OP? There is only so many imperial losses the Brits can take, coupled with the shipping issues in the Atlantic stemming from Spain as a naval base, that would make them consider ousting Churchill and consider peace.

But the fall of Gibraltar would be tempered by the capture of the Canaries as well as the small enclave that Spain have in modern day Equatorial Guinea. And the fall of Malta is not guaranteed and if the FJ are used there they are not in shape for Crete. Not to mention if the British don't go into Greece they have the troops to hold Crete even if the Axis tried to invade. If Portugal is invaded then the Azores and Madeira woould also be open as bases for the UK.
 
..Strategic dead end? ITTL there is no Eastern Front per OP. ...

Ok. I'm wrong there. As ASB as it might be it is the OP

...Also, the Germans would be able to invade Russia from Poland and the Caucuses, on two fronts.

Except oops, it is in the OP.

23
Portugal managed to remain neutral despite extraordinary pressures from both sides. Both the Allies and the Axis sought to control the strategically located Azores islands during World War II. Dictator Salazar was especially worried about a possible German invasion through Spain and did not want to provoke Hitler; nor did he want to give Spain an excuse to take side with the Axis and invade Portugal due to the strategic importance of the Canary Islands. Both Great Britain and the United States devised several plans to set up air bases in the Azores regardless of Portugal's disapproval. The plans were never put into operation.

Except that they did persuade Salazar & the first Allied military arrived 8th Oct 1943.

As for continued Portuguese neutrality, The Portuguese were sitting on the best source of Wolfram ore for Germany. If they continue their practice of demanding the Germans outbid the British for it its unlikely that will be tolerated. The ill prepared Portuguese Army was not a high cost obstacle. If Germany is appeased with low cost Tungsten and the Brits are cut off as the Germans would desire, then there is less disincentive to use the islands.

Interestingly Spain and Portugal had a non-aggression pact too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Pact

You are joking, right? When did treaties mean anything vs the conveinence of the Axis? The ease in seizing the Tungsten ore, political pressure from the Phalangists, a desire to preempt the British, possession of all that coast, rounding up Jewish refugees, rather overrides another scrap of paper.

If Spain as a active Axis player & losing access to the western Med via the straits is as severe a problem for Britain as some folks argue, then items like Portugals neutrality are not very important vs the gains from control of the Atlantic islands. In April 1940 Britain was in the process of strong arming the Norwegians into accepting occupation, & the sensibilities of the Icelandic population was effectively ignored. So, given the claim of all this putting Britain in desperate straits its fairly logical Britain will act in desperation, or at least in its better strategic interests.
 
Last edited:
Working from the OP:

1. Despite the pact with Germany the USSR had been actively doubling the size of its military, & then increasing it substantially yet again. The forces in the west had been moved forward to positions more suitable for a offensive vs a rational strategic defense. The idea of there never being a eastern war requires a fundamentally different PoD & radical changes in the leadership of the USSR.

2. A delay of Germany attacking the USSR favors the Red Army. Giving it time to progress its build up, train the cadres, field the modern weapons, train the ranks.

3. The better things are in Europe for Germany the greater the incentive for the US to get into the war. A nazi dominated Europe is nothing like ordinary concepts of a German economic domination of Europe. Despite what dupes like Henry Ford thought such a dysfunctional kleptocracy would threaten the foundations of the US economy. Propping up the British empire is a essential step in removing the emerging worst case scenario. Direct warfare is another essential. The US was not a autarky & could not expect to return to the 1910 levels of prosperity or even 1920s levels.

4. The US had planned on continuing the war despite the seemingly inevitable collapse of the Red Army in 1941/42. The resources required had been identified and where they were to come from located. The survival of the USSR allowed the US to start capping off its mobilization in 1943. re: terminating the US Ary mobilization at 90 divisions. But, the peak reached in 1944 was not the full potential of what the US could support.

The trivia inserted into this thread, like spreading 50 FW 200 over double the number of coastal airfields, has long become silly. I'm off to a better class of trivia.
 

Deleted member 1487

Ok. I'm wrong there. As ASB as it might be it is the OP



Except oops, it is in the OP.

