No it isn't.

Just to quote from one of many sources:

http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Bard-c2-2.html

and the make up of each landing force:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch

I've actually faced this problem before, These exact events happened to me in a Hearts of Iron game long ago

You all are forgetting a few key pieces of land that I feel would have been critical given such a war situation.

1) Greenland - was already used as a staging area for flights across the atlantic, I dont see why it could not be a staging area for 3 marine divisions, which should have been sufficient to take Iceland.

2) The Azores - If Europe has already fallen, why the hell not try to take these islands?

3) An Island Hopping campaign: Greenland > Iceland > Britain > (throw Ireland in there, Ireland would be very pro american)


The big question would be whether or not the british people would resist german occupation. (See the film 'It Happened Here')

__________________

If find this what-ifs quite… ridiculous. I simply don’t know, in the first place, what kind of miracle should have happened for Germany to actually defeat and occupy Great Britain…

Now, if this happened in 1940 or 1941, the amount of extra troops available for the Eastern Front would have been very small. Since then there existed no real threat of an Allied invasion, I can guess that the total amount of divisions fielded in Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and North Africa with the purpose of defending the coast line against an amphibious attack wouldn’t have been of more than 20 full divisions (somewhat between 300.000 and 400.000 men). But of course, Great Britain should have been occupied as well, which recquired maybe half of the previous figure. Even the Luftwaffe would have had to field an even larger number of aircraft than it deployed in Germany (200), the Mediterranean (370), the North Sea and Western Europe (780) in order to guard and patrol the Atlantic. The small German fleet, whose only use in the Eastern Front was of artillery support at the Leningrad front, would have been forced to protect the biggest island of the Atlantic…

Iceland, I think, is almost out of the way… As T. A. has put it, the Germans negligible amphibious capability (Norway, by example, took almost half of the German surface fleet) doesn’t throw many lights at such operations.

Now, I think the British and Commonwealth reaction, in case of this miraculous defeat of Britain, would have been to continue fighting, no matter what. That makes possible that Iceland could have been defended and, almost surely, the whole British fleet would have fled to Dominion ports or scuttled.

Quote:

If Britain was to surrender then is it not reasonable to assume that the Royal Navy would be incorporated into the Kriegsmarine along with possibly the French Navy.

It is unreasonable! The Germans did not confiscate almost any French major vessel. The main French battle fleet was scuttled when Vichy was occupied in 1942. And the same happened to the Italian fleet in 1943. Taking into account that the very Germans blew their own defeated ships at Scapa Flow in 1919, why would the British had acted different from French, Germans or Italians?

Quote:

Considering the problems that the Allies had with their supply network after DDAy, WITH a land base (Britain), I cannot see how they would have been able to accomplish this operation without severe problems.

And what about the gigantic and successful supply network the US did build in the Pacific Ocean, even if its distances are far greater than in the Atlantic and even if the American logistic train didn’t have most of the country’s resources at its disposal, since it was a 'secondary' theatre?

Quote:

With Britain out the war, the Germans would have been operating from Britain, Norway, and North Africa.

And this brings us to the initial point of this thread… more diversion of badly-needed resources from the eastern front…

Quote:

Secondly, spying on the ground contributed very little to the war effort, in any meaningful way.

I differ. It did have a great tactical impact. During the whole war, the Allies always knew better what to hit and what they were facing. In the other hand, you can see how meaningful it was for the Germans, during the Battle of Britain, to bomb airfields which had nothing to do with fighter command; or in the east, when they fought using XIX century maps, thinking they were fighting a Red Army 1/3 of its real size, always ignoring where, when and how strongly the Soviets were going to attack them. No doubt why the Maskírovka almost always worked with the Germans, besides the fact it was often very well executed: Germany had a lousy intelligence system, at all levels.

Quote:

Thirdly, most of the intelligence gathered was through Enigma interceptions and decodes – something that the Americans were very poor at and didn’t get to grips with until the British provided their know-how.

And all these technicians, couldn’t they all have fled Great Britain, to Canada or the US and remain fighting the Germans?

Quote:

…the Germans wouldn’t have needed a major amphibious occupation. An airborne one would have sufficed, with naval support.

What bloody naval support? Half the German fleet went to the bottom of the sea during the Norwegian operation. And I’m also thinking that the weather of the North Atlantic might have been a major factor for airborne operations… as well as the British fleet, which I won't assume would have capitulated just like that.

Quote:

The use of nuclear bombs will always be supposition.

Why? The ‘Manhattan Project’ was started with the sole idea of beating Germany…

Quote:

The same problem that you outlined for the German subs operating so far from their bases is applicable here for Allied subs.

Wrong. The vast majority of German submarines were of medium size. US submarines, instead, were heavy, long-range, which were very successfully used in the much larger Pacific Ocean.

