End of WW2 -- second part

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The only thing I dont get is why jump back and forth between Japan and Germany. I just dont see the logic.

[plan_D]

Without Russia, the Allied armies wouldn't have been able to take the fight to Germany on Europe without removing Japan. If you remove Japan from the scene - not needing to completely destroy them, just push back to Japan - then you free up enough British Commonwealth forces to take on Germany.

Once Japan would have been pushed back a mere Naval blockade would be able to hold them down.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am sorry I disagree with you on this. Japan was never even from the beginning with Russia going to be the priority for the British. Even without Russia Germany would have been the priority. They made the biggest threat to Britain and her allies.

[wmaxt]

The thing about Japan is that they were over extended already. By stopping them at Midway, assuring the sea lanes would remain open to Austraila any continued threat from Japan was largely eliminated. The Pacific then could be reclaimed piece by piece with relativly small forces.

What would have happened if
1. Japan had waited 1 year, delaying the US entry to the war.
2. Instead of attacking Brittan, Germany had let the British retreat at Dunkirk.
3. Attacking the Russians in the Spring, allowing the Germans to capture Moscow, Kiev, etc. before the winter snows stopped them.

wmaxt

[plan_D]

How would they hope to deal with Germany though - Adler? Japan was also a great threat to the British Empire - and China was a cornerstone in U.S war policy.

Are all those combined, wmaxt?

The U.S didn't enter the war as early - the supplies would have still been going to Britain. Britain would be able to build up forces - importantly air forces - while Germany was attacking Russia. This would negate any chance of Germany ever conquering the British homeland.

If Britain secured the Atlantic - Germany would have no chance at defeating Britain. The longer Germany left Britain, the harder a nut it was to crack.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by plan_D

How would they hope to deal with Germany though - Adler? Japan was also a great threat to the British Empire - and China was a cornerstone in U.S war policy.

Are all those combined, wmaxt?

The U.S didn't enter the war as early - the supplies would have still been going to Britain. Britain would be able to build up forces - importantly air forces - while Germany was attacking Russia. This would negate any chance of Germany ever conquering the British homeland.

If Britain secured the Atlantic - Germany would have no chance at defeating Britain. The longer Germany left Britain, the harder a nut it was to crack.

Yes they were combined but my thought was that any of the three could have made a drastic change in the war as it unfolded.

Had Germany left England alone, they might have conquered Russa and we might still have them today in a much different world. With the resources and distance not to mention the added manpower I'm not sure they could have been beaten. Britain would have been a tough nut to crack maybe to hard maybe not, it's even possible Hitler would be satisfied at least for a time with Russia, the mid east, the balkans and north Africa. He certainly could match anyone left who would challenge him.

You thoughts?

wmaxt

[plan_D]

The conquest of such large lands leaves open such large lands for partisan activity though - the chance of an uprising across the entirety of Europe wouldn't be out of the question. Hitler would need to act quick after conquering Russia to make sure he secured North Africa as well - he'd have to deal with the Royal Navy too.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

something which, at the time, he was in no real position to do.......

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

something which, at the time, he was in no real position to do.......

I agree with both you and Plan_D to a point however had Hitler limited/eliminated the threat to Britain and had only 1 front? He almost won as it was, if only he had hit Russia early enough not to have to compete with the Russian winter. Couple that with reduced aid from the US and a lot of things change.

Resistance in Europe is a consideration but not a major one, given a couple of years of reasonable treatment it dies out. If Britain's perception of the threat was reduced the support for the resistance would have reduced as well. As for Russion resistance, they like China are used to new rulers and as long as their every day lives are not greatly affected don't really care who calls himself the King.

As for Africa even to lose it initialy would not have been a shattering blow. If Italy hadn't started in Africa the Germans wouldn't have either, the strategic value of North Africa is very small.

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

The thing about Japan is that they were over extended already. By stopping them at Midway, assuring the sea lanes would remain open to Austraila any continued threat from Japan was largely eliminated. The Pacific then could be reclaimed piece by piece with relativly small forces.

What would have happened if
1. Japan had waited 1 year, delaying the US entry to the war.
2. Instead of attacking Brittan, Germany had let the British retreat at Dunkirk.
3. Attacking the Russians in the Spring, allowing the Germans to capture Moscow, Kiev, etc. before the winter snows stopped them.

wmaxt

Very good point. And I love the What ifs there! I am going to have to think this one over and see what I can come up with.

[plan_D]

The war wasn't almost won by Germany though. Once Germany had failed to take Britain out of the picture - they lacked a real chance of total victory. The British Empire had a much larger economic base than Germany - even with European slaves.

Once Britain had been unsettled, the longer it was left the larger the production became - and the less the chance Germany had.

North Africa had a big strategic value to the Axis as a whole. It would secure the southern flank of Europe - for a start. Leaving the British troops there would leave the European flank open to invasion - giving Britain the chance to knock Italy from the war.
Also, N.Africa has many ports for repairing the large capital ships of the Kriegsmarine - and even stop off points for the U-Boats. N. African oil was desirable - Germany was deprived of it.

