PDA

View Full Version : If Germany had won the war, where would that have left Ireland?



fluffybiscuits
05-01-2012, 12:57 PM
Setting the scene. The Allies land on the D - Day Beaches in 1945 and are over powered due to them being spread too thinly when attacking the nazis. Further down the line, Britian mobilises the RAF but after six months due to lack of fuel and most of their fleet being destroyed the Luftwaffe and the Germans land in Plymouth and make their way into the South of England. Intensive fighting takes place with Lord Haw Haw screaming through the radio for the English resistance to give up. The royal family flees to Canada and the Germans take over quickly taking over the cities as they have been starved due to rationing and lack of nutrients means that the population in Britian at large is suffering from diseases like scurvy and rickets. By 1946, they have over taken most of Britian and are turning their attentions to the furtermost reaches of the Atlantic.

What happens next?
What does Ireland do?
What role does the rest of the Allies play?
Who are our major leaders?

Saoirse go Deo
05-01-2012, 01:04 PM
Would they have enough men to occupy Britain and fight off the Russians?

Baron von Biffo
05-01-2012, 01:06 PM
Who are our major leaders?

FG members fought alongside Hitler's Condor Legion in Spain so their first leader, Eoin O'Duffy, might have spent his last few months as Reich Protector of Hibernia.

Holly
05-01-2012, 01:06 PM
What happens next?
The English ruling class would collaborate and England would be pacified in no time.

What does Ireland do?
Ireland becomes a Protectorate of the Third Reich (including the Six Counties)

What role does the rest of the Allies play?
The Americans would find this a setback and would concentrate on beating the Japs before reassessing the situation in Europe.

Who are our major leaders?
De Valera would remain as a puppet Quisling.

fluffybiscuits
05-01-2012, 01:09 PM
Would they have enough men to occupy Britain and fight off the Russians?

Well would they conscript British men info fighting for them? They would have had a couple of hundred thousand at least . Would Ireland have helped its neighbour?

fluffybiscuits
05-01-2012, 01:10 PM
FG members fought alongside Hitler's Condor Legion in Spain so their first leader, Eoin O'Duffy, might have spent his last few months as Reich Protector of Hibernia.

Would O Duffy be leadning a Quisling govt out of Dublin castle? O Duffy was well known to be gay at the time, the nazi's might have set up a concentration camp in the Curragh and gassed him.

fluffybiscuits
05-01-2012, 01:13 PM
The English ruling class would collaborate and England would be pacified in no time.

Ireland becomes a Protectorate of the Third Reich (including the Six Counties)

The Americans would find this a setback and would concentrate on beating the Japs before reassessing the situation in Europe.

De Valera would remain as a puppet Quisling.

I would have thought that Ireland being one of the last countries before the US would have been vitally important in the war effort. The Japanese might very well have felt threatened by a giant Third Reich and switched sides , no? De Valera would do what he could to appease them I imagine being a weasel of sorts.

Baron von Biffo
05-01-2012, 01:21 PM
Would O Duffy be leadning a Quisling govt out of Dublin castle? O Duffy was well known to be gay at the time, the nazi's might have set up a concentration camp in the Curragh and gassed him.

Rohm's homosexuality wasn't a problem for the Nazis. His killing was part of an internal power struggle.

Holly
05-01-2012, 01:23 PM
I would have thought that Ireland being one of the last countries before the US would have been vitally important in the war effort.
Ireland was important in the Allied effort. Americans were stationed in the Six Counties and the Free State gave permission for them to cross Irish air space over Donegal in the hunt for U-Boats. The Free State interned downed Luftwaffe personnel but allowed RAF fliers to return to the Six Counties. All of this would have stopped once England was taken out.

The Japanese might very well have felt threatened by a giant Third Reich and switched sides , no?
No, never.

homer
05-01-2012, 02:10 PM
Germany might have beaten Britain and taken Ireland if thery have invaded soon after Dunkirk in 1940. Once the Luftwaffe failed to beat the RAF in Battle of Britain their chance had gone.

No hope in 1944 of Germany successfully invading UK and Ireland. They were weakened in the war with Russia, and their losses in Africa.

If the Germans had invaded, don't be under any illusions - jews would be gassed, able bodied workers would be sent where is suited the Reich ( see France, Channel Islands etc )

William Joyce ( Haw Haw ) would be back in his old haunts in Mayo and Galway,

I doubt if they would have bothered with a puppet government - just imposed martial law,

We would not have the right of free expression as on these boards.

Richardbouvet
05-01-2012, 02:19 PM
My French teacher was a Breton nationalist who joined the SS in the belief that France's difficulty was Brittany's opportunity.

I have no doubt that a section of the IRA in the North would have joined the SS on much the same rationale.

fluffybiscuits
05-01-2012, 02:45 PM
Germany might have beaten Britain and taken Ireland if thery have invaded soon after Dunkirk in 1940. Once the Luftwaffe failed to beat the RAF in Battle of Britain their chance had gone.

No hope in 1944 of Germany successfully invading UK and Ireland. They were weakened in the war with Russia, and their losses in Africa.

If the Germans had invaded, don't be under any illusions - jews would be gassed, able bodied workers would be sent where is suited the Reich ( see France, Channel Islands etc )

William Joyce ( Haw Haw ) would be back in his old haunts in Mayo and Galway,

I doubt if they would have bothered with a puppet government - just imposed martial law,

We would not have the right of free expression as on these boards.

So is it fair to say Britian was the lesser two evils?

antiestablishmentarian
05-01-2012, 03:13 PM
It's hard to say how Ireland would have been treated if taken in 1940 or 1941 (post-1942 invasion was never going to happen, even if the Germans had repelled the Normandy landings). The German occupation model varied significantly depending on the levl of resistance encountered- the Danes were allowed a free parliament and a measure of internal independence until the resistance began to grow in strength from 1943 onwards, although of course they had to open labour camps for communists and others upon the 'request' of the Nazis. Germany's chief interest in Ireland would have been similar to that of Denmark, ie cheap foodstuffs from the agricultural surplus, so once they were guaranteed that and compliance with the foreign policy of th Nazi government, there's grounds to believe that Ireland may have been treated in a like manner, though of course the Jewish population would have been done for. On the other hand, the Nazis had earmarked Dublin as one of six centres for administering German economic exploitation of the conquered British Isles, so it's possible they may have taken a more hands on approach. It's ultimately unknowable, because Ireland was not a strategically important location for the Germans, but on balance I think they would have taken the Danish model especially as Hitler (at least from my readings of him) had no particular ideological position on Ireland, unlike the USSR and Slavic eastern Europe.

fluffybiscuits
05-01-2012, 03:22 PM
It's hard to say how Ireland would have been treated if taken in 1940 or 1941 (post-1942 invasion was never going to happen, even if the Germans had repelled the Normandy landings). The German occupation model varied significantly depending on the levl of resistance encountered- the Danes were allowed a free parliament and a measure of internal independence until the resistance began to grow in strength from 1943 onwards, although of course they had to open labour camps for communists and others upon the 'request' of the Nazis. Germany's chief interest in Ireland would have been similar to that of Denmark, ie cheap foodstuffs from the agricultural surplus, so once they were guaranteed that and compliance with the foreign policy of th Nazi government, there's grounds to believe that Ireland may have been treated in a like manner, though of course the Jewish population would have been done for. On the other hand, the Nazis had earmarked Dublin as one of six centres for administering German economic exploitation of the conquered British Isles, so it's possible they may have taken a more hands on approach. It's ultimately unknowable, because Ireland was not a strategically important location for the Germans, but on balance I think they would have taken the Danish model especially as Hitler (at least from my readings of him) had no particular ideological position on Ireland, unlike the USSR and Slavic eastern Europe.


Would they not have taken over the bases in places like Donegal or Cobh where the British maintained such a presence? Going on past precedence those bases would have a value for attacking American shipping lanes in the North Atlantic and getting their U Boats ready for attacking the US I would have thought.

antiestablishmentarian
05-01-2012, 03:28 PM
Would they not have taken over the bases in places like Donegal or Cobh where the British maintained such a presence? Going on past precedence those bases would have a value for attacking American shipping lanes in the North Atlantic and getting their U Boats ready for attacking the US I would have thought.

They would most likely have come to an arrangement with the US if Britain had fallen. The US would have been unable to invade Ireland or the UK for logistical reasons and the Germans would have been incapable of attacking mainland USA, so the value of continuing a war would have been highly questionable. The Nazis were already well placed to attack those shipping lanes if they wanted to because they controlled Norway, so Ireland would not have been as strategic for them as it was for the British, who relied on supplies from the US to prosecute the war.

C. Flower
05-01-2012, 04:20 PM
My French teacher was a Breton nationalist who joined the SS in the belief that France's difficulty was Brittany's opportunity.

I have no doubt that a section of the IRA in the North would have joined the SS on much the same rationale.

Interesting. I think there would have been a split too, and a Vichy type government formed.

If Germany had won the war implies in the east and west and also the US. Put that way, the prospect looks ridiculous. They were never going to win once the US came in.

