With an isolationist US. Would the drivers for Japan to go south even exist?
Sea Lion ….. No Really
- Thread starter Moss
- Start date
With an isolationist US. Would the drivers for Japan to go south even exist?
An interesting question. While primarily Japan was focused on their conquests in China, if the European powers have essentially united against britan then its not out of the question that Japan might make a move for some "free real estate" in the pacific. However its also certainly possible that they continue their focus on China without the US putting the embargo on them. If the Soviets have collapsed the strike north faction may gain some steam hover there really isnt in that day much to be gained from grabing eastern siberia.
There is actually an indie book that looked at that exact scenario - an invasion in 1950 - and the conclusion was that the Germans would still lose.
Assuming the Germans do effectively knock Stalin out of the war, they are still going to have immense trouble building up a naval force capable of taking on the Royal Navy and landing sufficient troops to take and hold a beachhead before the British Army brought overwhelming power to bear against the beach had and destroyed it. As has been argued a few … million … times, the real problem is getting troops across the channel in sufficient numbers and that would require enormous transport as well as a great deal of luck. Even at the shortest distance between France and Britain, it would still be immensely difficult to do it.
That said, the Germans would probably have fixed the most glaring deficiencies in the force that fought and lost the Battle of Britain. They would have some time to develop better aircraft - historically, the Germans could not linger for long over the UK - and they might come up with countermeasures to radar and other British innovations. They might also have come up with a workable long-range bomber, better anti-shipping weapons (they might have absorbed a great many lessons from the Pacific War, assuming that took place in this timeline, or simply traded German armoured know-how for Japanese naval know-how), and improved their U-boats.
The British would also have a great deal of time to build up their own defences. Historically, the window of opportunity for Sea Lion was very short; in this case, the British would have years to build defences, learn from the war in North Africa and develop newer and better tanks, aircraft, and anti-tank guns. I don’t believe the Germans could have secured a lodgement unless the British messed up so completely as to be ASB.
RC
Assuming the Germans do effectively knock Stalin out of the war, they are still going to have immense trouble building up a naval force capable of taking on the Royal Navy and landing sufficient troops to take and hold a beachhead before the British Army brought overwhelming power to bear against the beach had and destroyed it. As has been argued a few … million … times, the real problem is getting troops across the channel in sufficient numbers and that would require enormous transport as well as a great deal of luck. Even at the shortest distance between France and Britain, it would still be immensely difficult to do it.
That said, the Germans would probably have fixed the most glaring deficiencies in the force that fought and lost the Battle of Britain. They would have some time to develop better aircraft - historically, the Germans could not linger for long over the UK - and they might come up with countermeasures to radar and other British innovations. They might also have come up with a workable long-range bomber, better anti-shipping weapons (they might have absorbed a great many lessons from the Pacific War, assuming that took place in this timeline, or simply traded German armoured know-how for Japanese naval know-how), and improved their U-boats.
The British would also have a great deal of time to build up their own defences. Historically, the window of opportunity for Sea Lion was very short; in this case, the British would have years to build defences, learn from the war in North Africa and develop newer and better tanks, aircraft, and anti-tank guns. I don’t believe the Germans could have secured a lodgement unless the British messed up so completely as to be ASB.
RC
Germany needs to win at sea. Winning on land is irrelevant against GB. It’s also not in USA interest to be locked out of foreign markets by victorious fascists. Isolationism doesn’t equal stupidity.
See thats the crux of the issue. While i think its certainly fair to assume that with the continent they could win an air war, It would become rather diffucult to see them win at sea. I dont think they could just pump out enough U boats.Maybe they could produce a ton of "Liberty Ships" but i doubt that could stand up to the royal navy. A combination with France joining and italy might be able to put of a decent fight. If they waited 10 20 years maybe but then we're talking nukes so it would be out of the question.
What do you think it would look like if Germany, Italy, and France joined together navally? Would that realistically stand a chance?
I don’t believe that adding the French and Italian navies of 1940-1952 to the German order of battle would give the Germans a decisive advantage. The French Navy was already outdated and demoralised in 1940-45 and I don’t think the French sailors/officers would be willing to sail against England on Germany’s behalf. Even if they do, in 1950 (or whatever), it is unlikely the Germans will allow them to modernise the fleet - on the grounds it might wind up being pointed at the Germans instead - and as British technology advances, the French will be more and more behind until the gap is impossible to surmount. It gets even worse if the Germans seize the fleet and try to crew it themselves - the Germans simply do not have the naval manpower they would need to run the captured ships, and even if they did the learning curve would be very steep.
