Hitler decides to finish Britain

Sinking enough ships is unimportant. In the long run it is far more important to keep the US out of the war and vanquish England on land in the Middle East. Germany as a land power should have adopted a strategy maximizing their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses. Their strength was on land, their weakness was at sea.
Crushing British commerce was unlikely. Crushing the British army in the field was highly probable.

 

If Germany wants to knock Britain out of the war, the only way to do it is to starve them out. What does "vanquishing" Britain in the Middle East mean? Britain, supplied by the Commonwealth nations, and the US, would still resist. And, in any case, Germany isn't going to be able to fight a campaign in the Middle east since the Soviet Union wouldn't allow Germany a foothold in an area it sees as within it's special sphere of interest.

Yes, Germany is a land power and Britain is not, but a sea power, especially one with an empire, trumps a land power every time. The only vulnerability Britain has relative to Germany is the need to import enough food and raw materials to maintain her industry and population. The ONLY way Germany can exploit that vulnerability is by U-Boat blockade. Crushing Britain's Army buys Germany nothing except security within the confines of Europe; the RN still controls the sea and guarantees Britain's lifeline to the Commonwealth nations.

As a land power in this scenario, Germany's writ extends only as far as her logistical capability to support her military within Europe. That is a significant restriction and means that Germany cannot hurt Britain, so long as Britain has the wherewithal to supply her material needs by sea. So, unless Germany's U-Boats can somehow cut Britain's lifeline, it's a stalemate. And in any stalemate, time is against Germany.

 

Quite the contrary. For a land power that is a dictatorship versus a seapower that is a democracy the power play is to keep the seapower engaged in a land war anywhere possible while denying them allies and putting hardship on the population as a whole.
Repeated defeats on land and an ongoing commerce war at sea will eventually wear down a democracy to the point of negotiating a favorable peace in lieu of internal revolt.
This is true as far back as the Pelopennesian Wars. Britain cannot afford a perpetual stalemate where there is no clear path to victory. If Russia will not enter the war and the US is preoccupied elsewhere while the British "empire" crumbles under German and Japanese attack a negotiated settlement, particularly one where the Germans are willing to give very favorable terms, is better than a political revolt at home.

 

I completely agree with what you posted, T.A.
If the overall strategic goal was disengagement, then it's quite plausible. Most of the other posts here tend to forget this context of this what if and focus on an invasion of Britain, which is highly unlikely to be successful.

To put it simply, think of the UK as a castle that has a moat as the English Channel. Lacking the resources to storm the castle, the best way is to lay siege on it and starve the defenders. Block sources of food and supply and the defenders would likely be worn down.
Historically, the UK was able to use its navy in two World Wars to break the "siege" or naval blockade with US help.

Take away that US help through political means, then the Germans chances of maintaining that U-boat blockade against the formidable Royal Navy would increase. If the U-boats could sink more tonnage than the British could replace, then the UK is in trouble. That is what historically happened in the early days of the U-boat campaign. It was a good thing that the Allies eventually broke the U-boat campaign.

Just like in medieval sieges, events outside the castle can impact on the force surrounding the castle. And that's what Germany should've been mindful of. Fortunately for us, Herr Hitler didn't do so, drunk as he was with the heady wine of early success.

As for Churchill's speech saying "We will never surrender", it's a heartfelt speech, full of passion. However I think it was meant more to buttress the morale of the British, who were on the ropes after losing a brief slugging match on the continent that ended in Dunkirk. That's what canny leaders and politicians do when faced with bleak tidings.
It was more of a rallying call instead of a challenge to Adolph Hitler.
It's a good thing that the British had a strong historical background on warfare. Otherwise, a weaker people would've probably agreed to make peace with Hitler.

 

An interesting scenario in this might be: In January 1942, Germany having declared war on Japan, decides to send the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau to sea with a couple of supply ships and escorts headed for the Pacific. They openly announce their intentions.
What does Britain do about it? Do they say no being at war? Do they allow it also being at war with Japan like Germany? What will the US do if Britain decides to fight the Germans rather than let them sail?

 

Except that Germany can't keep Britain engaged in a land war. Once Britain's Army is defeated on the continent and withdraws, Germany no longer has any way of hurting Britain save for a U-Boat blockade of the island of Britain itself. Except for the U-Boats, the so-called commerce war at sea was almost totally ineffective. It did cause the British to deploy cruisers at widely scattered points to counter the commerce raiders but the RN had foreseen this possibility and had built numbers of very effective commerce protection cruisers for just such a role, reducing the commerce raider's depredations to mere pinpricks.

