Invading Nazi-controlled Europe with Britain under Nazi rule

We're being spied on by the salty.
I found this to be especially hilarious:
I expected better of CalBear. He's a mod of the site, he should know better than to engage in Nazi techwank :/
I don't think this individual actually read the following post where CalBear explains in detail his reasoning on why the Reich would end up having thousands of nuclear weapons within a few decades.
 
I don't think this individual actually read the following post where CalBear explains in detail his reasoning on why the Reich would end up having thousands of nuclear weapons within a few decades.

I know. @CalBear as a Nazi-techwanker; now that's the strangest thing I'll hear all day.

Just happened to see this on SWS. It's generally pretty good but sometimes the counterjerk can get pretty strong.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I found this to be especially hilarious:

I don't think this individual actually read the following post where CalBear explains in detail his reasoning on why the Reich would end up having thousands of nuclear weapons within a few decades.
Where, pray tell, was this posted?

I sort of find the idea that I would engage in Luft46 happy talk deeply hilarious.

EDIT: Never mind, I found it.
 
Where, pray tell, was this posted?

I sort of find the idea that I would engage in Luft46 happy talk deeply hilarious.

EDIT: Never mind, I found it.

They completely missed that the entire underlying assumption of the thread, ASB though it might be, was that Germany took over all the resources of continental Europe (and I'm pretty sure the tribute requirements from the rump USSR would have included rights to all of its uranium so they get that, too) and then get an actual working, advanced atom bomb project to copy from the British when they conquered the isles.

Clearly you're a wehraboo when your seminal work depicts Germany defeating the USSR and then rotting from the inside out from sheer incompetence and graft before being rolled up by the allies pretty easily :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
They completely missed that the entire underlying assumption of the thread, ASB though it might be, was that Germany took over all the resources of continental Europe (and I'm pretty sure the tribute requirements from the rump USSR would have included rights to all of its uranium so they get that, too) and then get an actual working, advanced atom bomb project to copy from the British when they conquered the isles.

Clearly you're a wehraboo when your seminal work depicts Germany defeating the USSR and then rotting from the inside out from sheer incompetence and graft before being rolled up by the allies pretty easily :rolleyes:
Only part of the whole thing that bothers me even a little is that the tread was posted by a member here.

BTW: Nazi-wanks are not automatically Banning offenses, provided they do not extend to the justification or defense of the Holocaust or other War Crimes. There are a number of such threads here. Some of the very best debates on this site have taken place in them (of course more than a couple War Crime apologists have also revealed themselves in those threads, with the expected results)
 
I once examined this, with a few scenarios:

Operation Washington's Revenge:
1. Take the entire US Atlantic Fleet and what's left of the Royal Navy (probably a lot of it), and shove them into the Channel. Britain is now cut off from the Continent.
2. Invade Britain, with the full might of the Western Hemisphere matched against just whatever the Germans have in Britain.
3. Use Britain as a launching pad for the invasion of mainland Europe.

Operation Morrigan:
0. Check whether Ireland has been conquered. If it has been, abandon this plan.
1. Inform the Irish that if they help the Allies, they can keep Ulster. Also inform them that if they refuse to help, and the US finds some other way of beating the Nazis, the US will help Britain reconquer and enforce Prohibition on Ireland.
2. Do not tell the Nazis until after the US troops land in Ireland.
3. Send joint navies into the Channel.
4. Use Ireland as a launching pad for the invasion of Britain.
5. Use Britain as a launching pad for the invasion of mainland Europe.

Operation Reconquista:
1. Land troops in Morocco.
2. Attack Europe's soft fleshy underbelly (aka Italy).

Operation Pale Horse:
1. For I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.
 
I once examined this, with a few scenarios:

Operation Washington's Revenge:
1. Take the entire US Atlantic Fleet and what's left of the Royal Navy (probably a lot of it), and shove them into the Channel. Britain is now cut off from the Continent.
2. Invade Britain, with the full might of the Western Hemisphere matched against just whatever the Germans have in Britain.
3. Use Britain as a launching pad for the invasion of mainland Europe.

This one just isn't viable. If the Reich conquered Britain, then through either act of god or betrayal, the Royal Navy is gone.
 
The sentiment to aid the UK did indeed increase during 1941. In this scenario that no long matters. The UK is GONE. The only way the U.S gets into a war with the Reich now is if it flat out starts it on its own.

Torch worked IOTL because the British controlled a number of critical locations, most importantly Gibraltar. The U.S. doesn't have enough decks to even attempt an invasion without access to land based air before mid-1944. This assumes that the Japanese somehow get rolled far earlier ATL than IOTL (or there is no war with Japan, although that would also reduce the number of available decks, since the Emergency Conversion program would no longer provide the Independence class CVL).