If the US had stayed out, it is possible that a German Reich would have eventually been overthrown by Communist-led resistance, and that Europe would have been red.

fluffybiscuits
05-01-2012, 04:32 PM
Interesting. I think there would have been a split too, and a Vichy type government formed. If Germany had won the war implies in the east and west and also the US. Put that way, the prospect looks ridiculous. They were never going to win once the US came in.

It is possible that if the US had stayed out, it is probable that a German Reich would have eventually been overthrown by Communist-led resistance, and that Europe would have been red.

With perhaps O Duffy at the helm as government. Dev was American by birth so the Germans would have mistrusted him in case they thought he would go back to the supporting the land of his birth.

Yojimbo
05-01-2012, 04:37 PM
There are two possible scenarios the way I see it:

1. Ireland is unwillingly dragged into the war, as British war plans (as we know) included an invasion of Ireland or, at last resort, a mass bombing/gassing of Ireland in order to prevent Ireland becoming a 'second front'. If this happened, then the situation would be hugely messy, with Ireland potentially becoming a battleground involving retreating British soldiers, US soldiers flown in for support, and Irish people being forced to choose sides. If the allies then lost, I think we'd see a situation where a local Quisling would be put in charge and Ireland would become a fascist state.

2. Britain capitulates quickly. In this case, i think the Nazis would have no interest in occupying Ireland, so long as there is a guarantee of not allowing the US entry (which would presumably mean giving up some ports for u-boats). Ireland would be treated like Sweden or Finland or Portugal - nominally independent, but in reality, with all sorts of secret agreements. They would use the 6 counties as part of the deal to ensure no backdoor dealings with the US.

Andrew49
05-01-2012, 06:34 PM
If the British still had control of the Treaty Ports around the time of the 'Battle of Britain', the Germans would have attacked Ireland without a second thought.

C. Flower
05-01-2012, 06:50 PM
Exactly. And if they had won, they would have held on the the Irish ports and airports, irrespective of what kind of government there was.

morticia
05-01-2012, 06:56 PM
I am aware Hitler considered the Irish to be untermenschen, so I suspect that any outcome involving the Nazis having any control at all here might have resulted in concentration camps....

Our next door neighbours may be far from perfect, but I doubt they had organized genocide in mind....

antiestablishmentarian
05-01-2012, 06:58 PM
I am aware Hitler considered the Irish to be untermenschen, so I suspect that any outcome involving the Nazis having any control at all here might have resulted in concentration camps....

Our next door neighbours may be far from perfect, but I doubt they had organized genocide in mind....

Where did he say that? It's not in Mein Kampf and I've read nothing about him that would lead me to draw the conclusion that he had any particular hatred for the Irish.

morticia
05-01-2012, 07:04 PM
Where did he say that? It's not in Mein Kampf and I've read nothing about him that would lead me to draw the conclusion that he had any particular hatred for the Irish.

I was told that by a historian a long while ago; I am afraid I don't know the source

However, I also remember reading that he'd put the races of Europe in order of perfection at some point; Aryans at the top, apparently the British were next down the list (probably down to royal family connections between the two nations?). Apparently he wasn't really considering the UK as a massive enemy and probably would have left them alone for a while (at least until it suited him), but Churchill correctly identified him as a threat and reacted to the invasion of Poland, so he was left with little choice.

A recent Beeb documentary that I saw about a year ago analysed the effects of Hitler hypothetically invading southern England in 1940.... it came to the overwhelming conclusion that he would have faced the mother of all guerrila wars and would have been quite likely to have gotten bogged down pretty quickly. He might not have made it to Ireland...

antiestablishmentarian
05-01-2012, 07:21 PM
[QUOTE]I was told that by a historian a long while ago; I am afraid I don't know the source

However, I also remember reading that he'd put the races of Europe in order of perfection at some point; Aryans at the top, apparently the British were next down the list (probably down to royal family connections between the two nations?). Apparently he wasn't really considering the UK as a massive enemy and probably would have left them alone for a while (at least until it suited him), but Churchill correctly identified him as a threat and reacted to the invasion of Poland, so he was left with little choice. I think he was referring to Grant Madison, a racist theorist who invented the idea of 'Nordicism'. All the same, this Madison classified the Irish as being a mixture of Mediterranean and Nordic, meaning they were classed as a European race, slightly inferior to the 'pure' Nordics but superior to the Jews and the 'Alpine' Europeans, which is the classification he gave the Slavs. His division of Ireland into racial tendencies is actually quite hilarious in a way, the division being a stright line drawn across the country from Sligo to Carnsore point in Wexford :D His Nordic theories had quite an effect on Rosenberg, the main Nazi 'theorist', who drew heavily on them for his works. Rosenberg himself is a fascinating character, he was a Baltic German but despite his theorising about the Slavs being inferior he actually spoke better Russian than German and he served as a Red Guard in Moscow during the October Revolution. He was sentenced at Nuremberg for Count Two for actions that were not covered by the remit of that charge, and there is a school of thought that if he had kept his mouth shut and not inflated his own importance, he would have been let off, because he was actually perceived as a buffoon by Hitler and the other leaders and he had little control over policy in the Occupied Territories, for which he was the Reich-minister.


A recent Beeb documentary that I saw about a year ago analysed the effects of Hitler hypothetically invading southern England in 1940.... it came to the overwhelming conclusion that he would have faced the mother of all guerrila wars and would have been quite likely to have gotten bogged down pretty quickly. He might not have made it to Ireland...

There was a series of war games run in 1978 premised on a German invasion of south-east England based on the operational plans of Sealion. The conclusion was that the British Army would have defeated a Nazi invasion because the German invasion fleet wasn't large enough to bring over sufficient numbers of troops before the Royal Navy was engaged (at the time, the Fleet was based in the Scapa Flow off Orkney so it would have taken 3 days for them to reach the Channel).

morticia
05-01-2012, 07:27 PM
yes, there was that. However, I think the documentary was more concentrating on the "dads army" types... a lot of "too old for the army" types who nevertheless had military expertise left over from WW1... and the fact that Southern England, even then, was quite densely populated.

I recall that the historian type was distinctly worried about what Hitler would have done, had he made it to Ireland. The written stuff I saw might well have referred to the source you mention, though.

Andrew49
05-01-2012, 08:25 PM
I was told that by a historian a long while ago; I am afraid I don't know the source

However, I also remember reading that he'd put the races of Europe in order of perfection at some point; Aryans at the top, apparently the British were next down the list (probably down to royal family connections between the two nations?). Apparently he wasn't really considering the UK as a massive enemy and probably would have left them alone for a while (at least until it suited him), but Churchill correctly identified him as a threat and reacted to the invasion of Poland, so he was left with little choice.

A recent Beeb documentary that I saw about a year ago analysed the effects of Hitler hypothetically invading southern England in 1940.... it came to the overwhelming conclusion that he would have faced the mother of all guerrila wars and would have been quite likely to have gotten bogged down pretty quickly. He might not have made it to Ireland...

[From Mein Kampf] Wiki citing Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race#cite_note-hitler1925-2) :- The modern concept of the master race in general derives from 19th-century racial theory, which posited a hierarchy of races based on darkness of skin color. This 19th-century concept was largely initially developed by Count Joseph Arthur De Gobineau. Gobineau's basic concept, as further refined and developed in Nazism, places the black Aboriginal Australians and "African savages" at the bottom of the hierarchy, while the white Aryans (as conceived by the Nazis) (primarily Northern and Western Europeans consisting of Germans, Swedes, Icelanders, Norwegians, Danish, British, French, Irish and Dutch) were at the top; olive-skinned Southern Europeans (Spanish, Italians, Greeks and Portuguese, i.e. those of what was then called the Mediterranean race, which was regarded as another subrace of the Caucasian race) in the upper middle ranks; Slavs (Even though the Slavs are white and of Indo-European ancestry, the Nazis placed them lower on the scale because they were regarded as primarily of the Alpine race rather than the Nordic race, and thus fit only to be peasants. Also, the Nazis wanted to conquer them and take their land so Nazi Germany could obtain Lebensraum--Nazi propaganda referred to the Slavs as the untermensch ["subhumans"].)

Fraxinus
05-01-2012, 08:26 PM
Interesting. I think there would have been a split too, and a Vichy type government formed.

If Germany had won the war implies in the east and west and also the US. Put that way, the prospect looks ridiculous. They were never going to win once the US came in.

If the US had stayed out, it is possible that a German Reich would have eventually been overthrown by Communist-led resistance, and that Europe would have been red.

Very interesting theory. I think I'd agree with whoever said earlier in the thread that the British elite would have become very chumy with the Germans in the event of defeat. Plenty of common ground especially at an aristocratic level. That means the British resistence would have been led by communists. The Irish ruling class would have done the same as is usual with that spineless class.

Andrew49
05-01-2012, 08:33 PM
The political and religious elite in the Ireland of those times already had their own solution to the 'untermensch problem' - and an architecture of containment ALREADY in situ - the vast array of Industrial Schools and Magdalene Asylums. So I guess they would have accommodated the Nazis. With Britain cut off as an additional bolthole for other untermensch they would have been installing showers and ovens in Letterfrack and Goldenbridge ... to name a couple of places.

