Would the collapse of the USSR in 1941 have meant peace with Britain?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
think you would have a treaty with France (Admiral Darlan was perfect barometer of German success) which strengthens their collaboration with Germany.

NO, do not mean they join Axis but the opportunity to "flip" their colonies and fleet would probably have passed and their worldwide bases are open for (at least covert) German use.

Germany had a pretty weak navy, Britain had a magnificent one. If the French colonies fought against Britain and supported the Axis they'd be picked off one by one at ease and Germany would be unable to support them. How would they propose to resupply French colonies in the Caribbean, say? Or East Africa? Also, despite what a guy in Germany said, why would somebody sat 1,000 miles away, knowing the Germans have no means of enforcing their decree, just go along with it?

So GB is going to pick off the French overseas colonies? IOTL the U.S. took the lead invading the core colonies of North Africa due to British-French tensions, here you would be creating open warfare over u-boats refueling and some smuggling of critical war materials. AND promoting the view in Metropolitan France that GB is after their colonial empire.
 

Deleted member 1487

Without active front line combat the Germans can use a lot more manpower to go after the partisans, not to mention aircraft like the Stuka that have little use in the West beyond 1941, but are very useful against partisans. Plus they can use chemical weapons on a large scale without repercussions in the West because there is no independent reporting going on about their use. The reason the partisans could survive as they did IOTL was external support from the USSR which wouldn't exist ITTL and the tying down of German troops at the front, which wouldn't exist ITTL either, at least not to the same degree. 500k additional troops on anti-partisan duty from 1942 onwards with all OTL Ostfront Stukas and other older aircraft on anti-partisan duty would pretty much make it impossible to operate for them; plus there'd probably be a lot more people willing to work with the Germans from 1942 on if Moscow is captured in 1941 and Stalin killed with a collapse of the USSR as a result, as the Germans then are there to stay.
 
Without active front line combat the Germans can use a lot more manpower to go after the partisans, not to mention aircraft like the Stuka that have little use in the West beyond 1941, but are very useful against partisans. Plus they can use chemical weapons on a large scale without repercussions in the West because there is no independent reporting going on about their use. The reason the partisans could survive as they did IOTL was external support from the USSR which wouldn't exist ITTL and the tying down of German troops at the front, which wouldn't exist ITTL either, at least not to the same degree. 500k additional troops on anti-partisan duty from 1942 onwards with all OTL Ostfront Stukas and other older aircraft on anti-partisan duty would pretty much make it impossible to operate for them; plus there'd probably be a lot more people willing to work with the Germans from 1942 on if Moscow is captured in 1941 and Stalin killed with a collapse of the USSR as a result, as the Germans then are there to stay.
But of course. Issue was that Soviet partisans actually did tied up huge quantities of German troops OTL and would do so even in case of Soviet collapse at least for period of year or two.
 
But of course. Issue was that Soviet partisans actually did tied up huge quantities of German troops OTL and would do so even in case of Soviet collapse at least for period of year or two.

Right, but that's offset by the amount of soldiers not needed nor killed to fight the Red Army. So Germany will have a lot more men and equipment available to fight the Allies. What it doesn't have is the navy to bring the fight to them.
 
Right, but that's offset by the amount of soldiers not needed nor killed to fight the Red Army. So Germany will have a lot more men and equipment available to fight the Allies. What it doesn't have is the navy to bring the fight to them.
I didn't say otherwise. Just noted that still huge quantities of men power and resources will be necessary to keep East pacified.
 
US enters at the end of 1941, start of 1942 depending on details. North Africa probably ultimately goes the same but then things get stuck for a long while until 1946 when the US carpet-nukes Germany.

Regardless of whether the East is a net drain or not, it's going to take a lot of nuking to break the industrial power of Germany by that point. And then you'll still have to invade.

What are the projections of bomb and delivery platform availability for, say, summer 1946?
 

Deleted member 1487

Regardless of whether the East is a net drain or not, it's going to take a lot of nuking to break the industrial power of Germany by that point. And then you'll still have to invade.

What are the projections of bomb and delivery platform availability for, say, summer 1946?
Dozens of nukes, hundreds of B-29s.
 
Regardless of whether the East is a net drain or not, it's going to take a lot of nuking to break the industrial power of Germany by that point. And then you'll still have to invade.

What are the projections of bomb and delivery platform availability for, say, summer 1946?
In article on Bikini test it said 7 bombs were available in July 1946. However I do not know how much was due to cuts after Japan capitulation.
 
Regardless of whether the East is a net drain or not, it's going to take a lot of nuking to break the industrial power of Germany by that point. And then you'll still have to invade.

A 20 kiloton bomb detonating within 1-2 kilometers of a reasonably tough factory is going to permanently destroy that facility, at least as far as the war is concerned, something that conventional air raids never managed to replicate. Facilities which are extra-soft (like many petrochemical industries) don't even need that. That makes ripping about the German's "bottleneck industries" with just a few, targeted raid eminently possible as opposed to the sustained hammering they would require (and did require OTL) with conventional weapons.

What are the projections of bomb and delivery platform availability for, say, summer 1946?
IOTL, production temporarily ceased when the war so the assembly lines could be made into less ad-hoc affairs. ITTL, it would keep going and the rate of production was projected at 3-4 bombs a month. Running the math gives us something around 33-36 bombs by June 1946, assuming production remains constant.

In delivery platforms... well, as it was the US produced nearly 4,000 B-29s IOTL in the 1943-1946 period and that was with the country steadily demobbing in the 1944-45 period.
 
Top