And the most important thing for the Axis - the Suez Canal. With that the Royal Navy could quickly transfer from CBI to MTO then ETO. If the Axis held that canal - the Japanese and Germans would have a valid meeting point in the oceans.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree in my opinion Germany lost the chance with the failure to destroy the British at Dunkirk and the invasion of the Soviet Union.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The war wasn't almost won by Germany though. Once Germany had failed to take Britain out of the picture - they lacked a real chance of total victory. The British Empire had a much larger economic base than Germany - even with European slaves.

Once Britain had been unsettled, the longer it was left the larger the production became - and the less the chance Germany had.

North Africa had a big strategic value to the Axis as a whole. It would secure the southern flank of Europe - for a start. Leaving the British troops there would leave the European flank open to invasion - giving Britain the chance to knock Italy from the war.
Also, N.Africa has many ports for repairing the large capital ships of the Kriegsmarine - and even stop off points for the U-Boats. N. African oil was desirable - Germany was deprived of it.

And the most important thing for the Axis - the Suez Canal. With that the Royal Navy could quickly transfer from CBI to MTO then ETO. If the Axis held that canal - the Japanese and Germans would have a valid meeting point in the oceans.

The 'almost won' was in reference to the Russian campaign - my bad. Had the Germans allowed the Brits to retreat at Dunquirk and persued an peace with them, I think Britain would have settled down after a few months when Hitler went East. Going with that, the battle of the atlantic would have been delayed eliminating the immediate need for the ports in N. Africa.

Once he had Russia, the Balkans and the Northern Mid East, Hitler would have the natural resources and the space to continue his build up in secrecy for any conquest he wanted at a later time.

His big mistake was not concentrating on Russia to begin with, not only were they not prepared but in '37 Stalin had killed a very large majority of his Military's seinor leaders leaving them wide open.

The Suez is a good point but wouldn't be so important until Phase II, Britain. If he's done a good job of masking his intentions Britain would be fairly close to the level they were in '42. Remember without a direct threat you can't maintain a high level of rediness for long - the economy can't sustain it and the populace won't accept the sacrifices required And the US would have still been asleep. Britain alone does not have the resources.

Peace, at least temporary, with Britain would be criticle and could have been persued two ways a. To have gone East First. or b. to have allowed the British to retreat saying "I have no quarel with you" and demonstrating it by going East immediately but still in the Spring (Timing is criticle Russia MUST be conquered before winter).

wmaxt

[plan_D]

No, sorry wmaxt but I don't think you understand British culture. We are a proud nation - our pride comes before almost anything and we entered the War as a matter of principal. We had a pact with Poland and we would stick to it - no matter how much Hitler tried to appease us, Britain would not back out of the war unless Germany got out of Poland and stayed within it's borders.

In 1934 Churchill noted that Germany was a threat to world peace - with Churchill coming to office in 1940, he would stay on Germanys' back. The British had been rattled - and the production of the British Empire would be thrown into full swing to stop Germany ever achieving total victory.

And the British Empire was huge - even in 1940. It was massive, had a massive influence and man power...Germany didn't have a chance.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by plan_D

No, sorry wmaxt but I don't think you understand British culture. We are a proud nation - our pride comes before almost anything and we entered the War as a matter of principal. We had a pact with Poland and we would stick to it - no matter how much Hitler tried to appease us, Britain would not back out of the war unless Germany got out of Poland and stayed within it's borders.

In 1934 Churchill noted that Germany was a threat to world peace - with Churchill coming to office in 1940, he would stay on Germanys' back. The British had been rattled - and the production of the British Empire would be thrown into full swing to stop Germany ever achieving total victory.

And the British Empire was huge - even in 1940. It was massive, had a massive influence and man power...Germany didn't have a chance.

I understand what your saying, the US is much the same and it probably comes from the same place.

Even then resources were limited (Remember the Mossie it never would never have existed had it not been the shortage of Aluminum) would they bankrupt the economy for a treaty they really couldn't do anything about for several years if ever. The Empire was great but what were the contributions? Oil, Most (war time) up to 90% came from the US. Aluminum, Most came from the US, 60%? Man Power, 70% US? Ships, 70% US? Not to mention Food, Powder, steel and Misc. (Not completely sure about the percentages it's been a long time) India, Singapore, Africa, Hong Kong their main contributions were land area to defend, though India did supply some troops to the CBI.

Would "If given an out" The British give literaly everything they have for something they may not be able to do anyway. And remember I'm basing this on the expanded Nazi Europe/Aisa AND depending on exactly how you play the scenario Poland/West Europe doesn't have to be involved at this point. Support from the US is small, slow and iffy because nothing so far has Jolted us out of our stupid isolationion mentality. Remember too the British DID give everything they had, including most of the Empire, WITH the help and support of the US the way it actually happened.

To clarify, Three possibilities all three leaving an "Out" for Britain:
1. Nazi's go to the channel first.
2. Nazi's go East not touching Poland/Western Europe until he's consolidated his eastern conquests and his resources.
3. Nazi's go to the channel leaving the Treaty countries France/Poland unharmed?

Remember my hypothisis is that the Brits arn't drawn in and at least until the delayed point the US is forced to step in.

Anyone else?

wmaxt