TotalMayhem
05-01-2012, 08:38 PM
De Valera would remain as a puppet Quisling.

They'd have him probably replaced with Seán MacBride who was good pals with the Nazi spy ring leaders in Ireland.

Baron von Biffo
05-01-2012, 08:44 PM
Very interesting theory. I think I'd agree with whoever said earlier in the thread that the British elite would have become very chumy with the Germans in the event of defeat. Plenty of common ground especially at an aristocratic level. That means the British resistence would have been led by communists. The Irish ruling class would have done the same as is usual with that spineless class.

Churchill had a core resistance network in place from 1940. Google 'Highworth's Fertiliser' for info on it.

jmcc
05-01-2012, 09:21 PM
Setting the scene. The Allies land on the D - Day Beaches in 1945 and are over powered due to them being spread too thinly when attacking the nazis.Bit of a flaw in you thinking there. The Allies would have concentrated the attack. It might be more plausible if the V1 and V2s where used against the Allies' landing sites and supply ports.


Further down the line, Britian mobilises the RAF but after six months due to lack of fuelThe RAF aircraft were outclassed by some of the German aircraft.


and most of their fleet being destroyed the Luftwaffe and the Germans land in Plymouth and make their way into the South of England.This seems to be the standard invasion site but some have theorised that an invasion site north-east of London might have been more effective.


Intensive fighting takes place with Lord Haw Haw screaming through the radio for the English resistance to give up. Sporadic fighting would have taken place but the D-Day landings were the UK's last throw of the dice as regards manpower.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc
05-01-2012, 09:29 PM
What happens next? Possible nuclear action but that might have only occurred by 1947 or so.

The supply lines to the Soviet Union will have been cut.
With the UK out of the picture and the SU not being able to rely on Western resources, a lot more Soviet troops are lost and it is possible that the Germans would defeat the Soviet Union.


What does Ireland do?Maintain its neutral position. It would become a buffer between the US and a German Europe. Its neutrality would serve Germany in that it would effectively deny the US a foothold in Europe.


What role does the rest of the Allies play?A negotiated peace, terrible as it sounds, would have been one potential outcome.


Who are our major leaders?Much the same as before. And the real sting in the tail of this counter-factual: After Hitler dies, the Allies unite Germans go for the Soviet Union.

Regards...jmcc

Andrew49
06-01-2012, 09:48 AM
Germany and its (possible new) empire looked mighty small compared to the now wide-awake Roosevelt administration. So I doubt if supply lines to the Soviet Union would have been much disrupted.

Under Lend-Lease:

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/theknitter/lease-route.png

The Persian Corridor – About 70% of the aid reached the Soviet Union via this route through Iran.

The Pacific – Some matériel traveled by ship across the Pacific to Vladivostok in eastern Russia, while thousands of aircraft were flown from Alaska to Siberia by Soviet and American pilots. Of the 15,000 airplanes delivered to the Soviets, half were flown in from Alaska.

Source (http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/in-depth/supplying-allies.html#Lend)

jmcc
06-01-2012, 10:04 AM
Germany and its (possible new) empire looked mighty small compared to the now wide-awake Roosevelt administration. So I doubt if supply lines to the Soviet Union would have been much disrupted.But with the UK out of the war, the Germans would essentially be fighting an increasingly single fronted war against the SU. The big factor in Europe would be whether the Allies could maintain air superiority without the UK but I think that the loss of the UK could have led to the collapse of the Allied front in Europe. (This is why counterfactuals can be problematic when the starting point isn't really clear.) A few German decisions had they been taken (standardisation, going for quantity rather than quality in armour, converting to jets and moving more factories underground earlier) could have potentially caused massive problems for the Allies. Also with the UK out of the frame, there's a possible linkup between German forces and Japanese forces near Iran/Iraq. (But Japan would not have been able to make such a linkup in 1945.)

Regards...jmcc

Andrew49
06-01-2012, 10:34 AM
But with the UK out of the war, the Germans would essentially be fighting an increasingly single fronted war against the SU. The big factor in Europe would be whether the Allies could maintain air superiority without the UK but I think that the loss of the UK could have led to the collapse of the Allied front in Europe. (This is why counterfactuals can be problematic when the starting point isn't really clear.) A few German decisions had they been taken (standardisation, going for quantity rather than quality in armour, converting to jets and moving more factories underground earlier) could have potentially caused massive problems for the Allies. Also with the UK out of the frame, there's a possible linkup between German forces and Japanese forces near Iran/Iraq. (But Japan would not have been able to make such a linkup in 1945.)

Regards...jmcc

This brings up the question: How would the US have reacted to the demise of the UK?

Jesus this topic brings up information I didn't know!:mad:

I was going to bring Iceland into the equation - under the assumption that it was under the protection of the US and the US was using their ports to 'protect' the sea route. But the British invaded Iceland on 10 May 1940. The initial force of 746 British Royal Marines commanded by Colonel Robert Sturges was replaced on 17 May by a larger Army force, and eventually 25,000 British troops were stationed in Iceland. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland_during_World_War_II)

Eventually (mid-1941) the US did station 40,000 troops there.

It appears that the British Empire was as voracious as Nazi Germany!

C. Flower
06-01-2012, 10:55 AM
Very interesting theory. I think I'd agree with whoever said earlier in the thread that the British elite would have become very chumy with the Germans in the event of defeat. Plenty of common ground especially at an aristocratic level. That means the British resistence would have been led by communists. The Irish ruling class would have done the same as is usual with that spineless class.

Across Europe under Nazi occupation, the communists were the most coherent force in the resistance and played a bigger role than any other group. After the war ended Greece and Italy would have "gone red" if it wasn't for Stalin's pact to leave them to the west, and intervention by the British and US.

The British elite in the main would have settled into a Vichy type government. Resistance to a right wing dictatorship logically in the main comes from the left.

Ireland is a different case. There were certainly nationalists who were themselves right wing and who would happily have allied themselves with the Germans if allowed, but it is more likely that the Blueshirts would have stepped in, and disgruntled right wing nationalists (as in Brittany) would have had to join in with left republicans and the left to carry on resistance.

If the resistance had succeeded, something like the Yugoslavian situation may have emerged. Socialst/communist economies would have had a better chance, as they would have been dealing with like-minded neighbours and would have included economies with highly developed industry and technological know how.

The other possibility would have been failure of resistance, and a protracted Europe of the same sclerotic type of military regime as was endured by Spain and Portugal and Greece under the Colonels, viewed by the US as preferable to communism.

fluffybiscuits
06-01-2012, 10:56 AM
Germany and its (possible new) empire looked mighty small compared to the now wide-awake Roosevelt administration. So I doubt if supply lines to the Soviet Union would have been much disrupted.

Under Lend-Lease:

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/theknitter/lease-route.png

The Persian Corridor – About 70% of the aid reached the Soviet Union via this route through Iran.

The Pacific – Some matériel traveled by ship across the Pacific to Vladivostok in eastern Russia, while thousands of aircraft were flown from Alaska to Siberia by Soviet and American pilots. Of the 15,000 airplanes delivered to the Soviets, half were flown in from Alaska.

Source (http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/in-depth/supplying-allies.html#Lend)

With China under Japanese occupation could the Soviets have entered via China into the rest of Asia?

BTW Who would been our Quisling

Eoin O Duffy, Dev ?

C. Flower
06-01-2012, 11:07 AM
This brings up the question: How would the US have reacted to the demise of the UK?

Jesus this topic brings up information I didn't know!:mad:

I was going to bring Iceland into the equation - under the assumption that it was under the protection of the US and the US was using their ports to 'protect' the sea route. But the British invaded Iceland on 10 May 1940. The initial force of 746 British Royal Marines commanded by Colonel Robert Sturges was replaced on 17 May by a larger Army force, and eventually 25,000 British troops were stationed in Iceland. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland_during_World_War_II)

Eventually (mid-1941) the US did station 40,000 troops there.

It appears that the British Empire was as voracious as Nazi Germany!

And people think that Ireland is of no military significance to the UK...

jmcc
06-01-2012, 11:11 AM
This brings up the question: How would the US have reacted to the demise of the UK? And there's an even bigger problem for the US. The loss of the UK would have resulted in a crypto blackout on Enigma and Tunny because of the loss of receiving stations. The Germans were using HF radio transmissions and some UK receiving stations were well placed to pick these up due to the way that the signals bounced off the ionosphere. A lot of people underestimate the effect that crypto had on WW2 and some generals had their reputations reevaluated when the Enigma story broke in the early 1970s. The information on Tunny (which was used for the German high command transmissions was only released in the 1980s. I wouldn't be surprised if this was behind the theory that there was a spy in Hitler's entourage that had access to very high level intelligence.).


