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

Should Hitler have resolved the British problem at the beginning ?

Discussion in 'What If - European Theater - Western Front & Atlan' started by .docholliday, Jan 13, 2008.

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

    Weisenwolf Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    3
    LOL

    That's true he didn't sleep a lot, Snored heavily in a state of drunken unconsciousness, but slept very rarely.

    Nice T34 picture
     
  2. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,301
    Likes Received:
    1,050
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
  3. PactOfSteel

    PactOfSteel Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    3
    Hitler believed England would be a ally not a enemy, remember Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler and Hitler's original plan was to leave England alone and just take Europe. But then Chamberlain declared war on German with the annexation of Poland yet he never made any military action, which in my opinion was just another way of appeasement. And remember the Nazis offered England armistice but they refused, another clue that Hitler did not want to go to war with England but it was forced on him but once that occured Hitler should have been unrelenting on them, never given up until they were defeated because it was a launching/rallying point for the Allies.
     
  4. von Rundstedt

    von Rundstedt Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    29
    Well getting to the original question and this actually happened, the political situation in Britain would have to pro-German and have a pro-German Monarch, which would mean in some way any surrender treaty would be inclined that British armed forces comes under the direct command of the OKW, and that after the Germans recover after Seelowe and are in a position to launch Barbarossa they do mid 1941 as per historical fact.

    I would see that under any surrender terms once Germany launches Operation Barbarossa Britain would be compelled to declare war on the Soviet Union, then we would see the deployment of British troops on the Eastern Front.
     
  5. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    Why?

    France along with any other European country which fell to Germany, failed to declare war on Russia and send their troops to fight. Why would Great Britain be any different?
     
  6. von Rundstedt

    von Rundstedt Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    29
    You are right on this but as this, now that you mentioned it, .docholiday should have at least adressed what would have happened post Seelowe, whether Britain signed a surrender or armistice, this make the whole senario completely differrent, and does Britain retain her armed forces in a reduced capacity, this is never covered.

    But many French, Danes, Dutch, Belgians did fight in the East under the command of the Waffen SS.
     
  7. PactOfSteel

    PactOfSteel Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    3
    the main reason why is because Hitler believed Great Britain would become an ally, he didn't want to go to war with them. If Great Britian did become an ally think how different the war would have been, that created the two-front war which defeated the Third Reich. Rudolf Hess knew this, thats why he flew over there to try to make an alliance.
     
  8. Carl W Schwamberger

    Carl W Schwamberger Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    81
    Yes it might have been different. This line of thought requires a much different set of characters in the British government. Even Halifax was unlikely to go any further than a armisitce and eventual peace treaty. An alliance with Germany was beyond the desires of anyone likely to form a government.

    As it was the British jailed Hess in isolation and made plans for evacuation of the government to Canada. There were discussions at the highest levels between the British & Roosevelts inner circle about what to do if Britian were to be sucessfully invaded. The evacuation plans included the transfer of British military research and technology to the US. This included the embryonic atomic bomb research the Brits had been collecting.

    The assumption of increased difficulties in forming a alliance between the USSR & US do not match the historical events. Roosevelt had long before been establishing connections to the USSR (and made new enemys in the US along the way for that). Were Britian to fall the stratgic sense and pressure to ally with the USSR vs the Japanese and nazis would increase.
     
  9. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    These were but a small number and were considered traitors by their own people and government, consequently they were left with out a country of their own.
     
  10. von Rundstedt

    von Rundstedt Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    29
    Here is something to think about if Germany had invaded Britain.

    1, A pro German Puppet Government would be installed.
    2, A pro German Monarch would have been installed (if Hitler retains the Monarchy).
    3, Britain would more or less retain a cadre defense force (like Vichy France)
    4, Britain would under German control would be free to recommence trade with other German occupied countries.

    While this might seem fanciful, but could happen.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page