front from 42-44 were air units. They were mostly fighter units and I don't know how big an impact they would have had on the Russian front.

I still think at some point us Amis would have gotten in on it attacking from the South through Africa and Italy even though Africa would probably have been a real tough nut to crack by that point. Americans would probably had to have staged out of South Africa or something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why do you think the USA would of still got involved at some point, particualy with the date of pearl in mind?

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Had Britain fallen the British government, the Royal family, and the governments in exile of a number of European countries, including Poland, would have ended up in the US. I don't think that even the isolationist US would have allowed the entire British government to fall into the hands of the Germans.

With that much political pressure being exerted, the total destruction of "Allied" Europe and the Pearl Harbor attack I'm fairly certain that at some point America would have joined in the fun against Germany. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you about where various important figureheads would of ended up, but from what i've read, opinions were split early doors in the USA, about the war in europe. Couldn't pearl merely of galvinsed the view that its nothing to do with us, we've got this to do?

cheers fruitbat

3.JG51_BigBear
07-17-2007, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
IMH arm chair warrior opinion:

Pacification of Britain would have sapped a lot of the Wermacht's resources. The people of Britain would have fought the Germans tooth and nail and the Germans would have had one heck of time trying to supply forces on the British Isles.

After that I think Hitler would have waited just long enough to refit and resupply before heading off into Russia though. He appears to have had an obssession with the Russian front and felt that Germany needed access to Russia's oil fields before it could continue on to world domination. I doubt Hitler would have moved into Russia with any more forces that he actually did given the amount of men and equipment it would have taken to "govern" Britain and he would still have gotten kicked out of the east by the Ruskies.

Also, the majority of German forces held on the Western front from 42-44 were air units. They were mostly fighter units and I don't know how big an impact they would have had on the Russian front.

I still think at some point us Amis would have gotten in on it attacking from the South through Africa and Italy even though Africa would probably have been a real tough nut to crack by that point. Americans would probably had to have staged out of South Africa or something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why do you think the USA would of still got involved at some point, particualy with the date of pearl in mind?

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Had Britain fallen the British government, the Royal family, and the governments in exile of a number of European countries, including Poland, would have ended up in the US. I don't think that even the isolationist US would have allowed the entire British government to fall into the hands of the Germans.

With that much political pressure being exerted, the total destruction of "Allied" Europe and the Pearl Harbor attack I'm fairly certain that at some point America would have joined in the fun against Germany. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you about where various important figureheads would of ended up, but from what i've read, opinions were split early doors in the USA, about the war in europe. Couldn't pearl merely of galvinsed the view that its nothing to do with us, we've got this to do?

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that the fall of a country so closely linked to the US as Britain would have changed a lot of minds but that is just my opinion. I could also see the US deciding to swing all its weight to the Pacific but leaving Europe to stew would have been a risky move that I doubt the US Government would have let happen.

thefruitbat
07-17-2007, 06:15 PM
to BigBear

To be fair, this is an interesting question in itself, i'm from the UK, so i obviously i find it hard to have a strong empathtic view on this.

How hard a sell would of a war in europe have been, after pearl, assumming the original post.

cheers fruitbat

LStarosta
07-17-2007, 06:17 PM
A couple buckets of instant sunshine and it would be all over.

SeaFireLIV
07-17-2007, 06:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
I believe that the fall of a country so closely linked to the US as Britain would have changed a lot of minds but that is just my opinion. I could also see the US deciding to swing all its weight to the Pacific but leaving Europe to stew would have been a risky move that I doubt the US Government would have let happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It`s a well known fact that America did not want a war with Germany in Europe. As far as most of the US were concerned, let Europe stew in its own rubbish. The only reason Roosevelt was even able to go to war was because Hitler foolishly declared war on it after Pearl.

But in this hypothetical scenario, even that would not be enough imho to let Roosevelt take any real action against Germany. The mood was such at the time that the President had to have a really good reason to go on the offensive and without a land mass, that would be real hard.

thefruitbat
07-17-2007, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
A couple buckets of instant sunshine and it would be all over. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

in the Uk, without doubt. You'd make a killing.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-17-2007, 06:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
to BigBear

To be fair, this is an interesting question in itself, i'm from the UK, so i obviously i find it hard to have a strong empathtic view on this.

How hard a sell would of a war in europe have been, after pearl, assumming the original post.

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think I follow. Are you asking if I feel the US would still have gone into Europe after Pearl with Britain out of the war?

I believe that the US may have mobilized to stop Hitler even prior to Pearl Harbor. For all its isolationist leanings I don't think the US would have stayed out it Britain had fallen. I don't think the US would have let all of Europe go.

I think the US was willing to let Hitler do what he would with Eastern European because they didn't speak English and were from places most people had never heard of, and I don't think that even an invasion of Russia would have bothered the Americans all on its own but even after the invasion of France I think the mood of many Americans was changing and once England, a predominantly white, English speaking country, had fallen I don't think the Americans would have stood by any longer.

LStarosta
07-17-2007, 06:26 PM
What about the use of Mediterranean bases and/or Soviet territory as a staging point for strategic warfare against Germany?

Xiolablu3
07-17-2007, 06:28 PM
I doubt the US would have entered the war with Germany if Britian had been defeated.

In early 1940 an agent was sent to Britian from teh US under the cover of a journalist, in order to assess the fighting spirit of the British people.

The US government was very sceptical that Britian would fight on, after all Geramny had crushed all resistance before it, what was the point in upsetting Germany by supporting Britain if Britain was just going to give in?

Luckily the agent (I have been trying to find his name through google, but cannot seem to find it) came back with a glowing report that moral and resistance in Britain was high, and there was absolutely no question of giving in. SO Roosevelt started a covert supply program.
It had to be covert because so many in the US government and also civilians were against helping Britian.

For exaplme HEnry Ford was offered the lucrative contract to build Merlins for the RAF, but refused. Possibly because of Geramn sympathies, possibly because he thought Britian would be defeated I am not sure on this. It was given to PAckard instead.


Had that Journalist/Agent gone back with an unfavourable report ont eh fighting spirit of the British, no supplies or aid would have been given to Britian by the US at all, thats just SUPPLIES, we are not talking about any Military aid yet.

It was Germany that declared war on the USA, not the other way around.

I think the USA would probably just have fought Japan and assessed the situation later. (Let Germany and Russia wear each other down)

horseback
07-17-2007, 06:28 PM
As I recall, the reason Hitler declared war on the US was because of the USN's escorting of convoys half way to Britain in the Atlantic; one wonders if the Japanese would still have waited until December of 1941 to attack the US or its interests in the Pacific in that case. The Germans in control of Europe would make FDR a bit more focussed in the easterly direction.

Collapse of the British Empire might well have led to the Japanese walking in to Burma the way they did in French Indochina and Thailand at zero cost to them.

I see dominos falling...

cheers

horseback

3.JG51_BigBear
07-17-2007, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I doubt the US would have entered the war with Germany if Britian had been defeated.

In early 1940 an agent was sent to Britian from teh US under the cover of a journalist, in order to assess the fighting spirit of the British people.

The US government was very sceptical that Britian would fight on, after all Geramny had crushed all resistance before it, what was the point in upsetting Germany by supporting Britain if Britain was just going to give in?

Luckily the agent (I have been trying to find his name through google, but cannot seem to find it) came back with a glowing report that moral and resistance in Britain was high, and there was absolutely no question of giving in. SO Roosevelt started a covert supply program.
It had to be covert because so many in the US government and also civilians were against helping Britian.

For exaplme HEnry Ford was offered the lucrative contract to build Merlins for the RAF, but refused. Possibly because of Geramn sympathies, possibly because he thought Britian would be defeated I am not sure on this. It was given to PAckard instead.


Had that Journalist/Agent gone back with an unfavourable report ont eh fighting spirit of the British, no supplies or aid would have been given to Britian by the US at all, thats just SUPPLIES, we are not talking about any Military aid yet.

It was Germany that declared war on the USA, not the other way around.

I think the USA would probably just have fought Japan and assessed the situation later. (Let Germany and Russia wear each other down) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FDR was a huge supporter of Britain and attempted to help their efforts in any way he could subject to American popular opinion. I doubt that a negative report, even from a trusted advisor, would have been enough to abandon his support for Britain.

thefruitbat
07-17-2007, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
to BigBear

To be fair, this is an interesting question in itself, i'm from the UK, so i obviously i find it hard to have a strong empathtic view on this.

How hard a sell would of a war in europe have been, after pearl, assumming the original post.

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think I follow. Are you asking if I feel the US would still have gone into Europe after Pearl with Britain out of the war?

I believe that the US may have mobilized to stop Hitler even prior to Pearl Harbor. For all its isolationist leanings I don't think the US would have stayed out it Britain had fallen. I don't think the US would have let all of Europe go.

I think the US was willing to let Hitler do what he would with Eastern European because they didn't speak English and were from places most people had never heard of, and I don't think that even an invasion of Russia would have bothered the Americans all on its own but even after the invasion of France I think the mood of many Americans was changing and once England, a predominantly white, English speaking country, had fallen I don't think the Americans would have stood by any longer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for my lack of clarity, i've been drinking... But yes, what u thought, i was asking would the USA have got involved in europe, if the UK had been knocked out, after Pearl, what would the political fallout of been?

cheers fruitbat

Xiolablu3
07-17-2007, 06:38 PM
I totally agree with you about FDR, Bigbear.

