How would US invade Europe without UK

[neil hilton]

I don't know if this one has been done yet or not, if it has please ignore this and tell me the thread that does.

1. Assuming the RAF lost the BoB, the luftwaffe gained air superiority to clear the English channel sufficiently to allow a wehrmacht crossing in autumn 1940. Over the course of the winter and spring of 1941 they defeat the UK and force an armistice which results in enforced neutrality for the UK, knocking them out of the war (similar to that enforced on France).
2. Operation Barbarossa takes place in May 1941 (historically this was the set time but was delayed due to a British inspired coup in Yugoslavia which forced the wehrmacht south for a month long delay).
3. With no enemy across the channel the Germans don't need to occupy the north and western sides of France or to start construction of the Atlantic Wall. However I think they would decide to station garrisons in the UK and France anyway.
4. I would envisage that once Hitler turned his army eastward he would leave the western theatre almost entirely to the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe and these organisations would build up ground forces for defence.

So heres the question, How would the US conduct an invasion of liberation across the Atlantic without a friendly island staging post? They conducted many long range invasions in the Pacific but they were of small islands, easily cut off, and the set invasion of Japan itself prompted the use of nukes.
Would such an invasion be possible and sustainable? (the Kriegsmarine would have little else to do but guard the eastern shores of Europe and their only enemy would be the USN).

[alecsandros]

They wouldn't even try to invade. The complexities of the channel ferry were quite formidable; the logistical complexities of a Atlantic crossing - with thousands of ships carrying hundreds of thousands of soldiers - would be impossible to tackle.

A difficult but more realistic approach would be to invade Northern Africa solely by the Americans, and then to think about a good place to invade Europe from the Mediterenean southern-shores. Variants would be Spain + Italy or Italy + Greece.

[lwd]

If the commonwealth is still at war with Germany then the US is likely to get into the war at some point. If not even that becomes questionable. As for invading I suspect the US would concentrate on Japan then invade North Africa perhaps from both the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic. If the Soviets are in the war the US might also move combat units to the Eastern front either through Siberia or up through the Persian corridore. Counter invading Great Britain would also be a possiblity. Of course they are likely to have the atomic bomb well before any invasion of the continent so it might not be required.

[Karl Heidenreich]

In the European scenario the US will not be able to invade NOTHING if the British Isles were defeated previously by the Germans. No unsinkable aircraft carrier and, more important, NO British allies with pilots, soldiers and sailors. Also, if this scenario leaves the German Army's 1,000,000 men of the Western Front free to be used in late 1941 or for Operation Blue in 1942 then a negotiation could happen with the soviets and a cease fire or plain soviet defeat will follow. Being that the case then almost 4 to 5 million men will be freed from fighting from the main Eastern Front.

I don't think that when Stalin is defeated then FDR will had any interest in fighting against the Germans. His was an effort to help communism win, and once defeated or at peace there is no point for the US to become involved. Maybe a state of war will remain but there will be no actions amongst the contenders here, not important ones at least.

But if the USA tried to land at Africa or wherever and the Germans had that amount of free troops those anphibious operations will last as long as the US troops are repeled back to the ocean.

[Keith Enge]

I too think that the US wouldn't invade. They would probably do what they actually did historically; let the Russian Army defeat the Germans. I think, if Great Britain had fallen, Stalin would believed his spies and not discounted the immediate German threat. If the troops on the Russian had thus been better prepared, they could have both better withstood the initial blitzkrieg and not had their air force destroyed on the ground. Therefore, even if the Germans had been able to commit more troops because of the absence of Great Britain, the Russians could have stopped the Germans at least as well as they did historically. Actually, Germany probably couldn't have committed that many more troops because a conquered Great Britain would still have to be garrisoned. Also, we are neglecting the fact that conquering Great Britain would surely have resulted in significant German losses to both the Army and Luftwaffe.

The US could still have helped the Russians even without the Russian convoys starting from England. Only 1/4 of lend-lease to the Russians went via those Russian convoys. Another 1/4 went up from the Persian Gulf. Fully 1/2 went to Vladivostok in ships or planes via Alaska. Quite a bit of the Russian convoy cargo was unnecessary anyway, consisting of tanks. The Russians were making far better tanks and actually asked that the shipping of tanks cease. The important stuff was locomotives, trucks, radios, etc, much of which went via Vladivostok and more could have gone that route if needed.

The end result of this scenario is that Germany would still have been defeated but the Iron Curtain would have been erected much closer to the Atlantic Ocean.

