stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Nov 24, 2022 16:55:47 GMT
a) A lot will depend on the commander. Unfortunately, WP articles don't allow much judgement, and I typically read those history books which aren't extremely specialized. Lord Gort - well, he got a VC in WW1, he might fight on. Blanchard - wouldn't bet so much on it. Leopold III - capitulated IOTL on May 28th anyway. b) Don't know many details, but the French 1st Army had already lost a lot of materiel when the PoD came. I'd assume they might try an attack against (hypothetically) German-occupied Dunkirk next. For the sake of a German victory, I assumed that Rommel would pull his trick (using anti-air cannons against French tanks), destroying their last hope. c) Malta and Somaliland - that'd be a peace Britain might accept, but the Axis not so much. The former German colonies? Not impossible, Hitler did more than one U-turn as the "Führer", but even someone not as experienced in naval warfare as him should notice that the colonies weren't much of a help in WW1. Not as long as the Kriegsmarine comes even close to the RN. Would the Brits accept the loss of e.g. Egypt in such a situation? (Even if yes, that's not the TL I originally wanted to write.) What about Cyprus? Or Palestine, so the Nazis might send all the Jews in their realm there instead of Auschwitz? The problem for Churchill: While we know with hindsight that the RN and RAF are all that Britain needs to avoid Sealion, the Brits at that time didn't necessarily know. And while Hitler might have treated a Britain that'd be willing to ally with him against Stalin, or be benevolently neutral at least, I somehow don't think that's going to happen. I.e. the Brits wouldn't do that. d) True, Stalin had hoped for a war of attrition in the west. If Britain made peace... however, that's not the decision I want them to make. So the situation until Barbarossa would be similar to OTL, with the German position being just a tad better. Maybe enough for Stalin not to change significantly. e) Since the Brits would send all available and new troops to the mother country first during the next months, and keep more of the RN and RAF around there, they'd have to fight more defensively in Africa. Postpone counterattacks until, I don't know, one year later? Fortunately for them, Italy doesn't have the greatest army.
On c) I think it would depend on how much Hitler wanted peace with Britain so he could concentrate on the Soviets. I think Britain would be willing to make concessions to Germany, as long as its didn't significantly expose the homelands - for instance some sort of German garrison in Britain would be a no-no. However I suspect they would be less likely to make major concessions to Italy, who would be the real gainers from any concessions in the Med. Egypt would be a major issue I think as well because control of the canal is seen as important for links to India and the eastern empire as well as Australia and New Zealand and that being under the control of an hostile power would be far too dangerous. As such I can't see that happening without more fighting and defeats for Britain.
d) So you want Britain to continue fighting despite the loss of the bulk of the regular army in NE France but not noticeably lose much less territory? Not sure how much better this would make the situation for Germany other than Britain is clearly unable to pose a major threat to key areas on the continent? You could see Britain in such a scenario avoiding committing forces directly to Greece assuming that Mussolini attacks there which would have a lot of potential butterflies for both sides.
e) Probably likely to see the initial stages of the Operation Compass with defeats for the Italian forces that 'invaded' Egypt but no follow up advance toward Benghazi? Britain would still want to clear out Italian E Africa, or at least drive it from the coastline to protect traffic via the Red Sea and neighbouring areas. Again could be a lot of butterflies here in multiple directions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Nov 26, 2022 7:25:07 GMT
c) Yes, a peace with Britain is tricky - Malta, Cyprus, Somaliland, and/or Gibraltar would rather be a boon for Italy/Spain, not Germany (and also a bit little); Egypt is essential for Britain; and other colonies would be undefendable for Germany. So I guess the war will go on until either side is defeated (impossible for Britain, and not the aim of the TL for Germany) - or they grudgingly decide to make an armistice at some time, with the then-status quo, with vague hopes for doing better in a rematch.