However many in his government and certainly those in civilian life did not support his views.

He had to do a lot of wangling to get aid sent to Britain in various disguises.

I am not sure how it works in teh USA, but I dont believe that the US President can amke the decision alone on whether or not to go to war?

Even if he can, it would be political suicide to do it on a whim. He needed to gain public support first.

I know Roosevelt was trying his very hardest to suport Britian, he did everything that he could possibly do to help CHurchill.

Quote:-

'....certainly in the short term, were never whether or not America would openly enter the war as a British ally; polls revealed that a clear majority of Americans were overwhelmingly opposed to a unilateral declaration of war against the Nazis. But there was very strong sympathy for the British cause, and, consequently far more willingness to supply Britain with war materials.'

http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/EARS/Hallionpapers...leofbritainsep98.htm (http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/EARS/Hallionpapers/battleofbritainsep98.htm)

I havent read it all, but it has some good info on the American opinion to war in 1940.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-17-2007, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
to BigBear

To be fair, this is an interesting question in itself, i'm from the UK, so i obviously i find it hard to have a strong empathtic view on this.

How hard a sell would of a war in europe have been, after pearl, assumming the original post.

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think I follow. Are you asking if I feel the US would still have gone into Europe after Pearl with Britain out of the war?

I believe that the US may have mobilized to stop Hitler even prior to Pearl Harbor. For all its isolationist leanings I don't think the US would have stayed out it Britain had fallen. I don't think the US would have let all of Europe go.

I think the US was willing to let Hitler do what he would with Eastern European because they didn't speak English and were from places most people had never heard of, and I don't think that even an invasion of Russia would have bothered the Americans all on its own but even after the invasion of France I think the mood of many Americans was changing and once England, a predominantly white, English speaking country, had fallen I don't think the Americans would have stood by any longer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for my lack of clarity, i've been drinking... But yes, what u thought, i was asking would the USA have got involved in europe, if the UK had been knocked out, after Pearl, what would the political fallout of been?

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite all right, I like drinking too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. Hoping to do some of it myself here in an hour or so.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-17-2007, 06:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I totally agree with you about FDR, Bigbear.

However many in his government and certainly those in civilian life did not support his views.

He had to do a lot of wangling to get aid sent to Britain in various disguises.

I am not sure how it works in teh USA, but I dont believe that the US President can amke the decision alone on whether or not to go to war?

Even if he can, it would be political suicide to do it on a whim. He needed to gain public support first.

I know Roosevelt was trying his very hardest to suport Britian, he did everything that he could possibly do to help CHurchill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't disagree with any of the points you make I just come to a different conclusion. I still think the loss of Britain would have been a major shock to the US that would have drastically changed public opinion. Furthermore, had Germany taken Britain its U-boats would have been free to rome further West and in greater numbers. I don't know how long someone like Hitler could have restained himself from taking out American ships as a show of his total power.

LW_lcarp
07-17-2007, 06:44 PM
Yes this is a very interesting what if. If Germany would of won the Battle of Britain then Hitler would have to win Operation Sealion. The British navy was still a very powerful threat to Germany and getting all the resources together to attempt an invasion Of Britain would be a very tricky. (The Allies almost didnt have enough landing craft for D-Day).

So if Hitler did Invade he would have to do it somethime in June also. ( Remember the Allies set the D-Day invasion in June because of favorable weather conditions in the channel). So the Invasion of Britain would be sometime the following year in 1941.

Now You have to wage a ground war bringing in masses of material to supply the troops. And then you have to defeat the British Army in it home country at full strength. So you have the troops commited to Operation Sealion and the conquering of the British Isle takes lets say 1 year.

In that year the Russians are watching everything seeing that they will be the only ones left in the fight start to build up its Armed Forces to bring them up to a high level of men and supplies.

With the Germans watching the Russian Build up they wait for the Japenese to finish their fight in China. And get in Kahoots with the Japenese to open a 2 front war on the russians. Now since the USSR is building up along the German USSR border Hitler has the Japenese attack first to get the USSR to send a large amount of troops to the far east to stop them. Then when the Russians last expect it you hit em and hit em hard and hope that you can get to Moscow and other places to stop the war as quick as possible.

Now this is all dependant on the Japenese not attacking Pearl and getting the U.S., Australia, and Britain involved in the far east. Thus allowing the Japenese to seize China and assist in attacking the USSR. Also you would need Italy involved also as they have a large amount of oil reseves sitting in north africa.

So the first that the Axis would be able to attack the USSR would probably be around 1943-44.


Or the Germans could say hey Russia you have nothing to worry about we have what we want and the Japenese to say hey we have what we want and everything is A OK. That would allow for there being 4 Superpowers in the world The U.S., USSR, Germany and its territories, and Japan and its territories. So that would lead up to one h3ll of a cold war.

thefruitbat
07-17-2007, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
What about the use of Mediterranean bases and/or Soviet territory as a staging point for strategic warfare against Germany? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, what med bases are you on about, since there would be no war in africa, as such?

Germany would of had free range of africa, long before the USA could do from the other side of the atlantic yes/no

cheers fruitbat

LStarosta
07-17-2007, 06:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
What about the use of Mediterranean bases and/or Soviet territory as a staging point for strategic warfare against Germany? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, what med bases are you on about, since there would be no war in africa, as such?

Germany would of had free range of africa, long before the USA could do from the other side of the atlantic yes/no

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is more to the Mediterranean than Africa. I'm just wondering, that's why I'm asking.

Xiolablu3
07-17-2007, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I totally agree with you about FDR, Bigbear.

However many in his government and certainly those in civilian life did not support his views.

He had to do a lot of wangling to get aid sent to Britain in various disguises.

I am not sure how it works in teh USA, but I dont believe that the US President can amke the decision alone on whether or not to go to war?

Even if he can, it would be political suicide to do it on a whim. He needed to gain public support first.

I know Roosevelt was trying his very hardest to suport Britian, he did everything that he could possibly do to help CHurchill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't disagree with any of the points you make I just come to a different conclusion. I still think the loss of Britain would have been a major shock to the US that would have drastically changed public opinion. Furthermore, had Germany taken Britain its U-boats would have been free to rome further West and in greater numbers. I don't know how long someone like Hitler could have restained himself from taking out American ships as a show of his total power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could be right.

Just reading more of that page, and there are some interesing quotes from American Agents assessing the Britsh situation in 1940...


Secretary of State Cordell Hull recollected after the war that:

"Those were months when it seemed to me Western civilization hung in the balance. Night after night I tossed in bed, pondering the effect on this country if Hitler should conquer Britain. Despite Britain's magnificent resistance, I had to envisage the possibility that Hitler's superior military machine might overcome her, and that we would then be faced simultaneously in the Atlantic with the combined remaining portions of the German, French, and Italian fleets, and in the Pacific with the Japanese fleet, while Nazi and Fascist agents in Latin America undermined our neighbors to the south."
The likely subsequent history of a United States, virtually alone with the remnants of the British Empire, and caught between a rampaging Germany and Japan, is indeed unpleasant to contemplate. Roosevelt clearly recognized this when, in his famed "Arsenal of Democracy" fireside chat of December 29, 1940, he stated:

"I make the direct statement to the American people that there is far less chance of the United States getting into war, if we do all we can now to support the nations defending themselves against attack by the Axis than if we acquiesce in their defeat, submit tamely to an Axis victory, and wait our turn to be the object of attack in another war later on. . . . In a military sense Great Britain and the British Empire are today the spearhead of resistance to world conquest."

http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/EARS/Hallionpapers...leofbritainsep98.htm (http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/EARS/Hallionpapers/battleofbritainsep98.htm)


After further reading, it seems that there were many who shared this opinion.

zardozid
07-17-2007, 06:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Had Britain fallen the British government, the Royal family, and the governments in exile of a number of European countries, including Poland, would have ended up in the US. I don't think that even the isolationist US would have allowed the entire British government to fall into the hands of the Germans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Royal family might have gone to Canada...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Collapse of the British Empire might well have led to the Japanese walking in to Burma the way they did in French Indochina and Thailand at zero cost to them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its possable that if The British Empire had fallen along with most of the European Colonies That Pearl might never have happened...Japan would have had the oil rich Borneo island.

Like today, oil plays a big part...and the Nazi's would have made a big trading partner.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-17-2007, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zardozid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Had Britain fallen the British government, the Royal family, and the governments in exile of a number of European countries, including Poland, would have ended up in the US. I don't think that even the isolationist US would have allowed the entire British government to fall into the hands of the Germans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Royal family might have gone to Canada...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point.

thefruitbat
07-17-2007, 07:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
What about the use of Mediterranean bases and/or Soviet territory as a staging point for strategic warfare against Germany? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, what med bases are you on about, since there would be no war in africa, as such?

