Nazis make peace with UK, what then?

[Curval]

"The Furher offers guarantees!"

"History has shown that Herr Hitler's gaurantees guarantee NOTHING."

"Be reasonable, we can walk into Britain anytime we like."

"Well what's stopping you?  We know how difficult it is to get an army across the channel.  The last little corporal who tried it came up a cropper!  So don't try and dictate to us unless you are marching up Whitehall...and even then we won't listen."

The British would never had agreed to that Angus.

[B@tfinkV]

i am not sure about this, it is just a random thought, but it was my understanding that throughout history very few nations have been 'ganged up on' and anihilated completly.

so that being true (or not) it is unlikely that the russians would have been whiped out completely, and equaly unlikely that so many other nations would have entered the war. It would have been Axis vs Western Europe+Russia with little involvement from the Orient, imo.


another thing we should maybe consider:

If the combined Allies had not joined in the war so early, what was to stop the Axis steam rolling over Europe?

i think without UK+US involvement the Nazi war machine would have engulfed the whole of France very quickly, then later moved on and taken most of Europe and alot of Africa.

Now if the Axis had such an easy war as this with such rich rewards, who is to say they would have even bothered with Russia?

i rekon they would have defended the eastern borders and ploughed through western europe creating a huge and unstopable power base from which to, years later, start WW3. This 3rd war would have been much the same as the 2nd one that actualy happened, the world fighting against a dark lord for the good of freedom, only now the Nazis have 5 times the land, 5 times the economy and a heck of alot more options when it came to invading the world. If that was the case, the Nazis would have had more luck invading America than fighting the Russians. The Japanese wouldnt have even bothered with Pearl Harbour in the 40s because they would have been fighting America alone and stood no chance.

[Angus]

Originally posted by 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.

You forget the troops tied up all over Europe, the losses combined, the LW, and the Navy, as well as the growing artillery on the continent of Europe.

I am trying to find out the total musterable strength on the Axis in 1941, had the UK decided to pull out in 1940, and the effect there.
Here are some grains on the scale, already having impact in 1941....
(For the Axis)

- Open acess through the med and into the Black sea.
- Much more Naval power for that source. No naval ops to speak off in the N-Atlantic, resulting in a practical naval embargo of the USSR, both north and at the black sea, as well as a Black-Sea front. Maybe doesn't weight too much though, except at the Black sea.
- Italian navy as well as transport available. (Much more powerful navy than anything from the USSR)
- Italian airforce available. (not to be underestimated)
- Open business with the USA.
- No BoB or W-front LW losses for a year. That makes some 2000 aircraft and some good cream of the best pilots. if not more.
- Minimal troops in the occupied countries.
- No mediterranian frontier
- No Med. losses, such as Crete and N-Africa
- Minimal troops necessary in the Italian (and German) colonies in Africa.
- More USSR forces tied up in the east (These were rerouted for the rescue of Moscow)

For the USSR:

No benefit.

I think this list makes more than 2 divisions. . .


Anyway, of course this didn't happen, the Brits were after all pretty much set in their minds, especially under Churchill. So I'm just pondering, WHAT IF IT HAD HAPPENED. And it was both a tempting thought to some pacifists, some UK politicians, as well as the fact is that the USSR was after all supporting the Nazis in the war on the European continent with raw materials for their war machine.....

[Angus]

Originally posted by Curval
"The Furher offers guarantees!"

"History has shown that Herr Hitler's gaurantees guarantee NOTHING."

"Be reasonable, we can walk into Britain anytime we like."

"Well what's stopping you?  We know how difficult it is to get an army across the channel.  The last little corporal who tried it came up a cropper!  So don't try and dictate to us unless you are marching up Whitehall...and even then we won't listen."

The British would never had agreed to that Angus.

I know, but what IF?
This is a strategical and economical speculation who might prove healthy to those that think that USSR won WW2 on their own, easy-go.

[KgB]

Great topic,what if Jesus wasnt born?

[Nashwan]

No BoB or W-front LW losses for a year. That makes some 2000 aircraft and some good cream of the best pilots. if not more.