The base question is WHY? Why would the U.S. choose to invade and directly confront the Reich? Invading North Africa is the first step, even if it can be done with losses that are no worse than the Marianas campaign, how does the Administration (which is unlikely to be led by FDR, since the conditions that allowed his unprecedented 4th Term are no longer fully applicable) justify it? Assuming that FDR IS reelected, how does FDR's successor, be it Truman or anyone else, justify at least 500,000 casualties, with at least 125,000 KIA, to the electorate (especially considering the estimates will probably be at least a million casualties, as you note invading and subduing Europe is going to be a much tougher proposition than Downfall)?

The Reich squeezed France dry IOTL. The Reich doesn't need happy workers, it needs slaves. Slaves it now has in abundance. People in the Occupied Countries still need to eat, still need shelter. Some will flat out refuse to work in any capacity, they, and their families, will rapidly become object lessons (this is the NAZIS we are talking about here). Entire communities will become hostage to ensure that workers show up (there is no need to speculate about this, OTL proves it). Courage and resistance is a great concept until it is your neighbor's wife and 8 year old daughter wind up in Dachau with your family next up on the deportation list. The overwhelming percentage of the population will, to use a term that was popular in Paris in 1941, "prefer Coal to ashes".

If Japan does not declare war then I agree it develops into something like the OTL Cold War, but if hostilities did break out ever, the military plausibility of this would be relevant. Also, I agree the resolve might not be as strong because of any possible military reason like damage to the homeland but the US government even if they have to suffer the political backlash arising from millions of casualties may do it anyways.

Torch worked because it was against the Vichy French who had a completely different military outlook than Germany would. It is not unwarranted that if the Axis now has total control over North Africa there will be no OTL Torch. That makes sense.

Azores, Canaries, Cape Verde, and the other peripherial targets could potentially provide the needed air bases, meet the logistical requirements for the gaining air superiority over one of these places.

Germany has a solid strategy by concentrating on stationary defense of the coastline followed by a layer of panzer divisions, enjoying the geostrategic advantage of being shielded by the Atlantic.

However, they would want to greatly increase the number of panzer divisions they had OTL for this, which they may be able to do by 1944 because they don't lose so many tanks and weapons, or men. If Speers policies really have the potential for all intents and purposes to add Soviet armaments production on top of their own that is a game changer as the US may no longer have a decisive advantage in macroeconomic terms. Tooze I think it was points out how this was never actually achieved OTL in the occupied USSR territories, though. At least having exploited the USSR to this kind of degree or potential. I have never heard of anywhere inside German occupied territories where they got this kind of immense macroeconomic boost, which makes me wonder what the reason for that is. They had considerable parts of the USSR under their control. Theoretically though at least, I can kind of see how it would be possible to get absurdly huge boosts to armaments production.

Speaking of which, this all might only encourage Hitler to shift military spending to the air forces and navy to the detriment of the army. In terms of tanks, in terms of fortifications, etc.

Edited
 
Last edited:
The British are CONQUERED per the OP (already noted the low order of probability on this scenario). They did not make a deal, they did not arrange to retain anything. The British got punched in the mouth and rolled just like France, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland IOTL and the ATL USSR. Game Over.

British troops are now utterly unsupported. No aircraft, no ammo, no rations, hell, no new boots and socks. Assuming the Government in Exile manages to retain control of the forces, which if far from a certainty (the Reich does, it should be noted, have an actual King of England available to install back onto the throne) there will have to be a series of decisions made regarding where they make their last stand. There is simply no way to retain everything. Trying to hold all means losing everything. Unquestionably that effort would be made in India.

Without India Egypt has no value, nor does Iraq. India already has some issues with independence efforts, the division & a half in Iraq, along with the obsolescent aircraft will be much needed in India, as would the forces in Egypt. Unlike the forces in Egypt the forces in Iraq can readily move to India (which at this point in time included Pakistan) using local shipping (some movement could even be made overland along the Iranian Persian Gulf coast). Iraq has absolutely no value to the British in this scenario. The RAF has exactly ONE bomber in Iraq with the range to reack Baku from Mosul, a Bristol Blenheim. There are also 14 Vickers Valiant single engine biplane bombers (max speed 143mph, combat radius 525 miles)

It is also rather important to keep in mind what the Reich did regard France's colonies that another member of the Axis wanted. The French were required to stand aside and allow the Japanese to take control of French Indochina (and Berlin's relationship with Tokyo was far less cordial that the partnership with Rome). Mussolini wanted to recreate the Roman empire around the Med, Hitler was not going to stand in his way, IOTL Hitler went to considerable lengths to support his Italian partner, in this scenario it is impossible to believe that the Reich would not support Rome's demands from the British. Even if the British force decide to screw their navels to the ground and defend Egypt (which would be strategically idiotic for any Government in Exile in this scenario) the Wehrmacht will be sent to support the Italians, same as IOTL, except this time there will be no British fleet to send to support Egypt, no daring efforts to support the brave defenders on Malta, no RAF or RN forces on the Rock to provide support. Rommel (or whoever Hitler dispatches to command the Africa Corps) will roll the British up like a rug.