Germany would of had free range of africa, long before the USA could do from the other side of the atlantic yes/no

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is more to the Mediterranean than Africa. I'm just wondering, that's why I'm asking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a very valid point. However between Italy and France, and what Germany invaded early doors, you had it pretty much covered, save the suez...

France falls, Uk falls, med's no longer friendly at all

cheers fruitbat

zardozid
07-17-2007, 07:04 PM
What might have happened: Hitler would have increased his pressure on the Japanese to attack Russia from the East...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Germany would of had free range of africa, long before the USA could do from the other side of the atlantic yes/no </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Weren't the Italians their before the Germans?

Bearcat99
07-17-2007, 07:07 PM
From a purely hypothetical viewpoint I think that Bo & Seafire have the best scenario... I also think that hypothesizing about the BoB goes hand in hand with Germany not stalling but pressing on at Dunkirk.

also

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zardozid:
What might have happened: Hitler would have increased his pressure on the Japanese to attack Russia from the East...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Germany would of had free range of africa, long before the USA could do from the other side of the atlantic yes/no </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Weren't the Italians their before the Germans? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and then Russia would have been in a two front war..

However.. the wild card would still be the U.S. Without Pearl I don't know if the American people would have been so fired up to go to war... and the post WWII U.S. was not the same as the pre WWII U.S. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpo0raB6RsI)as far as policy paticularly in terms of the way the government was run. IMO one of the biggest outcomes of WWII that is totally overlooked not only abroad but at home in the U.S. as well is the way U.S. policy changed once it became the premier superpower on the globe....

Ob.Emann
07-17-2007, 07:29 PM
Even if Hitler had invaded and occupied Britain--even though he never wished to go to war with the British in the first place and went to his gasoline-soaked grave regretting that Britain had declared war on Germany--, I have a hard time believing that resistance displayed by the British populace would be much of a nuisance to the German war effort in the East.

If we look at the German occupation of the Channel Islands (alot of people seem to forget this particular episode of WWII), there was virtually no resistance and most of population 'collaborated' (I hate that word...more like 'lived alongside') with the German occupiers quite amicably or with indifference at worst, so long as there was enough food etc.

Point being, belligerant Churchillian rhetoric only goes so far when your house is a hollowed-out shell and you and your family are starving. I doubt that there would have been much meaningful resistance in an occupied Britain.

Just my opinion.

LStarosta
07-17-2007, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HH_Emann:

Point being, belligerant Churchillian rhetoric only goes so far when your house is a hollowed-out shell and you and your family are starving. I doubt that there would have been much meaningful resistance in an occupied Britain.

Just my opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then I suggest you read Norman Davies' Rising '44.

Xiolablu3
07-17-2007, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HH_Emann:

Point being, belligerant Churchillian rhetoric only goes so far when your house is a hollowed-out shell and you and your family are starving. I doubt that there would have been much meaningful resistance in an occupied Britain.

Just my opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then I suggest you read Norman Davies' Rising '44. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Resistance in the CHannel ISlands is impossible, they are so small that the group performing the reisitance would be caught immediately.

Any activity like air drops of supllies or ships landing would be seen by the Germans immediately.

The propect of resistance in the channel islands and resistance on the UK mainlands is totally different. Resistance is totally possible on the larger main islands. Places to hide, places to stash weapons, places to train etc.

On a tiny island, everyone knows everyone else and know anything which is going on. The Channel Islanders had absolutely no way to resist.

Although resistance in Britain would be tough going (at least the other resistance groups on France/Czeck/Holland etc had Britan supplying and supporting them), its at least feasible, unlike the tiny channel islands.

nickdanger3
07-17-2007, 08:02 PM
Quick poll in light of the question:

If Germany won the BoB, would Sealion have been successful?

My vote is no.

I think that the logistics would have been heavily against Germany. From all I've read, the shipping that would have been required simply did not exist, and what they could get a hold of was more reminiscent of the stuff that Britain used for the emergency evacuation of Dunkirk (ie. small fishing boats and barges) that could transport men, but equipment would simply have proven impossible to move.

Wasn't the German navy really down on Sealion? I thought they hated the idea.

I think between the RN, the notorious weather of the Channel, and the sheer logistics, that knocking out the RAF wouldn't be enough for Sealion to proceed.

LStarosta
07-17-2007, 08:04 PM
I'm not talking about the Channel islands. I'm talking about the 'continental' Great Britain aka England, Wales, Scotland etc.

Xiolablu3
07-17-2007, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
I'm not talking about the Channel islands. I'm talking about the 'continental' Great Britain aka England, Wales, Scotland etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I know mate, I was agreeing with you...

J.M.LLOYD
07-17-2007, 08:09 PM
one point that has not been raised is that if Britain had lost the "Battle of Britain" and had been occupied, and then all the major cities in the UK,London,Birmingham, Manchester,Glasgow would all have had their extermination camps. [just think about it]

LStarosta
07-17-2007, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
I'm not talking about the Channel islands. I'm talking about the 'continental' Great Britain aka England, Wales, Scotland etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I know mate, I was agreeing with you... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Word. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Xiolablu3
07-17-2007, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nickdanger3:
Quick poll in light of the question:

If Germany won the BoB, would Sealion have been successful?

My vote is no.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I vote no also. Gunther Rall says the same thing - it would have been a disaster.

Dieppe 1942 and DDay 1944 showed what was needed to pull off a landing succesfully in modern warfare. And this was against a very weakened enemy with a non existant Navy , no air force at all and very thin defenses.

Britain had the biggest Navy in the world at that time and huge manpower on land. SHe would also have far more than 2 defending aircaft (2 German aircraft appeared on DDay), even if she had lost the BOB.

Can you imagine the German soldiers trying to cross the rough channel in makeshift flat bootom barges, capsizing and running into obstacles, whilst being strafed and blasted by 15 inch guns on the NAvy warships? ANd after that they have to run up the beach with no armour support, being hit by pillboxes and MGposts?

It would be like this - Imagine Omaha Beach, but the Germans have total sea superiorty with massive capital ships and destroyers hitting the landing craft with 15 inch guns, and also planes strafing the beaches and landing ships.

Disaster.

I believe that Hitler was trying to bluff Britain into surrender, or at least stop fighting. The Battle OF Britain was very real, as was the submarine war, but I dont belive it was a prelude to invasion.
All the attacks on Britain were made in the hope to knock her out of the war, and let Germany get on with stealing the rest of the European countries on the main landmass, not to take over the British islands.
Hitler already told Britain she could keep her colonies, and Germany would cease attacking, as long as they could have a free hand in Europe.

Unfortunately for Hitler, Britain didnt agree.

blakduk
07-17-2007, 08:16 PM
If the Germans won the BOB...
The Nazi strategy towards Britain in the beginning of WW2 was to kick them off mainland Europe and convince them to stay off. Hitler didnt want a war with Britain- as he stated numerous times 'They are not our natural enemy'.
He wanted Britain to be passive in Europe and offered 'generous' terms that promised to keep the British Empire intact.
What that really meant was a compliant Britain that didnt interfere- Hitler was far more interested in expanding to the East. It would have meant a pacified Britain, not necessarily an invaded one.
Operation Sealion was a half-baked idea that had little real chance of succeeding. We know that from post-war review of what resources they had, but Hitler was a master showman and brilliant at bluffing (as are all great gamblers). Sealion was a show to the British that resistance was futile and there were many in the British leadership who agreed (many leaders were later accused of destroying evidence of planning for the inevitable capitulation- Halifax among them).
Many aristocrats were feted by the Nazis and promised positions in the new government, including Edward VIII (who was quietly shipped off out of the way).
We tend to take it for granted now that the Nazis beat France in six weeks- that was a shocking outcome for Europeans at the time. France had fought doggedly for 5years in WW1 in a horrifying stalemate- in a relative blink of an eye the entire French army and British expeditionary force had been utterly destroyed.
The post war mythology of unanimous, unwavering support among the people of Britain is propoganda. Many considered Churchill to be a war-monger who was dragging them into an unnecessary conflict.
If Britain had capitulated in July 1940 (as it very nearly did!) there would have been little chance the USA would have become involved in a conflict on the European continent.
Many people, especially the Americans, harboured bitter memories at the waste of WW1. It had cost them an enormous amount of resources and casualties for little gain- the returning heroes had to endure the great depression and political chaos.
Hitler knew this and banked on USA reluctance to become involved to give him a free hand.
Thankfully he underestimated the Western democracies and they demonstrated their resolve.

Without help from the USA and the British commonwealth, not only with direct aid but also distraction of Nazi resources, the USSR would have been beaten.

Xiolablu3
07-17-2007, 08:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blakduk:

If Britain had capitulated in July 1940 (as it very nearly did!) . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Can you find me your source for this comment please.

Its something I have never heard before in my life...


In Britain (discarding Ireland) there was huge public support for fighting HItler at the time, and there was no question of CHurchill giving in as far as I know.

blakduk
07-17-2007, 08:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blakduk:

If Britain had capitulated in July 1940 (as it very nearly did!) . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Can you find me your source for this comment please.

Its something I have never heard before in my life...