Although, maybe (taking a page from GURPS Alternate Earths, Reich-5)... if Britain ceded Sudan to Italy, but not Egypt? Would that make sense?
d) I started with Dunkirk, because that seemed reasonable as a step towards Nazi victory; and afterwards... well, let's see. IOTL, e.g. Australia said they'd fight on even if Britain was lost (an impossibility, we know now) - I don't think that's just bragging. So yes, the war will go on. And yes, Britain would probably have to let Greece fight alone - or suffer a worse defeat there.
e) Makes sense. The question is, whether they can send enough troops to East Africa - esp. if Japan becomes a threat. After all, they might still fear an invasion of the Homeland.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Nov 26, 2022 12:15:03 GMT
c) Yes, a peace with Britain is tricky - Malta, Cyprus, Somaliland, and/or Gibraltar would rather be a boon for Italy/Spain, not Germany (and also a bit little); Egypt is essential for Britain; and other colonies would be undefendable for Germany. So I guess the war will go on until either side is defeated (impossible for Britain, and not the aim of the TL for Germany) - or they grudgingly decide to make an armistice at some time, with the then-status quo, with vague hopes for doing better in a rematch. Although, maybe (taking a page from GURPS Alternate Earths, Reich-5)... if Britain ceded Sudan to Italy, but not Egypt? Would that make sense? d) I started with Dunkirk, because that seemed reasonable as a step towards Nazi victory; and afterwards... well, let's see. IOTL, e.g. Australia said they'd fight on even if Britain was lost (an impossibility, we know now) - I don't think that's just bragging. So yes, the war will go on. And yes, Britain would probably have to let Greece fight alone - or suffer a worse defeat there. e) Makes sense. The question is, whether they can send enough troops to East Africa - esp. if Japan becomes a threat. After all, they might still fear an invasion of the Homeland.
c) Gibraltar might be a step too far for Britain even to Spain as it at least implies Axis control of access to the Med - since the Axis are likely to offer it to Spain in return for a more formal alliance or Britain might fear that after such a gift Spain is likely to aid the Axis in a later conflict.
Sudan instead of Egypt would be interesting. Technically Sudan is an Anglo-Egyptian co-dominion, i.e. jointly controlled by the two nations, although Britain had the stronger hand so it would upset the Egyptians. It also offers the theoretical threat of an invasion of Egypt from the south but there isn't really the logistics in Sudan to support that. Plus supply to it would still have to come via the British controlled canal. As such it might be a possibility. However as you mention those are gains for Italy rather than Germany.
d & e) In this scenario, assuming that Mussolini still attacks Greece - which is probably likely - I would expect that British forces wouldn't be involved in Greece. Either because assorted people sit on any such idea from Churchill or simply the Greeks veto this. They did so OTL because they feared that it would prompt German intervention until after the Greek leader Metaxas die in Jab 41 and his successor, possibly encouraged by British successes in Libya - which won't be occurring to anything like the same level here - reversed that decision. I think that Britain would seek to clear Italian E Africa to secure access to the Red Sea and the flanks of Sudan and Kenya.
In this scenario, whether or not German forces intervene in Greece I suspect they won't in N Africa, at least for the moment. The Italians have suffered a defeat there but nothing like the massive collapse of OTL so Hitler might aid Mussolini in Greece, to prevent it becoming a potential base for attack on Romanian oil. launching an offensive into Egypt is not likely to be seen as a priority for Germany by Hitler.
Much of the forces that took part in the E African campaign, other than those British forces already, came from the empire and dominions. As such, especially with it being likely there's no intervention in Greece which soaked up more resources, that there will be the manpower for the E African operation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Dec 1, 2022 6:41:03 GMT
c) Yeah, getting Gibraltar is tricky, even if Franco joins (far from sure!). In my "victory conditions" I stated explicitly that the Allies are allowed to keep it. Is it necessary for an Axis win, even if only on the Med?
Sudan's interesting, yes... but w/o Egypt, not really that valuable for the Axis, I guess.
d/e) Yeah, I expect Mussolini to attack Greece as well. His claims weren't new. Even IOTL, the Greeks were disappointed by the little help they got from Britain.
