The German war against Russia in WW2 if Britain had been conquered first?

Blue_Allen

I'm wondering what would have happened in World War II if Britain had surrendered to the Germans before Operation Barbarossa took place. Had this happened the Germans would have had to commit significantly less resources to protecting the coast of France and would not have to split their air force between bombing two fronts while they were on the offensive.

It might also be quite likely in this scenario that the role of the United States in the European theater would be extremely limited, with no natural ally from which to launch airstrikes and threaten an invasion on the Western front. Germany would also have to commit far less resources to defending their interests in Italy and Northern Africa.

Of course some resources would still have to be tied up in a token defense of the Western coast and to deal with local civilian resistance movements. Otherwise, if Germany was able to commit the vast majority of the military that was in the west and south to the war with Russia and did not have the RAF and American air forces bombing their cities and weapons production facilities continuously would Russia have still survived and eventually been able to push the Germans back?
 
johnboy

johnboy

Blue_Allen said:
I'm wondering what would have happened in World War II if Britain had surrendered to the Germans before Operation Barbarossa took place. Had this happened the Germans would have had to commit significantly less resources to protecting the coast of France and would not have to split their air force between bombing two fronts while they were on the offensive.

It might also be quite likely in this scenario that the role of the United States in the European theater would be extremely limited, with no natural ally from which to launch airstrikes and threaten an invasion on the Western front. Germany would also have to commit far less resources to defending their interests in Italy and Northern Africa.

Of course some resources would still have to be tied up in a token defense of the Western coast and to deal with local civilian resistance movements. Otherwise, if Germany was able to commit the vast majority of the military that was in the west and south to the war with Russia and did not have the RAF and American air forces bombing their cities and weapons production facilities continuously would Russia have still survived and eventually been able to push the Germans back?
Click to expand...
Why would Britain surrender? Germany had no way to conquer it? And please don't mention sealion for gods sake.
 

Blue_Allen

I was just suggesting a hypothetical situation in which Britain did surrender. I am curious what would have happened on the East front if such a situation had occurred. I was simply trying to paint a what if scenario. The how and the why of Britain's surrender isn't really my interest in this case. Rather, my interest is in the theoretical war with Russia that follows.
 

Alex1guy

Blue_Allen said:
I was just suggesting a hypothetical situation in which Britain did surrender. I am curious what would have happened on the East front if such a situation had occurred. I was simply trying to paint a what if scenario. The how and the why of Britain's surrender isn't really my interest in this case. Rather, my interest is in the theoretical war with Russia that follows.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the board :D I don't wanna see you get eaten alive but Britain wasn't going to be conquered, Germany couldn't do it, didn't have the ability, resources, manpower or navy. People here don't operate on that basis, everything in history is cause and effect. The how, when and why is VERY important.
 

Blue_Allen

Alex1guy said:
Welcome to the board :D I don't wanna see you get eaten alive but Britain wasn't going to be conquered, Germany couldn't do it, didn't have the ability, resources, manpower or navy.
Click to expand...

Ok. I hope I haven't already made a misstep here on these boards. I wasn't trying to open up a debate on if and how Britain could be conquered. For all that it matters to the scenario I was trying to create it could be a meteor hits Britain and turns the country into the next Gulf of Mexico and that could be how Britain is eliminated from the war.

If trying to create such a what if scenario isn't how things are done around here then I apologize and will refrain in the future.
 

Caesar Biden

Banned
Blue_Allen said:
Ok. I hope I haven't already made a misstep here on these boards. I wasn't trying to open up a debate on if and how Britain could be conquered. For all that it matters to the scenario I was trying to create it could be a meteor hits Britain and turns the country into the next Gulf of Mexico and that could be how Britain is eliminated from the war.

If trying to create such a what if scenario isn't how things are done around here then I apologize and will refrain in the future.
Click to expand...

Your best bet would be a "peace with honor" scenario for Britain, but that probably requires a pre-WW2 PoD.
 

Orrin_Knox

I think Britain could have been forced to surrender if a couple of things happened: Hitler unleashed the panzers against the BEF at Dunkirk; and the Luftwaffe continued its original strategy of bombing RAF airfields and , radar installations. The Germans could have used their formidable parachute troops, secured airfields, and landed more troops. The UK would have been hard pressed to resist without the 300,000 troops or so they rescued from Dunkirk.

As for the USSR invasion, the Wehrmacht would have done even better initially, and could have captured Moscow and Leningrad, certainly, but the Soviets still could have outlasted the Nazis, IMO.
 

ObssesedNuker

It depends. The British signing a treaty with Germany unleashes a whole lot of butterflies. For example: there is a greater chance Stalin accepts that yes, the Germans are going to attack him in April/May 1941... in which case the invasion is gonna do a whole lot worse.

