A Transatlantic Invasion

If Britain is subdued (however you want to interrupt) early on then maybe Germany never lands troops in North Africa. They leave that up to the Italians while they prepare for Russia and figure out what to do with Britain. Pearl harbour happens on time. They sweep through South Sast Asia riding tandem war elephants made of luck. Barbarossa happens in May but doesn't go as well. The quick defeats of the Wallies will not go unnoticed and some number of troops have to be stationed Britain. That's not even considering that this could be a successful SL POD so the Germans have either less planes or tanks.

America invades Iceland, but then takes the southern option. Landings in north Africa, then islands in the Mediterranean, then southern Europe. At this point this aren't looking super good for Germany. This is when Ireland can play it's geography card for the most bang. They say all of Ireland or invade. We say Ulster or we invade. Ireland has a pretty small population and where are they getting weapons?

Or maybe the B-36 is rushed into production and at this point Americans would rather nuke and go home.

Of course, US landings in Africa and around the Med depend on being able to actually access the Med. That means Gibraltor. With the UK out of the picture, why wouldn't Spain grab Gibraltor?
 
AWPD-1. Atomic destruction of Germany in the late 1940s. I don't see how any other option to win the war makes logistical sense.

Remember the little Swabian town of Haigerloch. Remember Otto Hahn and Heisenberg. Remember the V-weapons. And now, now you are able to understand why not only Berlin, but also New York, Washington and Boston will be nothing a contaminated stone desert after a nuclear attack on Germany.
 
Remember the little Swabian town of Haigerloch. Remember Otto Hahn and Heisenberg. Remember the V-weapons. And now, now you are able to understand why not only Berlin, but also New York, Washington and Boston will be nothing a contaminated stone desert after a nuclear attack on Germany.

Bwaaa haaa haaa! You think the damn V-Weapons will threaten the US? They would never be able to threaten the US. Don't fall for that Luft'46 BS.
 
I think the US (and its British exile/commonwealth allies, if they existed as a significant force) would initially not consider any transatlantic invasion as long as the USSR was in the fight and Britain maintained a colonial presence in the middle east. Initially, Americans would closely with the USSR to (1) reinforce the eastern front with a direct influx of American men and more material. Assuming a "Vichy" British regime had sued for peace (more likely obviously than a conquered Britain) the US would support British exile forces in attempt to seize British colonies in the levant and east Africa. The Allies would want to ensure Iran and the Persian gulf states did not fall to the Axis

The US would build up Iceland as a potential staging area for a trans-Atlantic attack, but mainly as a base for strategic bombing. Bases in the USSR and Eastern Mediterranean would also be used. Development of the B-36 would be accelerated as much as possible, but the B-29 (and maybe B-32) would also be produced in large numbers. The USN would rule the Atlantic.

Such a war might be fought in an intermittent fashion, with informal or even negotiated US-German armistices (such as if the USSR negotiated a separate peace, British exile forces proved to be weaker than expected, or Japan was even friskier than OTL. A lot also depends on whether the USA was in the European War before or after Britain signed an armistice. If the US is not in the war at that time, then my own opinion is that as many as 4-6 years might go by before full and open war between the US and Nazi Germany (or more accurately, Nazi Europe) breaks out.

If serious consideration of a transatlantic invasion to defeat Germany becomes necessary (say in 1946-48), I think it would be aimed at German-occupied France and/or perhaps Britain if it has also become occupied. The US would make liberal "surprise" use of nuclear weapons in the invasions... to destroy frontline forces and rear Axis staging and transportation nexus areas. Since the short and long terms of radiation exposure and fallout would be poorly appreciated, the invasion forces might suffer more from their own pre-bombardment than any remaining German beachhead resistance. The Americans might also issue ultimatums to all German-occupied and German allied states threatening them with more nuclear attacks unless they rise up. Who knows, the war might just end shortly after the invasion begins, not by a US ground victory, but by the Nazis losing their allies as the rats leave the ship, and some sort of coup in Germany.
 
Remember the little Swabian town of Haigerloch. Remember Otto Hahn and Heisenberg. Remember the V-weapons. And now, now you are able to understand why not only Berlin, but also New York, Washington and Boston will be nothing a contaminated stone desert after a nuclear attack on Germany.

Oh, come on. Heisenberg, Mr. "There literally isn't enough uranium in the world to build a nuke, how do I science" is going to improve the V-2 program enough to hit the East Coast of the US and develop a working nuclear weapon before the US does, despite the fact he never got anywhere close to doing so in OTL?
 
Remember the little Swabian town of Haigerloch. Remember Otto Hahn and Heisenberg. Remember the V-weapons. And now, now you are able to understand why not only Berlin, but also New York, Washington and Boston will be nothing a contaminated stone desert after a nuclear attack on Germany.

By the late 40s, Germany might, maybe, be able to mass produce a rocket capable of targeting, and maybe even hitting, the US East Coast. But a serious nuclear program? In addition to thinking it impossible, Germany had neither the resources nor the power generation for such a thing, particularly not while engaged in a life or death struggle with the USSR.

Meanwhile, the US is overflying German defenses with atomic armed B-36s in the late 1940s.
 
Remember the little Swabian town of Haigerloch. Remember Otto Hahn and Heisenberg. Remember the V-weapons. And now, now you are able to understand why not only Berlin, but also New York, Washington and Boston will be nothing a contaminated stone desert after a nuclear attack on Germany.