I think this would be true for the French air force too. It was already heavily outdated in the historical 1943, and I think it will get a great deal more outdated if Vichy France survived into 1950. The Germans would not want a possible threat from Vichy. If I recall correctly, they were actually surprised that Vichy did not have any plans for a resumption of hostilities in 1943; they clearly expected Vichy to be planning a rematch at some point.
The Italians are a more interesting question. Historically, they did have some technologies that might have given them a better chance if they had had time to develop it - their radar, if I recall correctly, was actually superior to Germany’s up to around 1943, but they never put their radar sets into mass production nor sold the technology to Germany. However, they were unable to fuel their fleet, which meant they were unable to maintain a training schedule let alone regular operations in the Mediterranean. Frankly, I don’t think the Italians could maintain a sizeable naval fleet in the North Sea/English Channel even if the British sat on their rears and let it happen. Their Air Force might be more advanced than the French air force, and the Germans will be less worried about an Italian knife in the back, but I doubt it would be a serious threat to the Royal Air Force. A lot depends on how well the Italians learnt the lessons of 1940-45 in this timeline. Would they realise their own weaknesses and fix them?
If we assume that the Japanese attacked Russia instead of America in 1941, it is reasonably possible that the Soviets would suffer a serious defeat (historically, the Japanese were no match for the Russians on land, but fending off the Japanese would require troops and supplies that historically flowed from the Soviet Far East to Moscow in 1941) and Stalin would reluctantly concede defeat, plotting revenge at a later date when Hitler finally overreached himself. The Germans would still need a massive troop commitment to control Occupied Russia, but at that point they could commit vast resources to building up their naval power and knocking Britain out of the war. Theoretically, they could build up the power to land a major force in England; in practice, it would be just as chancy as the original Sea Lion.
RC
Garrison
Donor
Then you have failed to understand the premise and purpose of AANW. Calbear has repeatedly stated he realizes the underlying POD is unrealistic, the point was to explore the world after Nazi Germany survived and established hegemony over Europe.
Except of course you have failed to suggest how this victory in the east could be achieved without the Germans taking higher casualties than OTL. Barbarossa didn't fail because of some tactical mistakes or 'crazy' decisions by Hitler, it failed because it was fundamentally flawed. German logistics could sustain an advance of 500km, roughly to the Dnepr River. If the Red Army couldn't be destroyed before it retreated behind the river then the plan would fail. this goal was totally unrealistic, because the Germans underestimated the size of the Red Army, not by 10 or 20, or even 50%, but by 200-300%! On top of all this the Germans benefitted from Stalin's refusal to face the fact that an invasion was coming. Far from falling short Barbarossa succeeded far beyond what it should have achieved, it can't achieve more.
You clearly recognize how unlikely even this is to result in a successful Sealion as you then decide the USA does nothing to help Britain, wheeling out the tired idea of an isolationist in the White House. The fact is that the USA didn't help Britain because Roosevelt was an Anglophile or had some unique hatred of Nazi Germany, they did so because it was in their strategic interest to do so, in exactly the same way they later supported the USSR. Nazi Hegemony in Eurasia would have been disastrous for the USA and its notable that there was a distinct increas in the willingness to support Britain after France fell and that prospect suddenly seemed like it might be a real possibility.
Now of course I suppose the Germans could defeat England, Britain and its empire on the other hand is a different proposition. Yes I know you probably meant Britain, but the terms are not interchangeable and saying 'England' often indicate a dismissive attitude to both the other British nations and the contribution of the empire. The following very famous cartoon seems apposite:
Except you require so many improbable changes it is all but ASB, or as I sometimes suggest an idea may not technically be ASB but alien intervention would be a more plausible suggestion as a POD.
Also using England as a synonym for the United Kingdom indicates a dismissive attitude to England as a nation in it’s own right.
Let's assume no USA because Imperial Japan shut down its ambitions in China early, and decided to defeat the evil communists of Soviet Russia instead...
Does De Gaulle have French North Africa? This for me is the crucial question. Was the Reich so busy with Russia that Mussolini was basically given instructions fortify Sicily, Greece, and any other Mediterranean islands, and to forget about Africa for now, because the Reich wasn't going to even try to cross the Mediterranean whilst the Russian fighting was on, and without German interference the Free French and Commonwealth cleared first Libya and then (at probably very bloody cost) French North Africa?