23
Would be able to doesn't mean did per the TL. And not invading the USSR isn't ASB especially if just delayed 1 years or so.

Except that they did persuade Salazar & the first Allied military arrived 8th Oct 1943.

As for continued Portuguese neutrality, The Portuguese were sitting on the best source of Wolfram ore for Germany. If they continue their practice of demanding the Germans outbid the British for it its unlikely that will be tolerated. The ill prepared Portuguese Army was not a high cost obstacle. If Germany is appeased with low cost Tungsten and the Brits are cut off as the Germans would desire, then there is less disincentive to use the islands.
After the US joined the war, Italy was knocked out of the war, Kursk had failed, and the Germans were on the run on all fronts and already defeated in the Atlantic.
Would the Portuguese demand that if the Germans are the only thing holding the Spanish back? If the Brits violated their treaty with Portugal to seize islands regardless the Portuguese will retaliate. Also as it was the Allies didn't need the islands to win the war, especially as the Mid-Atlantic gap issue didn't pop up until mid-1942.

You are joking, right? When did treaties mean anything vs the conveinence of the Axis? The ease in seizing the Tungsten ore, political pressure from the Phalangists, a desire to preempt the British, possession of all that coast, rounding up Jewish refugees, rather overrides another scrap of paper.

If Spain as a active Axis player & losing access to the western Med via the straits is as severe a problem for Britain as some folks argue, then items like Portugals neutrality are not very important vs the gains from control of the Atlantic islands. In April 1940 Britain was in the process of strong arming the Norwegians into accepting occupation, & the sensibilities of the Icelandic population was effectively ignored. So, given the claim of all this putting Britain in desperate straits its fairly logical Britain will act in desperation, or at least in its better strategic interests.
Question is do the Portuguese believe it matters and not jump off the neutrality train themselves to preempt the Axis? If the Axis upholds it and leaves Portugal...the Portuguese aren't going to declare war, they know what will happen if they do. If the Brits try and preempt the Axis and deploy to Portugal...that makes things more interesting all around. Probably does not bode well for the British forces deployed.

If the Brits demand that their alliance is activated anyway and leave Portugal to it's fate just to get the Azores...that doesn't look good. Getting Norway to accept occupation theoretically at least protected Norway, sacrificing Portugal proper to just get the Azores when the Mid-Atlantic wasn't yet relevant to the hot spot of the naval war (the mid-atlantic in 1942) seems remarkably rash, especially given the lack of British resources for Coastal Command unless they cut bomber command. Both the Axis and Brits in 1941 gain more (or lose less depending on the perspective) if Portugal remains neutral; in the case of the Axis they can gain more by strong arming Portugal into more favorable trade, which is superior to invading them as an option; if the Brits through their actions lead to Portugal being invaded then they are worse off because the Axis then gains all the Tungsten in Portugal for free (relatively), plus a naval/air base even close to the Atlantic shipping routes.

The Azores doesn't compensate either from Axis bases interdicting the Britain-Africa shipping routes. Besides what sort of naval/air basing could be done? It sounds like the air basing was pretty marginal before the British occupation; then it took until the US showed up and made major investments in construction that turned it into a significant base, long after the BotA was won.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_in_the_Azores#Second_World_War
Incidentally the Azores are within bombing range of the Fw200 from Lisbon.

Azores.jpg


Convoy_routes_1941.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Hello all, I am currently working on a timeline for a German victory in Europe during the second world war. Now I know that this has been done to death, trust me I know, however, I am more interested in writing short stories for this particular POD in modern times and farther in the future. I certainly don't want to copy the same formula that others have already done. With that being said I would like to develop a timeline on how they won ww2 in the first place, I feel that it is important for any stories I will write as far as world-building is concerned and to try and keep it as realistic as possible.

