German vs. Russia - No England.

British Non Aggression in Europe might be a better way of putting it. That would leave them free to conduct hostile operations against the Japanese and provide military aid to anyone in connection with the defeat of the Japanese.

I think the true nature of GB's capitulation plays a significant role and wether or not they are deemed "Neutral" or a "Non Aggressor". I am of the understaninding that "Neutral" means that there is no military aid given to any beligerant government and "Non-Aggressor" means that they can give military aid and conduct operations as long as they are not directed at the Germans in this case.

It would be safe to assume that Germany would control the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. With concern to the control of the Atalantic the Bismark and Graf Spee would still be operational, hopefully the bickering over the Graf Zeppelin would continue and it would neve be completed.

 

I really dont know what I could say.

 

Why would it be safe to assume that Germany controls the Atlantic and the Med? Exactly the opposite would be likely, because the RAF and RN would still be intact and indeed growing stronger as time passes. Furthermore, Germany would be forced to pour more of it's resources into the Eastern Front making it likely that the KM and Luftwaffe would NOT have significant units along the Atlantic or Mediterranean coasts.

Paradoxically, Britain would actually have more of a voice in German foreign policy than if they were a belligerent because Germany would want to keep them out of the war. Nor would the US be any less likely to remain hostile to Germany. The Atlantic would remain closed to the KM because the USN would patrol it in cooperation with the RN. The whole idea that a cease-fire negotiated with Britain would solve Germany's problems and allow more resources to be devoted to the fight with the Soviet Union is erroneous. By 1940, the US was committed to defeating Germany no matter what the cost and that would happen regardless of whether Britain remained a belligerent or not.

Absent a successful invasion of the British islands, any cease-fire between Germany and Britain would only be achieved at a very high cost to Germany. After all, Germany needed peace with Britain far more than Britain. The US had already decided that Germany was the main enemy and decided to commit it's resources to defeat Germany first, then Japan. Japan, on the other hand, is still in a definite bind, needing oil, which it can only obtain by a successful seizure of the NEI. But the prospects of that feat being accomplished become more problematical if Britain is not actively fighting Germany.

While all this is going on, Britain continues to rearm whether it is a belligerent or not, as does the US. The US also sends massive amounts of Lend-lease aid to the USSR as that is the only country actively opposing Hitler. As happened historically, the Associated Powers become gradually stronger while the Axis grows weaker. At some point, Britain, in order to maintain it's status both in the Commonwealth and the United Nations, has to get back in the fight against the Axis. That's when the house of cards that was Germany in WW II, comes crashing down.

 

I can't remember the first book I read about the Eastern Front that mentioned German logistical failures, but in virtually every account of fighting on the Eastern Front, even those which don't specifically dwell on logistical issues, mention is made of front-line German units suffering loss of combat efficiency and outright defeat because of crucial supplies, food, clothing, ammo, fuel, and equipment, failing to reach them. It obviously was a pervasive problem for the Wehrmacht in Russia, and just as obviously led to it's eventual collapse.

German intelligence also failed to provide an accurate picture of the Soviet forces, but I suspect that even had the intelligence picture been clearer, the German General Staff would still have fallen short logistically.

 

Depending on the nature of GB's capitulation and the terms of their Articles of: Non Aggression, Neutrality, or Surrender. (take your pick) The Royal Navy and RAF are out of the picture taking Gibralter with it.

Why would they have a voice? France, Poland, Belgium etc.. did not have a voice in Germany foriegn policy.

GB is out of the war therefore the Royal Navy is out of the War and so is the RAF so the US Navy would be patrolling it alone.

It only solves their problem if the RAF and Royal Navy do not patrol the Atlantic and the Med as you stated previously. If GB is allowed to patrol in conjunction with US Naval forces then there is a huge hole in their articles of capitulation with Germany

Keeping GB out of the War keeps the US less interested. I would think that the US might take the approach of keeping the problem isolated to the continent of Europe

I think the big question is the terms of GB's capitulation; when did it happen and under what terms is Germany holding them? The thesis statement does not go into it and only addresses it as:

How is GB going to rearm? it sure isn't going to happen in GB. Maybe as a Government in exile based in Hong Kong, Australia or Canada. With the British Isles out of contention for a staging area the the US and Allies have a pretty long haul to the continent of Europe.

