Author Topic: Northern empire-theoretical discuss (Read 3292 times)

agent 009 · « **Reply #15 on:** May 02, 2005, 02:26:37 PM »

Me thinks your lookin for lovers in the wrong forum westy.

Furball · « **Reply #16 on:** May 02, 2005, 02:29:42 PM »

what if hitler had invaded russia from the west, instead of france, and Japan from the East in 1939/40?

would the french and british intervened then?

would russia have survived without lend lease?

or would france and britain invade via france?

Edbert1 · « **Reply #17 on:** May 02, 2005, 02:42:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furball
what if hitler had invaded russia from the west, instead of france, and Japan from the East in 1939/40?

Russia would have fallen, little doubt in my mind. It was largely the release of the Siberian troop from the east that saved Moskow in 1941. The issue for the Japs was oil though, even if Hitler were to share the caucasian fields with them the lines would have been too long. Japan could not have mounted enough offensive in the east without more oil.

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #18 on:** May 02, 2005, 04:29:59 PM »

I don't think Germany could have conquered Britain without having conquered France first. As it was, the Channel was still too much of an obstacle and the RAF too strong. Germany could never have mounted an attack on Britain across the North Sea from Denmark & Norway.

MRPLUTO

Pongo · « **Reply #19 on:** May 02, 2005, 05:57:33 PM »

Now you have Germany taking Iceland as well. Give them the azores too.

I think your underestimation of the problems of invading Britian from Denmark or Wilihamshaven pretty much undermine your scenario. It is nothing like any invasion that happened in ww2. Sealion was projecting a 30 mile piece of water, as was Overlord, Some of the American invasions were quite far but they were not against fully established industrialized countries with some of the most able airforces and navies in the world to oppose them.

humble · « **Reply #20 on:** May 02, 2005, 06:10:50 PM »

The real problem is your ignoring the political realities of the time. Only when you look at history thru a distorted lens can you come up with this.

If you look at the driving issues behind the war it has to unfold along the lines it did.....

The driving force was the reunification of the "reich"...Basically the annexation of the northern provinces of france that were "taken" at the end of WW1. The danzig corridor and the "liberation" of the balkin states that were considered part of the original prussian sphere on influence. In addition, none of WW1 was fought on German soil so from the german perspective they never really lost WW1...but were duped after the fact. Germany would have preferred to reach a comprimise with England/America with whom they had no real conflict as long as they were free to beat the snot out of France. Russia was simply a lurking danger (much like China today) that hitler decided to strike first since they felt conflict was inevitable.

agent 009 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 02, 2005, 07:38:15 PM »

Yes, driving issues of the war are obviously important in most aternative strategy discussions . But it is a different thread here as this topic is purely strategic, is it technically feasible sort of a thing.

However. reactions of other nations as I stated above "is" relevant. Would England declare war if Germany took Norway? etc.

& yes I'm very aware of difficulties of attacking England & Iceland as well. It really isn't neccessary to act as though a poster is an idiot.

As I mentioned earlier, a completely different naval strategy for Germany starting in early 30's would be an obvious prerequisite for either objective. Please note, I didn't say they "could" do it, save your negative posts.

Iceland & England would be the hardest objectives without doubt. A couple of ocean liners were actually earmarked for possible invasion of Iceland.

humble · « **Reply #22 on:** May 02, 2005, 07:50:09 PM »

"Alternative strategy" has to based on the then current political reality. German support of hitler was based primarily on the fallout from WW1 and the harsh sanctions. Also on the fact that the average German viewed the objectives as "historically" correct. An anology would be suggesting we (US) should have just had our "cold war" with Mexico or openly invaded central america instead of Vietnam....alot easier but not politically practical. The other issue at hand is the reality that in 1939 the French army was far superior to the German Army in many ways. French tanks were superior and the airwar was much better matched then most would believe. The german edge was in tactics and commitment...had they not invaded France in 1940 they would have faced a greatly beefed up foe...in addition the Germans faced an inevitable war with Russia...again the combination of the purge and Russias resultant poor state of readiness would have been altered as well.