It appears that the British Empire was as voracious as Nazi Germany!Well they had to keep the supply routes open and the GIUK (Greenland, Iceland, UK) gap was a strategically important one. If the Germans had Iceland, then most convoys would have had to have been diverted South and the Allies would definitely have lost the Battle of the Atlantic.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc
06-01-2012, 11:17 AM
Across Europe under Nazi occupation, the communists were the most coherent force in the resistance and played a bigger role than any other group. After the war ended Greece and Italy would have "gone red" if it wasn't for Stalin's pact to leave them to the west, and intervention by the British and US.This assumes that the SU survives. I don't think that it would. Without the Allies to act as a regulator on the actions of the Reich, there may have been nothing to stop the use of chemical warfare on Soviet forces. The Germans had nerve gas (I think that Tabun and Sarin were German inventions).


The British elite in the main would have settled into a Vichy type government. Resistance to a right wing dictatorship logically in the main comes from the left.I don't think it would quite have been a Vichy government as the British were not considered to be like the French. There would have been a greater level of autonomy.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc
06-01-2012, 11:21 AM
With China under Japanese occupation could the Soviets have entered via China into the rest of Asia? The Soviets already had a run-in with the Japanese and would have been somewhat wary of taking them on again. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol ) And the Japanese could potentially have used some of their biological warfare research.


BTW Who would been our Quisling

Eoin O Duffy, Dev ?So many choices.

Regards...jmcc

TotalMayhem
06-01-2012, 11:46 AM
If they had lasted only 3 month longer, the Germans would have seen their cities reduced to radioactive rubble and not the Japanese... as it was planned right from the word "go" for the Manhattan Project.

jmcc
06-01-2012, 12:01 PM
If they had lasted only 3 month longer, the Germans would have seen their cities reduced to radioactive rubble and not the Japanese... as it was planned right from the word "go" for the Manhattan Project.There's some interesting stuff about U234 and a theory that some of the material ended up in the Manhattan Project. (One device was a Plutonium bomb and the other was a Uranium bomb.) It might have been the Germans who had hit first. After all, they had the delivery systems (in this counterfactual, there's a chance that Hitler's Amerika Rocket would have been deployed).

Regards...jmcc

TotalMayhem
06-01-2012, 12:41 PM
There's some interesting stuff about U234 and a theory that some of the material ended up in the Manhattan Project.

Yes, we have a discussion about that elsewhere around here.


After all, they had the delivery systems (in this counterfactual, there's a chance that Hitler's Amerika Rocket would have been deployed).

The missiles were lacking range, accuracy and payload. The only near-ready aircraft design for the Amerika Bomber was the Messerschmitt Me-264 which had the necessary range (at least one way) but it could only carry up to 3 tons (both Fat Man and Little Boy weighed well over 4 tons).

Baron von Biffo
06-01-2012, 12:56 PM
If they had lasted only 3 month longer, the Germans would have seen their cities reduced to radioactive rubble and not the Japanese... as it was planned right from the word "go" for the Manhattan Project.

I've argued on another thread that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were live tests of the atomic bombs that actually led to WWII being prolonged. I don't think that WASP America would have been happy with testing such weapons against white, Christian, European cities.

TotalMayhem
06-01-2012, 02:43 PM
I've argued on another thread that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were live tests of the atomic bombs that actually led to WWII being prolonged. I don't think that WASP America would have been happy with testing such weapons against white, Christian, European cities.

Nope, the original strategy, according to Paul Tibbets, was to drop two bombs simultaneously, one over Germany and one over Japan ("You couldn't drop it in one part of the world without dropping it in the other"). And Germany was clearly the main target as the Battle of the Bulge greatly increased the pressure to finish the bomb. As for the concerned WASPs, I think we can scratch this notion in the light of the air raid on Dresden which killed probably more people than the combined nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

LeMay acutally had already ordered the third available bomb to be delivered to Tinian, so much did he love his new toy... the poor fella must have been truly devasted by the Japanese surrender.

jmcc
06-01-2012, 10:30 PM
The missiles were lacking range, accuracy and payload. The only near-ready aircraft design for the Amerika Bomber was the Messerschmitt Me-264 which had the necessary range (at least one way) but it could only carry up to 3 tons (both Fat Man and Little Boy weighed well over 4 tons).This ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_%28rocket_family%29#A9.2FA10 ) was the Amerika Rocket (not the bomber). The possibility of a Germans using a dirty nuke on the US mainland would have been a possibility. The psychological effect of a German rocket hitting the US would have been immense even if the damage was minimal.

Regards...jmcc

C. Flower
06-01-2012, 10:45 PM
This assumes that the SU survives. I don't think that it would. Without the Allies to act as a regulator on the actions of the Reich, there may have been nothing to stop the use of chemical warfare on Soviet forces. The Germans had nerve gas (I think that Tabun and Sarin were German inventions).

I don't think it would quite have been a Vichy government as the British were not considered to be like the French. There would have been a greater level of autonomy.

Regards...jmcc

Well, no, I'm assuming that "Germany had won the war" which to me means had defeated the Soviet Union, not just the U.K. That would have meant colonialisation, rather than occupation, the Germans would have been spread so thin. They would have had to operate more in the way that the US does, through proxies.

The British working class was then a mass class, disciplined and cohesive from factory work, and some of them with military training. After WW2 they were the people who got the Welfare State - free medical care and education, by using their votes and organisations. I don't think it likely they would have knuckled down to live under a fascist government.

The Reich would have been living on borrowed time.

And of course, without the Marshall plan, and the inflow of US wealth, they would have been living on ruins.

antiestablishmentarian
06-01-2012, 11:00 PM
Well, no, I'm assuming that "Germany had won the war" which to me means had defeated the Soviet Union, not just the U.K. That would have meant colonialisation, rather than occupation, the Germans would have been spread so thin. They would have had to operate more in the way that the US does, through proxies.

The British working class was then a mass class, disciplined and cohesive from factory work, and some of them with military training. After WW2 they were the people who got the Welfare State - free medical care and education, by using their votes and organisations. I don't think it likely they would have knuckled down to live under a fascist government.

The Reich would have been living on borrowed time.

And of course, without the Marshall plan, and the inflow of US wealth, they would have been living on ruins.

The bombing damage to Germany was only done from 1943 onwards, and in reality any successful invasion would have happened by Spring 1941 at the latest, so there was little real possibility that a war, with the UK knocked out, against the USSR, would have resulted in large scale material damage to Germany. I think you over-estimate the possibilities for resistance as well, there was very little in the way of mass-resistance to the Germans and most of that only began once the tide turned in the Soviet's favour. The big question then is whether the USSR could have survived an assault from a Nazi Germany which was concentrating on one front- my feeling is the USSR could have survived such an assault but it would have taken far longer to repulse the Nazi attack.

One thing people here haven't mentioned yet is the Mediterranean theatre, which I find somewhat surprising. If the Nazi's had concentrated a fraction more of their resources on taking Malta, Egypt and the Suez canal, then it's hard to see how Britain could have survived. Churchill wrote in his memoirs that in his view the fall of Tobruk was Britain's most dangerous moment of the entire war.

As for the Japanese fighting the Soviets, they tried that trick at Khalkin Gol in 1939 and lost an entire army to Zhukov and the Far Eastern Army. They were happy to secure their flanks in Manchuria by signing a non-Aggression pact and then concentrating their empire building on southern Asia.

C. Flower
06-01-2012, 11:06 PM
Interesting, but off topic.

The thread asks us what would have happened after Germany had won the war, not to fight the war over again.

antiestablishmentarian
06-01-2012, 11:12 PM
Interesting, but off topic.

The thread asks us what would have happened after Germany had won the war, not to fight the war over again.To be fair I think this thread has been taken well off-topic already- such is the nature of 'what-if' threads.

TotalMayhem
06-01-2012, 11:40 PM
To be fair I think this thread has been taken well off-topic already- such is the nature of 'what-if' threads.

Indeed... threads like "the IRA could have killed the Queen", "the Germans could have won the war" or "the Afghans could have invaded Amerika" may be quite entertaining but couldn't be removed further from reality.

jmcc
07-01-2012, 01:21 AM
Well, no, I'm assuming that "Germany had won the war" which to me means had defeated the Soviet Union, not just the U.K. That would have meant colonialisation, rather than occupation, the Germans would have been spread so thin.But for the SU, defeat wouldn't just have meant colonisation, it would have meant eradication.


They would have had to operate more in the way that the US does, through proxies.Possibly. The 1960s/70s would have played out differently in Africa though.


The British working class was then a mass class, disciplined and cohesive from factory work, and some of them with military training. After WW2 they were the people who got the Welfare State - free medical care and education, by using their votes and organisations. I don't think it likely they would have knuckled down to live under a fascist government.Yes but with a greater autonomy, much of life in the defeated UK might have gone on as before.


The Reich would have been living on borrowed time.It would have collapsed eventually but the breakpoint would be the death of Hitler and the succession.


And of course, without the Marshall plan, and the inflow of US wealth, they would have been living on ruins.And the massive resources of a plundered Soviet Union and potentially cheap Middle East oil. There might have been a Cold War between the US and an expanded German Reich but this is moving along Robert Harris' Fatherland scenario.