Metaxas' death is conspiracy theory fodder. But I don't expect it'd happen that different in an ATL.
This British strategy must look odd from the outside. Attacking as far from Europe as possible, with relatively few forces...
Yes, the East African forces weren't from Britain proper - but if Britain seems like a sitting duck, wouldn't Churchill rather insist that they'd send their troops to Britain instead, until they know the Home Islands are on the safe side? Then again, the transport'd take months... so, would it be relying on Navy, Air Force, and Dad's Army for the moment?
All in all, I'd guess that the end of the war will be rather an armistice in the west, with the Axis keeping what they grabbed and the Allies calling it a day. Meanwhile I think the Axis'd have to control all of Northern Africa and the Near East to be on the safe side. Sudan/Ethiopia are a possibility, but no must.
PS: These discussions with you are interesting, and I've got the impression that they're fruitful too.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Dec 1, 2022 11:35:07 GMT
c) Yeah, getting Gibraltar is tricky, even if Franco joins (far from sure!). In my "victory conditions" I stated explicitly that the Allies are allowed to keep it. Is it necessary for an Axis win, even if only on the Med?
I think Gib would be indefensible in the longer term if Spain openly joined the Axis. It would be a pig and extremely expensive in shipping trying to supply it. However its something that would be bitterly opposed by Britain because its so important as a centre for trade protection and access to the Med.
Agree. I was viewing it as something that would be seen as a sop to Italy for lacking other major gains.
Well they got more than Britain could afford, especially when forces were committed. In this TL Greece would fight and probably ultimately go down, either attritional in a longer campaign against Italian numbers or more quickly if Hitler still commits forces.
Agreed and if Metaxas doesn't die suddenly I would expect British forces would stay out of Greece, other than possibly Crete.
Not really. The odd [and stupid] thing was Churchill's insistence on intervention in Greece. Especially with the bulk of the army lacking equipment or in this case destroyed there is no basis for a major action on the continent until its rebuilt and that would take years. Removing locations like Italian E Africa removed threats to British colonies/interests and also traffic through the Red Sea and western Indian Ocean. I have also read once that part of the reason was that doing this meant the Red Sea could be declared a non-combat zone which would allow US shipping to travel the area, under the neutrality laws in place at the time but how accurate that is I don't know.
It not only made military sense but also historical as it not only clear up potential enemy bases but frees up forces for tightening the blockade, which was the traditional method of war for Britain when it lacked powerful allies.
As you say that would take resources and time which may not be available and it would leave those colonies unprotected when they have land borders with an hostile power. Britain still has some regular army units as well as the Home Guard but the primary defence is the navy and airforce.
Why? If they have lasting control of the continent they had a formidable power base - albeit that Nazi methods would degrade this substantially. Controlling western N Africa via their French puppet I can see - although Italy is likely to want Tunisia but Egypt is very important for Britain as is access to oil in Iraq and Iran. With peace with Britain Germany can seek to trade with other sources outside Europe to supplement Polesti and the Axis might find oil resources in Libya and Algeria [ or is that primarily gas?] The big issue then would be how to get a lasting peace with Stalin after the following war.
Hopefully so and some interesting ideas coming up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Dec 3, 2022 5:29:08 GMT
e) The British strategy does make sense, it just might be that the Nazis might consider it weak or cowardly - only attacking the farthest, weakest point of the Axis.
Leaving North Africa to the WAllies means they could do what they did IOTL: Attacking the soft underbelly. But if all of it was in Axis hands, they'd have to defend just in Morocco and the Nile valley (or the Cyrenaica, if Egypt stayed British). Unless the Allies wanted to attack across the Sahara...