Bottom line...they would have been stomped on.

humble · « **Reply #23 on:** May 02, 2005, 08:05:09 PM »

1 "alternative" would have been to "hold fast" after the original "reunification but before the invasion of france...germany could have then "backed off"....no other nation had the leadership to initiate a world war....so by 43 the germans could have had the Panther tank V-1, Ar 234 Me 262 and maybe the A bomb...how bout a sept 44 blitzkrieg supported by a nuclear demo somewhere:)

detch01 · « **Reply #24 on:** May 02, 2005, 08:09:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by agent 009 Would England declare war if Germany took Norway? etc. [/B]

They did. More accurately, they already had. England declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland.

asw

spitfiremkv · « **Reply #25 on:** May 02, 2005, 08:18:29 PM »

The Sanger Antipodal bomber could be used in the early 50s to drop nukes anywhere in the world, so a Pax Germanic is grudgingly accepted by the US.

Pongo · « **Reply #26 on:** May 02, 2005, 08:43:30 PM »

If you said.

"Tell me how I look with a huge **** on my head"

would you get defensive when people told you that you looked horrible?
Thats about the level that your working at here.
You throw out one lined hair brained concepts for german domination based on changed stratagy and then dont like it when people try to explain the real constraints that were in place for the Germans in ww2.

If you want positive discussion then put another 20 minutes into describing how your scenario is possible and what assumptions are inherant in your scenario and how those assumptions impact the scenario itself.

The only way they could take England is with English capitulation. So the Royal Navy and Merchant marine is largly German now.
Capturing a signifigant portion of the Royal Navy and British Merchant Marine make every single thing that Hitler wants in the world posssible and likley. You need not consider fring issues like Norway or Denmark or any concept of "holding on". If Vichy Britain is in Hitlers hands and he is Allied with Italy and Japan the Eurasian and African Land masses are his.

So the little part where you say
"and england" is so monsterous that the scenario cannot be discussed arround it. And without England you know you are facing a far inferior situation then germany actually faced in fall of 1940...So your northern empire is kind of useless.

But to play your game I guess.
France capitulates 20 minutes after britian capitulates.
Poland Capitulates 20 minutes after that.

Hitler consolidates the English empire and eventually gets tired of Russia and take that in 2 years of hard fighting that are made inevitable with British and French industry behind him and thier merchant marines making him the richest nation on earth by a large margin.

There you go. He wins. Brits shouldnt have capitulated I guess.

pellik · « **Reply #27 on:** May 02, 2005, 08:50:16 PM »

Taking france was both quick and effective for Germany, I don't see why avoiding that would help their chances. Coastline is easier to defend, and if they left England well enough alone while fortifying northern france they could probably hold in the west. By avoiding direct confrontation with England tension with the US would be less, possibly preventing the Japanese from baiting the beginning of a war in the Pacific. The Japanese had a good position to harass Russia, perhaps diverting enough attention to the east that the Russians would never become aggressive against their German neighbors. This leaves all of Germany's might to move into the Mediteranian, and through extension the middle east and north africa. By the time they became powerful enough that a war with America and Russia became enivitable, German production and supply would be unmatched. Controling a considerable number of ports would perhaps give the Germans enough ship production to stop american and english transports from crossing the atlantic as well as they did, making American invasion all but impossible. With these holdings the Germans could match the Americans reguarding attrition, and perhaps world domination would follow.

There's my fictional take on this, but I'm not an expert by any means, and I'm sure there are many factors I'm missing.

-p.

agent 009 · « **Reply #28 on:** May 02, 2005, 09:43:39 PM »

Well Pongo, so you enjoy being an ass, I don't suppose anything can be done for it. Every chat room has a couple, as I said above I expect a bit of that.

As for your assumation that it is Impossible to invade England as the distance was too great, well they did ship 1.393 Panzers across Med, with 149 lost. The med is farther across than the areas in the above scenarios. Not to mention the German capital ships went straight through the Channel in broad daylight, which means surprise attacks on east coast of England is entirely possible. That's a polite way of saying you lack imagination.

