Re-taking of Nazi occupied Britain?
- Thread starter Jimbo808
- Start date
A thought: suppose the Nazis accomplish this by not launching Barbarossa and concentrating their military resources on securing the rest of Western Europe instead, but Japan still attacks Pearl Harbor. Do the "Allies" even come to be? I'm sure Stalin didn't give a damn about defending the right to freedom and sovereignty in Britain, France, or any of the other conquered democracies, so perhaps the USSR leaves the Nazis alone as long as the Nazis leave them alone. If the U.S. military is the last one left standing with the resources and manpower to take on *any* of the Axis powers, is it possible that the U.S. still goes to war with Japan but sees Europe as essentially lost, especially if a more isolationist-minded President gets elected in 1940?
For a real wild card, would Hitler eventually, after consolidating his gains in Europe, insist that all British territory now belongs to Germany and send troops to Canada to set up a puppet government? It would be picking an unnecessary fight, sure, but he might still have been fanatical enough to try it, at which point maybe even the isolationist Americans would decide that they can't tolerate Nazis on their doorstep.
For a real wild card, would Hitler eventually, after consolidating his gains in Europe, insist that all British territory now belongs to Germany and send troops to Canada to set up a puppet government? It would be picking an unnecessary fight, sure, but he might still have been fanatical enough to try it, at which point maybe even the isolationist Americans would decide that they can't tolerate Nazis on their doorstep.
This kind of scenario would have a very real possibility to make make AANW look like the world of light in comparison.
Probably 20-30 nukes used on british and irish cities followed by a bigger amphibious invasion then D-day. The continent? nuked even more. This isn't even factoring in 10-15 years of generalplan ost in russia, siberia and central asia before the nuclear war.
Probably 20-30 nukes used on british and irish cities followed by a bigger amphibious invasion then D-day. The continent? nuked even more. This isn't even factoring in 10-15 years of generalplan ost in russia, siberia and central asia before the nuclear war.
The problem is that this just can't happen and still have them be the Nazis.
Nazi ideology required them to go into Russia, to delay to focus on Western Europe, while theoretically possible is incredibly unlikely with their views but it could never be anything other than a delay.
A Nazi-Soviet War is inevitable unless you change the ideologies involved so much that they aren't Nazi or Soviet.
Point taken. Though I'd still have the same question of whether a more isolationist U.S. ends up working with the Soviets to defeat the Axis. If the U.S. chooses not to try to liberate Western Europe, they might similarly decide to let the USSR fight the Nazis alone while they concentrate on defeating Japan. If that happens, I guess the next potential turning points are:
(1) How effectively the Nazis actually manage to keep all of Europe under their control, since they might have to put a substantial occupation force on the ground in the UK (and possibly pull some of them back later for the eventual attack on the USSR).
(2) If the eventual Nazi invasion of the USSR is a disaster for them like Barbarossa was IOTL, does the USSR continue pushing westward to kick the Nazis out of the rest of Eastern Europe, or do they stop once they've driven them out of their own territory?
(3) If the Soviets do continue the war - or even if they don't - maybe *then* the U.S. decides to get involved in Europe, sensing that the Nazis are vulnerable and have presumably lost a lot of manpower?