Regards...jmcc

People Korps
07-01-2012, 02:12 AM
F Ucked

fluffybiscuits
07-01-2012, 02:12 AM
Indeed... threads like "the IRA could have killed the Queen", "the Germans could have won the war" or "the Afghans could have invaded Amerika" may be quite entertaining but couldn't be removed further from reality.

There is a whole genre of books on the issues , called Alternate History. Phillip Roth wrote an excellent book called the Plot Against America about Charles Lindberg becoming president of the US. Indeed the alternate history is an interesting topic but the issue is when the revisionists get their hands on it and we have nonsense !

jmcc
07-01-2012, 03:04 AM
Indeed the alternate history is an interesting topic but the issue is when the revisionists get their hands on it and we have nonsense !Most good alternate history starts out with small changes to the original history and examining the effects that these changes would make on how things played out. Sometimes events work out the same. But revisionism is not the same as alternate history. Most people see WW2 as a clear cut victory for the Allies over the Axis. The problem is that it was a very close run thing. The importance of codebreaking on the outcome was largely unknown until almost thirty years after the end of the war. The Allies made some massive errors (Market Garden/Arnhem etc) but the Germans did too. The Battle of the Bulge showed that the Germans were still an extremely dangerous enemy and had the bad weather kept up for a few days more, the outcome could have been different.

There were some studies done after WW2 that evaluated German soldiers and Allied soldiers and they found that the Germans were better trained and more effective. The other aspect is that in weaponry, the Germans were ahead of the Allies. They were rolling out assault rifles (the MP44) that actually formed the basis for a lot of modern weaponry. The MG42 machinegun was one of the most deadly and effective weapons and it was in widespread use. The British went into the war with the Lee-Enfield rifle as their main weapon. The Germans were using the MP40 which was ideal for urban combat. The German tanks, though partially unreliable, outclassed Allied tanks and the Sherman tanks were hardly a match as they were undergunned and underarmed in comparison. The Shermans had to rely on their speed to get out of danger. The first operational jet squadrons were also German and the Germans had also rolled out anti-aircraft missiles. This isn't revisionism. This is the very uncomfortable truth.

The Soviet Union paid in blood and territory but it really was fighting a 19th century (or WW1) war of attrition. Blood and territory are finite resources.

Regards...jmcc

Shaadi
07-01-2012, 12:18 PM
If Germany had invaded Britain, then would the US have invaded the Republic and established a base from which to fight on, or would it have abandoned the continent?

antiestablishmentarian
07-01-2012, 12:22 PM
If Germany had invaded Britain, then would the US have invaded the Republic and establish a base from which to fight on, or would it have abandoned the continent?

Who can tell? Probably not if it seemed the UK would be defeated.

TotalMayhem
07-01-2012, 12:34 PM
If Germany had invaded Britain, then would the US have invaded the Republic and established a base from which to fight on, or would it have abandoned the continent?

They invaded Iceland, a much safer bet since Iceland was a neutral country without a defence force.

(actually, it was the Brits but they needed their troops elsewhere, so Roosevelt helped them out and occupied the place with 4,000 troops and a couple of dreadnoughts, 6 month before the US officially entered WWII)

antiestablishmentarian
07-01-2012, 12:38 PM
They invaded Iceland, a much safer bet since Iceland was a neutral country without a defence force.

(actually, it was the Brits but they needed their troops elsewhere, so Roosevelt helped them out and occupied the place, 6 month before the US officially entered WWII)

That was after they won the Battle of Britain though, if an invasion had been undertaken it would have happened after the British lost the battle for air supremacy and if it had been attempted in 1940, the British would have had to fight alone, the US would have been unable to provide boots on the ground to help them. Meaning that the US probably would have left the Republic alone in the event of an invasion, though in that case the British might have been tempted to take over or to offer some concessions like reunification in return for Irish troops.

Shaadi
07-01-2012, 12:55 PM
Who can tell? Probably not if it seemed the UK would be defeated.I think they would have and the prize of a definite United Ireland as a consequence of it, might have meant that it would have occured without a shot being fired.

Think of what would have been facing us, once the Germans had subdued Britain what would they do with us? They might have co-operated with us to take out NI or else they would have invaded NI to finish their conquest of Britain.

We could have seen the bizarre situation of German troops in NI and a neutral ROI the other side of the border. Given the historical nature of our close relations with the US, the Germans wouldn't leave us free to be used as a base for the US to supply the British resistance, invasion and the installation of a vichy type regime would have been inevitable.

Given all that, Dev the pragmatist would have taken the decision to allow the US to fight the war from Ireland, hoping to save Ireland from Germany and establishing an united Ireland in the process.

antiestablishmentarian
07-01-2012, 01:05 PM
I think they would have and the prize of a definite United Ireland as a consequence of it, might have meant that it would have occured without a shot being fired.

Think of what would have been facing us, once the Germans had subdued Britain what would they do with us? They might have co-operated with us to take out NI or else they would have invaded NI to finish their conquest of Britain.

We could have seen the bizarre situation of German troops in NI and a neutral ROI the other side of the border. Given the historical nature of our close relations with the US, the Germans wouldn't leave us free to be used as a base for the US to supply the British resistance, invasion and the installation of a vichy type regime would have been inevitable.

Given all that, Dev the pragmatist would have taken the decision to allow the US to fight the war from Ireland, hoping to save Ireland from Germany and establishing an united Ireland in the process.

The Germans would have invaded the Republic without compunction- in documents found post-war in their archives, the economic exploitation of Great Britain and Ireland would have been undertaken from 6 administrative centres, with Dublin being one of them, ergo they would have invaded and put a puppet regime or a direct occupation in place. The only time when Germany had the chance to succeed at an invasion and occupation of the UK was autumn 1940, and if they had indeed invaded and subdued the UK, then Ireland would have been easy pickings and too far away for the US to intervene in, if indeed they had the stomach for a fight pre-Pearl Harbour. I think it far more likely that the US would have come to an understanding with the Nazis and left Europe to its fate.

TotalMayhem
07-01-2012, 01:07 PM
if an invasion had been undertaken it would have happened after the British lost the battle for air supremacy and if it had been attempted in 1940, the British would have had to fight alone, the US would have been unable to provide boots on the ground to help them.

Well, the US were not at war in 1940 and there was never a real danger for the Brits to loose the the battle for air supremacy. The notion of the heroic underdogs (the RAF) making a stand against a vastly superior force (the German Luftwaffe) has been rubbished by historians.

antiestablishmentarian
07-01-2012, 01:10 PM
Well, the US were not at war in 1940 and there was never a real danger for the Brits to loose the the battle for air supremacy. The notion of the heroic underdogs (the RAF) making a stand against a vastly superior force (the German Luftwaffe) has been rubbished by historians.

Oh I'm well aware of that, but to be honest it's hard to say what value this discussion has, because it's basically intellectual masturbation. Although it is true the RAF was under severe pressure until the Luftwaffe changed targets from the radar stations to the cities.

TotalMayhem
07-01-2012, 01:14 PM
The only time when Germany had the chance to succeed at an invasion and occupation of the UK was autumn 1940

No, there was never a chance to succeed at an invasion. The Royal Navy was by far the largest navy in the world and even if the Luftwaffe had managed to achieve air supremacy (see my previous post), their track record against naval fighting vessels was exceptionally poor. The Germans would have never gotten their landing crafts accross the Channel.

antiestablishmentarian
07-01-2012, 01:20 PM
No, there was never a chance to succeed at an invasion. The Royal Navy was by far the largest navy in the world and even if the Luftwaffe had managed to achieve air supremacy (see my previous post), their track record against naval fighting vessels was exceptionally poor. The Germans would have never gotten their landing crafts accross the Channel.
Have a read of the second paragraph of this (this) post- the only opportunity the Germans had was in Autumn 1940, and my belief is even if they had won air superiority, the troops they got across the Channel before the Royal Navy was engaged would have been grossly insufficient to the task of conquering the UK. Hitler's best strategy would have been to sit and wait, or hit the UK through attacking possessions in North Africa and the Mediterranean.

TotalMayhem
07-01-2012, 01:23 PM
Although it is true the RAF was under severe pressure until the Luftwaffe changed targets from the radar stations to the cities.

The English radar did help indeed but its importance is overhyped as they had other means of detection in place. Radio triangulation offered a greater accuracy at the time, and then there were the ominous sound mirrors:

http://i.imgur.com/y9MkY.jpg

Crude, but it worked. Rather boring stuff though, the all new radar technology made for much more exciting stories.