That's my point: Better defense, and (later) North African oil. Egypt isn't a must, some border shift (Marsa Matruh?) might work. But it'd help the Axis. Sudan and Abyssinia are comparably less important.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Dec 3, 2022 14:27:38 GMT
e) The British strategy does make sense, it just might be that the Nazis might consider it weak or cowardly - only attacking the farthest, weakest point of the Axis. Leaving North Africa to the WAllies means they could do what they did IOTL: Attacking the soft underbelly. But if all of it was in Axis hands, they'd have to defend just in Morocco and the Nile valley (or the Cyrenaica, if Egypt stayed British). Unless the Allies wanted to attack across the Sahara... That's my point: Better defense, and (later) North African oil. Egypt isn't a must, some border shift (Marsa Matruh?) might work. But it'd help the Axis. Sudan and Abyssinia are comparably less important.
The thing is if Britain [and possible allies] have only Egypt then that's a lot less a threat. On the other hand having that region and then virtually inevitably areas of Palestine and Syria at least in Axis hands not only seriously weaken any such western alliance but also makes lasting peace between the Nazis and Soviets even less unlikely. With Egypt the allies have a foothold in the ME and also some easier access - at least in peacetime - to the shortest route between the N Atlantic and the Indian Ocean.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Dec 3, 2022 20:10:24 GMT
You think it'd be a problem if the Nazis could lock up the Soviets in the Black Sea if they had the Suez Canal? In principle yes, but consider that ITTL Stalin'd also get access to the Gulf.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Dec 4, 2022 16:26:21 GMT
You think it'd be a problem if the Nazis could lock up the Soviets in the Black Sea if they had the Suez Canal? In principle yes, but consider that ITTL Stalin'd also get access to the Gulf.
Yes but the Persian Gulf is fairly isolated. It would need a lot of infrastructure development through rugged and in some cases hostile lands and if the Black Sea - and probably also Baltic - is blocked then exports from say Ukraine would have to go a long way by rail to reach the gulf for sea exports. Similarly the Soviets could build up an Indian Ocean navy but in any conflict with either the Nazis or the western powers its going to be very isolated.
The problem would be less German control of Suez than its control of areas bordering European Turkey which would enable them to effectively control Soviet access even without any direct influence on Turkey. However without the odd decisions for a Nazi-Soviet military alliance to destroy British power the Soviets won't have access to/control of the Gulf.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Dec 10, 2022 15:06:01 GMT
In the long run, the Gulf (even better: the Indian Ocean) would be more valuable than the Black Sea since it's too easy to block the Black Sea, no matter what. The way via Persia would be long, but at least it's unblockable. And if you're thinking about Persian resistance: In the 1940s, its population was only about 15 millions, hence easier to hold down than today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Dec 29, 2022 13:11:19 GMT
OK, I thought a bit about the implications of a German victory over the BEF. During the early war, troops in NZ and Australia had been raised - originally for MENA, but I think they'd rather be diverted to Britain was is practically stripped of a defense force. After all, nothing's more important than the mother country, isn't it?
There might be bad blood between Brits and (Free) French about this in the long run. With French blaming the Brits that they didn't support them enough. There might be chaos ensuing, with the new troops from the southern hemisphere first spending maybe a few days in the French theater, and later sitting around, feeling useless, in "Old Blighty", as a Second Phoney War.
And on the other hand, you'll also have to scrap the Egyptian offensive against Italy in December of 1940. Which means that there'll be yet another Phoney War there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Dec 31, 2022 7:47:54 GMT
Something in general: Big events (and the hypothetical battle of Dunkirk would be one) would have repercussions in other, non-military areas as well. And those repercussions as well, so this might develop like an avalanche, until it hits its limits, wherever they might be.
In this case, it might mean that after losing the war against Nazi Germany (not that Sealion would succeed, but Britain might lose valuable lands like Egypt), Churchill will be blamed for it. And that what would be considered a peculiarity in OTL, like him pressing for the Churchill tank when it isn't ready yet, or quabbling with generals, might be seen as blemishes ITTL.
Worse: Both he and FDR might be driven by defeats to make bad decisions, which might lead to further defeats. Like an invasion in North Africa before it's ready.