Because Britain wields control of the sea, Germany cannot challenge the British Army anywhere but on the Continent. Germany's Army cannot be logistically sustained anywhere that involves movement of supplies by sea and Britain's Army can be. Germany has no means of attacking any part of the British empire, while Japan can only threaten a small part of the empire and then only at the risk of bringing the US into the war. The British empire will not "crumble under German and Japanese attack" because Germany and Japan are incapable of touching most of the empire.

As for a perpetual stalemate, Britain can afford it so long as Germany cannot attack Britain directly. It is a mistake to think that The Soviets will sit still during a stalemate especially if Germany gains control of most of Europe. Sooner or later Germany will be seen as a threat to Stalin's ambitions or will attempt to move into an area (the Middle East) which the Soviets see as being their special sphere of interest. Same for the US which was committed to aiding Britain "by all means short of war" and viewed the survival of Britain as vital to her own national security. Just keeping the US out of a declared war on the Axis is not enough to bring about a German victory. Time is not on the side of the Axis because the US will soon be producing so much war material that neither Germany nor Japan nor a combination of the two will be able to defeat the US nor any nation it chooses to support.

Germany's problem is that it must make negotiating appear to be the more attractive of all the alternatives and it really has no way of doing that except for a U-Boat blockade of Britain that makes Britain's choice starvation or negotiation. And with the US in support of Britain (even if not actually at war with Germany) that is going to be a very difficult, if not impossible, thing to do.

 

What would be the purpose of Germany declaring war on her Axis Ally, Japan? Germany had been urging Japan to attack both British and American interests in the Pacific for some time and when Japan does, Germany declares war on Japan? That doesn't make the least bit of sense, nor is it historically plausible. But suppose Hitler's insanity is in play and Germany does declare war on Japan; would the US and Britain then accept Germany as an ally? Not a chance!

Britain and the US had already identified the Nazis as the major threat to the security of the western democracies and a German declaration of war on Japan would not change that estimation one bit. It would just reinforce Churchill's, Stalin's, and Roosevelt's distrust of Hitler. Furthermore, Germany could not provide any significant aid to either the US or Britain against Japan, nor did the US leadership believe it needed any help to defeat the Japanese in the Pacific.

The result would be that both Britain and the US ignore Germany's declaration of war on Japan and continue to treat Hitler and the Nazis as
the fundamental enemy. Britain would attack and sink any German ships found at sea. The US might not declare war on Germany, but would certainly exclude German ships from any Pacific war zone and might well declare that any and all non-Allied ships found in the Pacific were subject to attack without warning.

What would Hitler gain by such a ploy? Nothing. He would earn the distrust of the rest of the world for his treachery against an ally which had taken the action he had been urging only to be stabbed in the back, and he would lose the one ally which might have materially helped against him against the US.

 

it would have resulted in a cold war. both sides would have developed nuclear weapons in a few years so scrap the notion of a prolonged air war. it will become an economic war, like post-war US-USSR. with this, i'm pretty sure none of the war-time planners would have much foresight as to how long the stalemate will last.

whereas UK is vulnerable to a blockade, its maritime capability will allow it it to put pressure on all resource-rich sections of the world for support. western europe is not a closed economy, like north america. it also needs to trade, both in peace and war. so germany and UK will be forced to wage proxy wars with each other in far-flung places for both trade, geographical coverage, and political support.

economic and industrial development in the commonwealth countries will surge, possibly eclipsing US production. germany will turn western europe into one big arms factory, constantly pouring troops and weapons to friendly dictatorships in asia, africa and south america. eventually, germany would have developed a blue water fleet strong enough to challenge the commonwealth any corner of the earth (it took the soviets 30 years to even come close to US naval strength.)

and then john paul II will step in.

 

T.A Gardner

Oh this is good, this may sound plausible, there is an American saying "it's an offer to good to refuse". How about a bigger commitment of an entire carrier battle group.

Say by 1942 as you indicate, Germany has declared war on Japan and during the year of 1941 the Graf Zeppelin is finally commisioned and has her air wing assigned, we could see a massive commitment of an entire battle group to the Pacific.