I do have a general idea of how I think events need to go for this timeline to work. First, no successful Operation Sealion or successful Barbarossa as I understand those cliches are overdone and unrealistic. Instead, I have chosen Operation Felix (operation to take Gibralter) as the original POD. In my timeline, I imagine Hitler is convinced of Soviet superiority in the event of Barbarossa in 1941 so he proceeds with a Mediterranean strategy. In effect, Hitler would be able to cut off Britain's empire, the oil fields of the middle east would be occupied and the Suez would be occupied. Also, the Germans would be able to invade Russia from Poland and the Caucuses, on two fronts. However, the Russians invade Germany before they make it to the Caucuses but are resounding defeated by the superior tactics of the Wehrmacht. Now, this is about all I have developed for specifics but I imagine a German invasion of Soviet Union only to about Riga or Kiev, they would never make it as far as they did in real life for numerous reasons. I also imagine a failed Allied invasion of France sometime in 1943. In the end, the Soviet Union will make peace with Germany, think brest-litovsk 1943 and America would make peace with Germany as soon as the Soviets dropped out of the war, leaving only Britain left to fight on. I'd like to have an operation sealion type invasion at the end of the war but that is likely not very realistic.

All creative criticism is welcomed but keep in mind that a sense of disbelief has to be taken into account since the Germans didn't have really any chance of winning the war, this is more about how they COULD have won. I've read all about the reasons on why they were defeated, why Barbarossa was a failure from the start and all that but I feel given all considerations, an operation Felix POD as I have presented it is by far the most realistic way they could have won.
U.S. wouldn't drop out once things had begun, not as long as the British were engaged. Murrow's reports (among others) from "abandoned London" would be political poison for all who touched it.
 
The Azores were Portuguese, not Spanish. Unless the Brits opt to declare war on Portugal, they aren't getting them...

Let's see. During the war, the British:

- landed troops in Norway.
- bombed, bombarded and seized Vichy French naval assets wherever they wanted and seized French colonies whenever they could.
- occupied Iceland.
- replaced an unfriendly Iraqi government with a friendly one, not without waging a battle against the Iraqi army.
- bombed Finnish territory.
- collaborated with the Soviet occupation of Persia.
- occupied Portuguese territory (Timor) and carried out a small military operation on Portuguese territory (Goa).

All of that without a declaration of war on the countries involved.

In some cases they had good justification (Norway; the Germans had systematically violated Norwegian neutrality first). In some others they had a shaky one (Iceland could be described as a Danish dependency and the Germans had occupied Denmark). In some others they had an acceptable factual justification, but not a legal one under international treaties and law (at Petsamo the place was brimming with German assets, in Goa there was a German interned ship acting as an intel and radio station). In some case there was no justification whatsoever.

Yeah, if British troops land in the Azores while Spain has gone Axis and there also are German troops in the Iberian peninsula, then the Axis might occupy metropolitan Portugal. Who would benefit from that, the Axis? Hell no, the Allies. It would be hard on the Portuguese, sure; but look at Yugoslavia. The British encouraged the Yugoslavians not to go Axis, then they could do little to actually help them; but it's not as if this resulted in a gain for the Axis.

But it won't come to that. The British won't immediately base ASW aircraft in the Azores. They will do exactly what they did in OTL, and the Portuguese will also do that. The British will outsource patrolling to the Portuguese, and the Portuguese will accept that. Maybe not immediately; in OTL, that happened in 1942, after the German declaration on the USA and the fact that at the gates of Moscow the German supermen had been shown to be such only in fair weather. But it will happen. Lajes will be turned into an air base, and Portuguese aircraft will begin doing the job. They won't attack surfaced U-Boote, true; but the important thing will be reporting them, as well as the weather flights. In case of emergency, Allied aircraft will be allowed to land there and refuel and be repaired.

Then by 1943, if not earlier, the Allies will be given full basing rights. As in OTL.
 
My thinking is that through Gibralter, the Germans can launch an invasion of NA and into the middle east, to cripple Britain's oil supplies.

Where "through" means "thanks to the capture of", I hope.
Look, having Gibraltar does not stop British supplies from reaching Egypt. They might be stopped from reaching Malta, yes, if the Regia Marina can be convinced to operate more aggressively in the Eastern Med, and if the Axis isn't doing Barbarossa, then they can first starve and then capture Malta. OK this far.

