An Alternate History Idea

[Aktungbby]

Small thinkers- GO BIG!: In a fabulously successful combined operation Germany takes control of...ICELAND!... and the Azores! Tirpitz, Bismark, Prinz Eugen, Graf Spee and Scharnhorst are based out of these with half of the VII fleet and all the Luftwaffe air supremecy support of Doenitz's fantasy. Holland falls and the Dutch Antilles and oil reserves of Bonaire and Aruba become the replacement for Baku. Encouraged, those nasty little yerba-mate suckers in Buenos Aires under Col Peron, pro fascist dictator, provide another Western Hemisphere base to the Kreigsmarine- all the IX's- and Panama is Kaput. Not to be out-done in the back-stabbing department at this point, Spanish Gen. Francisco Franco suddenly gets brave and seals off the Gibraltar Straight; Vigo and the Baleares are open Nazi bases. The Bay of Biscay transit is a Nazi lake. Churchill cancels his 'end of the beginning' speech...

[Leandros]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

Small thinkers- GO BIG!: In a fabulously successful combined operation Germany takes control of...ICELAND!... and the Azores! Tirpitz, Bismark, Prinz Eugen, Graf Spee and Scharnhorst are based out of these with half of the VII fleet and all the Luftwaffe air supremecy support of Doenitz's fantasy. Holland falls and the Dutch Antilles and oil reserves of Bonaire and Aruba become the replacement for Baku. Encouraged, those nasty little yerba-mate suckers in Buenos Aires under Col Peron, pro fascist dictator, provide another Western Hemisphere base to the Kreigsmarine- all the IX's- and Panama is Kaput. Not to be out-done in the back-stabbing department at this point, Spanish Gen. Francisco Franco suddenly gets brave and seals off the Gibraltar Straight; Vigo and the Baleares are open Nazi bases. The Bay of Biscay transit is a Nazi lake. Churchill cancels his 'end of the beginning' speech...

Barbarossa didn't work, Sea Lion we don't know wouldn't work. I'd still go for a friendly (like Norway.....) lease of air, sub and S-boat bases in Northern Ireland September 1940. North-Western Approaches closed - England is down. Because of no invasion the US would stay protectionist, Roosevelt might even be dumped. England down and Stalin would stay a loyal supplier of all kind of goods to Germany.

A new government in the UK, Churchill and friends would escape to Canada (if they get through the German blockade) but the British and Norwegian merchant fleets would divert to the US. Lots of war booty in the UK, naval ships, aircraft, transports.

India throw the British out.

Franco accepts German march-through to seize Gibraltar.

In the period up till June 1941 - Japan then attacks in the Pacific (because the British are weaker than in the RL and India declares neutrality) - Germany can increase its fleet in leisure. Declares war on the US after the Japanese attack. Stalin becomes even more loyal and is threatened to cut down on his armed forces build-up, there is no longer any possibility of assistance from the UK and the US. German inspectors oversee this.

The Commonwealth forces (mainly Australian - the Indians have already gone) withdraw from North Africa after the UK surrender. North Africa is evacuated. No British intermingling in Greece. Greece accepts Italian terms. Italian forces reach the Suez Canal. Italian North-Western Africa is supplied and sustained. Iraq takes control of its oilfields. Aden is evacuated. The Axis can receive oil from the shipping terminals in the Eastern Med.

The Philippines are much weaker in June 1941 than in the following December. Fall quickly. Much more shipping available for reinforcement of US bases in Eastern Pacific but Australia denies any US forces on their ground. Makes non-aggression pact with Japan, sacrifies Dutch East India.

But......what shall the U-boats do now......?

Fred

[Marcello]

The Kriegsmarine had suffered greatly in Norway, with substantial losses (Blucher, Konisberg, Karlsruhe and half of the destroyer force) or damage (Gneisenau, Scharnhorst) of surface assets, to say nothing of what had already been lost elsewhere (Graf Spee, a number of u-boats). They cannot pull off an invasion of Ireland, nor resupply a force stationed there; the u-boat force in 1940 was also pitiful small, usually less than 20 boats at sea at any given time, to close anything no matter where its bases were. Not that in principle if you had to invade the UK a move against Ireland would be wrong but the means were simply not there.
Also even if somehow the germans are teleported in Britain/Ireland/whatever if you take out Britain you have to basically redo the campaign. Just open the RND campaign layer wih the editor and tell me if anybody feels like changing all the traffic going to and from Britain. It seems to me like a lot of work to...what end exactly since you are left without much in the way of enemies to fight?