So I must be missing something if a country can surrender or "whatever" and take active measures against the nation they capitulated to. I would assume that as soon as the ink is dry on the Article of Capitulation all war effort, directed at Germany by Brittain, ceases.

GB could not make War with Germany and expect to win on their own. The same is true for the US and to some degree the Soviet Union.

I am not trying to be a knucklehead; but, I think the nature of GB's "Non Involvement" needs to be addressed.

 

I agree with Sloniksp on a lot of points, but I disagree with you on the fact that in the author's case, Britain surrenders after France falls, now... I'm guessing this is right after Dunkirk, considering there would be no reason for them to continue fighting, unless the wear and tear of the Battle of Britain beat them into submission. In either case, this allows for all these listed materials to be allocated BEFORE 1941, meaning that those '3 panzer divisions' tha PzJgr is quoting would have been supplied and THEN some by the time Barbarossa was kicked off. Had the resources been moved any time AFTER Operation Barbarossa had begun, I believe your conlclusion is safe, however if implicated before the start of the Russian Invasion, the Germans would have made it to Moscow, which, I believe most of us can agree would have lead to the surrender of Russia. Also, on a side note, this might have led to a decisive victory at the Siege of Sevastopol leading to control of the Black Sea and eventually the Caucasus

 

The Germans didn't just need to make it to Moscow. They need to take or lay to siege all the cities on the Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad-Rstov axis to induce the system shock neccessary to topple the Soviets. Both John Keegan and Glantz agreed that Moscow alone was not enough.

 

I agree that the timing of the cease-fire is significant, but remember, there is no reason for Britain to surrender to Germany unless Germany is able to launch a successful invasion of Britain. Since a successful invasion of Britain is all but impossible for Germany, Britain doesn't surrender; at best, it negotiates a cease-fire which leaves the RAF and RN intact and certainly able to defend Britain's vital national interests. Gibraltar remains a viable base for the RN. The Kriegsmarine still cannot challenge the RN anywhere at sea, and the RAF still is more powerful than the Luftwaffe; they are most definitely NOT "out of the picture".

The government of Britain is still very much concerned over Hitler and Germany's control of Europe, and is still looking for means to thwart his plans. That is why any cease-fire is going to be merely temporary.

Elementary really. Because France, Belgium, and Poland were thoroughly defeated, their armed forces either destroyed or surrendered, their national territory either completely or partially occupied.

Britain was not even close to being defeated, the RN and RAF still intact, and the British Army still able to defend Britain against at least an invasion. The RAF is still stronger than the Luftwaffe, especially with most of Germany's air strength committed to the Eastern Front. The RN is still eight or nine times stronger than the KM, and controls the entire Atlantic and the Med.

Because of these differences, Germany cannot afford to have Britain reenter the fight, so Britain will have an immense effect on Hitler's foreign policy decisions, especially in those areas which border on the Atlantic and Med, and in decisions which affect Britain's vital interests

Are they?

Germany never defeated the Royal Navy, nor the RAF, so why would Britain agree to any cease-fire that neutralized the RN and RAF? In fact that is one of the problems with this "What-if"; there is no reason for Britain to agree to any cease-fire, whatsoever. It certainly was in Germany's interest to get Britain to become a non-belligerent, so Germany is going to have to make a lot of concessions to Britain to secure a cease-fire. Those concessions will leave Britain a free hand in the Atlantic and Med, will give Britain a major voice in decisions affecting Western Europe, and will leave her Empire unaffected. Britain is just as powerful as before and just as concerned about Hitler's aspirations as before. Britain will be able to do anything in it's considerable power to control Hitler, including cooperating with the US to deny Germany the free use of the world's oceans.

Exactly!