There were troops in the Far East the entire time precisely for such an occurrence, according to the wiki
When you say
do you mean the myth of the Siberian divisions that saved Moscow in 1941? Most units that arrived to Europe were not from the Far East Front and transferred troops were not the reason why the Germans were stopped at Moscow, see:
The ‘Siberian’ Divisions and the Battle for Moscow in 1941-42 - Operation Barbarrosa
Return to Great Myths of WWII According to current historical wisdom, large numbers of veteran and well equipped Siberian divisions were deployed protecting the USSR’s eastern borders against a possible attack by Japan on 22nd June 1941. They were then apparently transferred west from October to...
www.operationbarbarossa.net
Last edited:
Plenty of support for 'cash and carry' and not-quite-war level support.
Churchill uses England to refer to Britain and Northern Ireland in his WW2 works, so it is historically valid, while still being dismissive.
They do better getting more & better subs to really blocade the UK. With proper coordination with the Luftwaffee (paging Goering...) these could finally do it, IF the US isn't supplying long range patrol aircraft and escort carriers...
The idea that the USSR could never fall I think is absurd. Stalin himself as well as Kruschev both stated that without the US they would have in all likely hood fallen. IF this is a scenario without the US then it becomes. more likely. Firstly without having the stresses of a possible balkan front, diverting troops to France to counter invasion threats, the airwar that brought the luftwafe back west from the east, the reichs situation looks entirely different. Nearly half of all german forces were NOT on the eastern front by 1943. Without the US germany will be able to allocate significantly more men and material to that theater. Further without the US the panzer divisions dispatched to stop Tortch would have been availble during the critical days of Zhukovs counter offensive around Stalingrad. This could prove siginifant if the flanks have panzers instead of the Romanian Rifles. And if we do see a german win in the cacasus then it certainly would have suffered far fewer casualties than in defeat. And while their may be some cash and carry type from the US if america is not in the war if certainly wouldnt send near the amount that it sent otl.
Secondly its certainly possible that Taft couldve won in 1940. Its a scenario ive thought about writing a TL for. Taft had the dirt on Wilke and his affairs but he decided to play nice instead. What if perhaps he had thought to himself that the danger of sending americans to another great slaughter was worth playing those dirty cards? He could secure then the nomination. He said (and im paraphrasing here) "It would be unthinkable to join a war agaisnt another country because sometime down the line they may become a trade rival" Now if he has beaten Wilke by exposing his affairs, he could hit Roosevelt hard in the fall campaign seeing as his top foreign policy makers Sumner Wells is out drunk and screaming at other men to blow him. This would be a BIG no no in 1940 and FDR would be hit hard for cohorting with such a fellow. In this case it would therefore not be implausable that Taft secures for himelf the oval office. This Presideny would not be sending a massive amount of aid to either London or Moscow.
It certainly would be risky. Perhaps with the factories and labor they could switch to building more uboats to try and deny the channel to britan. If they could produce enough though becomes a tough question. If the japanse strike north then there is a legitamte chance that they are in a naval conflict with the british because the russians may demand that london declare war on a secondary invader of the motherland. The UK would then have to decided between holding the colonies or the home island and of course they'll choose home. I dont know if we could get a scenario where japan would send ships to europe to be part of a grand invasion fleet combining the continent against the uk.
I had envisioned things going similar in North Africa up until Torch. Historically the US and uk fought there together, i had thought that the britsh might do well but not quite as well in north africa without america. I certianly could see them drive the axis out but it taking longer as Hitler woulld definately prioritize victory in the east and probably correctly so. North Africa was always a side show for him and losing there could never take Berlin but losing on the eastern fron certainly could and of course historically did.
Here is an academic paper discussing the partisan activities in the Soviet Union. It discusses the fact that there was at a minimum of 130,00 and grew up to 250,000 of the Partisan in 1943 in the rear areas. It also discusses that they had 11 Security divisions that were part of OSTHEER, the German Army not the SS, There was also the SS units such as the Order Police, Einsatzgruppen, and the SS auxilaries. There were also units from the other Axis nations like the Hungarians and Roumanians, and the Luftwaffe security divisions. These tied up large groups troops that would otherwise be in combat units.
This is assuming of course Stalin and his government survive a simulataneous Axis attack from both east and west.