[U505995]

Originally Posted by Marcello

The Kriegsmarine had suffered greatly in Norway, with substantial losses (Blucher, Konisberg, Karlsruhe and half of the destroyer force) or damage (Gneisenau, Scharnhorst) of surface assets, to say nothing of what had already been lost elsewhere (Graf Spee, a number of u-boats). They cannot pull off an invasion of Ireland, nor resupply a force stationed there; the u-boat force in 1940 was also pitiful small, usually less than 20 boats at sea at any given time, to close anything no matter where its bases were. Not that in principle if you had to invade the UK a move against Ireland would be wrong but the means were simply not there.
Also even if somehow the germans are teleported in Britain/Ireland/whatever if you take out Britain you have to basically redo the campaign. Just open the RND campaign layer wih the editor and tell me if anybody feels like changing all the traffic going to and from Britain. It seems to me like a lot of work to...what end exactly since you are left without much in the way of enemies to fight?

Interesting point, I think that Barbarossa is the way to go. If Germany conquered Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow they probably would have sent Ivan hiding hiding up in the Urals. Whether or not they would have surrendered at that point seems pretty doughtfull.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon U-48

Interesting point, I think that Barbarossa is the way to go. If Germany conquered Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow they probably would have sent Ivan hiding hiding up in the Urals. Whether or not they would have surrendered at that point seems pretty doughtfull.

I find German success in Barbarossa almost as difficult to believe as success in Operation Sealion. Barbarossa was based on a faulty assumption. That the Soviet Union would collapse in 6 months if struck hard enough. The Germans attacked on June 22nd. By mid-July it was already obvious that the assumption was incorrect. So in one sense, it is impossible for Barbarossa to succeed. No matter what changes are made to the plan, the Soviet Union will likely not simply collapse in 6 months.

The basic thesis for Barbarossa was that you could destroy the Red Army within 300-400 miles of the frontier and the way east would be open. The Germans thought they could, but their intelligence was faulty. It's greatest error lay in underestimating the Soviet ability to reconstitute shattered units and create new forces from scratch. The Red Army constantly fed in new divisions as fast as the Germans smashed existing ones and this was a principal cause of the German failure in 1941. The Germans could not afford to trade body for body with the Soviet Union. They never imagined that by the time of the German invasion, the Soviet Union had a pool of 14 million men (which Germany could not match) with at least basic military training.

The Germans might have had greater success if they had rescinded the infamous Commissar Order, and the destruction of non-Jewish Slavs. The German occupation policy appeared deliberately intended to alienate the local populace. This was nothing more than a license to loot, pillage and plunder at will, and not have to worry about any consequences later. The German Army leaders should have known or suspected that this type of policy would open a Pandora's Box and make it impossible to get the Soviet Union's alienated populations on their side.

[Marcello]

As I said their chances of winning are slim to none. That said USSR tipping over in 1941-1942 seems a lot more feasible than most ohers alternatives. A different german approach and soviet leadership screwing things further (it is not like they had a great deal of check and balances against Stalin going nuts) were at least within the realm of the possible, though not likely. Naval resources in 1940 could not simply be had. Only possibility is perhaps the french somehow becoming immediately available for german use, though landing crafts are still not going to appear overnight. But as I said at the end of a day taking out Britain defeats the point of the game.

[GJO]

The initial Nazi successes were achieved through shock and surprise against defenders that were largely ill-prepared. Two years into the war, the tide was changing and the forces of (and supporting) Russia and Britain had not wasted time in organising their preparations for their defence and the eventual defeat of the aggressors.

[Leandros]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

I find German success in Barbarossa almost as difficult to believe as success in Operation Sealion. Barbarossa was based on a faulty assumption. That the Soviet Union would collapse in 6 months if struck hard enough. The Germans attacked on June 22nd. By mid-July it was already obvious that the assumption was incorrect. So in one sense, it is impossible for Barbarossa to succeed. No matter what changes are made to the plan, the Soviet Union will likely not simply collapse in 6 months.

These discussions are always interesting. I am a little surprised, though, that so many are so dead sure in their opinions. I ask you:

If Weserübung had not happened - would you have believed it could? The Germans were not teleported there.

If France, Holland and Belgium (Luxembourg, too....) had not been invaded and beaten in little more than a month - inclusive of the British Expeditionary Force - would you have believed it could?

If the German attack on Crete had not taken place, would you have believed a half massacred airborne division and piecemeally inserted mountain division could have destroyed or chased away twice as many Allied soldiers in prepared positions and with full knowledge of the assault from the island in 10 days?

