[Andropov]

What if Germany focused on conquering all of Western Europe first? A third Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in 1940 confirming German and Soviet spheres of influence followed by heavy building of u-boats, bombers, and naval planes, Battle of Britain where the RAF is hit hard, with eventual naval and aerial superiority of the Germans over the channel, could theoretically result in a German conquest of Britain. What date is this likely to occur? How much time would it take to take over all of mainland Britain? What would be the dynamics between a German-dominanted united Europe and the USSR?

[Preston Cole]

What would be the dynamics between a German-dominanted united Europe and the USSR?

Even without Slavophobic Hitler in the reigns, war would be inevitable. Europe would be split between two extremely militarized spheres and Germany would never become the world power it sought to be without acquiring Russian land. Even the more conservative elements in the German Army, assuming they would come to power in case of Hitler's sudden demise, would have their sights set on land taken from Russia in WWI but stolen by Versailles. A position shadowed by the Soviet behemoth, I'm pretty sure, would be unacceptable to the Germans. No nukes to ensure mutual destruction after Germany theoretically conquered Britain either. Simply put, it's either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

On a related note, I tried once to play a Darkest Hour game without attacking Russia and it felt unrealistic as hell.

[Travesty]

Germany never possesed the naval assets required to stage an invasion of Britain. In fantasy land or Hearts of Iron I believe it would play out the way Preston Cole said.

[Andropov]

A German-dominated Europe, with German a mandatory language and eugenics policies of 8-10 children per Nordic family would turn Germania into a superpower even without Western Soviet land.

If Germany starts building up its navy and fleet after the battle of france, meanwhile bombing and blockading Britain and thus destroying its ability to do the same, I see no reason why a German victory is impossible.

[Preston Cole]

A German-dominated Europe, with German a mandatory language and eugenics policies of 8-10 children per Nordic family would turn Germania into a superpower even without Western Soviet land.

And settle all those Aryan "supermen" where, western Poland? :lol: There were already 80 million Germans, discounting Austrians. Russia up to the Urals was never a more attractive and equally conquerable target and you know it. I'm not going on an anti-Russian rant here, I'm just stating the facts.

[Smilin' Dave]

Andropov, you propose a result of this scenario where Britain is defeated but don't elaborate on how this is actually going to be achieved. Nazi Germany didn't have the assets as of 1940 to conduct the wider campaign you suggest as the likely outcome, and there isn't any reason to think they could build them up quickly (well, I'll come back to that in a moment). An earlier shift in policy against Britain than 1940 might have offset this - allowing time for factories to be retooled to produce the needed material etc. but this would also
- Alarm Britain sooner, prompting sooner and more qualitative rearmament from them. One thing guaranteed to get the UK's attention would have been a massive expansion of the navy.
- It might have made the conquest of Poland and France more difficult, with resources shifted away from doctrines and equipment that made those invasions such a massive success.

Now, back to the quick build up question - there is also the question of Germany's economy. Rapid rearmament in the 1930s was essentially financed on a short term basis, and a looming crunch in 1939 (short term loans eventually have to be paid off, trade imbalances need to be sorted before they cause domestic problems etc.) when that was all likely to catch up with them was a likely pressure towards war in the first place. A second rearmament and or a protracted but static conflict with Britain would likely have triggered another crisis... and left them in a bad position to 'solve' it by invading the Soviet Union or elsewhere.

A German-dominated Europe, with German a mandatory language and eugenics policies of 8-10 children per Nordic family would turn Germania into a superpower even without Western Soviet land.

While I would agree a nation's strength is largely in its people, this is pretty fanciful. Imagine the long term effect of all those children... when the German economy can't employ that many people or likely feed them. Also cranking out babies who fit some of the silly idealised images of Nazi eugenics isn't going to solve the problem of there not being enough of the right type of ships, planes etc. in the short term or likely in the long term.

[AuContraireVoltaire]

This is massively speculative, even moreso than a lot of the proposed scenarios that are posted on here.


Operation Sealion was completely unfeasible following the Luftwaffe's defeat during the Battle of Britain.

The German navy was inconsequential at this point in the war compared to Britain and the fate of operation Sealion rested on the Germans winning air superiority via victory in the Battle of Britain.
I find it hard to believe that this would have been possible even if the Germans had air superiority.

[KlassWar]

Soviet rearmament plan finishes in 1942-3. Now the USSR enjoys overwhelming superiority in both manpower and materiel. Stalin can now proceed to smash Germany and flip a significant chunk of Europe Red.

Soviet and German geopolitical plans were at an existential opposition: Germans had ambitions on Soviet territory and the Soviets needed Eastern Europe as a buffer against capitalist powers. Both sides signed the Nonaggression Pact fully intending to defect when the situation was in their favor.