Shaadi
07-01-2012, 01:27 PM
The Germans would have invaded the Republic without compunction- in documents found post-war in their archives, the economic exploitation of Great Britain and Ireland would have been undertaken from 6 administrative centres, with Dublin being one of them, ergo they would have invaded and put a puppet regime or a direct occupation in place. The only time when Germany had the chance to succeed at an invasion and occupation of the UK was autumn 1940, and if they had indeed invaded and subdued the UK, then Ireland would have been easy pickings and too far away for the US to intervene in, if indeed they had the stomach for a fight pre-Pearl Harbour. I think it far more likely that the US would have come to an understanding with the Nazis and left Europe to its fate.I wouldn't for one minute subscribe to the sentimental notion that the US Govt cared about the fate of Ireland. What the US would have cared about, would have been a German Empire that would have been left to fight it out with the Soviets to establish a Eurasian Empire. A Soviet or German Empire from the Achill Islands all the way to the Pacific Ocean would have been too big a strategic loss in the battle for global domination to be contemplated by the US. They would have fought on for their own selfish interests, unless they could have been sure that a permanent stalemate would ensue on the eastern front.

fluffybiscuits
08-01-2012, 03:39 AM
I wouldn't for one minute subscribe to the sentimental notion that the US Govt cared about the fate of Ireland. What the US would have cared about, would have been a German Empire that would have been left to fight it out with the Soviets to establish a Eurasian Empire. A Soviet or German Empire from the Achill Islands all the way to the Pacific Ocean would have been too big a strategic loss in the battle for global domination to be contemplated by the US. They would have fought on for their own selfish interests, unless they could have been sure that a permanent stalemate would ensue on the eastern front.

Was the advantage of fighting the Soviets that even though they had the biggest army that the very idea of a huge empire from Achill to the Pacific would require them to spread themselves too thinly?

@Shaadi, would Dev have allowed the Americans to fight here? Well America would have been looking out for its own interests, would it have been in their interest to let the Germans be in Ireland, would it have been done as an appeasement?

Shaadi
08-01-2012, 12:24 PM
Was the advantage of fighting the Soviets that even though they had the biggest army that the very idea of a huge empire from Achill to the Pacific would require them to spread themselves too thinly?War is nearly always about resources or protecting alliances because of common interests. A Communist Europe wouldn't neccessarily have been unpopular with it's citizens. The Germans, Italians and Spanish had accepted facism, the British and French were exponents of the undemocratic practice of Imperialism just like most of the rest of the European powers. The promise of a utopian egalitarian system would have proven attractive to the European left, at a time when people were naive about what that entailed in Russia. Think of it, a giant union of communists states with access to the overseas assets of the European imperial powers. A system that would spare nothing and no one to pursue it's goals. The US would have been very foolish to cede all of Europe to it, if there remained a possibility of fighting on.


@Shaadi, would Dev have allowed the Americans to fight here? Well America would have been looking out for its own interests, would it have been in their interest to let the Germans be in Ireland, would it have been done as an appeasement?He would have two choices, agree to it on terms that were as advantagous to Ireland as possible, or watch them roll in and take over anyway on their terms. No choice at all really.

antiestablishmentarian
08-01-2012, 12:38 PM
[QUOTE]War is nearly always about resources or protecting alliances because of common interests. A Communist Europe wouldn't neccessarily have unpopular with it's citizens. The Germans, Italians and Spanish had accepted facism, the British and French were exponents of the undemocratic practice of Imperialism. The promise of a utopian egalitarian system would have proved attractive to the European left at a time when people were naive about what that entailed in Russia. Think of it, a giant union of communists states with access to the overseas assets of the European imperial powers. A system that would spare nothing and no one to pursue it's goals. The US would have been very foolish to cede all of Europe to it, if there remained a possibility of fighting on.
That presupposes that the defeat of France and a subsequent communist victory over the Nazis without an Allied invasion in the west would have seen the European colonies fall under the control of the Soviets and their allies. Many of the colonies might have remained under the control of British Imperial forces and been ruled as dominions or perhaps declared their independence. Also, in the event of winning such a war, the immediate priority would have been reconstruction, not asserting control in the colonies. Finally, the communists were strongly anti-imperialist in ideology and might perhaps have proceeded alot quicker with 'decolonisation' than the British and French did- after all, the French communists supported the FLN in the Algerian War of Independence. There's no reason to suppose they would have continued imperialist policies if they got into power.



He would have two choices, agree to it on terms that were as advantagous to Ireland as possible, or watch them roll in and take over anyway on their terms. No choice at all really.There's no reason to believe the US would have invaded Eire in the event of a Nazi attack on the UK in 1940. Isolationism was very popular and it only became politically feasible to openly enter the war (although the US had issued orders to the Navy to shoot on sight when encountering U-Boats). The US's key interests at the time were in Southern Asia and Latin America, where they were able to source all the raw materials they needed.

C. Flower
08-01-2012, 12:42 PM
Have a read of the second paragraph of this (this) post- the only opportunity the Germans had was in Autumn 1940, and my belief is even if they had won air superiority, the troops they got across the Channel before the Royal Navy was engaged would have been grossly insufficient to the task of conquering the UK. Hitler's best strategy would have been to sit and wait, or hit the UK through attacking possessions in North Africa and the Mediterranean.

Wasn't oil a big issue for the German forces ? i.e. not having any?

C. Flower
08-01-2012, 12:44 PM
I'm finding this thread very interesting. It gives an occasion to consider large scale geopolitics, and where Ireland fits in to this. This is not often discussed.

antiestablishmentarian
08-01-2012, 12:47 PM
Wasn't oil a big issue for the German forces ? i.e. not having any?

Not at that stage of the war- they were still being supplied from the Soviet fields under the trade agreement they signed as part of the Non-Aggression pact, they were supplied from the Ploesti oil fields in Romania as well and they produced synthetic fuel from coal in German factories (a sub-camp of Auschwitz, Monowitz, was set up to produce this synthetic fuel and synthetic rubber later in the war once bombing began to take its toll on the Rhineland. The fuel shortages came from 1941 onwards, when they lost the regular shipments from the USSR and were unable to win the Grozny fields in the Caucasus, and that was significantly worsened in June 1944 when the Ploesti fileds were obliterated in an Allied bombing raid.

TotalMayhem
08-01-2012, 12:56 PM
hit the UK through attacking possessions in North Africa and the Mediterranean.

He didn't get very far though, did he? Rommel's army was quickly wiped out and the Royal Navy certainly ruled the Mediterranean waves.

TotalMayhem
08-01-2012, 01:00 PM
Wasn't oil a big issue for the German forces ? i.e. not having any?

They had more than enough oil from Romania and synthetic oil manufacturing.

TotalMayhem
08-01-2012, 01:07 PM
they produced synthetic fuel from coal in German factories (a sub-camp of Auschwitz, Monowitz, was set up to produce this synthetic fuel and synthetic rubber

Morowitz was small fries compared to the massive plants in the Ruhrgebiet or the Leuna Werke.

antiestablishmentarian
08-01-2012, 01:12 PM
He didn't get very far though, did he? Rommel's army was quickly wiped out and the Royal Navy certainly ruled the Mediterranean waves.

That's because Rommel was starved of reinforcements. If Hitler had followed the advice of Raeder and committed more forces to the Mediterranean theatre, he could have knocked the UK out of the war without needing to invade. As it was, the Italians and Germans kept the Allies tied down there for the best part of two years.

TotalMayhem
08-01-2012, 01:34 PM
If Hitler had followed the advice of Raeder and committed more forces to the Mediterranean theatre, he could have knocked the UK out of the war without needing to invade. As it was, the Italians and Germans kept the Allies tied down there for the best part of two years.

I'm sure the good admiral had great plans how get his forces into the Mediterranean Sea. :D

FYI, they have managed to get a few dozen subs in there and not a single one ever made it's way back out.

antiestablishmentarian
08-01-2012, 01:41 PM
I'm sure the good admiral had great plans how get his forces into the Mediterranean Sea. :D

FYI, they have managed to get a few dozen subs in there and not a single one ever made it's way back out.


Raeder favored a strategic focus on the Mediterranean theater including a strong German presence in North Africa, plus an invasion of Malta and the Middle East. He believed that capturing Gibraltar, the Canary Islands and the Suez Canal would knock the United Kingdom out of the war. For instance, Raeder once told Hitler that a major offensive against Egypt and the Suez gave Germany a chance to strike a blow that "would be more deadly to the British Empire than the capture of London!" On several occasions, he suggested that Hitler send the vaunted tank commander Erwin Rommel to Egypt. Hitler finally relented in 1941, and then only to relieve the Italians.

This is what Raeder proposed- using the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe, in concert with the Italian navy, to gain control of the Mediterranean. Submarines were pretty superfluous to his strategy, which Hitler ignored for the most part, concentrating on the USSR.

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

C. Flower
08-01-2012, 01:45 PM
World War Two is over. The Germans won. What now ?

Would the US have come in to the UK with a Marshall Plan, to reconstruct Britain? Would the US have still backed an EU ?
I'm assuming that the USSR was also defeated.