The Luftwaffe deployed only 2,700 or so aircraft against Russia, out of the 4,800 or so they had available at the time. They had lost 3,000+ between the fall of France and the start of Barbarossa.

If you combine those figures, the Germans could have had up to 8,000 aircraft by the time of the attack on Russia, and easily deployed 7,000. Instead they had less than 3,000 available to fight the Soviets.

[Greebo]

One of the reasons the Axis advanced so quickly in the early stages of Barbarossa was that they caught the Soviets on the hop. Stalin was convinced that Hitler would not attack while Britain was still a threat to the south and west of Europe. Indeed, after their experience in WW1, many in the German high command were very nervous about starting a two front war, with good reason as it eventually turned out.

So Stalin, despite numerous intelligence sources indicating the Nazis were about to attack, refused permission for the Soviet armed forces to go to a state of readiness. He was worried Hitler might see the preperations and assume he was about to attack. Having purged the officer corps recently, he was desperate to avoid a war until the army could reorganise itself.

The result of this was that when Barbarossa was launched most of the USSR's frontline army was still in its barracks and was quickly routed. Most of the VVS's front line aircraft were destroyed on their airfields. The few Soviet commanders who ignored Stalin and prepared their troops did a lot better than those who did not.

Now if Britain had surrendered, Stalin would have surely realised he was next on Hitler's shopping list. Mein Kampf wasn't exactly a secret after all. He would have stopped supplying Nazi industry with raw materials for a start. Any Wehrmacht and LW build up in Poland would have been matched by a Soviet one.

So I don't think Barbarossa would have had quite the success it had in RL in the initial few weeks, even with the extra resources the Axis forces would have had at their disposal. Soviet armed forces at a state of readiness would have been harder to overrun than they were in RL.

In the longer term, the Soviets might have struggled more without British and US aid and useful distractions like the Sicily, Italy and Normandy invasions. German industry wouldn't have been bombed day and night. The RN and USN wouldn't have been attacking Axis shipping either.

[lazs2]

are you guys forgetting the japs?    I don't think that they would be too happy with a policy of leave America alone.   What would the new axis do when japan attacked America?

lazs

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV




Now if the Axis had such an easy war as this with such rich rewards, who is to say they would have even bothered with Russia?

 

Hitler was dead set on invading Russia!

[KgB]

Originally posted by Nashwan
The Luftwaffe deployed only 2,700 or so aircraft against Russia, out of the 4,800 or so they had available at the time. They had lost 3,000+ between the fall of France and the start of Barbarossa.

If you combine those figures, the Germans could have had up to 8,000 aircraft by the time of the attack on Russia, and easily deployed 7,000. Instead they had less than 3,000 available to fight the Soviets.

Russians had 18,700 aircraft available and 23,106 tanks in june 22 1941.If Stalin made preporations i dont think Brits as German allies would make much difference.

[B@tfinkV]

Originally posted by SkyRock
Hitler was dead set on invading Russia!

true, but was this only as a byproduct of the resistance europe showed?
without resistance in europe stopping him taking a huge ammount of land why would hitler have bothered with russia?

it is impossible to determine what would have happened, i just think that with an easy dominance in europe the nazis would have not been that interested in a frozen land mass that stretched from their eastern borders half way round the world.

just my thoughts tho, not worth anything much.

[Greebo]

The Japanese were after the Dutch oilfields in the South Pacific and they needed to take out Singapore to get it. With no war in Europe, Britain could have had a substantialy bigger naval and air presence there. I reckon the Japanese would have been very wary of taking on the combined Commonwealth and US armed forces in the Pacific without a war in Europe to distract the British. One option for them would have been to hit Singapore with all they've got and hope the US stay out of it.

[KgB]

This is as far as they ever got.Still a lONG way to go.
 

[lazs2]

So.. you think that germany would have dissolved ties with japan in order to keep from fighting england and America?

lazs

[B@tfinkV]

since Japan and USA/UK were not definitely going to be at war in this scenario, i do not see a need for them to dissolve ties with the japanese, it would have been more likely to create new ties with USA/UK rather than deconstruct older alliances.

it is historical 'fact' by many sources that should the Nazis have been in power 100 years earlier the brits would have been fighting on their team