Then you still have on your hands the following problems:
- not enough Italian cargo shipping to support a sizable motorized army in North Africa.
- not enough seaport capacity in North Africa, unless the Germans also anticipate the taking of Vichy France (making Tunis the main hub), which will have butterflies.
- no rail line in Libya. Half of the trucks and half of the fuel will be needed just to carry the remaining half of the fuel to the frontline units, and the larger the frontline assets are, the larger this supply train has to be.
- once the Axis is in Suez (having the significant help of the Egyptian rail line to support the logistics for the last stretch) they face the same problem in spades: no rail line from Suez to the Iraqi oilfields.
- once, incredibly and unrealistically, the Axis is in Iraq, guess what? No rail lines from there to the Caucasus. You have to go through Turkey (neutral), or Iran (neutral), or the mountains, on those goatherders' tracks.

Amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics.
And I'll add that logisticians don't ever look at a map if the map doesn't show the rail network.
What kind of map did you look at? Did it show you the rail network?

the Caucuses.

The word is Caucasus. Or Caucasia.
 
The conversation make me wonder if a better, non Barabrossa Axis strategy would be to bribe Vichy France to allow German basing and passage in Northwest Africa and Dakar and skip Spanish participation altogether.

That FW condor range map looks even better out of Casablanca and Dakar.

There is rail such as it is in Northwest Africa and good ports and decent naval assets around to protect them.

Spain could be used to smuggle some supplies across.

Cost of French acceptance would be huge, a final peace, freeing POWs, occupation costs, etc. would be up for negotiation.
 
The conversation make me wonder if a better, non Barabrossa Axis strategy would be to bribe Vichy France to allow German basing and passage in Northwest Africa and Dakar and skip Spanish participation altogether.

That FW condor range map looks even better out of Casablanca and Dakar.

There is rail such as it is in Northwest Africa and good ports and decent naval assets around to protect them.

Spain could be used to smuggle some supplies across.

Cost of French acceptance would be huge, a final peace, freeing POWs, occupation costs, etc. would be up for negotiation.

That would be an interesting TL.
 

hipper

Banned
Why not have the Germans support the Iraqis via Syria following the Fall of France? The Iraqis are more aggressive at Habbiniya scoring an important early victory opening the way for eventual German intervention.

they tried, from Wiki

"On 11 May, the first three Luftwaffe planes arrived at Mosul via Syria. On 15 May, an aircraft carrying Major Axel von Blomberg flew from Mosul to Baghdad. Axel von Blomberg was part of the military mission to Iraq which had the cover name "Special Staff F" (Sonderstab F) commanded by General Hellmuth Felmy. Axel von Blomberg was tasked with heading up a Brandenburgers Commando reconnaissance group in Iraq that was to precede Fliegerführer Irak.[91] Axel von Blomberg was also tasked with integrating Fliegerführer Irak with Iraqi forces in operations against the British.[87] On its approach to Baghdad, the aircraft was engaged by Iraqi ground fire. As a result, von Blomberg was shot and was found to be dead when the aircraft landed."
 
The problem I have with this argument is that for most of the first three years of the war the British knew nothing but defeat. They won the Battle of Britain, had some successes here and there like sinking the Bismarck, and had some victories in North Africa but those were balanced out by plenty of losses (Tobruk) but seriously - Norway, France, Greece, Crete, Malaya & Singapore, the DEI, Burma. Heck, one of their biggest successes in the first half of the war was Dunkirk - an evacuation. So Spain entering the war and the potential defeats associated with that are going to bring them to their knees? Sorry, that doesn't work.

The other, more significant problem is that while the military situation may have been bad, the political situation was getting rosier and rosier for Britain throughout 1941. Remember how Churchill slept the night after the Allies' greatest defeat in the Pacific theatre? It was "the sleep of the saved and thankful".
 
they tried, from Wiki

"On 11 May, the first three Luftwaffe planes arrived at Mosul via Syria. On 15 May, an aircraft carrying Major Axel von Blomberg flew from Mosul to Baghdad. Axel von Blomberg was part of the military mission to Iraq which had the cover name "Special Staff F" (Sonderstab F) commanded by General Hellmuth Felmy. Axel von Blomberg was tasked with heading up a Brandenburgers Commando reconnaissance group in Iraq that was to precede Fliegerführer Irak.[91] Axel von Blomberg was also tasked with integrating Fliegerführer Irak with Iraqi forces in operations against the British.[87] On its approach to Baghdad, the aircraft was engaged by Iraqi ground fire. As a result, von Blomberg was shot and was found to be dead when the aircraft landed."
Have von Bloomberg live and the Germans actually push the Iraqis. OTL it was a half-hearted endeavor all around.
 