German Pacific Battle Group
Aircraft Carrier; Graf Zeppelin.
Battleships; Bismarck, Scharnhorst & Gneisenau.
Cruisers; Admiral Hipper, Admiral Scheer, Prinz Eugen & Lutzow.

and various other ships.

Based out of Pearl Harbour

While this large commitment is sent the Bulk of the German U-Boats are blockading Britain and sensing Britain's international vulnerablity The Soviet Union with German approval (a late addmendment to the Ribbentrop and Molotov Pact) (Operation Barbarossa is cancelled) launches major offensives to gain the Middle East and her Oilfields.

On your last statement of what would the US do if Britain decides to attack this force rather than let them sail, The US desperate for the help decides to cut all political and military ties with Britain, dissolve the Lend Lease Treaty and forbid any US flagged ships entering the designated war zone and orders all US personal in Britain out, Britain is now all on her own, totally isolated. Within months Britain is on her knees, Churchill is forced to resign and under Lord Halifax Briatin by June 1942 has no choice but to accept an armistice.

v.R.

 

It would never happen in this universe.

1. The US would never accept Germany's help in the Pacific or anywhere else so long as Hitler was in power. The US had already identified the Nazis as the major threat to the security of the US and isn't about to let Germany become an ally while it is under Hitler and still at war with Britain. That's just NOT going to happen.

2. The US isn't "desperate" for help in the Pacific in 1942 and has plenty of carriers to counter the IJN. When it does think it needs help late in 1942, it asks the RN for the loan of a carrier (Victorious) which arrives in the Pacific in the spring of 1943. By then, the Essex is commissioned and working up at Pearl Harbor. The US would tell Hitler to shove his carrier and sink it if it showed up in the Pacific.

3. The Graf Zeppelin was badly flawed as a carrier. It's air group was only 43 planes with very short ranges. The GZ was itself was very short ranged and would have to be refueled and replenished much too often to be of any use in the Pacific. Moreover, Germany had no way to logistically support a carrier battle group in the Pacific. So sending a German carrier task force to the Pacific is pure uninformed fantasy.

4. The US had already decided that the survival of Britain was crucial to the defense of the western hemisphere. It would support Britain to the point of going to war with Germany if necessary. That is why Germany has not a snowball's chance in hell of becoming an ally of the US as long as Hitler and the Nazis are in power. On the contrary, the US will capture or sink any German ships it finds on the high seas.

see HyperWar: The Army Air Forces in WWII: Vol. I--Plans & Early Operations; The Air Corps Prepares for War [Chapter 4]

 

MY GOD!! Read up before posting such things. The Graf Zeppelin? In the Pacific? LOL. The Graf Zeppelin at best would be a poor Commerce Raider if anything. It would have made a piece of crap carrier if the Germans were ever really able to complete it. Are you so enamoured of the Germans that you think everything they tried to make was good? The Japanese could have handled a German "Task Force" quite easily. DA is right. The US would have NEVER been allied with the Nazis and Hitler. Not even in an alternate universe.

 

Did you forget this thread?
http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/12432-graf-zepplins-effectiveness.html

 

We must also not let ourselves forget that attacking the middle east would not have solved Germany's fuel problem.

 

So what you are saying is that my added senario to T.A Gardner's original idea is flawed, if so then T.A Gardner's idea must also be considered flawed as well.

I used T.A's basis of Germany delcaring war on Japan and sending ships to the Pacific to take on the Japanese.

If i think that the Germans made good stuff, blame that on my German/Danish heritage.

v.R

 

Well, Germany almost defeated Britain (economically that is) If Hitler was serious about Britain, he'd have firstly broke their mediterranean fleet. They Started the job in Crete but never finished mainly due to the Italians not wanting to use their powerfull navy to aid the Germans conquering another vital spot, Malta. Even tough the Germans promised all kinds of aircover (that would ve the main striking force).
Afterwards, They should control NA wich they could had Rommel gotten half the divisions employed in Barbarrossa. From there, reaching the middle East oilfields would be a matter of time and Germany economy would improve Greatly while deteriorating the British even further.
As for Britain herself, after controling the canal (wich the Germans did for a time) and with the ammount of transport boats Hitler had at his disposal, it was a real possibility and had he invaded, Britain would be ill prepared. Well, it really was ill prepared to face an invasion and, without the BEF returning they'd face serious problems with the invasion.
Oh we can speculate some more and say theat Hitler could've gotten the support of Ireland wich would be a great base to launch airstrikes
Oh if Hitler controled the mediterranium, it'd be hard to get him out of there...


