- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What would’ve happened if Britain had surrendered in WWII?
Posted on 12/19/18 at 11:11 am to OMLandshark
Posted on 12/19/18 at 11:11 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Hitler’s endgame was to destroy the USSR
Truth.
quote:
and kill every last Slav
And where did you get this? Hitler had favorable relations with Slovakia, Croatia, and Bulgaria, all Slavic states. He had favorable relations with Yugoslavia in general until the government was overthrown in 1941 and the Communist partisan war was carried out there by Tito. The Handschar Division of the Waffen-SS included Muslim Bosnian Slavs. The Russian Liberation Army consisted of anti-Communist Russians fighting in collaboration with Germany against the Soviets. The Ukrainians likewise formed a Slavic SS Division. Slavs were absolutely considered apart from the Germanic "Volksdeutsche" but the notion that there was some plan to exterminate the Slavic peoples is utterly false.
A willingness to subject large portions of the Slavic population, particularly in Western Russia, to starvation and extreme privation in order to first and foremost sustain the food requirements of the Wehrmacht in the Soviet campaign is however quite true. A plan for Slavic extermination though is fanciful and easily debunked.
0
Posted on 12/19/18 at 11:24 am to VolsOut4Harambe
quote:
What would’ve happened if Britain had surrendered in WWII?
You mean if the entire UK had gone full-blown France?
Hitler would probably have quickly solidified the rest of Europe (including Spain) then expanded to take in the northern coast of Africa (giving him almost total control of the Mediterranean Sea), then focused on Russia.
Russia and Africa are unique problems because their landmass is so freaking large. Eventually Germany would have had to stop such aggressive expansions in these two areas in order to solidify their holds (knowing Germany it would have probably been via MANY mass executions).
On the other side of the world... India (since it was part of the UK) could have served as a staging point to pincer the Middle East as well as lend aid to Japan by pressuring China from their western border.
I think eventually a stalemate would have been reached with the Axis powers controlling much of China, western Russia, all of Europe and the Middle East, northern Africa and most of the South Pacific. In such a scenario I could see Australia becoming a fortress and the US having to expand our forces into Russia and China far more heavily if even just for support.
The real question would be South America. Capturing a decent chunk of South America would make for some good preliminary staging areas on the Caribbean and eventually the US but how much time and effort would the Axis countries put into getting a strong foothold there without having Russia, China and Africa brought completely under heel?
All this is pure speculation and does not take into account either side unlocking the power of atomic weapons (the first side to do that would win).
Posted on 12/19/18 at 11:30 am to Bard
quote:
The real question would be South America. Capturing a decent chunk of South America would make for some good preliminary staging areas on the Caribbean and eventually the US but how much time and effort would the Axis countries put into getting a strong foothold there without having Russia, China and Africa brought completely under heel?
South America was a hotbed of espionage and intrigue in our timeline. Brazil and Argentina had large German emigre populations. The struggle would have been even more intense under the scenario under discussion.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 11:41 am to teke184
One of the what ifs I've thought about: what if the Germans had done the Channel Run in reverse? If they had dashed south with their surface fleet to the Vichy ports in the south of France, that could have been a game changer for several reasons.
One, they proved they could do it. And if they did it immediately after the fall of France they would have had overwhelming air superiority over the Channel. I don't think Great Britain risks the Home Fleet trying to stop it because that's the last main barrier to a German invasion. If they do, the Germans can wreck both the RAF and RN in one roll of the dice. Their surface units didn't do them any good, anyway, bottled up in German and Norwegian ports.
If they do make it through with a large contingent of their surface fleet to the Med they can cut off the Med from the Brits by seizing Gibralter. North Africa falls easily with Malta taken. Italy remains a more viable ally with the Med pacified and North Africa seized (not to mention the vast oil supplies that go with it.)
Just something I've always wondered.
One, they proved they could do it. And if they did it immediately after the fall of France they would have had overwhelming air superiority over the Channel. I don't think Great Britain risks the Home Fleet trying to stop it because that's the last main barrier to a German invasion. If they do, the Germans can wreck both the RAF and RN in one roll of the dice. Their surface units didn't do them any good, anyway, bottled up in German and Norwegian ports.
If they do make it through with a large contingent of their surface fleet to the Med they can cut off the Med from the Brits by seizing Gibralter. North Africa falls easily with Malta taken. Italy remains a more viable ally with the Med pacified and North Africa seized (not to mention the vast oil supplies that go with it.)
Just something I've always wondered.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 11:46 am to SoFla Tideroller
They'd have to run past Gibraltar. Within visual range of shore batteries and no air cover.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 11:46 am to VolsOut4Harambe
quote:
What would’ve happened if Britain had surrendered in WWII?
Man in the High Castle
Posted on 12/19/18 at 12:12 pm to fr33manator
quote:
Because to be perfectly honest, the Soviets did most of the heavy lifting in WW2 against the Germans.
If I recall correctly, Russia faced 80% of the German war machine/effort. Even with the allies support, it took the Russian Winter to change the momentum in the Russians favor..