Iran won't be occupied by the Soviets because the Soviets got their ass handed to them ATL. They lost the war, almost certainly during the in initial Barbarossa Zerg-rush. The Soviet Union is done like dinner in this scenario. It won't be occupied by the British because the British don't have the ability to shift forces like that and it is no longer critical in the overall scheme of things, the Americans won't occupy Iran because there is no reason to. USSR lost the war, no reason for Lend Lease, Iran doesn't matter in this scenario.

The memo you attached is discussing the Mark III (i.e. Fat Man) weapon. The U.S. never put the Mark I Uranium (i.e. Little Boy) weapon into large scale production, primarily because it was vastly more difficult to produce sufficient enriched uranium. Only five Mark I bomb assemblies (physics packages) were ever produced, only one was weaponized and it was expended at Hiroshima.

There is no way that one can simply overlay OTL onto this scenario. It is entirely possible that the POD butterflies away the Pacific War. The U.S. embargoes against Japan, especially oil, were only effective because the UK and Dutch Government in Exile went along with the U.S. That is no where near as certain ATL. While the U.S. military build-up will likely still occur (if the Congress lost its mind after the Fall of France, any defeat of the British will have them pushing every panic button they can find). It is very possible that the U.S. adopts a "Monroe Doctrine" on Steroids, where America's umbrella extends to Australia and New Zealand, but it is also possible that the decision is closer to "New World is ours, stay on you side of the Atlantic and we're cool".

I would respectfully disagree with a lot of this, but sadly lack of time is really and truly a bitch.

Trying to keep everything reasonably short, IMHO:
1. the British government-in-exile will almost certainly use the carrot of future independence and the stick of a possible Japanese takeover to keep the peace on the Indian home front.
2. Edward, assuming he somehow sneaks into Europe, will be soundly ignored by any and all British territories not under Nazi jackboots
3. with German panzers pushing from Dover to Inverness in the latter half of 1940, Mussolini will not, under any circumstance, accept the humiliation of asking Hitler for help
4. given the above, any occupation of French North Africa prior to Barbarossa is simply not feasible
5. fighting in Russia is likely to last until December '41 at the earliest, with or without Stalin, due to the distances involved if nothing else
6. while the above might persuade the Japanese to 'go north', their fuel supply will not be getting any better, as european governments in exile would be drawn to the US orbit more than ever, making, IMO, any avoidance of a Pacific theater highly unlikely
7. Given 3-5, any Axis attempt to occupy French North Africa is bound to come in AFTER Pearl Harbor, making the possibility of an Allied intervention in the area in help of the French (who absolutely hate the Italians and would not accept being taken over by them) quite likely
8. Since his food situation won't be getting any better with Britain occupied anyway, Franco will likely drag out joining the Axis (since doing so means almost all crucial trade that still keeps Spain afloat will be cut off), meaning the earliest Germany can deploy a substantial force to Gibraltar will be '42, still providing a decent window for an Allied push into Morocco
10. For reasons which are too long to mention (disdain for Jewish physics; lack of heavy water; uncertainty over what, if anything, they capture in the UK; competing priorities; competing agencies working on a Nazi A-Bomb; false understanding of the process involved etc etc etc), I find it almost as unlikely as the OP of this thread that the Reich will produce a fission-type Bomb sooner than the US will (or even significantly close), with or without this or that scientist escaping from Scotland
11. Since we're postulating a collapsed Soviet Union, I think it's fair to make the assumption that part of what allowed Hitler to pull the whole scheme off was not deploying the DAK in the first place (probably due to no pressing need & no invitation from Benny), meaning Egypt will still be British in early '42
 
This one just isn't viable. If the Reich conquered Britain, then through either act of god or betrayal, the Royal Navy is gone.
1. The Home Fleet, sure. But what about the Royal Navy ships on foreign stations?
2. The US Navy would do most of the work anyway. The plan would probably require a much larger Atlantic Fleet than IOTL.
 
And by the way, the level of production here. I am talking about basically taking all of USSR OTL production numbers for tanks and other war items, and adding all of that to Germany's. Yes all of it.

They will have as many tanks, guns, trucks, etc. as they would want
 
And by the way, the level of production here. I am talking about basically taking all of USSR OTL production numbers for tanks and other war items, and adding all of that to Germany's. Yes all of it.

They will have as many tanks, guns, trucks, etc. as they would want
Which would not make sense, because USSR production was based on receiving LL in the first place.
 

nbcman

Donor
And by the way, the level of production here. I am talking about basically taking all of USSR OTL production numbers for tanks and other war items, and adding all of that to Germany's. Yes all of it.

