Dealing with Britain?

How does a victorious continental power bring Britain to the peace table in an ATL WWII analogue?

Blame the recent spate of Sealion TL's for this question.

Strategic bombing, although likely to be tried, is most likely to be ineffective.

Blockade requires a significant navy which is unlikely to be available (at least in the short term) to a nation which has devoted the bulk of it's resources to ground/air forces to achieve continental victory.

Your thoughts?
 
1) Tunguska Meteorite

2) Shitloads of atomic bombs

3) Magical Collective Stupidity on the British part
 

Thande

Donor
Lots and lots of submarine warfare, an unsympathetic USA, and air superiority. Realistically, unless the situation is extremely bizarre, any Continental Power will be unable to defeat Britain in a fair fight on the high seas, but aircraft and submarines mean you don't have to fight fair. Also avoid bombing civilians.
 

mowque

Banned
Lots and lots of submarine warfare, an unsympathetic USA, and air superiority. Realistically, unless the situation is extremely bizarre, any Continental Power will be unable to defeat Britain in a fair fight on the high seas, but aircraft and submarines mean you don't have to fight fair. Also avoid bombing civilians.

Or nukes could work.
 

Thande

Donor
Or nukes could work.

I don't know. It would probably take more than anyone would actually have if we're talking about a WW2 analogue. People forget that the conventional bombing of WW2 did a heck of a lot more damage than the atom bombs, it's just that the atom bombs had the drama of it all coming in one go. (And of course at the time people didn't know the USA only had a handful of them ready).
 
Would the ideology of the continental power make any difference? In other words, would Britain be more inclined towards peace if the power in question is not Fascist or Communist?
 

Thande

Donor
Would the ideology of the continental power make any difference? In other words, would Britain be more inclined towards peace if the power in question is not Fascist or Communist?
It doesn't make much difference I think, although a more democratic power would be harder to paint as the enemy of civilisation. But we have done it before.
 
Lots and lots of submarine warfare, an unsympathetic USA, and air superiority. Realistically, unless the situation is extremely bizarre, any Continental Power will be unable to defeat Britain in a fair fight on the high seas, but aircraft and submarines mean you don't have to fight fair. Also avoid bombing civilians.

You're right, but you're up against a very vocal clique that refuses to allow any alternate history that goes against their beliefs.

I think even with a sympathetic USA, a continental power with subs and air superiority can blockade Great Britain. It doesn't have to be a total blockade to hurt. There is no reason a continental power can't have the air power to be superior to the RAF. Ships of the WW-2 era are vulnerable to air attack, even RN battleships and cruisers.
 
Oh, that's simple. Once the German army has defeated the Russians on the Great European Plain and forces Petrograd to make a seperate peace and the Chinese have evicted Japan from Korea and pushed the line well into British territroy in southeast Asia, with the ambivalent US increasingly exasperated with British intransigence, you continue the strategic bombing campaign until the Worker's Action Committee and the muzzled opposition finally get fed up and make common cause with dissenters in Churchill's government to bring down Unionist rule through a General Strike.

You all need to read Fight and be Right. :p

In seriousness, no magic spell protects Great Britain. "WW2 analogue" is a very general term, but it's easier to address if we make it narrow enough to exclude a viable *Sealion - though I by no means consider an invasion of Britain impossible.

If that's the case, bomb and blockade, have a US which is not actively trying to assist Britain, and have limited ends so that you can actually make peace with Britain's continental allies after defeating them.
 
I'd go with an all-out blockade, a campaign focused exclusively on Britain, a bigger effort to seize the Canal, and a massive propaganda stating that the Reds menace Europe and the Reich only desires a just peace with Britain (for US consumption).
 
Too summarise - it can be done conventionally so long as the US is kept out of it and great pains are taken to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.

Avoiding civilian casualties with submarine warfare will be difficult, particularly if US cruise lines persist in sailing through war zones. Also, given the constraints on bombing accuracy at the time and the fact that most worthwhile target are in built up areas (other than airfileds) keeping civilian casualties down from bombing will also be difficult.

Suggestions? Pre-raid warnings like the IRA?
 
I think Britain could have been forced to the peace table, but Germany wasn't really willing to pay the price in time.

Britain was on a major losing streak when the BoB was fought. Defeated in Norway and France in a major way.

When the Germans switched their bombing campaign to target cities, they were on the verge of defeating the RAF. They didn't count on how costly this would be, however. So in proposing an alternative path, let Germany continue their focus on the RAF, airfields, factories, port facilities, etc.

While doing so, adopt a Mediterranean strategy. Demand Spain allow German troops to cross to attack and take Gibralter before it is reinforced. From there, take Malta with paratroopers and invasion from Italy. This takes GB out of the western Med. and limits them to their bases on Cyprus, Crete and Alexandria. It also opens up a somewhat safer supply route to north africa. The next step is to build up forces in Libya to attack east to the Suez. Britain, fighting for its life, will have a difficult time resupplying their forces there. Taking the Suez Canal is achieveable. It also threatens their Iraqi oil. Faced with German air superiority over GB, loss of Med. Sea, Suez canal and their oil threatened, GB may have been willing to talk.

The consequenses of doing this would be the necessity of postponing Barbarossa for a year or so. Historically, Germany did not want to do this to their own demise.
 
Once you have all of Europe under your control, treat the locals as human beings and use the industry of all Europe to build up a) air and b) naval power.

In 10 years time you can out build the RN, and invade.
 
Once you have all of Europe under your control, treat the locals as human beings and use the industry of all Europe to build up a) air and b) naval power.

Nazi treatment of the occupied countries was only part of the problem (and west of the Rhine they were high-handed, arrogant, tactless, and tyrannical, but it was nothing in the league of Poland, Yugoslavia, and the USSR). A much bigger part was that the economies of France and the Low Countries were to a large extent import-fed. France, for example, reverted to a pre-motorisation economy.

In 10 years time you can out build the RN, and invade.

Well, you know I don't like to put it this way, but, ah, the Russians are coming...
 
Nazi treatment of the occupied countries was only part of the problem (and west of the Rhine they were high-handed, arrogant, tactless, and tyrannical, but it was nothing in the league of Poland, Yugoslavia, and the USSR). A much bigger part was that the economies of France and the Low Countries were to a large extent import-fed. France, for example, reverted to a pre-motorisation economy.



Well, you know I don't like to put it this way, but, ah, the Russians are coming...
From beyond the Urals? It's not going to work unless they have European Russia beaten/neutralized. Of course, how they do that, I'm not sure.
 
Top