[Byron Angel]

I too think that the US wouldn't invade. They would probably do what they actually did historically; let the Russian Army defeat the Germans. I think, if Great Britain had fallen, Stalin would believed his spies and not discounted the immediate German threat. If the troops on the Russian had thus been better prepared, they could have both better withstood the initial blitzkrieg and not had their air force destroyed on the ground. Therefore, even if the Germans had been able to commit more troops because of the absence of Great Britain, the Russians could have stopped the Germans at least as well as they did historically. Actually, Germany probably couldn't have committed that many more troops because a conquered Great Britain would still have to be garrisoned. Also, we are neglecting the fact that conquering Great Britain would surely have resulted in significant German losses to both the Army and Luftwaffe.

The US could still have helped the Russians even without the Russian convoys starting from England. Only 1/4 of lend-lease to the Russians went via those Russian convoys. Another 1/4 went up from the Persian Gulf. Fully 1/2 went to Vladivostok in ships or planes via Alaska. Quite a bit of the Russian convoy cargo was unnecessary anyway, consisting of tanks. The Russians were making far better tanks and actually asked that the shipping of tanks cease. The important stuff was locomotives, trucks, radios, etc, much of which went via Vladivostok and more could have gone that route if needed.

The end result of this scenario is that Germany would still have been defeated but the Iron Curtain would have been erected much closer to the Atlantic Ocean.

..... In my opinion - An early surrender by Great Britain would undoubtedly have rendered any invasion of Europe by the USA unfeasible. The immediate consequences of a British surrender would have been German occupation of Iceland and the seizure of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal. Control of those two point would have made the Mediterranean Sea into an Axis basin (and incidentally opened direct sea communications with Japan). Turkey, Arabia and Persia would more than likely have fallen into the German orbit, thus solving Germany's oil problems. There would have been no place for the USA to establish the necessary logistical base to support an invasion, not to mention the fact that I do not believe the USA would fundamentally have had the necessary strength on the ground to be successful in a European invasion effort.

B

[Karl Heidenreich]

Byron:

..... In my opinion - An early surrender by Great Britain would undoubtedly have rendered any invasion of Europe by the USA unfeasible. The immediate consequences of a British surrender would have been German occupation of Iceland and the seizure of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal. Control of those two point would have made the Mediterranean Sea into an Axis basin (and incidentally opened direct sea communications with Japan). Turkey, Arabia and Persia would more than likely have fallen into the German orbit, thus solving Germany's oil problems. There would have been no place for the USA to establish the necessary logistical base to support an invasion, not to mention the fact that I do not believe the USA would fundamentally have had the necessary strength on the ground to be successful in a European invasion effort.

Excellent points Byron! The Gibraltar and Suez Canal strategic importance I did not consider in my early post, but you are right!

[neil hilton]

When France fell in 1940 to the blitzkrieg France became polarized into Vichy France and Free France, Frances overseas territories picked one side or the other and that determined whether they fought on or capitulated. If Britain had fallen I would expect British overseas territories at least to do the same, some would fight on and some would capitulate (if the British govt somehow managed to evacuate to say Canada then Britain would have to be occupied by a German garrison and British overseas territories including probably the Commonwealth nations would fight on. If so Gibralter, Suez and the middle east oilfields would remain off limits to the Axis.
One point also is that if Britain did fall what would the Commonwealth nations do? Would they continue to fight? Also what would the US immediately do? Historically the US only entered ww2 after PH, they did not declare war on Germany. However if Germany invaded the British Isles would they tolerate that? Or immediately declare war on Germany? If both the Commonwealth and the US became allied then both together may decide to continue the war.
This would mean a Commonwealth/US invasion of liberation of Britain would be likely IMO. Britain has a very very long coastline and would be nigh on impossible to guard properly and the populace would be eager for liberation, at least as much as the French population were.

[tommy303]

Historically the US only entered ww2 after PH, they did not declare war on Germany.

The US did not have to declare war on Germany, as Hitler very obligingly declared war on the US in the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

[Byron Angel]

When France fell in 1940 to the blitzkrieg France became polarized into Vichy France and Free France, Frances overseas territories picked one side or the other and that determined whether they fought on or capitulated. If Britain had fallen I would expect British overseas territories at least to do the same, some would fight on and some would capitulate (if the British govt somehow managed to evacuate to say Canada then Britain would have to be occupied by a German garrison and British overseas territories including probably the Commonwealth nations would fight on. If so Gibralter, Suez and the middle east oilfields would remain off limits to the Axis.
One point also is that if Britain did fall what would the Commonwealth nations do? Would they continue to fight? Also what would the US immediately do? Historically the US only entered ww2 after PH, they did not declare war on Germany. However if Germany invaded the British Isles would they tolerate that? Or immediately declare war on Germany? If both the Commonwealth and the US became allied then both together may decide to continue the war.
This would mean a Commonwealth/US invasion of liberation of Britain would be likely IMO. Britain has a very very long coastline and would be nigh on impossible to guard properly and the populace would be eager for liberation, at least as much as the French population were.

..... I would agree in the case of Canada or Australia or New Zealand or South Africa standing on alone; they were remote from Europe and could rely upon tacit US support to the degree it was worthwhile in 1940/1941. India, with its relatively strong indigenous nationalist political sentiment, would have been a toss up. But there would have been no hope for any "Free British" hold-outs in Gibraltar or Suez or Malta. For one thing, Germany would have ensured that such strategic European possessions were included as part and parcel of any surrender agreement. Secondly, it would have been logistically impossible for the British garrisons to hold them. And in 1940/1941 the USA was in no position to intervene in Europe in any remotely meaningful way.

My opinion, of course.

B

[RF]

One aspect not so far mentioned here is what happens to the RN and the Home Fleet if Britain capitulated? Would the whole RN surface fleet come under KM control? If that were to happen that would not be in the interests of the US, for it could mean that the Germans have a fleet with which to threaten the eastern seaboard of the US. So the Americans would have a close interest in what happens to Britain if it fell under German control.
Neither would the US want the whole of Europe under Soviet control, if Stalin were to defeat Hitler.

These considerations could well have forced US intervention in Europe. If against Germany then Germany could have occupied mainland Britain and probably allow Eire to annex Northern Ireland. In such a scenario then the US could consider an invasion of a German occupied Britain initially with relatively small forces.This operation would be feasible if the great bulk of German land and air forces were engaged in Russia and there was a British resistance movement the Americans could co-operate with. The US would have the advantage of carrier based aircraft and the availability of long range bombers. There are two areas of Britain that could be chosen for US invasion, which ordinarily would not pose too many difficulties if the Americans had surprise on their side. One area ripe for invasion by infiltration is the Outer Hebrides (Western Isles) in Scotland - remote islands, with the prospect of airfields, which once seized can be used as bases for further operations. However there is one big disadvantage - seizing islands would be straightforward, invading the Scottish mainland would be much more difficult.

The other area open to invasion is Cornwall - the most feasible would be landings on both coastlines of Kerrier, to cut off the Penwith Peninsula and seize Newlyn and Penzance. There is again a drawback - the proximity of Brittany.

Whether such operations could or would be done depends on US supply logistics and enemy strength.

Going into North Africa is an option, but an indirect route into Europe. It would be more feasible if the US was at war with Spain - for here the US can seize the Canary Islands and then Spanish Sahara as a stepping stone into the French territories and then Spain itself.

[neil hilton]

The French fleet did not fall into German hands but stayed neutral (although it could easily have fallen into German hands), some units also joined the RN. I would say it is likely the RN would do something similar. Thus allowing protection of important bases like Gibralter and Malta and Egypt.
Although Egypt did have Nazi sympathies the local populace there may well have welcomed in the Germans, on the other hand the British force there was quite large before Churchill sent an expeditionery force into Greece and is fairly easily reinforced from India, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
The surrender of British overseas territories may well have been an armistice condition for the Germans and may well have been accepted by whatever British govt was left in the UK but that doesn't mean the local governors would do it if they decided to fight on (like certain French overseas territories did when the declared for DeGaulles Free French forces).

I agree with RFs theory of possible landing areas in Britain. Also I think if you can land an invasion successfully in cornwall you can also land one in south Wales.

[RF]

. Thus allowing protection of important bases like Gibralter and Malta and Egypt.
Although Egypt did have Nazi sympathies the local populace there may well have welcomed in the Germans,

Given that Italy was in the war by this time it is more likely that the Italians would have Malta as part of the Armistice deal and possibly Eygpt as well. And if Spain had also declared war they would have had Gibraltar....

[RF]

.... if they decided to fight on (like certain French overseas territories did when the declared for DeGaulles Free French forces).

I f Britain capitulated then that also finishes the organised resistance movements in the occupied countries and probably means the Free French have no political clout at all in the French colonial empire.

[RF]

Also I think if you can land an invasion successfully in cornwall you can also land one in south Wales.

Knowing the geography and terrain of the area there are few suitable landing points in South Wales which would allow rapid penetration inland. The Gower peninsula is the only possible place I can think of - and there you have the prospect of being held up by street fighting for possession of Swansea.

The English side of the Bristol Channel is more promising. Lundy Island would be worth seizing by paratroops and north Devon has a long sandy beach at Westward Ho! (thats the only English place name that I know of with an exclamation mark included in its spelling). There is also a nice possible landing spot by the former M4 motorway bridge across the Severn estuary, where you could land on both sides of the river.
However in doing this you are entering the potential mousetrap of having enemy occupied land on three sides.... local air superiority would be essential.