I'm sorry for the old man, but if one is writing a "Nazis win" TL (any), this is the logical result.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Dec 31, 2022 14:03:04 GMT
Something in general: Big events (and the hypothetical battle of Dunkirk would be one) would have repercussions in other, non-military areas as well. And those repercussions as well, so this might develop like an avalanche, until it hits its limits, wherever they might be. In this case, it might mean that after losing the war against Nazi Germany (not that Sealion would succeed, but Britain might lose valuable lands like Egypt), Churchill will be blamed for it. And that what would be considered a peculiarity in OTL, like him pressing for the Churchill tank when it isn't ready yet, or quabbling with generals, might be seen as blemishes ITTL. Worse: Both he and FDR might be driven by defeats to make bad decisions, which might lead to further defeats. Like an invasion in North Africa before it's ready. I'm sorry for the old man, but if one is writing a "Nazis win" TL (any), this is the logical result.
Well he made a lot of mistakes OTL so not surprising, especially if things continue to go very badly for Britain and its pretty much destroyed as a world power. As such its pretty certain that he and the Tories will be heavily punished for it.
Not sure that the US would even get involved in this war as it would be over before they would be drawn in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jan 4, 2023 22:24:57 GMT
I guess we'll see this topic more often...
But for now, the TL of the events after the battle of Dunkirk. Let me know how realistic you think it is.
2nd to 9th of June: Wehrmacht advances to the Seine
8th of June: Italy declares war on the Allies.
9th of June: Last Norwegians capitulate
10th of June: The Wehrmacht occupies Paris; Spain occupies Tangier.
10th to 12th of June: The Sowjetunion occupies Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
14th of June: Free France proclaimed in London by Charles de Gaulle. Meanwhile, Vichy France under Philippe Pétain is ready for an Armistice.
19th of June: Armistice between the Axis Powers and France effective.
22nd of June: The Sowjetunion occupies Bessarabia and northern Bukovina. That's why on June 28th, the Romanian government falls.
27th of June: "Operation Catapult": Great Britain strikes against the French Fleet at Oran.
30th of June: The Wehrmacht occupies the Channel Islands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jan 19, 2023 0:26:34 GMT
Nobody objecting? Then I take it that this bit is fine. Before I go on, just some more tidbits: 6th of June: de Gaulle appointed Under-Secretary of State for National Defence and War 7th of June: French government leaves Paris 7th to 9th of June: Evacuation of British troops from Le Havre (hastened compared to OTL - in fact, like much on this list)
8th of June: Soviet Union delivers first ultimatum, to Lithuania 9th of June: Franco declares Spain to be "non-belligerent". 11th of June: Conference of Briare. Everyone not named Churchill or de Gaulle already panicks about the approachign Wehrmacht. Their idea of making Brittany a redoubt just leads to amusement. 12th to 19th of June: Evacuation of Allied soldiers from French Atlantic harbors. Again, hastened. Instead of ~190,000, only close to 150,000 people are saved. Of which about 110,000 are Brits, 15,000 French, 20,000 Poles or Czechs. 25-30,000 of all those are civilians.
13th of June: Wehrmacht has reached the Loire. Conference of Tours. Anglo-French Union (an idea by Monnet) again suggested, leads to nothing. de Gaulle fired as under-secretary. Prepares to fly to London. 17th of June: French-German armistice signed in Compiegne. 18th of June: French-Italian armistice signed. 19th of June: Twelve Torpedo Bombers (of the Fairey Swordfish Type, part of the 767 Naval Air Squadron) did not fly to Malta, since they thought to be more useful on the Home Islands after the Battle of Dunkirk. In OTL, they had formed the 830 Naval Air Squadron in Malta - a small additional PoD caused by the Butterfly Effect caused them to miss there.
20th of June: The "führer" spontaneously visits Paris. Too early for another planned assassination of him. 2nd of July: Brits attack Dakar. Ion Antonescu arrested for protesting about Bessarabia.
|
|