Quote:

…they would have had to have had their air force decimated on the Russian front – there is no evidence that they ever got to that stage solely in the East. Their major air losses, and the decimation of their experienced units occurred almost entirely on the western front.

You’re severely under-estimating the huge losses the Luftwaffe suffered in the east from 1941-1944, out of constant and merciless attrition over a frontline of 4.200 km (the losses caused by ground fire and weather conditions might have no parallel in other theatres). The toll catastrophic air bridges, endless air-ground missions, bombing and fierce dogfights took on German crews and production was fatal. The German bomber and transport wings met their tomb in the east. And let’s not forget how many specialised ground crews were also wiped out in the middle of Soviet offensives.

Quote:

Just a fought, Oh and also it means that the Russians would have to face the full industrial power of Germany instead of some being diverted to France and North Africa etc.

No… the resources released from North Africa, France or Norway by the end of hostilities with the British would have now to be used in the occupation and defense of Great Britain and maybe actions against Iceland. In any case, the extra amount of resources that would have been transferred to the eastern front in 1941-1942 would have been insufficient to cope with the demands of the Russian meat grinder.

Quote:

Also the fact that if Britain fell, Iraq would fall into German hands along with the oil..... This makes things interesting.

And how were they going to transport the oil? With what ships? With what pipelines?

Quote:

You forgot to include the fact the GErmans would have there own carriers.

Would they? All of a sudden, the ultra-conservative German admirals were going to switch their strategic thinking, send U-boats and battleships to hell, in order to rescue the already-dropped idea of the Graf Zeppelin?

Quote:

LOTS of subs which the US were not experienced in fighting.

But the British were. And again, I can think that it was very likely that the Royal Navy would have been almost intact and still fighting Germany based on Dominion or American ports.

Quote:

And so many carriers would require all of the resources of the US navy alone leaving little or no room for an invasion force.

Are you kidding? The US reached like half of its potential military power in 1945, and by then it had built the largest combat fleet in the History of the world… It was ready to launch X, Y and Z-Days, which would have made D-Day look like a child’s game.

Quote:

Oil shortages would be a problem but atleast they wouldnt be using up oil in NA or in all of those U-boat operations through out the war, Not to mention there would be no air attacks on any of there oil fields (except maybe from the soviets, which i highly delt they could do).

The air attacks on the oil fields took place when the tide had already changed in the east. The Red Air Force might not have been able to bombard those oil fields, but I guess the Red Army would have, as it did, occupied them sooner or later, killing, capturing and wounding several thousands Krauts in the process.

Quote:

Oh and those thousands of pilots and aircraft they lost over the years would be at there disposel, Oh and im also guessing a number of those pilots lost in the Luftwaffe air attacks would still be available.

Not if they had been thrown into the Russian cauldron…

Quote:

And then [the Luftwaffe would] release one massive combined attack with the Kriegsmarine which would include several hundered U-boats.

Now, this one did get me! This sounds like the Germans were the masters of combined-service operations!

Quote:

By which time [1941-1945] Germany is well aware of the US and is going to be more than ready.

As ready as they were in D-Day, with Mongolian Soviet POWs with WWI rifles, manning concrete bunkers, and Panzer division which relied on horse transport for food?

Quote:

And the Eastern front losses of pilots conserne this how? There would be thousands of pilots that could have been givin plentty of training over the years by the more experienced pilots. And compared to the West those aircraft losses in the East werent that much

OK. That’s enough. Not only that’s a huge hindsight absurd supposition, but also a show of both great ignorance about the war in the east and disrespect for the USSR’s contribution to victory in Europe. Besides, there’s no argument there, only empty-based conjectures!

Quote:

Germans planes are alot different so are there tactics.

Exactly! Nowhere near as effective or adequate as those of an old-experienced naval power such as Japan!

Quote:

I see no reason that the Germans would be able to protect shipping any better than the Japanese.

I can see a reason… the ill-performance of German destroyers against surface ships, as in Norway. Also, there’s to be noticed that the number and quality of German destroyers compared to Japan’s was, and again I’ll use the word, laughable!

And I have to confess… I’ve laughed a bit in this thread. Thanks for that!

There is so much to learn. I feel like an idiot.

Why do you say that? It's a matter of clearing your mind of acquired wisdom, prejucice and propaganda and taking a square look at facts. That's what I think Friedrich and Jeff are doing.

__________________

One "new idea" on the subject of invading Britain I learned from Mr Churchill himself from a document. He himself feared ( post-war thought though ) that the Germans, after Dunkirk, would keep the fighting going on in France and in the mean while would gather troops for the invasion. Churchill himself would be forced to send new troops and planes to fight the battle in France and this might leave Britain more vulnerable for an invasion.

__________________

'Preciate the words of encouragement, Za.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Thanks, my friend.