Somebody has been reading "My Tank is Fight", but missed the point. V-weapons were a waste of effort even against targets they could hit. The technologies to create reliable ICBMs or submarine launched missiles would have been basically unavailable to Germany in the 1945-47 period. Also, Nazi Germany was never close to developing a deliverable atomic bomb...the best they may have managed might have been atomic or dirty "mines" used to destroy US/Allied invasion forces on beacheads.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to imagine that German air defenses over Europe in the 1945-48 period would be far better than OTL. High-speed jet interceptors in large numbers, effective anti-aircraft missiles, better radars, air-to air missiles, and maybe long-ranged interceptors capable of attacking the bomber streams well out into the Atlantic. IF the Germans were aware US bombers were carrying nuclear weapons, it is open to speculation if enough of them would get through to be decisive.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Remember the little Swabian town of Haigerloch. Remember Otto Hahn and Heisenberg. Remember the V-weapons. And now, now you are able to understand why not only Berlin, but also New York, Washington and Boston will be nothing a contaminated stone desert after a nuclear attack on Germany.

You are assuming that the Reich would be able to develop nuclear armed ICBMs decades earlier than was the case IOTL. It is actually somewhat questionable if the Reich would have managed to develop a nuclear weapon before an ATL U.S. was able to turn the country into a ruin.

BTW: Heisenberg, along with the Reich Post Office research group, utterly botched his calculations by a couple orders of magnitude. He had concluded that a practical nuclear weapon was flat out impossible due to the amount of fissile material necessary. Hahn was never even associated with the Reich program.

Somebody has been reading "My Tank is Fight", but missed the point. V-weapons were a waste of effort even against targets they could hit. The technologies to create reliable ICBMs or submarine launched missiles would have been basically unavailable to Germany in the 1945-47 period. Also, Nazi Germany was never close to developing a deliverable atomic bomb...the best they may have managed might have been atomic or dirty "mines" used to destroy US/Allied invasion forces on beacheads.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to imagine that German air defenses over Europe in the 1945-48 period would be far better than OTL. High-speed jet interceptors in large numbers, effective anti-aircraft missiles, better radars, air-to air missiles, and maybe long-ranged interceptors capable of attacking the bomber streams well out into the Atlantic. IF the Germans were aware US bombers were carrying nuclear weapons, it is open to speculation if enough of them would get through to be decisive.

Depending on when the British were either defeated or subverted the Reich's ADZ might not be all that significant. The Nazis were entirely reactive in the development of their eventually robust air defense system (just as the WAllies were in the use of escorting fighters, or for that matter, ASW).

This sort of illustrates the weakness in any sort of scenario that includes the "don't worry about the how/why" element. The reason for the POD is critical to discussion of specific follow-on events.
 
If the Americans still drop a bomb on Japan the Germans are going to realize their error in a hurry. They'll probably need several years to get one up and running, but in the meantime they can focus on getting enough planes in the air to make a nuclear attack more difficult.
 
Of course, in August of 1945, Germany may not have the resources to dump into a crash program, depending on how the war in Russia is going.
 
Depending on when the British were either defeated or subverted the Reich's ADZ might not be all that significant. The Nazis were entirely reactive in the development of their eventually robust air defense system (just as the WAllies were in the use of escorting fighters, or for that matter, ASW).

Good point. You are certainly correct. For the sake of argument, I was presuming that the US would be mounting (or attempting to mount) a sustained strategic bombing offensive from bases in Iceland, the Middle East, and the Soviet Union, using more advanced bombers such as the B-29, and by 1947, the B-36...and that The USN with Midway-class carriers would also be striking at western European targets.
 
I know the Middle East is underdeveloped, but would it be cheaper to build up forces and infrastructure in say Iran and Turkey and invading through the Balkans or staging a transatlantic invasion from, presumably, Iceland or the Azores? I would assume that Britain is first retaken and then the Continent in the latter case.
Or if the Soviets are still in, just funneling in more men and arms through the Iran corridor?
All of these scenarios would entail North Africa somehow being held by the Axis I suppose. In which case why not invade North Africa via the Middle East while we're entertaining elaborate and improbable invasion plans.
 
Why in the world would Ireland be an unoccupied Allied power in a world where the Nazis occupied Britain? You're telling me that by hook or crook, Germany can subdue and occupy Britain, but is unable or unwilling to do the same for Ireland, and allows the US to use Ireland as a base?

I have 2 questions:

1)What are you smoking?
2)Will you share?

I read another discussion which suggested that in the event of a successful Sealion, Ireland would come to an accord with Germany, agreeing not to aid the Allies in return for Ulster. In this scenario, that happened, but then Ireland made a secret pact with the Allies that was only revealed when the US/Canadian fleet arrived in Ireland. I admit there are serious problems with this, but the sudden presence of a massive US force in Ireland could deter Germany from an immediate attack (although there would almost certainly be a Blitz against Irish cities).

Still, the North Africa approach sounds best.
 
I guess the timing is relevant - the US didn't actually HAVE a massive force to send to Ireland until around 1943, especially given our Pacific commitments. I suppose if you butterfly away PH you might be able to do it sooner, but I just don't think Germany would be dumb enough to leave an independent Ireland in the rear for more than, like, 5 minutes after subduing England.

Ireland, unlike Sweden and Switzerland, really contributed nothing of value to Germany that would deter Germany from invading.
 
Top