Defending the Realm

So the Germans threw away the significant advantage of a neutral Switzerland for a 'morale booster'? There were far easier targets to be had in the fall of 1941 which would have played to the German and other allies forces strengths such as attacking Sweden-or even Spain.

Um, what's the strategic objective in taking Switzerland?

It's not got much in the way of natural resources like oil, iron, and the things one needs to fight a way.
It's not a strategic threat - it's neutral and avowedly so.
It's not a stepping stone on the route to anywhere. Germany has clear land routes into Italy, and gaining Switzerland wouldn't improve this one jot.

On the downside, attacking neutral Switzerland is a damned good way of getting neutral and non-involved powers (Ireland, Sweden, USA, even Spain) to join the wrong (from the German point of view).
Switzerland does not have good terrain for any attacking force. The resources required for a full-scale conquest are going to be a strain. The method described



is going to be expensive in terms of men (if attacking with infantry) or really expensive in terms of artillery shells. Progress is going to be slow; launching the attack in September 23 and finishing in November 30, well, the word optimistic applies quite strongly.

The key event, from the German POV, is going to be the attack on the Soviet Union. Switzerland is a horrible distraction from that.

I chose Switzerland because of the fact that Hitler, and many other Nazis, consistently stated IOTL that they wanted to invade Switzerland, and indeed made that clear in public, even in front of foreign dignitaries (such as Italian diplomats, and at one point Mussolini himself).

And believe me, in this timeline, Germany is in quite a need of a morale boost, having bled significantly during the Battle of Britain - and with Operation Barbarossa delayed until 1942, when Hitler ordered Tannenbaum to be commenced, he believed that the invasion would be quick, and result in minimal casualties.

Although, if specifics of the invasion (i.e. speed of the conquest) are too implausible, then I am willing to change that.
 
I have just extended the time it takes for the Germans to break through the Swiss fortifications, to make the post more plausible.
 
I chose Switzerland because of the fact that Hitler, and many other Nazis, consistently stated IOTL that they wanted to invade Switzerland, and indeed made that clear in public, even in front of foreign dignitaries (such as Italian diplomats, and at one point Mussolini himself).

And believe me, in this timeline, Germany is in quite a need of a morale boost, having bled significantly during the Battle of Britain - and with Operation Barbarossa delayed until 1942, when Hitler ordered Tannenbaum to be commenced, he believed that the invasion would be quick, and result in minimal casualties.

Although, if specifics of the invasion (i.e. speed of the conquest) are too implausible, then I am willing to change that.

Fair enough. Your TL.

Having invaded Switzerland, Sweden in particular is going to be rather concerned, to put it mildly. With the attack on the Soviet Union coming up, Germany is going to have to decide whether to leave the Baltic flank open to Sweden or try and neutralise that threat. Neither is a happy prospect. Sweden is going to be arming itself to the teeth. It is a significant source of iron ore to Germany, and that's going to dry up the second Sweden gets too twitchy. Attacking Sweden is going to be costly, and a whole bunch of Germany's mountain trained troops have their six feet of earth in Switzerland. Believe me, you don't want to conduct mountain operations with troops without mountain experience.

Spain's neutrality was a pro-German one. I can see Franco not being too happy with the idea that Germany will cheerfully invade neutral countries.

Finland's relationship with Germany could take an interesting, and not pro-German, turn.


As for the specifics of the invasion: October and November are not great times of year to move around off road. Switzerland is not suited to armies with tanks and artillery to move around, but it is suited for light infantry with those long wooden shoe things. Your best point of comparison could be the Soviet/Finnish Winter War, only with added mountains to slow advances. The Winter War was over 3 months in duration, and the Soviets had limited objectives. I can't see a complete overrunning of Switzerland in less than that, and 6 months is probably not unrealistic.
 
As for the specifics of the invasion: October and November are not great times of year to move around off road. Switzerland is not suited to armies with tanks and artillery to move around, but it is suited for light infantry with those long wooden shoe things. Your best point of comparison could be the Soviet/Finnish Winter War, only with added mountains to slow advances. The Winter War was over 3 months in duration, and the Soviets had limited objectives. I can't see a complete overrunning of Switzerland in less than that, and 6 months is probably not unrealistic.
Very well - I'll modify the dates of the invasion, so it will take place in summer months, while the total time taken by the Germans to invade Switzerland will be extended.
 
And in regards as to why the Germans didn't go after a different neutral country:

Spain: For obvious reasons, the Germans won't be attacking Franco.

Sweden: The risk of losing access to valuable iron is enough for the Germans not to attack Sweden for the time being.

Ireland: This would essentially become a second Sealion, which the Germans are not eager to repeat.

Soviet Union: The Wehrmacht is nowhere near ready to launch Barbarossa, which (as mentioned in the update) has been delayed to 1942.

However, everyone is correct in stating that launching Tannenbaum has created a layer of mistrust between Germany and the neutral nations of Europe - this shall become apparent soon enough.
 