Shaadi
08-01-2012, 01:46 PM
That presupposes that the defeat of France and a subsequent communist victory over the Nazis without an Allied invasion in the west would have seen the European colonies fall under the control of the Soviets and their allies. Many of the colonies might have remained under the control of British Imperial forces and been ruled as dominions or perhaps declared their independence. Also, in the event of winning such a war, the immediate priority would have been reconstruction, not asserting control in the colonies. Finally, the communists were strongly anti-imperialist in ideology and might perhaps have proceeded alot quicker with 'decolonisation' than the British and French did- after all, the French communists supported the FLN in the Algerian War of Independence. There's no reason to suppose they would have continued imperialist policies if they got into power. The communists were utopian in their ideology, a one world proletariat of the world unite ideology whose goal would have been to export it's political system to the colonies. Communism was about the battle against the evils of the capitalist system. They would have used the nationalist struggle for freedom to install semi-autonomus socialist puppet regimes that would have become client states of a Eurasian communist federation. The noble ideals of many communist individuals and organizations would have been swallowed up by the leadership of a Eurasian dominated communist federation corrupted by the natural human trait of hubris.


There's no reason to believe the US would have invaded Eire in the event of a Nazi attack on the UK in 1940. Isolationism was very popular and it only became politically feasible to openly enter the war (although the US had issued orders to the Navy to shoot on sight when encountering U-Boats). The US's key interests at the time were in Southern Asia and Latin America, where they were able to source all the raw materials they needed.The idea that democracy tells the real rulers of the US what to do is quaint, they do what they.think is in their interest and manipulate the supposedly democratic system to achieve their goals. Was the war with Japan not because of western attempts to contain the growing industrial giant of Japan by limiting it's access to raw materials? A Eurasian communist federation would have taken over those south asian assets that were in the hands of the European Imperial powers. It's hard to see how the majority of Asia could have been kept out of communist hands as they were ripe for the hijacking of nationalist demands by communist forces. They would have been nominally independent, but captured by a trading system and leadership that would have been dependant on their Eurasian masters.

C. Flower
08-01-2012, 01:53 PM
The communists were utopian in their ideology, a one world proletariat of the world unite ideology whose goal would have been to export it's political system to the colonies. Communism was about the battle against the evils of the capitalist system. They would have used the nationalist struggle for freedom to install semi-autonomus socialist puppet regimes that would have become client states of a Eurasian communist federation. The noble ideals of many communist individuals and organizations would have been swallowed up by the leadership of a Eurasian dominated communist federation corrupted by the natural human trait of hubris.

The idea that democracy tells the real rulers of the US what to do is quaint, they do what they.think is in their interest and manipulate the supposedly democratic system to achieve their goals. Was the war with Japan not because of western attempts to contain the growing industrial giant of Japan by limiting it's access to raw materials? A Eurasian communist federation would have taken over those south asian assets that were in the hands of the European Imperial powers. It's hard to see how the majority of Asia could have been kept out of communist hands as they were ripe for the hijacking of nationalist demands by communist forces. They would have been nominally independent, but captured by a trading system and leadership that would have been dependant on their Eurasian masters.

Was the probability under those circumstances that there would have been an early WW3 between the US and the communist bloc/s ?

Leaders tend to hubris, but that doesn't mean there is no difference between the various social systems. Some are broadly egalitarian and others are free market trickle down. In the past, we had hunter gatherer and feudal. The outcomes for the people were different.

Shaadi
08-01-2012, 02:10 PM
Was the probability under those circumstances that there would have been an early WW3 between the US and the communist bloc/s ?The Eurasian communist block would have no appetite for taking on the US at an early stage, but it would be hard to see how war whether by proxy or on a full scale could have been avoided.


Leaders tend to hubris, but that doesn't mean there is no difference between the various social systems. Some are broadly egalitarian and others are free market trickle down. In the past, we had hunter gatherer and feudal. The outcomes for the people were different.Who knows, this all counterfactual history but the one thing that is true is that power corrupts and how a Eurasian communist federation would have behaved towards the world and it's people is anyones guess.

antiestablishmentarian
08-01-2012, 02:11 PM
[QUOTE]The communists were utopian in their ideology, a one world proletariat of the world unite ideology whose goal would have been to export it's political system to the colonies. Communism was about the battle against the evils of the capitalist system. They would have used the nationalist struggle for freedom to install semi-autonomus socialist puppet regimes that would have become client states of a Eurasian communist federation. The noble ideals of many communist individuals and organizations would have been swallowed up by the leadership of a Eurasian dominated communist federation corrupted by the natural human trait of hubris. That ignores the fact that there was quite alot of divergence in the communist movement, and that many of the colonial socialists were very independent- the Vietnamese and their struggle to prevent themselves being dominated by the Chinese is one example of that, another is Yugoslavia and the Albania and the independent line both of those countries took without interference. The USSR had most of the raw materials such a 'bloc' needed within its own borders, and by the end of any such hypothetical war most of the former colonial powers would not have had the weaponry to impose its will on its colonies anymore, indeed the French colonies mostly operated independently and it's highly doubtful they would have accepted orders from a French communist government, as the Indochina War showed they hated and feared communism. Add to the mix the fact Europe would have been devastated and focused on rebuilding their shattered infrastructure, the hypothesis that there would have been a communist empire is pretty weak.


The idea that democracy tells the real rulers of the US what to do is quaint, they do what they.think is in their interest and manipulate the supposedly democratic system to achieve their goals. Was the war with Japan not because of western attempts to contain the growing industrial giant of Japan by limiting it's access to raw materials? A Eurasian communist federation would have taken over those south asian assets that were in the hands of the European Imperial powers. It's hard to see how the majority of Asia could have been kept out of communist hands as they were ripe for the hijacking of nationalist demands by communist forces. They would have been nominally independent, but captured by a trading system and leadership that would have been dependant on their Eurasian masters.


The US's key interests at the time were in Southern Asia and Latin America, where they were able to source all the raw materials they needed.

In Asian countries where self-professed socialist movements gained power or great strength, they were invariably indigenous popular movements (with the exception of the Koreans in the first years of the DPRK). Men like Ho Chi Minh, Mao and Sukarno were all independent thinkers and developed independent positions for themselves. They would not have been puppets of any federation and it's incorrect to suggest otherwise.

TotalMayhem
08-01-2012, 02:27 PM
This is what Raeder proposed- using the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe, in concert with the Italian navy, to gain control of the Mediterranean. Submarines were pretty superfluous to his strategy, which Hitler ignored for the most part, concentrating on the USSR.

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

They've tried hard for Malta and failed badly... and the Italian navy only existed on paper. As I said before, the Luftwaffe had very little success against naval fighting vessels.

And as for the glorified "tank commander" Rommel, his track record as a tank commander was mediocre, in fact, his first command with the Panzers (which he only received after much begging as a personal favour from the Fuehrer) was met with disbelief amongst experienced officers. Rommel couldn't hold a candle to Guderian, whose text books on tank warfare have been adopted by every army in the world after the war.

Shaadi
08-01-2012, 03:02 PM
That ignores the fact that there was quite alot of divergence in the communist movement, and that many of the colonial socialists were very independent- the Vietnamese and their struggle to prevent themselves being dominated by the Chinese is one example of that, another is Yugoslavia and the Albania and the independent line both of those countries took without interference. The USSR had most of the raw materials such a 'bloc' needed within its own borders, and by the end of any such hypothetical war most of the former colonial powers would not have had the weaponry to impose its will on its colonies anymore, indeed the French colonies mostly operated independently and it's highly doubtful they would have accepted orders from a French communist government, as the Indochina War showed they hated and feared communism. Add to the mix the fact Europe would have been devastated and focused on rebuilding their shattered infrastructure, the hypothesis that there would have been a communist empire is pretty weak.Yet we had the Iron Curtain descending on many countries who had not been under Soviet control before hand. Yugoslavia was a special case and Albania was too far away with no land border open to let the USSR get a slap at it to make it toe the line like it did to Czechoslovakia. Control can be exerted in different ways, we ourseves are trapped in a Union we don't believe in by economic ties. We're only nominally Independent. I do take your point about the unpredictability of the ex colonies and concede their distance from central power would have meant they would have been difficult to control. There are always collaborators and the US use of Dictators to control countries shows that it could be done.


In Asian countries where self-professed socialist movements gained power or great strength, they were invariably indigenous popular movements (with the exception of the Koreans in the first years of the DPRK). Men like Ho Chi Minh, Mao and Sukarno were all independent thinkers and developed independent positions for themselves. They would not have been puppets of any federation and it's incorrect to suggest otherwise.You have a fair point, I believe that the Vietnamese conflict was more about Nationalism than Communism. I'm trying to figure out how the Asian mindset differs from Eurasian and the Japanese who were isolationist for 1,000s of years and then became expansionist Imperialists.

antiestablishmentarian
09-01-2012, 01:17 AM
[QUOTE]Yet we had the Iron Curtain descending on many countries who had not been under Soviet control before hand. Yugoslavia was a special case and Albania was too far away with no land border open to let the USSR get a slap at it to make it toe the line like it did to Czechoslovakia. Control can be exerted in different ways, we ourseves are trapped in a Union we don't believe in by economic ties. We're only nominally Independent. I do take your point about the unpredictability of the ex colonies and concede their distance from central power would have meant they would have been difficult to control. There are always collaborators and the US use of Dictators to control countries shows that it could be done.
There is evidence that the Iron Curtain might have been rolled back if a different approach to European policy had been taken by Western Allies. Finland and Austria were both able to set themselves up as neutral states with the blessing of the USSR, and Stalin proposed the neutralisation and demilitarisation of a united Germany to the Allies in 1952.

