Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Germany ignores England

Discussion in 'What If - European Theater - Western Front & Atlan' started by bigiceman, Oct 28, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bigiceman

    bigiceman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    3
    What if after the withdrawl of the expiditionary force from Dunkirk Germany had just ignored England? They establish coastal defenses and fly fighter sorties to protect themselves from any English bombing. There is no bombing campaign against the RAF or against London. They occupy France but leave North Africa alone and prevail upon Italy to stay inside their own territories there. Operation Barbarosa still would go ahead. Italy would still go into the Balkans and Greece, but no Afrika Corps. Could they have politically neutralized England? I know this is completely against Hitler's mindset, but it is a WHAT IF. :D
     
  2. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    885
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    The British by themselves as a whole were no real threat to Germany. The only threat would be from the Royal Navy interfereing with shipping from Norway. The key here is American intervention. Without it, all England could possibly do is be a thorn on Hitler's side.
     
  3. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,478
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Location:
    London, England.
    Germany may have ignored Britain, but Britain - under Churchill - would not have ignored Germany. As the only remaining bastion of free civilization in Europe, offensive action would have been taken wherever and whenever possible, inevitably provoking attack from Germany.

    With no U-Boat offensive hindering movement of men ( from the Commonwealth ) and materials, the bombing offensive would have started sooner in greater strength. Mussolini would still have promoted his interests in the Mediterranean and Britain would still have reacted - but with a stronger RAF, not depleted by the Battle of Britain. Hitler would still have felt his Southern flank of Barabarossa to be threatened, and would have retaliated.

    Churchill would still have tried in any way to involve the USA, and Hitler would still have been crazy enough to declare war on the USA when Japan attacked.
     
  4. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    885
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    True enough but it would also mean a stronger Luftwaffe the Royal Air Force would encounter in its attacks on the continent. The British would again resort to night bombing which would not be successful as with all around bombing involving the US Air Force by day.
     
  5. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,478
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Location:
    London, England.
    And looking again at the original topic, political neutralization would have been difficult with so many free Governments-in-exile locating in London.
     
  6. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    885
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    I see. Politically neutralize Great Britain. Yes, difficult to do. I agree, with Churchill at the helm, he would do anything and everything to get at Hitler's Fortress Europa including throwing rocks from the white cliffs of Dover [​IMG]
     
  7. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well American involvement in Europe becomes much more questionable if Germany decides not to threaten GB. Lend-lease may not have gone forward if FDR couldn't justify the assistance (and that would have implications for the Russian front as well). And don't forget that part of Hitler's rationale for declaring war on the United States was that they were already involved in running supplies and weapons to the British. If Germany refused to strategically engage the UK, then Churchill's stubborn position might actually have been undermined. Not only would the Americans be less inclined to help out, but British leaders would be more inclined to peace with Germany since the UK alone could never defeat them. A stalemate would be the last thing a nation that freshly remembered the first war would want.
     
  8. bigiceman

    bigiceman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    3
    I can't help it, I love this image. I can just see a political cartoonist lampooning Churchill in just this way.
     
  9. bigiceman

    bigiceman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    3
    Suppose Hitler doesn't rise to the bait of Churchill's probes, both militarily and politically. Spain is neutral and free, Italy is allied with Germany but not agressive. The Med. becomes a German/Italian bathtub of influence, with Gibralter left unmolested. Would the British people have had any use for Churchill? Without the Blitz to solidify their backing behind Churchill would he have continued to weild influence? Could the vast number of people who had seen the results of the trenches of WWI really have stomached another involvement on the continent?
     
  10. bigiceman

    bigiceman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    3
    Governments in exhile are a thorn in the side for the host government. The people, the people who have to have the will to go forth and fight, could care less. They are sorry the foreigners got their butts handed to them by the Germans, they are polite and generous hosts, but they don't send their sons accross the channel in boats to die on other countries soil if it doesn't directly invlove them.

    For England and the British poeple, Hitler bombed them, Italy attacked their colonies, Japan attacked their colonies. It wasn't the Free French, Belgians or Norwegians in exhile that raised their righteous anger.

    "Blimey, that Hitler bloke better not try that stuff with us, we would give him what for."

    Let me say I am in no way denigrating the courage and spirit of the British people. History would prove me wrong no matter how I tried. I am playing to human nature though and playing the devil's advocate. There were very few families in England that were not directly involved in the horror that was WWI. It is going to be hard to get them past that over someone elses problems.