Anyway, If Hitler really wanted to defeat the British, he wouldn't have allowed for the BEF to escape.




Cheers...

 

This is what made me believe that USA would have declared war on Germany. I cannot remember where, but I recall seeing a cartoon once upon a time. It may have been for either WWI or WWII, but it would apply equally to either.

It showed Germany being all-powerful and England being defeated. It also showed Germany turning it's sights on the United States with a caption reading "You're Next" or words to that effect.

I understand that there were isolationist feelings in the USA - that's one of the main reasons they didn't enter WWI until so late - they saw it as being none of their business, but their business or not, to ignore Germany and act as if it didn't pose a threat to America, would be, in my mind - bloody stupid.

England and America weren't exactly allies, but they were at least trading-partners and on good terms with each other. If England was overrun, where would that leave the 'States? Even if it didn't want to help, the States had an obligation to send aid to England because if it didn't and England lost the war, the USA would most likely have lost one of it's biggest trading-partners.

 

Where to start. I need you to claify some things for me.

When did the Germans hold the 'canal'?

What amount of transport boats did hitler have that could have been of any use in an invasion of Britain.? If he had these don't you think that he would have used them for an invasion of Britain back in 1940?

We are talking about the North African campaign right? so why are the Germans thinking about invading Russia, fighting in Nirth Africa and planning an invasion of Britain? Don't you think that will strectch their lines abit thin?

Why is the British not prepared in 1941? The threat of invasion is gone, they are even taking the offensive in Africa against Rommel, they have rebuilt their tanks and infantry divisions for the most part, supplied now by the USA both with war materials and tanks like the Grant\Lee and the Sherman. So with Britian trying to fight a almost two front war already, (Russia and Africa) where are they going to get all these men, boats and planes to cross the channel?

Why would it be hard to get him out of the med? Did he have the men to again face a three front war and attempt to hold to hold onto the entire med against the allies?





Cheers...[/quote]

 

Woah there. I meant he'd abandon his attack on Russia. Sorry for the confusion I should've explained myself better. In 1940 Germany had air supremacy over the canal (before the battle of Britain) there was a reason why the royal Navy withdrew to the north of the Island in order to prevent the Luftwaffe to send British ships down the drain.
Hitler had amassed a large amount of transport boats for operation Sea Lion. However, with battle over Britain taking it's toll, Hitler decided to call off the invasion and focus on Russia (that's when the tide began to turn). And, in this scenario, with the invasion of Russia called of and the British possessions and armies in NA and the Mediterranian (especially here) being torn away rather effeciently (Greece 3 weeks yuguslavia 1 week Crete tough half the paratroopers got killed or injured was a major success and the British fleet in the mediterranium suffered heavily to the Stukas getting ships badly mauled and others sunk...).

Again if they controled the mediterranium it would be nearly impossible to dislodge them from there as you'd have to cross Gibraltar straight wich of course would be a focus point for germany.


In this case, Hitler would've won the european war. If afterwards he decided to go to war with Russia that's another matter.



Cheers...

 

Do you mean the Suez Canal? If so, I don't think that's accurate. To the best of my knowledge Germany never controlled the air over, or the seas around, the Suez Cabal.

The RN never completely withdrew from the English Channel. There were at least 40 British destroyers stationed in the Channel at all times between mid-1940 and the end of 1941, for the specific purpose of thwarting an invasion.

However, these were, for the most part, river barges completely unsuited for crossing the English Channel or landing on beaches as envisioned in the plan for Operation Sealion. The freeboard on these barges would have made it suicidal to attempt to use them as troop transports and even moderately rough weather would have precluded their use altogether. Moreover, they were not equipped with ramps for landing and could not have discharged their cargo over a beach or backed off for a return trip. Historians now lean to the theory that Hitler was bluffing and had no intention of using these barges for a landing on the coast of Britain.

 

Christos Pantokrator, we're not going to go again through all this, are we?

Read this first at least in order to avoid repetition:
http://www.ww2f.com/what-if/12050-yet-another-operation-sealion-what-if.html
http://www.ww2f.com/what-if/21516-operation-sealion-should-have-happened.html

We also have a thread about Germany invading Iceland or catching Baku by invading through the Caucasus, if you will