Nazis make peace with UK, what then?

[Angus]

Now here's the teaser for those who like to ponder on what-if's.
(Special thread for Boroda actually )

Okay, here's the setup. It's 1940. Hitler sends his "Appeal to reason", which basically is a peace offer, to the British. Lets say that the British would have agreed, with the terms of still bossing their colonies and the commonwelth. (That was one of Hitler's pet thoughts ,Britain he said is necessary for global stability)
Okay, Hitler turns to the maps of Russia in July 1940. Operation Barbarossa is launched in May 1941. What would have happened?
I have some list to ponder on, as well as some input, and then the inevidable conclusion.....here goes

1. What would the Strength of the Axis army have been
2. Would they have applied more naval power?
3. The LW, both as a fighting and transport force, would it have become a much bigger factor?
4. Who would have won and when would it have been over?


My thoughts is that the Axis would have been quicker on the calendar, quite stronger by numbers, twice as strong in the air, and with Naval power to open a front from the Black sea. I think they would have had Moscow in 1941 - worst case 1942, crushed the USSR, but with many years of mopping up to do in Russia.

And you?

[leitwolf]

The Soviets would still reverse the trend in 1943, just as they did in RL.. maybe a few months more had Hitler not fallen for the Stalingrad trap or with the additional troops which would've been available with no deployments in the west.

With the UK out (and probably no subsequent US entry into the war), you'd see a lot more people speaking russian today.

[Excel1]

i dont know what the outcome would have been in such a hypothetical scenario but i take issue with the claim that britain bossed its colonies and the commonwealth and that they were somehow subservient to british wishes. not so nz. of course the ties were very close but nz had its own  views and policy on the rise of fascism in europe in the 1930s and vocalised them independently of britain at every chance it got, the league of nations etc. this stance was followed through with nz declaring war on germany, which was timed to coincide with, but was independent of britain's declaration of war with germany

[Angus]

From Ledpig in another thread:

"Germany would've had a hell of a time trying to invade America though. I think he either wouldn't have tried or gave up and the cold war would've been very different. Well maybe not that different. Rather have the Soviet Union than Nazism. I think i've heard that prediction somewhere before though."

They would not have had war with America. Just business, and lots of it.
Bear in mind that they were open to business with the USA, they just didn't get past the RN. Germany was even open to business with the USA despite the lend-lease deal between the UK and USA, - the embargo was executed by the British.
They declared war because of their deal with the Japanese. The Japanese went to war partially because of a US embargo who would have lead to the military and Navy running out of resources at a time the Japanese were getting their foothold in China. However, with the British at peace with the Axis, you have an open business for the Japanese, so no need to go to war with the USA.....

And Leitwolf...I don't see Stalingrad as a trap, and actually as it was, the Germans almost made it. How long would Stalingrad have stood with a third Axis force encirling it from the south, long before 1943? What would the importance of Stalingrad have been, if Axis forces had foothold over the Volga in many places in 1941? Even in the real Battle of Stalingrad as it was, how would the Axis have faired with completely good supply status, no war elsewhere, many times the LW, and maybe 500.000 well equipped soldiers more? I tend to think they would have squashed the Russians.
Remember that at the peak of Stalingrad, it was the peak in N-Africa, where 300.000 Axis or more were taken prisoners, and the major airlift capacity of the LW was destroyed.
With the UK out, I think you would see the Russians speaking German today ....

[Viking]

The big question is: Would peace with Britain have had any effect on the Battle of Moscow?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow


That is the place the war was decided in the east, and ultimately the whole world.

[Angus]

Right to the point! Good one!
I tend to think Moscow would have fallen...

[Viking]

I'm not sure ... it's all speculation anyways.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Angus
Right to the point! Good one!
I tend to think Moscow would have fallen...

will it have changed anything ?

[Angus]

Oh, yes.
A lot?

[leitwolf]

The Russians lost Moscow before and the enemy wasn't able to capitalize on it. Why would it be different in WW2?

[Angus]

With an enemy with even more numbers than the Russians? And reasonably good logistics? A hell of a difference. Not just catching Moscow, but holding it.
BTW, Viking, or some of you guys, do you have any idea how much troops the Germans had tied up in Europe (From Norway to the Balcans) in 1941, adding Africa afterwards as well + the Italians. Quite a force I think...
Now take all force out of Africa, half the force out of Europe, add all losses of Navy and LW  from July 1940 onwards (W-Front+med) and then you are beginning to see the forces that would have been in Russia, - like 2 months earlier.
Now, with Japan getting oil from Burma, there could have been another front in the eastern parts of the USSR, since the Japs would not have had to look at the USA. So, there would have been no USSR reinforcements from the east. Moscow would have been firmly in German hands IMHO.

[leitwolf]

Angus you're overestimating the effect of the Afrika Korps.
The partisans across Europe would still require vast numbers of the German Army stationed away from the eastern front, and the Italians were hard pressed to even keep ground in africa. Germany didn't send troops to africa because it happened to have surplus soldiers. Take a look at the differences in size of the german troops in africa and the reserves the Red Army had around Stalingrad.
There's no contest.

[leitwolf]

Ok to make your what-if scenario work you need to set a few more parameters:

Why would Great Britain lose against Japan without war against Germany at the same time?
What happens to Italy and the UK? Without the Italian fleet a large portion of the Royal Navy isnt bound to the Med and could go to the pacific and given this would the Japanese Navy still attack Pearl and go for Singapore at the same time?

The war would've been a little bit different

[Angus]

Show me numbers.
The fall of just Tunisia yealded what, some 330.000 Axis POW's
That doesn't count those who escaped, and they did not go to the eastern front.
The occupation of Europe from the Arctic down to the med took many times the troops with the British so near.
And I'm not really talking of 1943, but 1940-1941. +
USSR with an open fron on the eastern side, as well as perhaps a 50% stronger Axis force on the western side = bad bad.

Also, look at the speed of the Germans in particular. They were at the gates of Moscow in mere months, even beginning so late. It took the Russians a couple of years to get that slab back!
And look at how close things went, in places like Stalingrad. The Axis  ALMOST had it. Well, I tend to think that even in that 1943 particular scenario, some extra 1000 fighters and attackers, hundreds of transports, hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces, a supply line from the south and some 350.000 troops might have made a difference....And that's just by Anglo-American forces dumping N-Africa, say in September 1942....

Anyway, I'd rather try to limit the speculation to the possible force and tactics of the Axis in 1941. It's simpler.

[leitwolf]

Angus, I don't see where the Axis would get any additional major forces from. Barbarossa was already an all-out attack on the Soviets.

The number of Axis troops captured after Torch is a lot larger than the number of troops in africa in 1941. You get maybe two german divisions (the 5th Light and 15th Panzer) and thats it.

Except Italy, the other axis powers already had all their troops on the eastern front.

The CSIR had ~200,000 men on the eastern front and by and large the Italians (being totally unprepared for the war) had no men to spare in africa, being bogged down in Somalia and Ethopia, not even counting British resistence.

The rest was already there.

Two divisions on the eastern front are getting you nowhere.