Posted on 12/19/18 at 12:32 pm to Loaner1231
quote:
Another interesting though is the timeline for American victory in the Pacific. Would the full force of the American ground forces speed up victory in that theatre? If so, how many more casualties do the Americans suffer in the Pacific by having to attack the main island with an amphibious assault? In this scenario the timeline for the Manhattan project remains unchanged.
to expand on this, i dont think there would be much of a difference except in the resources devoted. the pacific war was almost exclusively a naval and marine war. the war in europe was almost exclusively an army war. they dont have much cross over that would swing the other way.
as for the Manhattan project, it wasnt doing well and only had success after we spirited out german scientists and data to give us our "break through". if we arent involved in the war in europe, we dont bring in those scientist to help us or the research data needed to solve the puzzle. without what we got from germany, it takes us at least another 2-3 years to get the bomb, by then the war in pacific is over.
in contrast we "barely" beat germany in getting the bomb and we ONLY achieved that through our massive war efforts directed specifically just to slow them down. germany would have had the bomb about the same time we got it but in that situation we would still be 2-3 years from getting there.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 12:44 pm to VolsOut4Harambe
We would not be discussing right and wrong pronouns.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 12:49 pm to Jim Rockford
How much air assets were there in Gibralter in summer of 1940? Not enough to stop a dash.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 1:03 pm to fr33manator
Battle of Britain was the folly of Germany.
It allowed Churchill a huge propaganda pupit against the hun. On top of attacking cities which could absorb the repeated bombings instead of airfields to knock out the ability to fight for Britain.
It's to eternal shame that Britain turned it's back on Poland for their service here though.
It allowed Churchill a huge propaganda pupit against the hun. On top of attacking cities which could absorb the repeated bombings instead of airfields to knock out the ability to fight for Britain.
It's to eternal shame that Britain turned it's back on Poland for their service here though.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 1:34 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
Would we really go to war to protect the colonies of countries that no longer exist? While America bore the brunt of the Pacific war, the British contributed substantial Naval assets. They wouldn't be available under this scenario. And then there's Australia. What would their role be? Would they stand alone, or be forced into some kind of neutral or subservient position for the sake of survival?
Someone was going to do something about the Japanese eventually. The Japanese were so fricking hardcore that they disturbed high ranking Nazi officials with their brutality and barbarism. The Nazis told them to cut some of the shite, that’s how bad they were. I just don’t see a scenario where we don’t go to war with Japan.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 2:17 pm to VolsOut4Harambe
We never would have gotten involved in WW2 in Europe.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 3:51 pm to ZappBrannigan
BoB and Dunkirk are two spots where Hitler fricked up massively.
At Dunkirk, all he had to do was continue Blitzkreig against the remaining Allied forces, and England was finished. Instead he stopped the fighting to allow the artillery to catch up with the Panzers which allowed for Dynamo to take place.
In the BoB, Hermann Goering severely misunderestimated the significance of radar and chose to ignore it. If he put more of an effort into destroying radar stations on the coast, he easily could’ve wiped out the RAF.
At Dunkirk, all he had to do was continue Blitzkreig against the remaining Allied forces, and England was finished. Instead he stopped the fighting to allow the artillery to catch up with the Panzers which allowed for Dynamo to take place.
In the BoB, Hermann Goering severely misunderestimated the significance of radar and chose to ignore it. If he put more of an effort into destroying radar stations on the coast, he easily could’ve wiped out the RAF.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 5:39 pm to VolsOut4Harambe
We would have nuked Germany, eventually.
Edit: Unless you mean surrendering Before US involvement
Edit: Unless you mean surrendering Before US involvement
This post was edited on 12/19/18 at 5:41 pm
Posted on 12/19/18 at 5:55 pm to VolsOut4Harambe
Their food would be alot better. And teeth.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 6:31 pm to keakar
Keakar:
You've mentioned in a couple of posts about Operation Paperclip and Nazi scientists making major contributions to the Manhattan Project. I think you're mistaken. Enrico Fermi's team at Univ of Chicago had their pile go critical in Dec '42. The Trinity test of the implosion style bomb eventually used in Nagasaki was in July '45. The didn't even test the gun style bomb (Hiroshima) because they were confident it would work.
The war in Europe ended Nay 8th or 10th. How much of a contribution could Nazi scientists have made in ~2 mmonths?
You've mentioned in a couple of posts about Operation Paperclip and Nazi scientists making major contributions to the Manhattan Project. I think you're mistaken. Enrico Fermi's team at Univ of Chicago had their pile go critical in Dec '42. The Trinity test of the implosion style bomb eventually used in Nagasaki was in July '45. The didn't even test the gun style bomb (Hiroshima) because they were confident it would work.
The war in Europe ended Nay 8th or 10th. How much of a contribution could Nazi scientists have made in ~2 mmonths?
Posted on 12/19/18 at 6:59 pm to biggsc
quote:
“Killing Patton”
Just read that for my book club. Not terribly impressed.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 7:51 pm to fr33manator
quote:
Was it Patton that said we fought the wrong enemy? Without the western front the Germans could have possibly toppled the soviets before they had a chance to come to full strength. It’s an interesting discussion
If you think about it the US greatly aided communist Russia and China in gaining their world footing.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News