But there is no way for Germany to force Britain to remain strictly neutral because it was not able to accomplish the military defeat of Britain. That is the problem Germany faced historically, and nothing in this scenario changes that. Britain is not invaded because Hitler knows that a successful invasion of Britain is extremely far-fetched. He may be able to persuade Britain to agree to a cease-fire, but he cannot force Britain to give up it's opposition to his plans for Europe. The US certainly wouldn't give up it's opposition; in fact, it would be even more alarmed and redouble it's efforts against Germany, and cooperate with Britain to make sure Germany isn't able to use the Atlantic or the Med.

[/quote]Keeping GB out of the War keeps the US less interested. I would think that the US might take the approach of keeping the problem isolated to the continent of Europe[/quote]

Nothing could be further from historical fact.

The US was very concerned about Britain being knocked out of the fight and made plans to continue opposition to Hitler in the event Britain was forced to capitulate. The US specifically began rearming it's military and configuring it's Navy to fight successfully against both Germany and Japan, with, or without, Britain's help, in the summer of 1940 (The Two-Ocean Navy Act). The US would be faced with a more difficult situation without Britain, but it definitely would have continued the fight against the Axis. This would have included massive Lend-lease aid to the Soviet Union and probably continued military aid to Britain in the hopes that it could be persuaded to reenter the fight.

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner
".....Anyway:

Britain surrenders, negotiates a peace, whatever, following the Fall of France. The scenario for this happening isn't important here but, Britain ends up out of the war."

I agree.

One of the most important factors in the "what-if" is left unexplained and open to wide interpretation.

However, looking at it logically, if there is no successful invasion of Britain, something so unlikely as to be in the realm of fantasy, we must assume that Britain negotiates a cease-fire with Germany which leaves it free to act in it's own best interests. That would include preservation of the RN and RAF. Since a cease-fire is just as vital to Germany (if not more so), Hitler will end up making numerous concessions to Britain to gain a freer hand against the Soviets.

None of this changes the tremendous amount of concern and determination to defeat the Axis that was evident among the Associated Powers in 1940. The US especially will be even more concerned and determined to aid countries like the Soviet Union, and to defend western democracy.

Why would Britain's government go into exile?

Are you assuming Germany has been able to successfully invade Britain? That is the only way there would be need for an exile government, and that is so extremely unlikely as to be a fantasy.

I think it is more reasonable to assume that Britain has simply decided to agree to a cease-fire (although even that seems unfounded form a logical historical standpoint). The RN hasn't been defeated by the minuscule KM, and the Luftwaffe hasn't been able to overpower the RAF. After the cease-fire comes into effect, Britain simply starts to build up it's forces both through domestic production and through military aid from the US. Germany, with most of it's military resources committed against the Soviets, cannot do anything about it, except worry.

Yes, you are missing something; the fact that countries do not "surrender" until their miltary forces and (in Britain's case) Navy, have been soundly defeated.

Since there is no way for Germany to defeat the RN, nor successfully invade Britain, Britain does not surrender. It merely opts for a cease-fire in order to improve it's military position. Germany, which needs to close down hostilities between itself and Britain makes broad concessions to gain the cease-fire. This leaves Britain free to pretty much act as it sees fit.

I agree that Britain, by itself, could not "win" a war against Germany, yet neither could Germany "win" against Britain; the best that could be hoped for would be a stalemate. A stalemate works against Germany being successful in the East and for that reason Hitler was anxious to persuade Britain to stand down in the fight. That didn't happen because Germany wasn't able to either invade Britain or defeat the RN or RAF. The only way Hitler could have accomplished it was by making very generous concessions to Britain.

However, a cease-fire in the west does not gurantee Germany's success against the Soviet Union. The Soviets were equal to Germany in industrial/miltary productive potential, had far more natural resources to call upon, and a far larger manpower pool. If Germany doesn't win against the Soviets in the first six months, it will definitely lose in the long run.

The US is in the same position as the Soviets, only much stronger in terms of military/industrial productive capacity. Germany cannot win against the US in any scenario. The US has three times the war-making potential of Germany, something like four times the manpower pool, and comparatively unlimited natural resources.