Very well - I'll modify the dates of the invasion, so it will take place in summer months, while the total time taken by the Germans to invade Switzerland will be extended.

Your call.

Germany is now so screwed. Iron ore from Sweden is the biggest single, immediate problem. The attack on neutral Switzerland tells Sweden that neutrality is no protection. The big leverage Sweden does have is the trade in iron, and I really can't see it believing any assurances.

Spain, dependant on US food imports, much of which comes in British ships, is going to reconsider its position.

Ireland is placed in an interesting position. A significant proportion of the Irish population joined the British forces (to the extent that there were many more Irish citizens in the British Army than the Irish Army - one of my grandfathers was one of them). De Valera's pro neutrality position is going to take a big hit. If he shifts, and he is quite likely going to be forced to shift, that brings the treaty ports into play for the UK, and that shifts the strategic balance significantly for the Battle of the Atlantic.

Germany is now so screwed.

However, everyone is correct in stating that launching Tannenbaum has created a layer of mistrust between Germany and the neutral nations of Europe - this shall become apparent soon enough.

That's up there alongside "WW3 would have inconvenienced some people" for understatement. A layer of mistrust doesn't come close to it.
 
Considering Nazi rhetoric, it's not entirely implausible. Or particularly feasible. And it will alienate most of Neutral Europe, if not countries further afield.
 
This plan might be stupid and useless but I also think it is completely realistic. From OTL we know that Hitler, never the poster child of good mental health or rationality, had his own degrade over the course of the war. Now, we can never be completely sure about what caused it but it's not much of a leap to say that the deteriorating military situation was a contributing factor.

Here Hitler and Germany have suffered a humiliating military defeat which resulted in the destruction of the German surface fleet, of it's airborne forces, and the loss of tens of thousands of men. This defeat has also severely damaged the German economy and caused grumbling among the population.

Add the fact that your only ally has shown themselves to be completely incompetent. We aren't dealing with 1941 or 1942, were dealing with 1944 Hitler, who wasn't known for his good sense and rationality.
 
Exactly. Tennanbaum was an OTL plan.

Well, yes, but there were lots of plans that everyone made, some less plausible than others. Operation Catherine, for example, was a plan, but not one highly regarded as viable.

Then there was Churchill's Cunning Scheme, suggested late May 1944, to avoid the problems of an opposed landing at Normandy, by landing in Portugal (persuading Portugal to sign on for this), and advancing through Spain and across into France that way. Alan Brooke explained the problems with the plan, and the scheme was promptly dropped.

There's probably a plan for every eventuality. Some are more viable than others.
 
Good effort on a TL

I had a few comments in the interest of 'realism'

Firstly you have the attempted Sealion landing get seriously disrupted but seem to have entire units managing to get ashore in some places and none in most of the others

I would imagine that the Parachute regiments (I think that there was 3 in July 1940) would each manage to land some troops in their area of Operations despite heavy losses in the air but would be arriving piecemeal and largely scattered - like most opposed parachute operations of that period. While their ultimate 'destruction' is assured - It would take days and possibly weeks to hunt down and defeat every unit.

The seaborn elements - I think would be a mixed bag of results

Most target beaches are reached by some of the allocated units in a chaotic and confused fashion and with all of the problems and fuck ups that would happen in such an undertaking by a military that has no legacy of amphibious ops or the specialised equipment to undertake it - most of the units don't manage to get off the beaches and the few that do are unable to advance far.

I doubt that the battles would be over in a hour or so - and again I suspect that most of the actions would go on for several days - the British have no reason to rush - they hold most of the cards and tanks, and artillery and supplies.

While the attempt is doomed the German army was pretty good and those soldiers that did get ashore would make a good showing.

In the Dakar op you have HMS Resolution 'not being destroyed' just a small nit pick but the ships was damaged but not sunk OTL and did take part in the bombardment on the 24th Sept before being torpedoed on the 25th Sept - she went to the US was repaired and returned to service.

Barges - losing so many barges would cause problems but not for Germany - not in the long term anyway - they would strip occupied Europe of enough barges to replace Germany's losses and this would certainly cause hardship in those countries which would have a knock on effect.
 
Barges - losing so many barges would cause problems but not for Germany - not in the long term anyway - they would strip occupied Europe of enough barges to replace Germany's losses and this would certainly cause hardship in those countries which would have a knock on effect.

Unless they already stripped the occupied countries of barges for Sealion.
 
Barges - losing so many barges would cause problems but not for Germany - not in the long term anyway - they would strip occupied Europe of enough barges to replace Germany's losses and this would certainly cause hardship in those countries which would have a knock on effect.

How easy do you think that would be? Even once you can get enough the amount of time it will take to gather them all and transport them back to Germany will be months were the economy will be at a standstill.
 
Unless they already stripped the occupied countries of barges for Sealion.

