Why would it not? The Japanese attacking Vladivostok wouldn't allow the Germans to take Moscow, and the Japanese attacking would if anything convince the Soviets that they need to oppose more the invaders (as the Japanese would make their own fair share of war crimes).
Sea Lion ….. No Really
- Thread starter Moss
- Start date
I'm not arguing the partisans didnt enjoy some success and even considerable numbers. I'm merely stating that if Germany doesnt have to fight the largest front in human history and the convential armed forces of the Soviet Union are vanquished, so much so that theyve been pushed beyond the Urals, then it certainly stands to reason that Germany should have little problem pacifying the resistance. With the full forces of their millitary at their disposal and with the complete ruthlessness and determination to ensure its seen through to the end I cant imagine the partisans would stand a chance.
While it may not be enough for Moscow to fall (im aware of the siberian divisions myth) it certainly would complicate things for STAVKA. In this scenario the Japanse will be able to prevent lend lease to Vladivostok and of course that port accounted for nearly half of all LL supplies. Further this would prevent the US entry and again in the OP the US is neutral. So while it may not immediately lead to a collapse of the USSR, it certainly would present much greater difficulties for the Russians that they otherwise would not have had. This may be enough to tip the scales.
Realisticly even if they tried German plans of doing Sea Lion and with what capacity, boats and supplies they had planned for, even if everything until the landings went ASB fine for them would still resulted in a disaster. While most likely fewer losses then Tunesia North Africa simply because the beachhead is crippled even quicker then the Germans can resupply, or even bring in moe troops, I belive overall it would make for a interesting read. Albeit one were Germany still looses and most likely Soviet control reaches further into Western Europe all the way to France in a unified Communsit Germany that is a Soviet puppet in such a TL.
Last edited:
... with the restriction of the OP (no US of A support, better Axis control of the continent causing better if not control then performance in the air over and around the British isles causing better anti-shipping performance causing lesser resource necessary for) I wonder how such a 'Mr.-Universe -muclebound' military force' shall be built up ...
... ahhh, yeah ... the beloved argument (regardless if WW 1 or WW 2) how Britain actually didn't need the US of A support it gained IOTL as their dominions and the commenwealth members etc. like
Canada, South Africa, India Australia, New Zealand ...
would immediatly and willingly and in at least the same amounts of support received by the US of A come to the aid of the motherland. ... however ...
I wonder why his mayesties goverments (in WW 1 as well as WW 2) were so almost desperate (yeah ... I've also read also this 'fgighting on the beaches, fighting on the cliff fiighting on the rives etc. propaganda it actually was) to get the US of A on board.
... in so obvious a contradiction to so many posters ... 'better knowledge' than the responsible persons of the time in question ...
... and this sounds somewhat like wa histilng in the dark to somehow ... pimp TTL towards OTL ... 😉
While the offered article is interesting (and offering an awfull lot of further sources to search, thx for that) it somewhat misses the conditions and 'timetables' of TTL in reporting on a partisan war after :
a lost Battle of Moscow (possibly)
as well as an as well as lost to be counted Leningrad
as well as a lost 'Case Blue' including Stalingrad.
ITTL at least the latter two won't occur or happen veeery differently to OTL with rather clear axis victories in pushing the Red Army to or even over the Ural mountains (as the OP sets the conditions)
... which would have quite some impact on partisan activities due to less 'succsessfull' and 'in-the-end-viictorious' picture in the populaces minds not to speak on the much lesser material support for these partisans availabe, deliverable and means to deliver due to much longer delivery routes.
Therefore ITTL the amount of troops (regardless if Wehrmacht or SS derived) needed are well to be assumed much lesser than IOTL in 1943.
They British Empire was indeed large... but it's industrial capability was not, certainly not at the level required. And that's before even considering the need to get evrything to the UK... without tsking eyes of Japan.
We need to clarify the status of Lend Lease in this scenario. It start almost 9 months before the US entered the war, so we could have a scenario were the US is NOT in the war but still supplies both the UK and USSR. Without it, I don't the UK/USSR can win. The UK would be blocade to submission, and the soviets would be pushed back all the way to the Urals. Without the US support it can't supply itself and would, at best, be reduced to large scale guerrilha.
We need to clarify the status of Lend Lease in this scenario. It start almost 9 months before the US entered the war, so we could have a scenario were the US is NOT in the war but still supplies both the UK and USSR. Without it, I don't the UK/USSR can win. The UK would be blocade to submission, and the soviets would be pushed back all the way to the Urals. Without the US support it can't supply itself and would, at best, be reduced to large scale guerrilha.
As far as lend lease this is a scenario without FDR in the White House and therefore nothing above cash and carry would be going to either of the powers.
Garrison
Donor
And again you miss the point. The USSR might fall, but not in the way that your scenario demands. The truth is that all you have done in this 'new' thread is to retread tired old ideas without bothering to offer any new ideas or ways of making them more plausible than the last 20 times they've been put forward. And all simply so you can load the dice sufficiently so Sealion can succeed. Basically every reason why your idea won't work is being handwaved away and you refuse to accept that you haven't found some magic formula that will raise a Swastika over Buckingham Palace.