In Britain (discarding Ireland) there was huge public support for fighting HItler at the time, and there was no question of CHurchill giving in as far as I know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read 'Five Days in London: May 1940' by John Lukac. Link (http://www.amazon.com/Five-Days-London-May-1940/dp/product-description/0300084668)
My apologies- i referred to 'July 1940'. It gives a very interesting account of just how significant that political battle was.

Airmail109
07-18-2007, 05:06 AM
Quite simple, the RAF would have never been totally anihilated. Much like the luftwaffe wasnt right up until the end in 1945. We would have simply moved out remaining fighters back to wales, Ireland and Scotland. Then they would have been used to protect the Royal Navy, Giving them enough space to wipe any landing forces out.

csThor
07-18-2007, 06:06 AM
Interesting question. In my opinion even a defeated RAF Fighter Command would not mean peace and a german victory. It would be a tactical victory at best - because I do not believe GB would have given in to Hitler's wishes (which were lined out perfectly by blakduk).

There are two likely scenarios:

a) Hitler could have ordered a strategic air war against british industrial centers to minimize british production for a while. However he would not carry out "Sea Lion" because of its enormous risks. The air attacks would not do much beyond causing damage and civilian losses to GB and losses to the Luftwaffe, though.

b) Hitler actually launches "Sea Lion". I cannot even begin to guess how that one ends, in spite of the german weakness in shipping and the strength of the Royal Navy (what happens to warships in the face of enemy air dominance showed Crete a year later, with much less german forces and a lot more sea to hide in).

ake109
07-18-2007, 06:09 AM
Without lend-lease I think the Soviets would have lost. It was pretty close fought all the way until after Kursk IMHO. Some of the 'unglamorous' lend-lease items like the thousands and thousands of US made trucks would have changed the outcome of the Eastern front by a lot had they not been present.

Anyway, it would do Hitler no good in the long run unless he had something to rival the Manhatten Project.

Airmail109
07-18-2007, 06:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
Interesting question. In my opinion even a defeated RAF Fighter Command would not mean peace and a german victory. It would be a tactical victory at best - because I do not believe GB would have given in to Hitler's wishes (which were lined out perfectly by blakduk).

There are two likely scenarios:

a) Hitler could have ordered a strategic air war against british industrial centers to minimize british production for a while. However he would not carry out "Sea Lion" because of its enormous risks. The air attacks would not do much beyond causing damage and civilian losses to GB and losses to the Luftwaffe, though.

b) Hitler actually launches "Sea Lion". I cannot even begin to guess how that one ends, in spite of the german weakness in shipping and the strength of the Royal Navy (what happens to warships in the face of enemy air dominance showed Crete a year later, with much less german forces and a lot more sea to hide in). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO you think the luftwaffe could have wiped out One Carrier, Several Battelships, dozens of cruisers and hundreds of smaller ships in the 24 hours it would have taken them to get from Scapa Flow to the Channel? Whilst the RAF harrased them? The stukas realistically would have only been able to make 2 attacks on the Navy before they reached the English Channel. Combined with the massive volume of AA, I dont think many ships would have been lost en transit before they wreaked absaloute havok. Remember the trouble the luftwaffe had in knocking out a few ships off the coats of Norway lol.

ALl theyd need is a couple of days to cut off supply lines.

Then theres the fact that at any one time there were dozens of destoryers and patrol boats based off the coast of Southern england.

Operation Sealion would have been a major disaster

SeaFireLIV
07-18-2007, 06:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ake109:


Anyway, it would do Hitler no good in the long run unless he had something to rival the Manhatten Project. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hitler was working on an atomic project in Norway, I believe. This was sabotaged by Norwegians with the help from the British, I think. Without Britain`s supplies, would they have been as successful?

Someone knows more on this I`m sure.

luftluuver
07-18-2007, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
b) Hitler actually launches "Sea Lion". I cannot even begin to guess how that one ends, in spite of the german weakness in shipping and the strength of the Royal Navy (what happens to warships in the face of enemy air dominance showed Crete a year later, with much less german forces and a lot more sea to hide in). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And what kind of air support did the Brits have? Btw, the 3rd assault force was decimated by the Brit ships, the same would have happened to the cross Channel assault.

Airmail109
07-18-2007, 06:34 AM
The reason the luftwaffe wouldnt be able to wipe the navy out or gain air superiority during operation sealion was because of what RAF planned to do if it lost the Battle of Britain. Quite simply, they would withdraw all surviving fighter groups to the north of Britain, out of range of German fighters, where they would be essentially invulnerable to attack. They would wait there until the Germans launched an invasion attempt, whereupon they would immediately fly south en masse to attack, denying the Germans air superiority. So due to this quirk of geography and German fighter range, there is basically no way for the Germans to get air superiority over the invasion (without, say, multiplying the size of their air force by many times - which would, again, require great advance planning and mean taking resources from some other part of the war effort), because the British would withdraw enough aircraft to safety to cause serious problems for an invasion. Something often overlooked about the Battle of Britain is that the British had multiple fighter groups, several of which were based to the north, out of range of attack. These were used as places where the pilots could rest, aircraft could be repaired, et cetera. They were at fairly high strength during the Battle, and thus even total annihlation of the aircraft actually in the fight would leave the RAF with plenty of aircraft in reserve for Sealion.

Then dont forget the Bomber force we had in reserve....usefull if they did manage to get onto the beaches.

csThor
07-18-2007, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
LMAO you think the luftwaffe could have wiped out One Carrier, Several Battelships, dozens of cruisers and hundreds of smaller ships in the 24 hours it would have taken them to get from Scapa Flow to the Channel? Whilst the RAF harrased them? The stukas realistically would have only been able to make 2 attacks on the Navy before they reached the English Channel. Combined with the massive volume of AA, I dont think many ships would have been lost en transit before they wreaked absaloute havok. Remember the trouble the luftwaffe had in knocking out a few ships off the coats of Norway lol.

ALl theyd need is a couple of days to cut off supply lines.

Then theres the fact that at any one time there were dozens of destoryers and patrol boats based off the coast of Southern england.

Operation Sealion would have been a major disaster </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're ignoring what happened at Crete. Sinking a ship is of course the most obvious way of taking it out of the picture, but damaging a warship is just as helpful when you want your opponent to remove its naval assets from the battlefield. Most ships at Crete weren't sunk, but a lot of them were badly damaged. In an environment like the Channel in 1940 this could be as devastating as it was in the Med in 1941.

Secondly the Luftwaffe was using air-dropped mines on a grand scale as well as mines laid by submarines. I guess they would have increased those operations before a potential invasion, especially in the eastern approaches to the Channel (Dover Straight). Submarines (even the tiny "Einbäume" of Type II) would have been in range to detect and attack british warships approaching the Channel Area. How successful they could have been is a question I cannot answer, though.

The question of what would have happened in the case of a launch of "Sea Lion" is in my opinion not as easily answered as it seems.

Airmail109
07-18-2007, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
LMAO you think the luftwaffe could have wiped out One Carrier, Several Battelships, dozens of cruisers and hundreds of smaller ships in the 24 hours it would have taken them to get from Scapa Flow to the Channel? Whilst the RAF harrased them? The stukas realistically would have only been able to make 2 attacks on the Navy before they reached the English Channel. Combined with the massive volume of AA, I dont think many ships would have been lost en transit before they wreaked absaloute havok. Remember the trouble the luftwaffe had in knocking out a few ships off the coats of Norway lol.

ALl theyd need is a couple of days to cut off supply lines.

Then theres the fact that at any one time there were dozens of destoryers and patrol boats based off the coast of Southern england.

Operation Sealion would have been a major disaster </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're ignoring what happened at Crete. Sinking a ship is of course the most obvious way of taking it out of the picture, but damaging a warship is just as helpful when you want your opponent to remove its naval assets from the battlefield. Most ships at Crete weren't sunk, but a lot of them were badly damaged. In an environment like the Channel in 1940 this could be as devastating as it was in the Med in 1941.

Secondly the Luftwaffe was using air-dropped mines on a grand scale as well as mines laid by submarines. I guess they would have increased those operations before a potential invasion, especially in the eastern approaches to the Channel (Dover Straight). Submarines (even the tiny "Einbäume" of Type II) would have been in range to detect and attack british warships approaching the Channel Area. How successful they could have been is a question I cannot answer, though.

The question of what would have happened in the case of a launch of "Sea Lion" is in my opinion not as easily answered as it seems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your ignoring the fact that they had no air borne torpedos, and that any naval attack would have been far larger and it would have had air cover

And you seriously think submarines would have been capable of lauching succesful operations against a force protected by hundreds of corvetes and destroyers? ROFL

Yeah the mines would have been a problem, but none of those factos would have stopped such a huge force wreaking total mayhem. Even at the expense of heavy casualties.

If Sealion had been lauched, EVERYTHING the British had would have been thrown at the channel.

The reserve forces of the RAF, Bomber Command, Anti Submarine Aircraft like the Sunderlands. And the ENTIRE Royal navy within striking distance of the Channel.

luftluuver
07-18-2007, 06:55 AM
You are ignoring that at Crete the British had no air support for their ships, unlike they would have had over the Channel.

csThor
07-18-2007, 06:59 AM
Really? I thought the "What-If"-Question was that the Fighter Command had been defeated? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Airmail109
07-18-2007, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
Really? I thought the "What-If"-Question was that the Fighter Command had been defeated? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it was if fighter command would have Lost the Battle of Britain.