Let's not also forget with Sweden & Filand in tow, more ocean going vessels fall into German hands. The craft they built for med transport were had tank carrying capacity & had enough range to get across. If these had been built in 30's, then cross water invasions are more feasible.

If the subject does not interest you, move on.

Africa shipments (total arrived plus number lost in transit in parens):

8-10 March 41, 5 le.Afrika-Div. with 25 Pz I, 45 Pz II, 61 (10) Pz III, 17 (3) Pz IV
24 April-6 May 41, 21 Pz.Div. with 45 Pz II, 71 Pz III, 20 Pz IV

Replacements (release date given, all arrived between August and October 1941):
? April 41, 10 Pz III, 3 Pz IV
4 June 41, 15 Pz III, 5 Pz IV
30 June 41, 4 Pz II, 6 Pz III
10 July 41, 4 Pz III
19 December 41, 11 (11) Pz III, 34 (34) Pz IV

Monthly reported shipments:
January 42, 81 Pz III, 18 Pz IV
February 42, 75 Pz III, 22 Pz IV
March 42, 6 (3) Pz III
April 42, 14 Pz III
May 42, 33 (6) Pz III, 9 Pz IV
June 42, 2 (6) Pz III
July 42, 47 (3) Pz III, 10 Pz IV
August 42, 29 (3) Pz III, 10 Pz IV
September 42, 7 (9) Pz III, 12 Pz IV

Arrived November-December 1942:
Pz.Abtl. 190 with 7 Pz II, 52 Pz III, 10 Pz IV
10. Pz.Div. with 19 (2) Pz II, 89 (16) Pz III, 8 (12) Pz IV
s.Pz.Abtl. 501 with 25 Pz III, 20 Tiger

Arrived March-April 43:
s.Pz.Abtl. 504 with 19 Pz III, 11 Tiger
3./Pz.Regt. HG with 2 Pz III, 8 Pz IV

Replacements 1 November 42-1 May 1943:
68 (16) Pz III, 142 (2 Pz IV

So, if I can add them up right for once, 25 Pz I, 120 (2) Pz II, 727 (82) Pz III, 328 (77) Pz IV, and 31 Tiger. Note that of the 1,393 recorded as shipped, only 149 were lost in shipping to enemy action (the 13 lost in March 41 were to a shipboard fire), or just over 10 percent. OTOH note that half those shipped as critical reinforcements to Pz.A.O.K. Afrika in December 1941 were lost.

Pongo · « **Reply #29 on:** May 03, 2005, 01:16:27 PM »

I didnt really think you thought it was possible, I thought it was an oversight that you were just defending because your an idiot.

But if you think that crossing from Italy to Tunis opposed by 20 hurricanes, 12 swordfish 12 blenhiems and 3 submarines and landing those tanks on a friendly shore (which in the end was totaly interdicted as any student of WW2 knows, presenting the German shipping accross the med as a great success is increadable)is equivilent to crossing the treacherous north sea opposed by the entire RAF, Coastal Command, Bomber Command the Royal Navy and powerfull French forces at sea and in the air and landing on a trecherous contested shore of one of the most densely populated and heavily industrialized nations on earth then we will leave it at that. Imagine the 15 divisions of the FEF beefing up the defence of England. lol The Germans would have to build up thier navy and landing forces for YEARS right under the noses of France and Britian to have any hope of massing the force neccesary.

I would say trying to achieve your northern empire would have ended the war in 1939. Germany would have been destroyed and bankrupted trying to achieve it. But they were alot smarter then you and thats why they didnt.

so in summary your stratagy without including England is way worse off then what the Germans actually accomplished with poland and France and the low countries under thier heal and allied with Russia.
And your scenario in regards to England is just silly. Only capitulation would accomplish it and obviosly British capitulation would be a fantastic boon for the Germans that would probably win them the entire non western hemisphere. Maybe British capitulation isnt such a far feched idea but that is not your thesis.