[Andropov]

This implies that geopolitical ambitions are inherent and static- I don't see it outside the realm of possibility for a Germanic empire stretching from Western Poland to Wales with trade relations and border agreements with the Soviet Union. Ideological conflicts are more likely to manifest in Cold War type behavior, as by 1943, both the Red Army and the Wehrmacht, with men enlisted from all conquered Europe, would have been equally powerful and a reasonable analysis by both sides would have concluded that a standard war would result in a stalemate.

This whole scenario takes into account that the Battle of Britain is won by the Germans, that bombing of RAF air fields continues, that the Kriegsmarine blockades the British isles, and that German bombers pound British industry continuously. I don't see how Britain would be able to hold out for more than 2 years if the Germans concentrate their effort towards taking Britain after victory over France.

[pugsville]

Sealion is hard , really really hard.

The RAF. It's impossible to defeat the RAF totally before Sealion. The RAF could always disengage at will withdraw north outside German fighter range. Bombing of the airfields or other tactics might have had a better kill ratio but it was fairly slow attrition. A quick defeat is unlikely, Britain was out producing Germany in both fighters and pilots. Some sort of limited tactical defeat of the RAF was possible, but it would always be able to conserve some significant strength for any invasion.

The RN. Enjoyed near total dominance over the Kriegsmarine, The RN was always going to massively outnumber anything the Germans put to sea. Moral/Operational the RN was going to do whatever it took to interdict an invasion. And here it's more about destroyers than capital ships. RN destroyers never wavered in putting themselves in Harms way, and were in many occasions willing sacrificees. It's hard to see the RN not being successful.

Transport Difficulties the lack of effective transports is a real killer for the Germans. River Barges was the plan, very very slow, very vulnerable. And without purpose built landing craft, or anything really to land tanks and heavy equipment.

[Smilin' Dave]

that bombing of RAF air fields continues... and that German bombers pound British industry continuously.

So problem number one - you're scenario requires:
1. More bombers. You have more than doubled the number of targets to be hit
2. Longer ranged bombers and fighters. Effective operations over the northern parts of the UK were pretty much out of the question for the Germans. To really neutralise the airforce and industry, you need to be able to hit targets much further out than Southern England.

And none of this addresses the problem of the Royal Navy, which might well have been Britain's most powerful military army.

that the Kriegsmarine blockades the British isles

This was tried and it wasn't successful. To be successful among other things the Germans probably need to look at an upgraded fleet of submarines (they had a large fleet, but many had limited operation range) and the other dimension is that as in WWI, a blockade is a good way to cause an incident that will bring the US closer to declaring war against Germany.

[Andropov]

If immediately after victory over France, Germany starts mass producing u-boats, a blockaded Britain will be easily outproduced by the combined industry of Germany and occupied France on all fronts, including aviation.

Another hypothetical historical branch is if the USSR steamrolls the Finnish army and annexes Finland to the USSR proper. Britain and France had plans to bomb oil fields in Baku and deploy troops to liberate Finland in this scenario. Britain will be under blockade and bombardment by both Germany and the Soviet Union in this case.

[pugsville]

Occupied France is no industrial powerhouse it's critical short of resources most of which the German economy is also short of. The Germans looted most of the rolling stock (which the Germans were really short of too), starved of oil the French economy was pretty much crippled by lack of transport. (one side effect of failed sea lion would be a massive transport problem with the loss of the barges)

It takes time to make stuff, and a long time to increase capacity by building more factories, and Germany was already very short of workers and steel. If Germany makes more of something it's going to make less of something else. If the air force and U boats get boosted the army gets weaker.

Large U-Boat program will take a year to deliver, crews take time to train. If you going to delay sea lion a whole year to have any bite to the blockade, the British army will be well recovered and a much much more capable foe, the air force massively increased, in 1940 British produced 15,000 aircraft to Germany's 10,000. (AND they developed much better types in this period)

[Smilin' Dave]

Pugsville covers the industrial side of things very well. The only thing I would add is that Germany may also have been delayed/stretched by the need to create other infrastructure to support a broader war effort against Britain. Things like bases, ships for resupply of any blockading force... that kind of thing.

There is no quick and simple solution to the strategic problem Germany faced after occupying France in 1940.

Britain will be under blockade and bombardment by both Germany and the Soviet Union in this case.

The Soviet Union wouldn't have been able to contribute much of anything in such a scenario. Their navy was fairly weak and tended to be better suited to coastal operations. Their airforce had large numbers of obsolete aircraft and wouldn't have had the range to reach Britain. Now, they could have I suppose launched from bases in France but I imagine those would be pretty full up with German aircraft already and it's starting to push things a bit to assume Nazi Germany would let the Soviet Union operate from its airbases.