They are unlikely to have lost them all or have used every single barge in Germany in the first place.

Those that survived would be sent back to Germany first to cover their losses and then if any are left returned to the occupied nations.

If not enough then even more are taken from the occupied nations

How easy do you think that would be? Even once you can get enough the amount of time it will take to gather them all and transport them back to Germany will be months where the economy will be at a standstill.

Again this assumes that enough barges are taken from the German economy to cause such issues - they would have expected them to be away for months even with a successful invasion.

Therefore I have to assume that enough would have been retained to serve the German industry at least in the short term.

I don't know how many barges were intended to be used from each nation or what % of 'Canal lift' this represented in each case.

google fu - "Approximately 2,400 barges were collected from throughout Europe (860 from Germany, 1,200 from the Netherlands and Belgium and 350 from France). Of these, only about 800 were powered (some insufficiently); the rest had to be towed by tugs"

But the Germans would have been aware of the consequences that such losses would have and particulalrly with regards to Germany would be careful not to cut too deep.

More likely that in the 'long term' a failed sealion would result in a shortage of Barges in the occupied nations rather than in Germany
 
Congratulations. You actually came up with a plausible scenario for the Nazis invading Switzerland. And very realistic: you didn't exaggerate (or for that matter, underrate) Switzerland's ability to fend off the invaders.
 
A few thoughts on technology.
With no invasion scare, there be less focus on churning out existing designs as quickly as possible.

This means that development of the Griffon engine and the 6 pounder anti tank gun won't be put on hold, meaning they enter service a year earlier than OTL.

What exactly happens with Crete? Do the Germans still attempt an airborne assault?
 
Good effort on a TL
Thank you!

I would imagine that the Parachute regiments (I think that there was 3 in July 1940) would each manage to land some troops in their area of Operations despite heavy losses in the air but would be arriving piecemeal and largely scattered - like most opposed parachute operations of that period. While their ultimate 'destruction' is assured - It would take days and possibly weeks to hunt down and defeat every unit.
Good point - I'll amend the second chapter, so as to prolong the defeat of the paratroopers and have a few lone soldiers land elsewhere with little support (and be defeated quickly).

I doubt that the battles would be over in a hour or so - and again I suspect that most of the actions would go on for several days - the British have no reason to rush - they hold most of the cards and tanks, and artillery and supplies.
I'd have to disagree with you on this point - while the divisions which landed had no hope in hell of conquering anything, they could still cause some damage - i.e. destroying coastal defences and raiding and damaging coastal communities. Therefore, it was in Britain's best interest to defeat the Germans quickly, and prevent any such problems arising.

In the Dakar op you have HMS Resolution 'not being destroyed' just a small nit pick but the ships was damaged but not sunk OTL and did take part in the bombardment on the 24th Sept before being torpedoed on the 25th Sept - she went to the US was repaired and returned to service.
I have duly amended the update.

Barges - losing so many barges would cause problems but not for Germany - not in the long term anyway - they would strip occupied Europe of enough barges to replace Germany's losses and this would certainly cause hardship in those countries which would have a knock on effect.
I must confess that I hadn't thought of that before - I'll amend the previous update so as to have the economic downturn caused by the loss of barges instead take place in occupied territories.

Congratulations. You actually came up with a plausible scenario for the Nazis invading Switzerland. And very realistic: you didn't exaggerate (or for that matter, underrate) Switzerland's ability to fend off the invaders.
Thank you very much!

A few thoughts on technology.
With no invasion scare, there be less focus on churning out existing designs as quickly as possible.

This means that development of the Griffon engine and the 6 pounder anti tank gun won't be put on hold, meaning they enter service a year earlier than OTL.
Those are certainly some interesting ideas - would you mind if I used them in the timeline?

What exactly happens with Crete? Do the Germans still attempt an airborne assault?
The Germans try a halfhearted attempt to capture Crete (or at the very least weaken Allied defences there), yet (unsurprisingly) the Allies are able to fend this off with relative ease.
 
With an earlier Griffon engine, they might use this instead of the Napier Sabre when developing the Typhoon.

If the Germans do land paratroopers on crete, some of them would probably come with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_Leichtgeschütz_40

It was designed for aiborne troops and if there is an airborne assault, it will feature as per OTL.

It's not a perfect design, but the British were developing a similar weapon for anti tank purposes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance,_RCL,_3.45_in

and capturing a German weapon could help the British avoid the pitfals that led to utimate failure
of the original Burney Gun design. It might even persuade Burney to adopt a lighter 75mm shell, leading to
a lighter, more portable weapon overall. The Burney gun used a HESH warhead, and if this technology is kept in
a 75mm calibre, there could be applications in tank weapons. IOTL the British used a bored out 6 pounder to take
US 75mm shells, develop a HESH warhead for this gun and you could have a fairly effective all round gun, although
the guns on the later panther and tiger tanks would probably have a big range advantage.
 
Top