The Soviets still lose the Battle of the Frontier, but they are able to drag it out over a longer period of time and inflict a bunch more casualties upon the Germans while reducing their own. We are talking the ~50% as seen on the Southwestern and Southern Front instead of 75%+. seen on the Western and Northwestern Fronts. Greater losses are probably also inflicted upon German rear assets by formations which are encircled, but better armed and not confused. This worsens the German supply situation and contracts their limit-of-resupply.

This leaves the Germans far too exhausted too conduct a breakthrough-exploitation against the (stronger, as they have had more time to deploy, train, equip, and dig-in) Soviet second strategic echelon. In summary, by the time the mud sets in the Soviets:

(1) Do not suffer the Smolensk, Kiev, and Vyazma-Bryansk disasters (this alone leaves them up 3 million men!).
(2) Retains all access to the agricultural, mineral, industrial, and manpower centers east of the Denieper-Pskov line.
(3) Have much more experienced troops and officers, along with their equipment, to help overhaul the Red Army.
(4) The Soviets can devote a lot more of their attention fixing the Red Army's problems instead of throwing everything into ensuring it just survives.

In sum: the Germans are even more fucked IOTL. They may be able to mount a better defense against the inevitable winter offensive, but are likely still pushed back (if not as much) with large casualties (if not as much). They'll likely try and mount another offensive in '42, either against Leningrad, Moscow, or the Donbass but these likely do not make anything like the progress of IOTL '42. From late-42 on, the Soviets will steamroll the Germans. Berlin falls by mid/late-44.

On the other hand, Stalin could try to go all pre-emptive on the Germans (although this is less likely, Stalin knew quite how unready to conduct offensives against the Germans the Red Army was in 1941), in which case the Soviets are going to do only slightly better then IOTL at best. More likely they lose just as bad.

I think Britain could have been forced to surrender if a couple of things happened: Hitler unleashed the panzers against the BEF at Dunkirk; and the Luftwaffe continued its original strategy of bombing RAF airfields and , radar installations. The Germans could have used their formidable parachute troops, secured airfields, and landed more troops. The UK would have been hard pressed to resist without the 300,000 troops or so they rescued from Dunkirk.
Click to expand...
you-must-be-new-here-willy-wonka.jpg
 
Last edited:

betrayor

You could always post in ASB forum since it would take some kinda of magic for the britisg ti be conquered in such a way,note thie isn't a critiicism but genuine advice,saying that an ASB forces the british to surrender would be a perfectly valid thread in the ASB forum.....
 

Orrin_Knox

I honestly do not understand why the thought of Germany defeating Britain is so far-fetched on this board. The actions I mentioned are certainly within the realm of possibility. It's not like I suggested the Nazis magically invented an atom bomb in 1940 and dropped it on London.
 

ObssesedNuker

Orrin_Knox said:
I honestly do not understand why the thought of Germany defeating Britain is so far-fetched on this board. The actions I mentioned are certainly within the realm of possibility. It's not like I suggested the Nazis magically invented an atom bomb in 1940 and dropped it on London.
Click to expand...

Well, picking it apart bit-by-bit...

I think Britain could have been forced to surrender if a couple of things happened: Hitler unleashed the panzers against the BEF at Dunkirk;
Click to expand...
Might work. Might not. Might backfire and get the panzer divisions badly mauled without successfully destroying the BEF. Might also get the panzers badly mauled while also successfully destroying the BEF. The panzer troops were exhausted, low on supplies, and many of their vehicles on the verge of becoming mechanical casualties. The BEF, on the other hand, were on strong defensive terrain with large quantities of excellent anti-tank weapons with lots of ammunition and in great concentrations as the compressed perimeter meant they could field strong forces everywhere along their frontline.

On the other hand, the BEF forces were just as exhausted as their German opponents from the retreat and had only just enough time to sight their weapons and dig the most basic defensive emplacements (foxholes along with the occasional gun position or defilade). Both sides were actually in pretty high morale.

Hard to say what the exact outcome an all-out German attack on the BEF would be. The Germans had won with worse odds. They had also lost with better odds.

and the Luftwaffe continued its original strategy of bombing RAF airfields and , radar installations.
Click to expand...
Would not have worked. At absolute worse, the RAF can retreat beyond German effective escort range and "surge down" upon word of an invasion. More likely is that the RAF manages to hold it's own as per IOTL.

The Germans could have used their formidable parachute troops, secured airfields, and landed more troops.
Click to expand...
Would not work. German air transport alone is insufficient to bring in sufficient quantities of troops, equipment, and supplies to sustain an invasion of the whole British Islands even before losses to the RAF are factored in. World War 2 transport aircraft in general are also simply physically incapable of bringing in certain kinds of equipment (like the panzer forces) needed to sustain large ground operations. For that the Germans need to have a seaborne component. To successfully mount a seaborne invasion, they need to have control of the seas around Britain. To do that, they have to sink the Royal Navy.