They will have as many tanks, guns, trucks, etc. as they would want

How does that work when USSR's OTL production included raw materials from L-L - and not having a substantial portion of the Soviet work force slaughtered as part of Generalplan Ost?

There would be a boost in Nazi production but it would not be equal to 100% of the Soviet's production.
 
Last edited:
I could see the Nazis last far shorter than the Soviets, from an inefficient planned economy to a disloyal military to half of Großdeuschland being in a state of near rebellion, I don't them lasting to 1970. The US would kick it's feet up and wait, absorbing the massive educated refugee stream from Western Europe.


EDIT: The US could also try to sow distrust between Italy and Germany (think Sino-Soviet split) so that Germany's economy is even more unstable.
 
Which would not make sense, because USSR production was based on receiving LL in the first place.

That slipped my mind honestly. The USSR was spending over seventy percent of its GDP in 1941 on wartime industry while considerable part of the country was occupied. Voznesenski says LL only amounted to four percent of Soviet total production, so the actual significance should be established. Would the USSR still not have produced over ten thousand tanks in 1942 were it not for LL?

How does that work when USSR's OTL production included raw materials from L-L - and not having a substantial portion of the Soviet work force slaughtered as part of Generalplan Ost?

There would be a boost in Nazi production but it would not be equal to 100% of the Soviet's production.

Which raw materials is the USSR not self sufficient in that they needed imported? They have a lot, coal, iron ore, steel etc.

I am just curious if it were theoretically possible that could achieve relative parity in production as the USSR witthout LL. I am sure it would be substantial numbers of tanks being produced in that case, but you have a point with if the Nazis would actually do this. It may be theoretically possible, though.
 
That slipped my mind honestly. The USSR was spending over seventy percent of its GDP in 1941 on wartime industry while considerable part of the country was occupied. Voznesenski says LL only amounted to four percent of Soviet total production, so the actual significance should be established. Would the USSR still not have produced over ten thousand tanks in 1942 were it not for LL?

For starters, all the food might constitute a low amount in monetary terms, but they were the most important element since the food meant less people were needed for the farms and thus more people would work in the factories. That by itself is already a massive multiplier that would not exist under a Nazi regime.

Furthermore, all the other material like aluminum, high-octane fuel, trucks, radios, etc etc all meant that there was less need to diversify the Soviet's production composition, thus allowing concentration of labor and thus economies of scale.
 
For starters, all the food might constitute a low amount in monetary terms, but they were the most important element since the food meant less people were needed for the farms and thus more people would work in the factories. That by itself is already a massive multiplier that would not exist under a Nazi regime.

Furthermore, all the other material like aluminum, high-octane fuel, trucks, radios, etc etc all meant that there was less need to diversify the Soviet's production composition, thus allowing concentration of labor and thus economies of scale.

Less than 3 % of Soviet grain,flour, cereal was actually from LL. LL again only amounted to 3% of US food production in 43, and for the entire war amounted to only 4 to 5 million tons

LL accounted for 76% of copper production (for radios), 46% of aluminum production (for tank engines)

LL accounted for 8% of total LL in 41, and 42 more importantly was also negligeable (less so towards the very end of the year. The USSR built over 24,000 tanks (and 25,000 aircraft which requires aluminum) according to Overy that year. Over 6000 tanks in 41, and 15,000 aircraft. And many naval vessels were built. Over 42,000 artillery in 41, 127,000 in 42

Only roughly 50 % of trucks are from LL. I don't see how they need to diversify in that regard.

Edited
 
Last edited:
Less than 3 % of Soviet grain,flour, cereal was actually from LL. LL again only amounted to 3% of US food production in 43, and for the entire war amounted to only 4 to 5 million tons

sqvFcDT.png


Given that Soviet citizens were already surviving on concentration camp level rations, not receiving LL would mean that the Soviets would either need to provide 50% less food for their soldiers or essentially starve their citizens. This is why you need to use calories and not weight for LL's importance.


More importantly, you're using the flawed logic of "the Soviets could beat the Germans on their own since they already stopped the black tide before LL came in full force!" Everything that the Soviets did before LL flooded in was using up the last bit of reserves that the Soviets had. Assuming no LL, then there would be nothing but Holodomor on acontinentall scale.
 

Deleted member 9338

For retaking Europe I would land in Portugal and start marching
 
this link has an extremely complete list of what was sent to the USSR via Lend Lease

the amount is staggering... roughly $11 Billion in 1945 dollars ($143 Billion in current dollars)(3 times that amount to the British Commonwealth and Empire)

http://niehorster.org/013_usa/misc/Lend_Lease_USSR.html

the complete list would take pages on this forum

The Soviet Union would have been very hard pressed to achieve victory without it. Survive perhaps, maybe even obtain a draw. But definitely no march into the heart of Europe.
 
Last edited:
Top