[Travesty]

If we are assuming that Germany would retool its industry and start popping out submarines like babies and assuming that the Soviets and the Germans magically start liking each other then to blockade Britain the Germans could have concentrated their forces in Africa pushed towards the Suez Canal and cut it off. Then concentrate their sub forces in the Atlantic and around North Africa and attempt to sink any convoys passing into and from Britain. To screw the Royal Navy the Germans would have to deny it fuel and bases and starve it into submission and sink anything that carries fuel and supplies while continuing to bomb them. I wonder how long Britain would hold on without support from the US.

You know what if we aren't invading the Soviet Union we can go even further than that. Concentrate the army in the Middle East After taking the Suez Canal. And I'bet the Shah being a good buddy of Hitler would allow the Germans transit. Then Invade India through Persia. I bet those Indians would view their Aryan brothers with Swastikas on their flags as liberators. Then betray the USSR for being so stupid and docile invade it through three directions simultaneously Eastern Europe, the Caucuses and Central Asia take Saratov and screw Soviet railway lines and bomb their supply routes cut off Baku. By that time the Japanese would definitely invade and take Vladivostok. and cut off any lend lease from America and Persia would already be allied with Germany then move our magic submarine fleet to the North so that no convoys escape.. The USSR would starve within the year. Yeah! I just won my imaginary scenario for axis world domination!

[Rich]

The first question is why would Hitler not attack the Soviet Union? He only had to kick the door in and he would gain access to massive resources. It would have been moronic not to attack the SU given his estimation of its strength. Hitler's estimation of the Soviet Union was not that far off the general view. If Hitler had realised that the Soviet union was the leading super power on land then he would have had to completely rethink his entire strategy. The question of Barbarossa is not why did Germany fail to knock The Soviet union out in one campaign season but why did they do as well as they did? Hitler was a cretin when it came to grand strategy. An incredibly long run of good luck, Allied passivity in September 1939, Norway, May 1940, Crete and the extraordinary incompetence of Joseph Stalin and the Soviet high command which in fact continued throughout the war, made him seem far, far more capable than he really was.

[Andropov]

Consider the following timeline:

1936: Stalin promotes Tukhachevsky to Grand Marshal of the Soviet Union. He, together with Yakir, Svechin, and others conceive of new military tactics and strategy.

1937: The army is purged of incompetent officials, strict discipline is enforced, and unit composition is significantly mechanized.

November 1939: The Winter War begins. Helsinki is taken within 2 weeks by an army led by Tukhachevsky.

December 1939: Seeing the USSR as an equally aggressive and expansionist power as Germany, the Allies declare war. British and French troops land in northern Finland in an attempt to secure Scandinavian iron. French and British air divisions bombard Baku in Operation Pike, hitting the center for Soviet oil production.

What would happen next? Would the USSR send troops to French Syria and British Palestine? I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility for the USSR and Germany to collaborate in order to destroy a common enemy.

[Social_Critic]

Britain had no oil. The Russians had oil fields the Germans wanted. A more realistic what if, would have been what if hitler had treated the Ukrainians real nice and wheeled towards Baku in a hurry? With that oil they could have taken their time, developed a nuclear bomb, nuked London and Moscow, and that would have been one hell of a messy outcome for me.

[Smilin' Dave]

...the Germans could have concentrated their forces in Africa pushed towards the Suez Canal and cut it off.

As I've recently outlined on the History Forum, that's actually a pretty unlikely to be successful. Even with a bigger navy, Germany can't support a bigger war effort in the Mediterranean.

Then Invade India through Persia.

This would be an even bigger logistical nightmare than a bigger North African front

1936: Stalin promotes Tukhachevsky to Grand Marshal of the Soviet Union. He, together with Yakir, Svechin, and others conceive of new military tactics and strategy.

1937: The army is purged of incompetent officials, strict discipline is enforced, and unit composition is significantly mechanized.

November 1939: The Winter War begins. Helsinki is taken within 2 weeks by an army led by Tukhachevsky.

So now in order for your scenario to work:
1. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union have to not just tolerate each other, but become close allies... possibly closer allies than any other Axis member was historically.
2. Germany must build a bigger and better Navy, and either do so in a matter of months or before WWII even starts and without alerting the British to a threat to their long cherished naval supremacy.
3. Stalin still purges the military, but somehow does so without getting rid of anyone important or causing any other damage.
4. The Red Army has to support a proper mechanised doctrine/structure at least 2-3 years before doing so historically, and doing so during the purges. Probably also disrupting the next five year plan too. Didn't we have a thread a few months back about the impact a rapid expansion and new doctrine had on Red Army training and expertise?

Look, I'm sure if you change enough things all of this (and much more) is possible... but the more things you change the more absurd it gets.

[Social_Critic]

Seems to me the Germans didn't need a navy to invade the uk. They needed a fleet of 20 thousand boats to cross the channel. These could be built easily. Once the Germans had a beach head the Brits would be toast because they had no armour.