    [ 29. October 2005, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: bigiceman ]
     
  11. The Blue Max

    The Blue Max Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2005
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    To totally ignore England would be a mistake, the Italian navy is no match for the Royal Navy and this senerio seems to take for granted that the Med would be an Italian lake. This didn't happen in reality and won't here either with less to occupy the RN. However to innitiate the sub war and with greater resources due to the lack of a supposed invastion would seem to make more sense. As it was Britain was in alot of trouble due to shortages and situations produced by the real war in the Atlantic, to give Admiral Donnitz the 100 subs he originally wanted would only bear better results.

    The Blue Max
     
  12. Hands

    Hands Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very interesting thread and very interesting views. Covers quite a big area.

    Perhaps just to add into this discussion, how will the Germans fare in the war against the russians then ?
     
  13. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    760
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    Once Italy enters the war, ignoring England is impossible. This leaves the entire Southern flank of Europe open to British attack. The Italians alone are no match for the British on land or sea.
    Not persuing the U-boat campaign frees up a huge, huge amount of capital and manufacturing capacity for Britain. Originally, the British put about $10 billion into the U-boat war with the US contributing another $30 billion or so. That's alot of money and resources now going into an army or air force.
    If anything, the Germans should not have left the question of Britain open following the defeat of France. Hitler should have waited on Russia indefinitely. The Red Army was not going to get better where it mattered most: Ability and quality of manpower. The same disaster that befell the Soviets in 41 would have been repeated in '44 or '51. The equipment would have certainly been different but the incompetence would have still been there.
     
  14. Jaeger

    Jaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    223
    Post Dunkirk it would be impossible for the British to sit idle and watch Germany have their way.

    Remember that Chamberlain got the sack for his poor management of the war. No ginger, no action.

    Even though the Blitz hardened the British it was by no means the reason they continnued to fight.

    Good point here about the boost in production in Britain without the U-boat peril and the bombing.
     
  15. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,539
    Likes Received:
    1,086
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    Weren´t the Red Army doing changes to the composition due to the German success in the west 1940? And after the "defeat" in Winter War? More heavy tanks and also preparing to make more mechanized corps. After Winter War Stalin also realized that the Generals also needed practice in tactics etc not just politics.

    http://www.redarmystudies.net/0411030.htm

    Also once the Germans would realize the T-34 was out there the Germans would actually be 1-2 years behind in tank research/production in this area and they would not realize without the war experience what the effect of the sloped frontal armour plate was. So no Panther.
     
  16. Jaeger

    Jaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    223
    I have to agree with Kai here.

    One of Hitlers biggest mistakes in the East was his view of the Russians. He perceived them as Untermensch, and after their lethargic performance in the Winterwar he got 'confirmation' on his views. This led to the statement 'kick in the door and the whole house will fall down'.

    The Russians as the British were pioneering in mechanized warfare, but both fell into a period of decay. Stalin had a lot to build on after the winterwar, both the teories from the pioneering time and more importantly the lessons learnt against the Finns.

    The Germans started the war (1939) with a lead, but failed to keep it up. And despite a few superiour designs it was too little too late.
     
  17. Hands

    Hands Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    assumption that there is no blitz.
     
  18. Hands

    Hands Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    perhaps without the treat of german army marching towards moscow, it would not be rushed. perhaps stalin could simply become complacent after a while, resorting to his usual pastime of killing his generals.
     
  19. john1761

    john1761 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even with more time to reconstitue the mech. corps idea the Russian troops would still be untested green troops. Stalin still had the commisar doctrine in place after the winter war. So while the Soviets might have had more T-34s and KV's their armored doctrine still would be untried. Plus I think with the whole sale rearmament of the tank forces with T 34's the Germans would have noticed and advanced their development of the Panther. It wasn't until the Russians actually faced the Blitzkreig did they start to develop their combined arms tactics. and without the west's supply of trucks and radio equipment did the red army have the operational ability to carry out deep envelopment warfare.
     
  20. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,539
    Likes Received:
    1,086
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    Actually the Panther was a "copy" of the T-34 so the Germans would not have been pushing any "big tank" production lines fast ahead, I think, even if they had been aware of the T-34. The Germans would have been trusting in their attack method to work in any case whatever is against them. And very often it worked.

    Against Soviets you cannot forget how "fanatic" they are and if need be ready to die for their country. How many armies in WW2 used the " take one with you " tactics and succeeded rather well even if it´s not a very modern method. And how do you fight against such tactics?

    And would the Soviets not try to "modernize" their tanks mean while even more? I´m sure they´d get go on with new tank versions as well.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page