And the Germans have no means of sinking the Royal Navy. So forcing to Britain to surrender via invasion is right out. Forcing Britain to surrender via starvation from unrestricted submarine warfare was attempted but didn't succeed (the Germans were not sinking enough British ships even before the American entry into the war sealed the deal). That leaves forcing Britain to surrender via bluff. You gotta eliminate Churchill and some other key members of the British Government for that.

Even then, a "surrender" is not going to happen. A peace treaty which leaves the British Empire intact (and raring to enter the war at a later date, in all probability) on the other hand...
 
Last edited:

Alex1guy

Orrin_Knox said:
I honestly do not understand why the thought of Germany defeating Britain is so far-fetched on this board. The actions I mentioned are certainly within the realm of possibility. It's not like I suggested the Nazis magically invented an atom bomb in 1940 and dropped it on London.
Click to expand...

Germans didn't have the capacity to keep the forces needed to invade Britain supplied by the air alone. You need naval supremacy, not just aerial. Dunkirk or not. Also defeating the RAF isn't in the cards, making it move north might be, but they will still contest the airspace over the south. Invasions are really fucking hard, especially over water that you don't and won't control.
 

Orrin_Knox

Certainly the counterpoints are well taken. It could be nothing would have worked for the Germans, although that's not the same as saying it was impossible.

I am also considering, however, whether Britain would have lost the will to keep resisting in the event of a Dunkirk disaster. This is admittedly more of an art than a science.

And I did not mention the U-boat fleet. Certainly the German surface fleet was, well, remarkably inferior to the British fleet. But air power and U-boats might have been a match for it. The Japanese managed to sink the Prince of Wales and Repulse in 1942 with air power alone, although they had the tremendous advantage of having no air opposition.
 

ObssesedNuker

Orrin_Knox said:
I am also considering, however, whether Britain would have lost the will to keep resisting in the event of a Dunkirk disaster. This is admittedly more of an art than a science.
Click to expand...

That is part of the whole "force a peace treaty* via bluff" scenario. The OTL cabinet had already written the BEF off and decided to keep fighting anyways, an ITTL cabinet lacking Churchill and a few other members might see the BEF get destroyed and go "shit! we need peace to get things in order!" and approach Hitler to work out a deal.

At that point, the ballgame is in Hitler's court. Would he offer the British lenient enough terms to get them off his back? This is another open ended question: his own disinterest in the British Empire (except as a example for Germany to follow) is evidence for it, the harsh terms he imposed on all the countries he trampled and his own vindictive streak is evidence against it. Hard to say what happens there.

*Not going to get a outright surrender that way.
 
Last edited:

Orrin_Knox

ObssesedNuker said:
That is part of the whole "force a peace treaty* via bluff" scenario. The OTL cabinet had already written the BEF off and decided to keep fighting anyways, an ITTL cabinet lacking Churchill and a few other members might see the BEF get destroyed and go "shit! we need peace to get things in order!" and approach Hitler to work out a deal.

At that point, the ballgame is in Hitler's court. Would he off the British lenient enough terms to get them off his back? This is another open ended question: his own disinterest in the British Empire (except as a example for Germany to follow) is evidence for it, the harsh terms he imposed on all the countries he trampled and his own vindictive streak is evidence against it. Hard to say what happens there.

*Not going to get a outright surrender that way.
Click to expand...
it

OK, I see your point. I tend to think Hitler would have been generous with the Brits given his peculiar ethno-racial ideology, which saw the Brits as being "worthy."
 

Not Henry G.

Why don't we just leave it as "armistice" or "peace with honor" or something similar and focus on the question?
Is it really that impossible to just answer a question without picking it apart and calling ASB? I mean, come on, it's a freaking Alternate History forum.
 

ivanotter

I also think it is time to turn to the original question.

However, let us set the scene first, as it will be important:

1) Germany takes the entire BEF prisoner
2) UK left with .. nothing in terms of land war.

Hitler has a great idea:

1) Create a proto-EU with France, Italy and Spain as equal partners (or close to at least)
2) Declare the war over and harp on the 'crusade against communism' theme
3) War in the west to fizzle.

It is important to get the war in the West turned from hot to cold and to let it stay like that. It will negate any come-back and negate the bomb.

If the war is still simmering, there will be no difference from OTL.

With all of this settled, we can turn to the East, where the immediate problems will be:

1) Transport
2) Logistics

Just one more armoured division requires tons of supplies per day!

The bombing of Germany was not greatly effective before we get into the 1943 time frame, so that will not be a factor.

It still boils down to one thing: If Germany cannot knock the industrial centres of Leningrad and Moscow in 1941, combined with a serious stab at the South (oil), they lose.

If Germany does not get 'allies' in terms of the Russian population at large, they lose.

... and that. IMHO, is independent of additional divisions (nearly).

Ivan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top