The luftwaffe would have never wiped out fighter command without a much longer range fighter. They would have simply withdrawn out of the range of the 109. Arms factories would have also been moved up to scotland and wales, out of range of ESCORTED bombers.

luftluuver
07-18-2007, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
Really? I thought the "What-If"-Question was that the Fighter Command had been defeated? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There still was BC and CC.

So what does the LW do since you said they did not throw every a/c into BoB? Attack the ships or the a/c attacking the German ships.

Bewolf
07-18-2007, 07:14 AM
the unlikliness of operation sealion coming into effect has already been discussed here. I doubt britain would have ever been invaded, even in case of a german victory in the air. But lets just assume that britain indeed sued for piece.

Then it would have been germany vs. soviet union.
Several things have to be said here. I am at work here right atm, so I post this from memeory. I will try to provide some sources later on.

In the summer of 41, during the drive towards moscow and after several utter deafets of the soviet red army, morale there was "extremly" low. The whole red army was in complete dissarray and in a permament state of confusion. The population of moscow was unprepared and the city was undefended. The occupation of the city was expected anytime (luckily for them, Hitler directed most of its trops to the south by then to wage an "economy war")it was during this time that Stalin sued for peace "twice" to Hitler, the second time granting him much of the goals outlined in operation barbarossa.

Another factor was stalin, who stayed in Moscow despite the great threat the german army posed during this time. Had he left, as he was urged more then one time, it was very likely for his regime to falter. All that held russia together during this time was Stalins grip on everything, something he could only manage from Moscow.

finally, a lot of reports during this time describe how often just a few men lacked in smaller operations to make them sucessful. A handfull more here and there, as for example providable from the then not in existance afrika corps would have made quite an impact.

And, one should also not forget that by far the most important reasons for the red armies ability to wage a mobilized war was the lend lease programm, which besides massive numbers of trucks also gave them huge amounts of aviation fuel, planes and tanks. There is more then one good chance that only one of these factors not in place could have been decicive.

Last but not least, what really cost Germany the war in the east was the treatment of the civillian population. Lots of ppl both in belorus and the ukrains initially welcomed the germans as liberators. Had Hitler used that potential and treated those ppl as good as they deserved it, russia would have had another big big problem.

So all in all ww2 was by far not as decided in the beginning as it is made out today. Luckily though, and Imean that with all honesty, germany was defeated. Else I probably wouldnt be writing here today.

csThor
07-18-2007, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
So what does the LW do since you said they did not throw every a/c into BoB? Attack the ships or the a/c attacking the German ships. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not trying to guess the outcome of such a confrontation. I am trying to say that neither side can be sure to win. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Airmail109
07-18-2007, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
So what does the LW do since you said they did not throw every a/c into BoB? Attack the ships or the a/c attacking the German ships. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not trying to guess the outcome of such a confrontation. I am trying to say that neither side can be sure to win. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germans would have been pzwned, in 1970 a Sandhurst investigation concluded that under the most optimistic conditions , the German army would not have penetrated further than GHQ Line and would ultimately have been defeated

The whole thing would have made Arhneihm look like a water pistol fight

csThor
07-18-2007, 08:26 AM
And that is why I do not believe that Hitler would have risked the operation at all.
The "optimal war" for Hitler would have been the war against Poland without France and GB raising as much as a finger. While he did not mind attacking France (after all France was the "arch-enemy" and deserved a lesson in the minds of Germany's conservatives) but he did not have any interest in GB or its colonies. He did say "I want colonies I can reach without getting my feet wet." after all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Deadmeat313
07-18-2007, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I believe that Hitler was trying to bluff Britain into surrender, or at least stop fighting. The Battle OF Britain was very real, as was the submarine war, but I dont belive it was a prelude to invasion.
All the attacks on Britain were made in the hope to knock her out of the war, and let Germany get on with stealing the rest of the European countries on the main landmass, not to take over the British islands.
Hitler already told Britain she could keep her colonies, and Germany would cease attacking, as long as they could have a free hand in Europe.

Unfortunately for Hitler, Britain didnt agree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

^^ I agree totally, with you and Blakbuk.

The real danger during the 'Dark Days' of 1940 was that somebody in the House of Commons might propose a 'Vote of No Confidence' in Churchill. If that'd happened it would have been curtains for WSC, unless he somehow managed to get a sharply divided house to vote overwhelmingly in his favour. Any leader that followed Churchill into power would be anti-war, with appeasement/friendship with Germany a priority. Hitler would be free to invade Russia for his lebenstraum, without opposition from the Western Democracies. Both the British and the US governments saw Stalin as a barbaric tyrant in the East (before they had to ally with him, that is).

The scenario that follows a British armstice is a disturbing one. Here's my "What If":

All hostilities between the UK and Germany would cease. There would probably not even be an occupation of the British Isles by German forces. The British military would probably remain in being (although with SOME disarmament) as the British were terribly overstretched across their empire in the late 30s/early 40s and could compellingly argue that their armed forces are required to maintain peace. As far as Hitler is concerned, the "abnormality" (Churchill) is gone, and "normality" is restored - that of friendship/alliance between Britain and Germany. Whether Britain sees themselves as isolationists, or mildly pro-German depends a lot on the new government, and public opinion.

In the Mediterranean, it is likely the Armstice would take place before Italy's invasion of Egypt. The invasion will of course not now take place (unless Mussolini decides to piss off the British AND the Germans at the same time). The Italians will be left to get on with the invasion of Greece and the Balkans - and without having to fight the British at the same time, will probably need little or no support from the Germans.

Thus, the Germans won't be delayed by any Balkan side-quests, and can get on with Operation Barbarossa properly on schedule.

Throughout all this so far, there has been very little incentive for the US to get involved. Without Chrurchill badgering Roosvelt, and without "Great Britain in dire peril" to win the heart-strings of the general populace, the US will easily fall back on its isolationist stance, and leave Old World Europe to fight its own war. One thing they are NOT going to do is leap valiantly to the defence of the USSR...

The USSR is in a bad way. No one will be sending them supplies or any Lend-Lease equipment. No one will be threatening their enemy with a "two-front war" to dilute the German attack. On the contrary - there will be some men in both the UK and USA who will be willing to travel to Germany to help FIGHT the communists. Similar to those idealists who travelled to Spain a few short years before - and those Spanish who subsequently fought for the Axis on the Eastern Front. That said, they are a massive and rugged country. Hitler is still taking an impressive gamble, but this time the circumstances are closer to those under which he envisaged taking that chance.

Japan is in essentially the same boat they were in historically - with their industrial and economic base being increasingly sidelined by the might of the USA. They could opt to go for Duch & British territories in SE Asia, but the British will be in a far better position to reinforce, and they would be unlikely to receive any support from Germany as Hitler would be wary of violating his new treaty with the UK. The US - while not so friendly with the British as they might have been - are still fairly likely to leap in to assist if the UK is attacked in the Pacific. Thus, the Japanese are left with the stark choice of "accept relegation to role of minor player in the region" or "ATTACK!". Yes, sadly it looks like Pearl Harbour will take place (it has since been described as a National Kamikaze). This time the Japanese are facing stronger UK forces - now certainly reinforced by mobilized Commonwealth troops, and a USA that is not distracted elsewhere. But when has that ever stopped them? The difference here is that the Pacific War would be a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT war to that in Europe.

There are now two conflicts going on simultaneously, with little interaction between the unopposed combatants. What will the world look like afterward?

Japan will almost certainly be defeated. The US and UK will maintain their possessions in the area. Singapore will be (as was planned) the centre of the UK Empire in The East. The US will have a firmer hold on the Phillipines and other pacific islands. Japan itself will be occupied, and possibly dismembered.

In Europe, the finish will depend on whether Hitler's gamble paid off. If Germany won, then there is likely a Reich that stems from the West coast of France to the Urals, North to the Arctic and South to the Caucasian border with Turkey - exactly as Hitler envisioned. If the Russians win, then the Reich will be invaded by an army that has no reason to look for friends in the West, and has no reason to stop at Berlin (quite the contrary!). Germany, France and Italy will be sucked into the new Soviet Europe. Britain will once again have a belligerent army looking across at them from the channel coast.

In fact - the latter is such a terrifying outcome to the West, that the UK and probably the USA would feel compelled to ASSIST GERMANY against the USSR! Only that way can a "reasonably civilized" regime be kept in power in Europe. Russia in complete control of Europe would be too scary for the West to contemplate.

/What If ends.

Apologies for such a long post. This got a bit out of control. Apologies also if some of this seems a little overgeneralise - or even racist, at times. I was trying to keep it within the mindset of the 30s-40s. Feel free to comment/flame. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


T.

luftluuver
07-18-2007, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And, one should also not forget that by far the most important reasons for the red armies ability to wage a mobilized war was the lend lease programm, which besides massive numbers of trucks also gave them huge amounts of aviation fuel, planes and tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Myth. Approx 50% of LL did not arrive in the USSR til the last year of the war, and after the war in Europe had ended.