The USSR is simply too big to ocupy. IF Stalin dies, some kind of armistice might (big might) be possible, involving some loss of territory, Ukraine, the Báltic states, part of european Rússia, but that's it. If Germany persista, it would get bogged down in guerrilha warfare for years; it simply doesn't have the population to ocupy it as well as the rest of European, and control the UK.
I'm not declaring that magically the swastika is over buckingham. As a matter of fact I still dont think even with the USSR falling it is the most likely option that Germany can invade, my only point, is that with the vast resources of the soviet union, it can be reasoned the air war might be won. With the air war won, and with a much greater number of U boats, and with the fleets of the italins and french, then it might, might, be possible and cannot entirely be handwaved away as ASB. Personally I doubt it would suceed, but I reject the notion that it is a categorical impossiblility.
But if the conventional red army has been beaten, and the territory occupied then it will be no different then how the italians pacified libya. Surely it would be on a much larger scale but I think the notion that germany could not possibly occupy it with their entire wehrmacht free from fighting on other fronts, one could reasonably assert a pacification.
It would take many years for Germany for be able to use those resources. There would be very little workers available, the factores are all rigged for russian products, the rail network is pitifull, the road network is a disaster...
Líbia was basically a deserto ocupied by horse tribes, tied down to water sources. A few planes and armoured cars do the trick. Very diferent from eastern Rússia, not to mention the Urals and other mountains.
Sure but if all the major cities and transit hubs/rail lines, and ports are occupied, the food and oil seized, and the border patrolled it becomes difficult to see how well the insugents would perform. I have not doubt that they could fight on and be a nuisance for awhile, but eventually the germans would be able to hold it. Especially if/when they start implementing harsh reprisials and forming collaborationist battalions.
When in OTL the British Empire and the US invaded Normandy they possessed like 99% of world’s naval power (and not much less on air power), they still feared failure.
How come this ATL 1942 Germany would even try to cross the channel defended by the Royal Navy (world’s largest) and RAF (that would probably world’s largest as well in this scenario)?
People really fail to appreciate how difficult it’s amphibious landing against a well protected coast. A massive superiority is required to have any chances of being successful.
How come this ATL 1942 Germany would even try to cross the channel defended by the Royal Navy (world’s largest) and RAF (that would probably world’s largest as well in this scenario)?
People really fail to appreciate how difficult it’s amphibious landing against a well protected coast. A massive superiority is required to have any chances of being successful.
Just saying that the Japanese attacking the Soviets in 1941 (likely) ≠ Immediate Soviet collapse, with how things are in your TL it's possible that the Soviets end up collapsing, but the chances of this occurring are IMO only somewhat there in 1941, 1942 the Soviets have already begun to regroup making the task much more difficult for the Axis.
Last edited:
How is the French fleet going to help if it's at the bottom of Toulon harbour?
And even if the fleet hadn't been scuttled, it would be in shocking condition after years without proper maintenance (and likely some sabotage). Then you need crews: the French crews haven't trained for years, don't want to fight and can't be trusted; the German crews don't exist, haven't trained ever, and all the manuals (that were in French, not German) happen to have fallen overboard, got eaten by mice, were used for starting fires, or simply can't be found.
The Italian fleet, however, might be of some value if they have sufficient fuel to train and have enough range to get out of the Med.
It seems to be generally agreed based on other threads that a defeat of the USSR by 1942 or 1943 while difficult is not ASB.
Also correct me if im wrong but as far as Generalplan Ost/systematic genocide being a issue consuming german resources, didn't a rise in killings coincide with hitler loseing touch with reality due to his worsening mental condition as a result of the war turning agenst him and him blaming minority as being responsible for this (as far as I understand it the foundation of his beliefs at the time had a lot of commonality with the ww1 stab in the back myth and the belief that minoritys where undermineing the war effort) so presumably if hitler is successful on the eastern front his mental condition would be more stable meaning that while resorces are still wasted they would not be as bad as otl since hitler would not be actively scape goating people for a losing war in the same capacity.
Stab-in-the-back myth - Wikipedia
Separate from your points, if germany is successful there may be a silver lining in that they don't abandon colonial relocation plans as a solution to the jewish question since overseas colonial gains are still on the table if Britain can be beaten per this threads post eastern front sealion so the Holocaust might see a lower death rate with Germany instead opting to relocate the jews outside of europe to Israel, Italian east africa or Vichy french colonys as theoretical possibilitys. (Bearing in mind meny would still likely die in any relocation)
Last edited:
Original timeline Normandy in 1944 was not an island archipelago that could be besieged by marauding u-boats.
It gets a lot more difficult for defenders, however determined, to defend, if they're malnourished and short on petrol* for motor vehicles or aircraft.
Hence my interest in French North Africa, which is crucial to running stuff through the Suez Canal and Mediterranean to/from the UK.
Edit:
* Yes, I know there were attempts to develop on-land oil-fields in the East Midlands in the UK during WW2, and some pre-existing minor extraction from places like Hardstoft in Derbyshire, but these aren't major sources.
Last edited: