How would US invade Europe without UK

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF:

There are things you are not considering that are worth mentioning:

No Britain in the war means also no bombing raids over German cities and factories. No hundreds of thousands of German civilians burnt to death by night raids. No disruption of German production of tanks, fighters, submarines and H class battleships.

No Britain in the war means that the German Uboat arm will not be depleted but only building it up. Also surface units as Bismarck or Gneisenau will be available as German aircraft carriers (they will notice how effective they were in the Pacific theatre).

From where the US will launch bombing raids against Hamburg or the ball bearing factories in Schweinfurt? Pennsacola?

We already know that the US can only beat an enemy in WWII where numerical superiority and air supremacy is obtained. And on the battlefield we know that a German soldier is worth a couple US ones and a German tank (not perfectioned but with maintenance problems still) was worth 10 US ones. We know German pilots will be veterans with hundreds of kills already from the soviet front and not depleted by previous actions against the likes of Bong or Boyington.
No air supremacy, no numerical superiority, no bombing raids, no depleted German navy nor air force. The best army of XX Century armed with Tigers with Waffen SS veterans of the soviet front, with Africa Korps and maybe British 8th Army. The US do not stand a chance to set foot in Africa, much less in Europe or anywhere near to Reich.

[lwd]

... Have you heard of Erwin Rommel? What he did with a small and extremely limited amount of resources whilst the Mediterranean was almost in British hands?

Don't forget he had very accurate info on the British at least during the period when he was winning most of the time.

No 8th Army and North Africa will be German. Where do you plan to land troops: Madagascar?

Africa consists of signficantly more than just North Africa. The coast line is quite long. How far south do the Germans go on each coast? How well can they defend what they take?

As a matter of fact you are the one inserting, continously, more and more variables in order to support what was a quite clear scenario.

The problem of course is that it was far from a clear scneario. Indead it could range from the Great Britain signing a peace treaty or even just a cease fire to the British Isles being occupied and/or Britain allying with Germany. No mention one way or anther has been made of a government in exile or the attitudes and actions of the rest of the Commonwealth. Or even exactly when this happens.

[RF]

England is the engine of a car: no engine no running car. At the contrary I think that Canada will not be involved in offensive actions against Germany if England is out of the war. Again, you are ignoring the amount of problems and imposibilities that present themselves once England is out and the Atlantic at the hands of Germany.

What you are doing is trying to prove that the US had a chance in an scenario where there is none.

I think there is a scenario. Canada, Australia and even India had substantial military forces capable of operating independently of Britain if they were forced to.

[RF]

You are underestating the German capabillity to overcome odds. Which was what put the world at war in the first place. In 1939 the allies thought that Germany could not even invade France and the Maginot Line will stop them; three years later the Germans were running wild to the Volga. One million more German soldiers would have been determinant against Stalin.

The Germans as you say could overcome very heavy odds aghainst them, especially the Waffen SS units as you have mentioned quite rightly in other threads. But there are limits. They can't be everywhere at once and I think you undercalculate the sizes of military forces and logistics required to subjugate, brutally, some 40% or more of the territory of the Soviet Union as well as occupy the rest of Europe and the Middle East, plus also dominate Africa as well. In 1942 and in 1943 they found their limits - with devasting defeats. And that was on just one front.

[RF]

Have you heard of Erwin Rommel? What he did with a small and extremely limited amount of resources whilst the Mediterranean was almost in British hands? .

Done with very small forces and opposed by second rate forces. Have you heard of O'Connor? And the acres of Italian prisoners?

[RF]

RF:
There are things you are not considering that are worth mentioning:

No Britain in the war means also no bombing raids over German cities and factories. No hundreds of thousands of German civilians burnt to death by night raids. No disruption of German production of tanks, fighters, submarines and H class battleships.

No Britain in the war means that the German Uboat arm will not be depleted but only building it up. Also surface units as Bismarck or Gneisenau will be available as German aircraft carriers (they will notice how effective they were in the Pacific theatre).

You are quite right.

However I have considered your scenario's though I haven't specifically responded to them in print, so I will now do so.
Britain out of the war in say 1940 means Hitler - in his eyes - has won. There is no threat in the west of any substance, the US is still neutral. The Atlantic and the west are seen as militarily irrelevant. Hitler's project now is his life's ambition - the destruction of Soviet communism and lebensraum in the east. Raeder and the KM are totally eclipsed in the planning and execution of Barbarossa; all resources are devoted to Heer and Luftwaffe, so all naval construction om warships and U-boats is pared down to a minmum - Hitler sees no enemy for them to fight. The Med and Africa are left to the Italians and Franco - Hitler has no interest there.
Barbarossa goes ahead as it historically did. It almost succeeds as it did, but Soviet resistance continues into 1942. The US enters the war as it did. As a sop to the Japs Hitler declares war on the US, thinking that there is no way that the US is any threat. So he ignores them, throwing all his resources and forces ever eastward, deeper and deeper into Russia.

[RF]

Continuing from the previous post (as my computer has limited post space) at the same time as the Germans cross the Volga and go past Moscow they also have to occupy the whole of the Middle East to secure adequate oil supplies for the huge operations in Russia. The scale of operations in Russia, extending over fronts some 3,000 miles from north to south would absorb combat and occupation forces of some 8 to 10 million German troops. The German economy is gradually mobilised for total war, but the problems of inadequate allocations of materials and skilled labour, of labour productivity aren't capable of being addressed as the nature of Hitler's rule through gauleiters prevents any drive for more effeiciency. Bureaucracy and corruption will excercise a growing corrosive effect on Germany's ability to effective wage war on a truly continental scale. Hitler is obessed with Russia and becomes more irrational as major Soviet resistance, based from Siberia, continues in spite of all German advances.

At the same time there are millions upon millions of foreign workers in the Reich, of questionable productivity and economic value and presenting to the nazies the risks of ''race pollution'' with the ethnic German population and an increased threat to internal security. Hitler is also increasingly concious of his own security; by now the SS is so powerful in Germany that it is in fact the biggest potential threat to Hitler's life. Professions of loyalty to the Fuhrer is the ideal cover for SS officers like Bittrich and Hauser who might consider that Hitler has outlived his usefulness to the cause of national socialism and needs bumping off. The problem is succession - and Hitler knows it.

1943, 1944, 1945 - the years pass by, the war in the east continues unabated. 1946 comes, Germany still is nowhere near to final victory.
Suddenly - without warning, completely unexpected - the Americans land in the Canary islands and then Morrocco. Within days, in the face of virttually no opposition, they have seized Cadiz and roll on to take Gibraltar and Ageria. French forces in North Africa join forces with the Americans. In Italy Mussolini is assasinated by the Mafia. King Victor Emmanuel declares Italian neutrality in the new Med conflict - and allows the US to move its forces into Sicily and Sardinia.

[RF]

Italy then declares war on Germany. American and Free French forces move into the Italian mainland and Corsica. Germany is slow to respond because virtually all of their combat forces are tied up fighting around the Urals. Only the KM can oppose the US - but the U-boat programme was sacrificed because all resources went to the Heer and Luftwaffe so there is a U-boat force no bigger than it was in the spring of 1941. Bismarck, Tirpitz and the new H Classe battleship that was eventually built, that Hitler decided would be named ''Der Fuhrer'' are confronted by three or four Iowa's apiece. Graf Zeppelin, the only KM carrier is confronted by at least six US carriers. The KM gets slaughtered.

Small US forces land on the islands of Tiree, Colonsay to secure airfields and follow up by landing on Lewis and Skye. Another three US marine divisions land in north Cornwall, at Kerrier and Whitesands Bay. British resistance forces appear and with no quality German ground troops in the west of England the Americans quickly seize Penzance, Newlyn and then Plymouth. The Yanks have arrived in Britain to stay. Germany, taken by surprise because it was so obssessed with Russia, has little in the west to respond.

I will leave the finale to your imagination.

I have also made an assumption that neither side is able to develop an atomic bomb before 1948.

[RF]

In outlining the above I have said nothing about Japan.

In January 1942 in the real WW2 the Americans decided on a ''Germany first policy'' because Germany was the most dangerous of the WW2 enemies. Some 90% of the US war effort was devoted to defeating Germany, only 10% to Japan. But even 10% was sufficient for the US to take the offensive and defeat Japan. In 1942 the US in reality outproduced, in tanks and aircraft, Germany, Italy and Japan put together

In my scenario Roosevelt decides that Japan should be contained and slowly strangled, without the US commiting much in ground forces. The US aim is to maintain control of the Central Pacific only, based on Hawaii and Midway. Australia, with its own armed forces, now completely independent of Britan, is reinforced. Canada fully supports the US, together with expatriate British forces and RN Home Fleet that fled to the British Empire dominions when Britain itself capitulated.

In the Pacific the US concentrates its submarine force in attacking Japanese shipping around the home islands. Not just merchant ships, but warships including carriers and battleships get sunk. An attempt to seize Hawaii by the Japanese is defeated in a Midway /Leyte Gulf type battle. Germany is focussed and obssessed with Russia and is largely blind through total disinterest in what is going on in the Pacfic. The Americans don't bother with island hopping or in trying to retakethe Philippines. Instead they reinforce their air forces in China through the ''hump'' in Burma. British forces (almost entirely Iindian) maintain a front on th border of Burma, which is armed and supplied by the US. The US keep Russia supplied across the Bering Strait.

1943, 1944, 1945 - Japan is ground down but not completely defeated. New President Truman decides it is time to reckon with Germany and leave Japan to wither on the vine. Thus far the US has ignored the Atlantic. The Germans haven't bothered to make any moves against them, so Europe had been left alone by the Americans.

[RF]

President Truman and the OSS decide that the Med is the German weakpoint, as only Italy and Spain have any forces there. The Germans are all in Russia and occupying the rest of Europe.
Italy and Britain are the key initial US objectives. The OSS has links with the British resistance, ex-patriot British government in exile, the Free French and can do secret deals with the Mafia and the king of Italy. The Americans quickly realise that Germany is unprepared in the west because Germany sees no US threat in the west. US forces are built up in the Caribbean and eastern seaboard of the US and Canada. There is no US military activity in mid Atlantic so as not to warn the Germans.

Truman waits as the Germans get ever more bogged down in Russia. Then he finally authorises a series of quick, surprise US strikes, as outlined in my previous post.

Over to you Karl.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Well, I must admitt that this detailed, and as such, very unlikely scenario is attractive. Later today we will deal with it.

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF:

Well, what I can say is this:

How would the US invade Europe without UK is an hypothetical premise.

And a lot of hypothetical thesis have been posted. But this last one of yours is not an hypothetical scenario, is a screenplay!

[RF]

From my knowledge and understanding of the nature of Nazi Germany I believe it is a realistic proposition - it could have happened.

You could say that given the superiority in firepower that Admiral Holland had going into the Denmark Strait battle that what actually happened was worthy of screenplay!

[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).

This was the initial premise of this hypothetical scenario, to answer those who have commented on the nature of the British capitulation. It supposes that Britain was successfully invaded and defeated in the winter and spring of 1941 and then forced into surrender and sort of neutrality just like what the Germans did with France after they defeated them (Vichy France et al).
From this it supposes that the mainland of Britain would have to be occupied like France in order to keep both populations in line.
The reaction of British overseas possessions and the military forces there (RN, RAF, Army etc) to the defeat and occupation of Britain would be similar to those seen by French overseas territories (some would fight on, some would capitulate). British ex-dominion territories like Canada and Australia were independant countries and Allies of Britain, whether they would fight on or not is part of the question and thus left to those who want to reply to make their case for whatever scenario conclusion they choose to.
Essentially put I started the thread with Britain and France (not necessarily their empires included) defeated and occupied and Barbarossa started in May 41 and let everybody run with it.

I doubt very much that British military forces like the French would actually switch sides and start fighting for the Germans, those that capitulated would be demobbed. Of course some few nazi sympathizers would form Waffen SS Legions, like what happened in all German occupied countries.

One point that hasn't been mentioned regarding Barbarossa. It is not IMO a matter of numbers or tactical skill that really counts when invading Russia as much as timing, specifically time scale. The real concern for any invasion is the weather and the mud (the Rasputitsa), the Germans could have sent in a million more men but would still have failed because of the weather and the inability of their vehicles to move during the spring and autumn, German weapons froze during the winter.
The only real opportunity to invade Russia successfully would be during the few summer months, so the earlier than historical intended time of May rather than June would be more significant than greater numbers.

[lwd]

My undersanding is that it had been a wet spring so an attack that is much earlier may have some serious problems with mud early in the campaign. There's also the question of whether or not the Soviets will be more likely to expect the German attack. Aparently Soviet intel was reporting that the Germans were going to attack and Stalin didn't believe them. With Britain out of the way he may be more willing to do so. It's also my understanding that the British planned to move the roalty, RN, and as much force as possible to Canada to contine the war if Britain were successfully invaded.