What it did do was allow the Soviets to redirect essentials to that which was directly involved in the fighting off the Germans.

Yes trucks which was almost double of Soviet production.

LL only supplied 6-7% of the Soviet production of AFVs.

LL only supplied ~9.5% of the Soviet production of a/c.

luftluuver
07-18-2007, 08:58 AM
Good post Deadmeat313. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

thefruitbat
07-18-2007, 09:15 AM
yes all good stuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

When i posted the original question, I was trying to imagine the effects of britain out of the war, whether invasion or by treaty.

I think germany would of had a real good shot at russia in '41, with all the extra resources. But most importantly oil from africa/middle east, which would of enabled germany to attack russia fully, without one eye on the oilfields to the south. Also, there's a fair chance germany would of got the bomb first, which is a scary thought.

It's amazing what effect 23 miles of water, can have on history and the balance of power around the world.

cheers fruitbat

Dtools4fools
07-18-2007, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I think the USA would probably just have fought Japan and assessed the situation later. (Let Germany and Russia wear each other down) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Along that line.

Think Adolf would have declared war once the Japanese attacked the US, but US would have stayed defensively on the Atalantic.
Crank up the war industry as Adolf is slugging it out with the Russians.

In the meantime the US would focus mainly on the Japanese.

Once the carriers, liberty ships, tanks, fighters, bombers (including B-36...???), etc were comeing off the lines en masse as they did if would have been time to prepare to return to Europe on way or the other.

Japan and Germany would still loose in the long run, they would not be able to match the combined Russian and US output, never mind the number of men available to recruit for a long war.
But it sure would have taken longer.
*****

Stuntie
07-18-2007, 01:25 PM
In 1812 the French invaded Russia and captured Moscow.
The surrender never came, but General Winter did. The rest is history.

Winter stopped Hitler at the gates of Moscow. But had it not the Siberian divisions and the ever increasing Soviet industrial output would have.
There would have been fighting of the same level at Stalingrad but in Moscow as well. But such fighting actually favouredthe Russians as they had the reserves to feed into the meat grinder.

Take the units from France, North Afrika and Italy, and put them on the Eastern front and they would only have slowed the inevitable.

Bewulfs suggestion that being friendly to the people of the Ukraine and Beylorussia etc. could have given Hitler victory is true. But given the nazi philosphy would have been most unlikely.

stalkervision
07-18-2007, 01:39 PM
If the german's won bob the brits would have drove the germans stark raving mad in short order with their silly british humor.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

nickdanger3
07-18-2007, 03:20 PM
I think a more interesting question is:

What if the were no Battle of Britain?

What if Hitler had put his money where his mouth was (ie. all the talk of how Britain was not their natural enemy) and left Britain alone. France was out of the picture, the attack on Russia was still far away. Consolidate control on the Western Front and save valuable resources for the coming fight, the one that he really wanted.

The Battle of Britain had the effect that most bombing campaigns have: increased resolve to fight by the victims of the attack.

IMHO - Engaging in the Battle of Britain at all was an enormous mistake on Germany's part. Victory in the BoB could not be followed up in any meaningful military way. Yes, there could have been a political solution - the fall of Churchill or at least the forcing of an armistice - but that might have been in the cards WITHOUT the BoB.

Thus from Germany's side : BoB a waste of resources (IMHO)

MEGILE
07-18-2007, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Deadmeat313:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I believe that Hitler was trying to bluff Britain into surrender, or at least stop fighting. The Battle OF Britain was very real, as was the submarine war, but I dont belive it was a prelude to invasion.
All the attacks on Britain were made in the hope to knock her out of the war, and let Germany get on with stealing the rest of the European countries on the main landmass, not to take over the British islands.
Hitler already told Britain she could keep her colonies, and Germany would cease attacking, as long as they could have a free hand in Europe.

Unfortunately for Hitler, Britain didnt agree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

^^ I agree totally, with you and Blakbuk.

The real danger during the 'Dark Days' of 1940 was that somebody in the House of Commons might propose a 'Vote of No Confidence' in Churchill. If that'd happened it would have been curtains for WSC, unless he somehow managed to get a sharply divided house to vote overwhelmingly in his favour. Any leader that followed Churchill into power would be anti-war, with appeasement/friendship with Germany a priority. Hitler would be free to invade Russia for his lebenstraum, without opposition from the Western Democracies. Both the British and the US governments saw Stalin as a barbaric tyrant in the East (before they had to ally with him, that is).

The scenario that follows a British armstice is a disturbing one. Here's my "What If":

All hostilities between the UK and Germany would cease. There would probably not even be an occupation of the British Isles by German forces. The British military would probably remain in being (although with SOME disarmament) as the British were terribly overstretched across their empire in the late 30s/early 40s and could compellingly argue that their armed forces are required to maintain peace. As far as Hitler is concerned, the "abnormality" (Churchill) is gone, and "normality" is restored - that of friendship/alliance between Britain and Germany. Whether Britain sees themselves as isolationists, or mildly pro-German depends a lot on the new government, and public opinion.

In the Mediterranean, it is likely the Armstice would take place before Italy's invasion of Egypt. The invasion will of course not now take place (unless Mussolini decides to piss off the British AND the Germans at the same time). The Italians will be left to get on with the invasion of Greece and the Balkans - and without having to fight the British at the same time, will probably need little or no support from the Germans.

Thus, the Germans won't be delayed by any Balkan side-quests, and can get on with Operation Barbarossa properly on schedule.

Throughout all this so far, there has been very little incentive for the US to get involved. Without Chrurchill badgering Roosvelt, and without "Great Britain in dire peril" to win the heart-strings of the general populace, the US will easily fall back on its isolationist stance, and leave Old World Europe to fight its own war. One thing they are NOT going to do is leap valiantly to the defence of the USSR...

The USSR is in a bad way. No one will be sending them supplies or any Lend-Lease equipment. No one will be threatening their enemy with a "two-front war" to dilute the German attack. On the contrary - there will be some men in both the UK and USA who will be willing to travel to Germany to help FIGHT the communists. Similar to those idealists who travelled to Spain a few short years before - and those Spanish who subsequently fought for the Axis on the Eastern Front. That said, they are a massive and rugged country. Hitler is still taking an impressive gamble, but this time the circumstances are closer to those under which he envisaged taking that chance.

Japan is in essentially the same boat they were in historically - with their industrial and economic base being increasingly sidelined by the might of the USA. They could opt to go for Duch & British territories in SE Asia, but the British will be in a far better position to reinforce, and they would be unlikely to receive any support from Germany as Hitler would be wary of violating his new treaty with the UK. The US - while not so friendly with the British as they might have been - are still fairly likely to leap in to assist if the UK is attacked in the Pacific. Thus, the Japanese are left with the stark choice of "accept relegation to role of minor player in the region" or "ATTACK!". Yes, sadly it looks like Pearl Harbour will take place (it has since been described as a National Kamikaze). This time the Japanese are facing stronger UK forces - now certainly reinforced by mobilized Commonwealth troops, and a USA that is not distracted elsewhere. But when has that ever stopped them? The difference here is that the Pacific War would be a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT war to that in Europe.

There are now two conflicts going on simultaneously, with little interaction between the unopposed combatants. What will the world look like afterward?

Japan will almost certainly be defeated. The US and UK will maintain their possessions in the area. Singapore will be (as was planned) the centre of the UK Empire in The East. The US will have a firmer hold on the Phillipines and other pacific islands. Japan itself will be occupied, and possibly dismembered.

In Europe, the finish will depend on whether Hitler's gamble paid off. If Germany won, then there is likely a Reich that stems from the West coast of France to the Urals, North to the Arctic and South to the Caucasian border with Turkey - exactly as Hitler envisioned. If the Russians win, then the Reich will be invaded by an army that has no reason to look for friends in the West, and has no reason to stop at Berlin (quite the contrary!). Germany, France and Italy will be sucked into the new Soviet Europe. Britain will once again have a belligerent army looking across at them from the channel coast.

In fact - the latter is such a terrifying outcome to the West, that the UK and probably the USA would feel compelled to ASSIST GERMANY against the USSR! Only that way can a "reasonably civilized" regime be kept in power in Europe. Russia in complete control of Europe would be too scary for the West to contemplate.

/What If ends.

Apologies for such a long post. This got a bit out of control. Apologies also if some of this seems a little overgeneralise - or even racist, at times. I was trying to keep it within the mindset of the 30s-40s. Feel free to comment/flame. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


T. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post dude.

LStarosta
07-18-2007, 04:33 PM
What if Stalin had sent an NKVD agent after a defected Soviet spy who had relocated to London and had him poisoned?

ploughman
07-18-2007, 04:36 PM
Sense of humour failure?

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_03/foxtrotPA0905_468x312.jpg

Xiolablu3
07-18-2007, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Deadmeat313:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I believe that Hitler was trying to bluff Britain into surrender, or at least stop fighting. The Battle OF Britain was very real, as was the submarine war, but I dont belive it was a prelude to invasion.
All the attacks on Britain were made in the hope to knock her out of the war, and let Germany get on with stealing the rest of the European countries on the main landmass, not to take over the British islands.
Hitler already told Britain she could keep her colonies, and Germany would cease attacking, as long as they could have a free hand in Europe.