Neutralizing Malta and Gibraltar help the Germans but by no means are decisive. They may have allowed the Italians to somehow take the Suez Canal in a stretch, but penetrating the entire Middle East seems difficult, and the logistical tail involved means that any attempts at getting at the Soviets from the South are going to be pipe dreams at best.

The only way I can see a German victory being feasible is if the Soviets have a second purge (explained as Stalin being very paranoid or a genuine putsch being foiled), paired alongside Stalin being convinced to attack Germany in spring 1941, which would of course be annihilated and leave the Soviets shorn of reserves in any position to do much of anything when the counterattack comes. Barbarossa could have never worked in 1 year, but a counterattack that nets massive pockets of millions of captured Soviets, with the industry not yet moved to the Urals and the reserve armies being all that is left, might have worked. The terrain and weather for attack would have been awful for them, and by the time that the attack is fully contained, the Germans would be ready to push east just as the ground firms up.

Sealion is a nonstarter. Under really any circumstances I can think of.
 
Once the Germans break through the Suez they will face little resistance from French Syria and the British mandates, they were very underdefended and on top of all that the Arab nationalists would rise up and help the Nazis overthrow the British and French.

I suspect that any admiration that Arab nationalists had for the Nazis would not have survived close contact with the reality of what Nazi rule was actually like.
 

hipper

Banned
Have von Bloomberg live and the Germans actually push the Iraqis. OTL it was a half-hearted endeavor all around.

The British attack on Baghdad began on May 27th. the Germans don't have much time to do anything. The battle of Crete started on May 20th. To achieve anything serious they would have to abandon that operation and commit to Iraq.
 
The British attack on Baghdad began on May 27th. the Germans don't have much time to do anything. The battle of Crete started on May 20th. To achieve anything serious they would have to abandon that operation and commit to Iraq.
Which makes sense abandoning Crete. The operation decimated their paratroopers and stripped them of value in Hitler's eyes. Take Iraq and you threaten Britain's position in Egypt, secure oil, and can further incites rebellions throughout the Middle East (Palestine and Iran in particular). Unlikely the Brits cling to Crete while everything falls around it.
 

hipper

Banned
Which makes sense abandoning Crete. The operation decimated their paratroopers and stripped them of value in Hitler's eyes. Take Iraq and you threaten Britain's position in Egypt, secure oil, and can further incites rebellions throughout the Middle East (Palestine and Iran in particular). Unlikely the Brits cling to Crete while everything falls around it.


it’s 500 air miles between Rhodes and Damascus, what sort of force can the Germans airlift over that distance. logistics is actually a thing you realise.
 
believe the issue with Iraqi coup is that it occurred in shadow of Barbarossa so was always going to be sideshow, attracting little attention, planning, or resources.

my constant refrain is that they fumbled away Vichy Syria, for instance there were French reinforcements that had made it to Greece, but unable to complete the last leg by ship they waited in vain for German JU-52s to transport them.
 
The conversation make me wonder if a better, non Barabrossa Axis strategy would be to bribe Vichy France to allow German basing and passage in Northwest Africa and Dakar and skip Spanish participation altogether.

Cost of French acceptance would be huge, a final peace, freeing POWs, occupation costs, etc. would be up for negotiation.

for what it's worth the tabled agreement Paris Protocols were for bases at Dakar, Bizerte, and Aleppo ...

my view the KM would not really benefit that much from isolated far flung bases and they are not going to gain control over the French fleet, my original thought was they might have gotten the French submarine fleet but have accepted view they would have been difficult if not impossible to actually operate.

what they actually did gain some control over, and could operate and benefit from was French commercial fleet including already outfitted auxiliary cruisers ... in exchange for, as you suggested, reduced occupation costs (and reduced occupation!)
 
Top