Germany would not have the bomb until at the least couple of years after America has the bomb who will use it to plaster Germany.
mode of delivery is a question. if they can maintain air bases in britain, maybe. but with germany rid of russia, it could very well finish off britain. where will the b-29s take off and land, africa?
As noted earlier, Germany couldn’t do it before its war with Russia. What makes you think it could do it after, whether they beat the Russians or not?
Britain would not surrender just due to air attack and U-boats especially after the American navy joins in the fight.
yes, hence “checks the names” they certainly are Jewish sounding names, and then “Was the Final Solution widely known in the US”? If they were dedicated Communists of an ideological bent, seems unlikely they would sell to Germany even if they didnt know about the Final Solution. Of course, German’s anti-Jewish policies were well known, but the Soviet Union was hardly innocent in that regard as well.
note, hitler had no real plan to finish off britain. if he had, he would have developed heavy bombers, a brown water fleet, all the way to a blue water fleet.
Of course commies are usually commies first ahead of national or ethnic identity. And even as dedicated Reds they certainly wouldn’t want to help the anti-Marxist Hitler.
It’s not that Britain would have surrendered. But neither Britain nor the U.S. Had the stomach to take the casualties that would have been inflicted on them absent the Red Army. Britain would have come to terms with Germany, as very significant proportions of the ruling classes were more than happy to do.
Britain had the stomach when it was just them against the Germans. Why would their mood change after Hitler committed himself to a huge occupation in the East and the Americans started sending troops?
Exactly. The UK held out against the Germans even when all the dominos seemed to have fallen.
Yes. And again; all that needs to happen is for the UK last until the Manhattan Project succeeds. At that point Germany can be nuked until submission, and it almost certainly will be in an era that has the doctrine of total war and lacks the modern taboo against using nuclear weapons.
If the Germans can eliminate the Russian capability to produce tanks and aircraft, it releases a lot of best ground forces and all better aircraft types to defend the Atlantic coast. Whether this happens thru peace/surrender or thru disintegrated Russian army with continued guerilla action, doesn’t really matter. This defense is so strong that it also releases production resources from the army to the air force and navy, since losing a tank war is not a threat any more.
However, no way can these troops or new submarines, planes or surface ships turn the tables in the West. Britain is at least as unreachable as 1940. Now Rommel is getting all the best stuff if he wants to, so maybe he can make things really hard for the Brits in Egypt, but somehow I think he just doesn’t have the airfields and ships to have any use for them. And it’s not as if the Luftwaffe can win the RAF, they can only make it more even now.
So another vote for a stalemate and then nukes.
He didn’t need a fleet. It’s 40 miles from Dover to Calais; you could control the English Channel using airpower alone. That was the whole point of the Battle of Britain - to establish air superiority over southern England and the Channel in preparation of subsequent troop landings.
My point wasn’t meant to be that the UK would surrender. My argument was they would come to terms with Germany.
What I think you would have seen in this situation is a return to the Blitz; an escalation of submarine warfare with increased resources; a significant transfer of Luftwaffe fighters to defense of the Reich, as well as increased availability of 88’s for their original purpose as anti-aircraft weapons; major increase in casualties to Bomber Command; increased supply to the Afrika Korps.
What we get in 1942 then is no Stalingrad (obviously) and no El Alamein II. Germany is no longer short of oil. Absent that victory, I don’t see Churchill’s government surviving, and I’d think the very strong elements in the British aristocracy and ruling classes that were either neutral or pro-Nazi would have gained power.
Invading France against a Wehrmacht that hadn’t been bled white in the East would have been a completely different kettle of fish, and I don’t think the UK or the US would have been willing to accept those casualty levels, especially if Germany extended an offer of peace without a threat to the Empire. Absent the Soviets fighting, the Europe First policy of the Americans becomes much less appealing, and so even if Britain remains at war, I’m suggesting the ETO becomes essentially a stalemate, with both Britain and the US focusing more on the Pacific, and defeating Japan earlier.
As for the nuke idea, it’s a question of delivery. Even with bases in Britain, the very limited number of weapons meant that risk was a major factor. It’s very different to risk it over a Japan with zero air defense left (IIRC the Enola Gay had its armor and armament removed for the flight) than over a Germany with the Luftwaffe still as a fighting force, and indeed a fighting force with fully fuelled Me262s knocking bombers and fighters out.
“Increased” and “escalation” from what and how? The resources freed up by a defeat of the USSR in 1941 would largely be the same that were freed up by the abandonment of an invasion of Britain in 1940. Not to mention that an occupation in the East would likely take almost as many resources as were needed to take it in the first place.
Why would you think the resources would be largely the same?
First thing, there wouldn’t have been a traditional occupation in the East, there would have been an extermination combined with a defensive stance. While this would have required troops, it wouldn’t have required the same resources. In particular in regards to air power, armor and anti-tank resources.
You don’t have to add a lot of night fighters and extra AAA for Bomber Command to get in a world of hurt.
The British and the US wouldn’t have made the same mistakes the Soviets did. Their casualties were a combination of having their armies forward in position to be Blitzkrieged, and fighting on their home soil.
Hitler felt that 60 divisions would be needed in the east after victory (LINK) (he also thought they’d have things wrapped up in about 3 or 4 months…ha!). He also anticipated that opening up the Caucasus would allow them to increase the pressure on the British in the Middle East and in North Africa. I think the British would have been hard pressed to hold the Suez Canal. Gibraltar would also be threatened. Thus, Operation Torch would have assumed much more importance. A more intense Blitz would have been possible, but so would an increased American air presence.
Relatively, they would be. Do you think Britain stopped building planes after the Battle of Britain? What advantage would Germany have over Britain after conquering the East that it didn’t have before it went to war with Russia? Certainly not industrial capacity. Raw materials and oil, certainly, but that advantage is more than offset by those available to Britain after America’s full commitment to their war effort.
I don’t know - the oil thing is hard to overestimate, given its effect on the German war effort. You are also talking about all the materiel that was used in the East - that’s a crap load of planes and 88’s which now are targeting Bomber Command raids not lying smoking in Soviet fields.
No doubt they would have been lower than Soviet casualties. But they would have been significantly higher than without the Soviet army. Even if they lost a third of the men the Soviets lost, it would have been utterly intolerable for a democratic regime.