Unfortunately for Hitler, Britain didnt agree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

^^ I agree totally, with you and Blakbuk.

The real danger during the 'Dark Days' of 1940 was that somebody in the House of Commons might propose a 'Vote of No Confidence' in Churchill. If that'd happened it would have been curtains for WSC, unless he somehow managed to get a sharply divided house to vote overwhelmingly in his favour. Any leader that followed Churchill into power would be anti-war, with appeasement/friendship with Germany a priority. Hitler would be free to invade Russia for his lebenstraum, without opposition from the Western Democracies. Both the British and the US governments saw Stalin as a barbaric tyrant in the East (before they had to ally with him, that is).

The scenario that follows a British armstice is a disturbing one. Here's my "What If":

All hostilities between the UK and Germany would cease. There would probably not even be an occupation of the British Isles by German forces. The British military would probably remain in being (although with SOME disarmament) as the British were terribly overstretched across their empire in the late 30s/early 40s and could compellingly argue that their armed forces are required to maintain peace. As far as Hitler is concerned, the "abnormality" (Churchill) is gone, and "normality" is restored - that of friendship/alliance between Britain and Germany. Whether Britain sees themselves as isolationists, or mildly pro-German depends a lot on the new government, and public opinion.

In the Mediterranean, it is likely the Armstice would take place before Italy's invasion of Egypt. The invasion will of course not now take place (unless Mussolini decides to piss off the British AND the Germans at the same time). The Italians will be left to get on with the invasion of Greece and the Balkans - and without having to fight the British at the same time, will probably need little or no support from the Germans.

Thus, the Germans won't be delayed by any Balkan side-quests, and can get on with Operation Barbarossa properly on schedule.

Throughout all this so far, there has been very little incentive for the US to get involved. Without Chrurchill badgering Roosvelt, and without "Great Britain in dire peril" to win the heart-strings of the general populace, the US will easily fall back on its isolationist stance, and leave Old World Europe to fight its own war. One thing they are NOT going to do is leap valiantly to the defence of the USSR...

The USSR is in a bad way. No one will be sending them supplies or any Lend-Lease equipment. No one will be threatening their enemy with a "two-front war" to dilute the German attack. On the contrary - there will be some men in both the UK and USA who will be willing to travel to Germany to help FIGHT the communists. Similar to those idealists who travelled to Spain a few short years before - and those Spanish who subsequently fought for the Axis on the Eastern Front. That said, they are a massive and rugged country. Hitler is still taking an impressive gamble, but this time the circumstances are closer to those under which he envisaged taking that chance.

Japan is in essentially the same boat they were in historically - with their industrial and economic base being increasingly sidelined by the might of the USA. They could opt to go for Duch & British territories in SE Asia, but the British will be in a far better position to reinforce, and they would be unlikely to receive any support from Germany as Hitler would be wary of violating his new treaty with the UK. The US - while not so friendly with the British as they might have been - are still fairly likely to leap in to assist if the UK is attacked in the Pacific. Thus, the Japanese are left with the stark choice of "accept relegation to role of minor player in the region" or "ATTACK!". Yes, sadly it looks like Pearl Harbour will take place (it has since been described as a National Kamikaze). This time the Japanese are facing stronger UK forces - now certainly reinforced by mobilized Commonwealth troops, and a USA that is not distracted elsewhere. But when has that ever stopped them? The difference here is that the Pacific War would be a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT war to that in Europe.

There are now two conflicts going on simultaneously, with little interaction between the unopposed combatants. What will the world look like afterward?

Japan will almost certainly be defeated. The US and UK will maintain their possessions in the area. Singapore will be (as was planned) the centre of the UK Empire in The East. The US will have a firmer hold on the Phillipines and other pacific islands. Japan itself will be occupied, and possibly dismembered.

In Europe, the finish will depend on whether Hitler's gamble paid off. If Germany won, then there is likely a Reich that stems from the West coast of France to the Urals, North to the Arctic and South to the Caucasian border with Turkey - exactly as Hitler envisioned. If the Russians win, then the Reich will be invaded by an army that has no reason to look for friends in the West, and has no reason to stop at Berlin (quite the contrary!). Germany, France and Italy will be sucked into the new Soviet Europe. Britain will once again have a belligerent army looking across at them from the channel coast.

In fact - the latter is such a terrifying outcome to the West, that the UK and probably the USA would feel compelled to ASSIST GERMANY against the USSR! Only that way can a "reasonably civilized" regime be kept in power in Europe. Russia in complete control of Europe would be too scary for the West to contemplate.

/What If ends.

Apologies for such a long post. This got a bit out of control. Apologies also if some of this seems a little overgeneralise - or even racist, at times. I was trying to keep it within the mindset of the 30s-40s. Feel free to comment/flame. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


T. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post dude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

zardozid
07-18-2007, 07:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In fact - the latter is such a terrifying outcome to the West, that the UK and probably the USA would feel compelled to ASSIST GERMANY against the USSR! Only that way can a "reasonably civilized" regime be kept in power in Europe. Russia in complete control of Europe would be too scary for the West to contemplate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Interesting theory...

The only problems with this kind of "guessing/what-if" alternative history stuff is its built on so many assumptions one on top of another that it really is a house of cards...
And so much of history is made with luck...

Look at all the David vs Goliath battles that where won (or lost) on a turn of good (or bad) luck...

(sorry I gotta split...I'm putting this response up before I could finish...The MAIN idea is their...) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Deadmeat313
07-19-2007, 06:30 AM
I agree totally zardozid. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


But wild speculation is fun sometimes. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


T.

Hoatee
07-19-2007, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Japan is in essentially the same boat they were in historically - with their industrial and economic base being increasingly sidelined by the might of the USA. They could opt to go for Duch & British territories in SE Asia, but the British will be in a far better position to reinforce, and they would be unlikely to receive any support from Germany as Hitler would be wary of violating his new treaty with the UK. The US - while not so friendly with the British as they might have been - are still fairly likely to leap in to assist if the UK is attacked in the Pacific. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps this part could be rethought. After all, Vichy France had agreed to Japanese military presence in Indo China (not that that didn't happen without a certain amount tension). So, I reckon maybe Britain might have been coerced into the same with her Asian colonies. And that would depend of course on whether the colonies would have remained loyal to an unfree homeland or to Churchill (fighting on from Canada, most likely).

BSS_AIJO
07-19-2007, 04:38 PM
hmm

more what if..


Really Briton was on the ropes during BOB.. Two smallish changes come to mind.

1. Uboats manage to keep supplies mostly cutoff..

This would have very quickly caused Briton to plain old run out of gas. No gas no fight enough said.

2. German continues to fight the same fright from beginning to end. Instead of pointless bombing revenge on London for the Berlin raid the fighters continue to focus on taking out RAF fighters and the He's focus on Mil targets taking out ports, fuel and industrial targets.

When the gas runs out GB would have no choice but to make peace. Hitler had little interest in occupation in fact hoped to convince the English to help out in ridding the world of Communism. Apparently the Germans had planned to reinstate Edward VIII, and of course boot Churchill. If they had done all of this and waited a year for Barbarossa they could have started Barbarossa on time, and missed out on the worst Russian winter since Napoleon. The new Briton could have been encouraged to provide 4 engine strategic bombers. If Stalin managed to escape the taking of Moscow his days would have been numbered as the committee would have been out for his head. To make things worse there were huge swaths of the Soviet Union that really really didn't like the guy. The Lithuanians might have volunteered another SS division, along with the ones springing up in places like Ukraine where they still had vivid memory's of the party preventing them from eating. In the end the tops of the communist party would have had a fate not unlike the Czars, in fact a number of the details probably would have been left unchanged.
With the US focused on Asia eventually that fight would have played out and the US would have no doubt won. But, with essentially a cold war between the US and a very large Europe things would have not really gotten better. Probably worse, the wrench thrown into the world economy would have eventually made the great depression look like a little meaningless market correction.


BSS_AIJO

MEGILE
07-19-2007, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
What if Putin had sent a KGB agent after a defected Soviet spy who had relocated to London and had him poisoned? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Deadmeat313
07-20-2007, 01:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoatee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Japan is in essentially the same boat they were in historically - with their industrial and economic base being increasingly sidelined by the might of the USA. They could opt to go for Duch & British territories in SE Asia, but the British will be in a far better position to reinforce, and they would be unlikely to receive any support from Germany as Hitler would be wary of violating his new treaty with the UK. The US - while not so friendly with the British as they might have been - are still fairly likely to leap in to assist if the UK is attacked in the Pacific. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps this part could be rethought. After all, Vichy France had agreed to Japanese military presence in Indo China (not that that didn't happen without a certain amount tension). So, I reckon maybe Britain might have been coerced into the same with her Asian colonies. And that would depend of course on whether the colonies would have remained loyal to an unfree homeland or to Churchill (fighting on from Canada, most likely). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference here is that the French were defeated militarily and forced to accept many indignities as part of their armstice agreement.

My scenario has it that the British are merely bought off. Hitler's stated terms with the British was that they could keep their colonies if they ceased hostilities. That was a very tempting offer at the time to many in the British government. Luckily, Churchill did not fall.