On top of that, historically, the US became militarily invincible for a period of four years beginning in mid-1945. During that period no country or combination of countries could have defeated the US.

I agree.

It's not enough to simply say Britain is "out of the war". How and why Britain is out of the war makes a big difference. WW II was a global war and local developments had global ramifications. I understand the original posters intention was to posit a one-on-one matchup between Germany and the Soviet Union, but in the context of WW II, that just isn't going to happen. There were always considerations of alliances and national interests to consider; failure to do so places the scenario in the realm of sci-fi.

 

We seem to be making the same points from different directions. There are so many "probables" to consider that the original "Whatever" concession would have to be very far reaching and include the dismissal of the "holocaust" amongst other mitigating factors for US involvement.

In either case I am hopping off this train of thought

 

This is what I think:

If the Germans had had a clearer intelligence picture they most likely would not have attacked so soon or at all. I don't have the exact figures right in front of me but the Germans underestimated the Soviet strength by about 100 divisions. They also didn't think the Soviets could transfer units from the Far East over. That is why the Soviet offensive in December 1941 was so surprising to the Germans. They thought due to their intelligence picture that they had destroyed most of the Soviet army and the Soviets must be close to the breaking point when this was not the case. This information comes from 'Inside Hitlers High Command' and is not verbatim so dont quote me on exact figures please.

Yours,

Bill

 

Exactly,

In fact there are numerous accounts of how the Soviet Command actually expected Moscow to fall. In turn, all ( even Lenin ) left the city ( under orders )and only Stalin was left. The city itself was booby trapped ( this included hundreds of building even the Balshoi theatre ) and a guerrilla movement was established in order to harass the Germans.

 

Lenin was already dead when Moscow was besieged... he died in 1924.



Cheers...

 

I believe "Sloniksp" was referring to Lenin's preserved corpse was removed from the mauseleum and shipped out of Moscow proper. It seems I had heard or read that somewhere. Could be wrong.

 

Ha. Ok that makes more sense

 

double post...

 

two points:
1. Sarcasm is lost on the internet
2. Was Yoko with him?

 

1. If Britain goes under with France, then what reason could Hitler give the Russians for not reducing the size of its armed force and continue to mass produce arms? Hitler wouldn't want to make his intention too clear at that stage, now would he?

2. Allies didn't really do tip the balance until mid 1943, but by then the Germans' fate was already sealed by the USSR. That should tell you something about how much the Allies really contributed to Hilter’s defeat.

3. The terror bombing DID NOT damage moral. It only made the Germans hate the yanks more and fight better.

4. If the USSR is to be defeated, the chains of command of the German High Command must be reformed. Hitler and Goring must have no say in any military matter.

5. England was to German what Finland was to the USSR. Don't overvalue its capitulation.

 

The initiative did not completely pass to the Soviets until mid-1943, but that is a completely different matter than the tipping of the balance in favor of the Soviets. Even Stalin said that the war was won on the factory floors of the United States.

The USAAF DID NOT engage in "terror bombing". No matter what may have been hit in actual raids, there was always a militarily defensible target selected as the point of aim. This was true of the bombing campaign against both Germany and Japan.

This is very inaccurate. Britain's contribution to Germany's defeat in WW II was far greater than Finland's contribution against the Soviet Union. Britain's percentage of the world's total war-making potential just prior to the outbreak of war was 10%, the Soviet Union's 14 %, Germany's only 14.4 %, according to economist Paul Kennedy in "The Rise and Fall of The Great Powers". Moreover, Britain blockaded Germany and kept Germany from obtaining numerous strategic materials vital to Hitler's war machine. Finally Britain's continuing hostility to Hitler required Germany to tie up numerous resources which otherwise could have been employed against the Soviets.

Do not undervalue Britain's contribution to Germany's defeat in WW II.

 

LOL You did Clint. Sloniksp, you and myself were posting in this thread and I mentioned it .
http://www.ww2f.com/what-if/11720-i...u-think-would-have-happened-5.html#post299207