If it hadn't happened would you have believed what happened in Singapore could have been possible?

If the SU had been broken by the German onslaught - would you have believed it possible?

Fortunately enough, Hitler, and Mussolini for that matter, didn't understand the importance of doing first thing first.

In my opinion, Barbarossa was a very close thing. What if the German generals had been allowed to use the German skill of maneuverability to improve their defensive positions when winter set in and Moscow had not been reached?

One little detail could have made a very big difference in the Leningrad area. If one looks at the map it is obvious. The German forces just made it to a narrow strip of the Lake Ladoga beaches. The Finns made it all the way to the River Svir between Ladoga and Onega. In the gap in-between supplies to Leningrad could still be moved, over the Ladoga ice in winter, by boat in summer. Hitler did not pressure the Finns in collaborating on closing this gap. He also had forces diverted to the Army Group Center lessening the possibility of achieving such a closure. Had it been closed Leningrad would have to fall within the winter (yes, dead sure......).

With Leningrad down large German forces would be released for a pressure eastwards to cut off the comm. lines to the Arctic Sea, Murmansk and Arkhangelsk. German naval forces would be released, too, and ship's transport to Leningrad could be used to supply that flank.

Hitler did not invade England when he should have, Mussolini wasted resources against Greece that he should have used in the Desert.

Fred

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Leandros

In my opinion, Barbarossa was a very close thing. What if the German generals had been allowed to use the German skill of maneuverability to improve their defensive positions when winter set in and Moscow had not been reached?

But would the fall of Leningrad or even Moscow have meant the defeat of the Soviet Union? In 1941 the Soviet Union endured the capture of numerous major cities, a huge percentage of crucial raw materials, and the loss of four million troops. Yet it still continued to fight. It had a vast and growing industrial base east of the Ural Mountains, well out of reach of German forces. And in Joseph Stalin it had one of the most ruthless leaders in world history—a man utterly unlikely to throw in the towel because of the loss of any city, no matter how prestigious.

A scenario involving a street by street fight for either city also ignores the arrival of 18 divisions of troops from Siberia—fresh, well-trained, and equipped for winter fighting. They had been guarding against a possible Japanese invasion, but a Soviet spy reliably informed Stalin that Japan would turn southward, toward the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines, thereby freeing them to come to the Moscow front. Historically, the arrival of these troops took the Germans by surprise, and an unexpected Soviet counteroffensive in early December 1941 produced a major military crisis. If indeed they went directly at either of these cities, they may have garnered the strength to break in the gates, but in my opinion, the eventual urban fight for Leningrad or Moscow would have made Stalingrad look like a training exercise.

[Marcello]

If Weserübung had not happened - would you have believed it could? The Germans were not teleported there.

If France, Holland and Belgium (Luxembourg, too....) had not been invaded and beaten in little more than a month - inclusive of the British Expeditionary Force - would you have believed it could?

The germans had a good army, a good air force and a willingness to make very risky bets, they had beaten France in 1870 and made to the gates of Paris in 1914. So surprising yes, but still an outcome very much in the cards.
That said land and air forces could make up for a lot, but not the lack of a proper navy. Even with luck on their side Norway still crippled the Kriegsmarine surface forces and in the event the geography for the Luftwaffe was a lot more favorable than, say for an attempt on Ireland. Note also that France fell in the meantime and Britain had to be defended, if not the campagn might have lasted longer and naval losses could have been greater still.

Hitler did not invade England when he should have

The basic condition was air supremacy, which was never achieved, to say nothing of the rest. And if the USSR was to be tackled, and it was the whole point of the war, 1941 was the year to do it.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Leandros

But......what shall the U-boats do now......?

Fred

The key to the whole thing is world domination which means across the "English speaking pond" and into the Western Hemisphere! Since the Fascist regime under COL. Perón is available as of 1941(with Evita) this is the proper geographic base for the IX U-boots' longer range; (Bye Bye Falklands and St Helena) They can strike the African coast (Freetown-Capetown) more readily as well. Throw in the oil rich Dutch Antilles: (Bonaire, Curacao and Aruba) after the fall of Holland and Venezuela is cut off as well and the Panama Canal becomes a turkey shoot. The type VII's operate out of Iceland, Norway and the Azores and Ibeza in the Baleares, chopping off the Mediterranean "at the the gut", Gibraltar, under Fascist Franco.
The real key is sea power; Napoleon never got it and der Fuhrer, an admitted "coward at sea" is copying every mistake of his predecessor, including a winter war in Russia.