T.

PS: Though ironically, the British Empire would have come out of the war far stronger in my "What If". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Kurfurst__
07-20-2007, 03:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Your ignoring the fact that they had no air borne torpedos, and that any naval attack would have been far larger and it would have had air cover </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The LW of course, had airborne torpedoes. I am not sure if they had in 1940 already.

In any case it's fairly irrelevant, as it didn't quite matter around the waters of Crete. The RN navy vessels at the time didn't have effective AAA, in fact, none of the navies in the World had. What was also demonstrated at Crete is how quickly AAA ammunition run out.

In particular there was a case around Crete where a whole flottila of RN destroyers had to withdraw from attacking a small German naval invasion 'fleet' desperately protected by a single small Italian destroyer, due to the fact they were simply running out on AAA munition.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And you seriously think submarines would have been capable of lauching succesful operations against a force protected by hundreds of corvetes and destroyers? ROFL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ask the crew of Barham. Submarines were repeatadly able to penetrate destroyers and sink capial warships during, after all they would have to do is to stay in ambush (it's quite easy on the narrow Channel) silently until opportunity presents itself. The larger the fleet's size the better - it's absolutely impossible to find a submarine in such noise.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yeah the mines would have been a problem, but none of those factos would have stopped such a huge force wreaking total mayhem. Even at the expense of heavy casualties. If Sealion had been lauched, EVERYTHING the British had would have been thrown at the channel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is it's total guesswork, and we will never know. Personally I'd doubt very much the RN would be as stupid as throwing the whole force into battle once the invasion was launched, risking the destruction of it or crippling in well prepeared ambushed by subs, minefields and the hit and run attacks of the Kriegsmarine's heavy surface units, heavy shore batteries at Calais, while constantly fighting off the Luftwaffe.

Operating many smaller but capable task forces in a sustained manner - the Germans won't take England in a day after all even in our hypothetical scenario - presents a much better chance of success. Some task forces may be intercepted, ambushed, or taken by surprise but some will get through and do enough damage.

Actually it's a fairly risky 'do or die' situation for both sides, and it's fairly well recorded that the difficulties arising from crossing the Channel did not escape the attention of the German Navy's planners, who quite categorically stated they don't have the resources at the moment to guarantee anything. They understood very well the requirements for an invasion-from-the-march in 1940 were simply not present.

In any case, they had growing concern about developments on the East and one eye on the USSR since July 1940 - before the BoB even began, it already ended, and the rest of it was a demonstration of force to convince British leadership to 'come to their senses' and make peace.

joeap
07-20-2007, 03:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Actually it's a fairly risky 'do or die' situation for both sides, and it's fairly well recorded that the difficulties arising from crossing the Channel did not escape the attention of the German Navy's planners, who quite categorically stated they don't have the resources at the moment to guarantee anything. They understood very well the requirements for an invasion-from-the-march in 1940 were simply not present.

In any case, they had growing concern about developments on the East and one eye on the USSR since July 1940 - before the BoB even began, it already ended, and the rest of it was a demonstration of force to convince British leadership to 'come to their senses' and make peace. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree, I don't think Sealion was ever seriously on, I suppose the best the Germans were hoping for as you said was a political settlement. It is not unthinkable that if the RAF had been defeated or suffered heavy losses and could not be counted upon to help stop a hypothetical invasion, Churchill might have been forced out and someone else (Halifax?) who would have come to a peace with the Third Reich might have come to power.

Von_Rat
07-20-2007, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In particular there was a case around Crete where a whole flottila of RN destroyers had to withdraw from attacking a small German naval invasion 'fleet' desperately protected by a single small Italian destroyer, due to the fact they were simply running out on AAA munition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



they had to withdraw, but they succeeded in their mission of stopping any axis seabourne reinforcement of crete.

in the channel thats all that would be necessary as well.

Chris0382
07-20-2007, 05:10 AM
Actually if Hitler played his cards right and invaded Russia (not thru Poland and left France alone) the USA may have supported Germany vs Russia due to hatred of communism. There were big plans made by USA industrial leaders to establish trade with Germany after is conquered Europe as business leaders cared more about money (and still do today).

America could have cared less about England provided they (USA) were safe as America was pressuiring England to sue for peace and send there navy to America.

England truely stood alone IMO and Hitler made some huge egostsistical errors, ignored his generals, and overstretched his resorces and allowed his hatred to cloud his mind.

Lets be fortunate Germany didnt fully support WW2 because if they did hitler would have been fired and a new leader would have been running the war. (I know that statement if ver contradictory but you have to think many moves back).

Chris0382
07-20-2007, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris0382:
Actually if Hitler played his cards right and invaded Russia (not thru Poland and left France alone) the USA may have supported Germany vs Russia due to hatred of communism. There were big plans made by USA industrial leaders to establish trade with Germany after it conquered Europe as business leaders cared more about money and were looking forward to spoils also (and still do today).

America could have cared less about England provided they (USA) were safe as America was pressuiring England to sue for peace and send thier navy to America.

America doesnt want war unless something is in it for them. They aslo didnt recognize the Verilles treaty. They only got involved in WW1 after Germany tried to get Mexico to attack US.

England truely stood alone IMO and Hitler made some huge egostsistical errors, ignored his generals, and overstretched his resorces and allowed his hatred to cloud his mind.

Lets be fortunate Germany didnt fully support WW2 because if they did hitler would have been fired and a new leader would have been running the war. (I know that statement if ver contradictory but you have to think many moves back). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ake109
07-20-2007, 05:25 AM
I would have liked to see what would happen if Germany left the UK alone after an armistice, the US stayed out of the war and Japan still decides to take Malaya and Singapore.

Even without a war in Europe distracting them, could the RN protect Malaya? Would the Kido Butai slaughter anything the RN could throw at them due to the distance from home?
Yamato/Musashi/Nagato/Mutsu/Kongo/Kirishima/Ise/Hyuga etc. brawling against the KGV's + Hood + Repulse/Revenge + QEs' in the Straits of Malacca would be a battleship fan's wet dream.

Chris0382
07-20-2007, 05:56 AM
I AGREE Ake109 that would have been interesting.

The key was to keep America out of the war and America's desire to enter was overestimated as Americans were too busy enjoying a self sufficient life to want to enter the war.

It appears Japan and Germany assumed America was totally against them but were not in all actuality as there were many Americans in power taking a neutral stance.

Its hard not to feel invunerable as Germany and Japan did with massive armies marching past your palace such as when Cheney did his Iranian speech on the aircraft carrier a month or so ago in front of F-18's (hard not to be macho in that scenery).

luftluuver
07-20-2007, 06:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In particular there was a case around Crete where a whole flottila of RN destroyers had to withdraw from attacking a small German naval invasion 'fleet' desperately protected by a single small Italian destroyer, due to the fact they were simply running out on AAA munition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

they had to withdraw, but they succeeded in their mission of stopping any axis seabourne reinforcement of crete.

in the channel thats all that would be necessary as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Besides, there was no air support for the RN ships off Crete.

Seaborne Invasion (20-22 May) During the night of May 20-21, a British light naval force broke through the German aerial blockade and searched the waters north of Crete. Admiral Schuster thereupon decided to call back to Milos the first naval convoy, which was approaching Crete under escort of an Italian destroyer. At dawn on May 21, German planes sighted the British ships and subjected them to heavy air attacks. One destroyer was sunk and two cruisers damaged.

At 09:00 the waters north of Crete were cleared of enemy ships and the convoy was ordered to continue its voyage in the direction of Maleme. During the day German dive bombers based on Skarpanto and Italian planes flying from Rhodes scored several hits on British ships returning to Crete waters, thereby preventing them from intercepting the Axis convoy. The German troops on the island were anxiously awaiting the arrival of artillery, antitank guns, and supplies, but poor weather conditions so delayed the convoy that it could not reach the island before darkness. When it finally came around Cape Spatha at 23:00, a British naval task force suddenly confronted the convoy, which was on the way to Souda Bay to land reinforcements and supplies. The British immobilized the Italian escort vessel and sank most of the motor sailers and freighters. Many German soldiers, most of them mountain troops, were drowned. Sea rescue planes, however, picked up the majority of the shipwrecked. The second convoy, which had meanwhile reached Milos, was recalled to Piraeus to save it from a similar fate. [n]No further seaborne landings were attempted until the fate of Crete had been decided.[/b]

Shakthamac
07-20-2007, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris0382:
I AGREE Ake109 that would have been interesting.

The key was to keep America out of the war and America's desire to enter was overestimated as Americans were too busy enjoying a self sufficient life to want to enter the war.

It appears Japan and Germany assumed America was totally against them but were not in all actuality as there were many Americans in power taking a neutral stance.

Its hard not to feel invunerable as Germany and Japan did with massive armies marching past your palace such as when Cheney did his Iranian speech on the aircraft carrier a month or so ago in front of F-18's (hard not to be macho in that scenery). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guess its hard for some folks to post intelligently about a topic and not insert some current political jibe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Maybe next we can draw a comparison between Stalin and Bush's Hurricane Machine