Your hypothesis also ignores the fact that most of the former imperialist states would have been in no position to dictate terms to their colonies following installation of a revolutionary government. The French armed forces were destroyed, the Italians would have been too, and it is very unlikely that men like Darlan, who typified the French colons in Algeria and elsewhere, would have followed orders from Maurice Thorez and the PCF. The Russians would have also had far more on their plate than providing troops to France or some other country to enforce their colonial rule.

antiestablishmentarian
09-01-2012, 01:22 AM
[QUOTE][QUOTE]They've tried hard for Malta and failed badly... and the Italian navy only existed on paper.Which is why Malta was on the verge of capitulation by August 1942.
As I said before, the Luftwaffe had very little success against naval fighting vessels.They sunk a fair few destroyers at Dunkirk IIRC, and damaged many more.


And as for the glorified "tank commander" Rommel, his track record as a tank commander was mediocre, in fact, his first command with the Panzers (which he only received after much begging as a personal favour from the Fuehrer) was met with disbelief amongst experienced officers. Rommel couldn't hold a candle to Guderian, whose text books on tank warfare have been adopted by every army in the world after the war.The fact remains if he had more weapons and men he would have finished off the British in North Africa, regardless of the fact Guderian was a superior tank commander. North Africa was a sideshow to the Axis, Hitler concentrated the best and largest amount of his men and matériel against the USSR>

jmcc
09-01-2012, 01:41 AM
World War Two is over. The Germans won. What now ?

Would the US have come in to the UK with a Marshall Plan, to reconstruct Britain?The UK would remain within the German sphere of influence as would the rest of mainland Europe.


Would the US have still backed an EU ?The EU would be a greater Reich rather than a democratic union.


I'm assuming that the USSR was also defeated.This is the part that many of the Left have problems accepting: There would have been no USSR. It would have been eradicated and broken up. The people would, if they were not killed outright or put in concentration camps, have been worked to death. The best outcome would have been a fragmentation of some of the less accessible areas of the USSR into various territories controlled by a few warlords. The Nazis were playing for keeps.

One absolute wildcard would have been for the Germans to grant some level of autonomy to the more Western states of the USSR. That could have accelerated the demise of Stalin.

There would have been a new Cold War between what remained of the Allies (US, Australia) and the Germans. Communist China and North Korea may not have happed due to the destruction of the USSR. Ireland could have become the new Cuba in terms of this stand-off.

Regards...jmcc

Ah Well
09-01-2012, 02:21 AM
One to give ya a restless night .. (tho it will of course appeal to "some")

SS forces in nazi germany march,hitler&himler look - YouTube

antiestablishmentarian
09-01-2012, 06:01 AM
[QUOTE]This is the part that many of the Left have problems accepting: There would have been no USSR. It would have been eradicated and broken up. The people would, if they were not killed outright or put in concentration camps, have been worked to death. The best outcome would have been a fragmentation of some of the less accessible areas of the USSR into various territories controlled by a few warlords. The Nazis were playing for keeps.I think it likely the USSR would have continued to exist but would have been confined to the land east of the Urals. Heydrich's plan for the occupation and administration of the Occupied territories would have seen a large wall built along the Urals, with the use of slave labour, to keep the Bolsheviks out of the new German colonies.


One absolute wildcard would have been for the Germans to grant some level of autonomy to the more Western states of the USSR. That could have accelerated the demise of Stalin.That is a big 'what-if'. As it was the Nazis received support in Ukraine, the Baltic states, and among ethnic minorities in the southern part of the USSR. I'm unsure to what extent it would have brought Stalin down though, considering that his appeals to Great Russian nationalism played a large part in motivating resistance from the ethnic Russian population.


There would have been a new Cold War between what remained of the Allies (US, Australia) and the Germans. Communist China and North Korea may not have happed due to the destruction of the USSR. Ireland could have become the new Cuba in terms of this stand-off.People would be surprised to know how little aid Mao received from the USSR in coming to power. If we take it as a given that the US would have been involved in a war with the Japanese for control of south-eastern Asia, and that they would win that war, then it's likely that China would have been liberated from the Japanese too, as Chiang Kai-Shek was a US ally, and that the Chinese civil war would have continued as before. In that case, the Communists would have won, barring US intervention and use of nuclear weapons.

TotalMayhem
09-01-2012, 07:45 AM
I think it likely the USSR would have continued to exist but would have been confined to the land east of the Urals.

No way would the Germans have stopped at the Urals and the Japanese had probably mopped up the Bolsheviks from the East. The Siberian resources were far too precious to be left at the disposal of the Commies.

Sam Lord
09-01-2012, 11:45 AM
After the war ended Greece and Italy would have "gone red" if it wasn't for Stalin's pact to leave them to the west ....


That is an entirely absurd assertion. What was Stalin supposed to do in your opinion? Send in the Red Army?

C. Flower
09-01-2012, 12:21 PM
That is an entirely absurd assertion. What was Stalin supposed to do in your opinion? Send in the Red Army?

What do you think should have been done? Leave these places to struggle on their own against the US and UK ? The US rearmed Italy and the CIA and Vatican worked closely to keep the communists from winning elections, and you have written yourself about the military interference in Greece.

I should have mentioned this too -


The Communists did win in France, in 1945 they were the largest party and formed a government with the Popular Republican Movement and the French Section of the Workers International, in June 1946 they were the second largest party and again in government, November 1946 saw them come back as the largest party and still in government, it wasn't till 1951 that the French Communist party, which won the popular vote, was forced out of government.In the context of this thread, I've said that a German victory against the UK and Russia would have very likely been followed by communist led revolution - perhaps along the lines of Yugoslavia, right across Europe.

It was a very close run thing after WW2 whether or not capitalism would continue, with a massive swing to the left and very strong communist parties. The lack of support from the USSR for a revolution in western europe (with parties on USSR instructions tied down to parliamentarism and alliances with bourgeois parties), compared with the interference from the US and UK, may well have been critical.

Would the US have used nuclear bombs, if it had been faced with a Red Europe as well as the USSR ? I much doubt that it would have been politically possible for them.

The future of the USSR would certainly have been very different, if it had been able to operate as part of an economy of mutually supportive communist states, right across Europe.

Sam Lord
09-01-2012, 01:34 PM
What do you think should have been done?

It was actually you who sugested that Stalin had handed Italy and Greece to the West as part of some sort of pact. I asked what concrete action should have been taken by the Soviet Union, in your opinion, and you refuse to answer the question. :rolleyes:

TotalMayhem
09-01-2012, 01:38 PM
It was actually you who sugested that Stalin had handed Italy and Greece to the West as part of some sort of pact.

I think this is about Germany winning the war, no? In this case I don't think Stalin would have much of a say re the fate of Italy (Germany's closest ally, IIRC) or Greece.

Apjp
09-01-2012, 03:04 PM
Oh I'm well aware of that, but to be honest it's hard to say what value this discussion has, because it's basically intellectual masturbation. Although it is true the RAF was under severe pressure until the Luftwaffe changed targets from the radar stations to the cities.

hahaha. funniest post on this thread :D

fluffybiscuits
10-01-2012, 12:29 PM
The UK would remain within the German sphere of influence as would the rest of mainland Europe.

The EU would be a greater Reich rather than a democratic union.

This is the part that many of the Left have problems accepting: There would have been no USSR. It would have been eradicated and broken up. The people would, if they were not killed outright or put in concentration camps, have been worked to death. The best outcome would have been a fragmentation of some of the less accessible areas of the USSR into various territories controlled by a few warlords. The Nazis were playing for keeps.

One absolute wildcard would have been for the Germans to grant some level of autonomy to the more Western states of the USSR. That could have accelerated the demise of Stalin.

There would have been a new Cold War between what remained of the Allies (US, Australia) and the Germans. Communist China and North Korea may not have happed due to the destruction of the USSR. Ireland could have become the new Cuba in terms of this stand-off.

Regards...jmcc
I assume that China would have been under Japanese occuption at the time and therefore would become a protectorate of China. Ireland, would we have a pupper IRA govt as they were sympathetic to the Nazi's (the enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of attitude?)

TotalMayhem
10-01-2012, 12:50 PM
If Germany had "won" the war, I don't think it would have had much impact on Ireland.

In order to win the war, Germany needed peace with Britain. The offer was on the table, Hitler had quite a lot of sympathies for England, hence they were spared the humiliation at Dunkirk, if Liddell-Hart is to be believed, he offered even support to protect Britain's empire in return for Britain to acknowledge Germany's dominant position on the Continent. As it turned out, FDR was a far greater threat to the British Empire than Hitler. (Churchill: "Mr.President, I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the postwar world demonstrates it.")

Hitler's main objective was to overthrow the Bolshevik's... he couldn't care less for Ireland.