Seelöwe successful, so what?

[Wyragen-TXRG4P]

Putting aside technical, tactical and statistical considerations on the execution of the whole thing, since this discussion section is dedicated to After 1900 and not After 1938.

Exactly how usefull would the occupation be to the 3rd reich, in economical and military matters?



Is the occupation of ex-GB going to automatically win the coming war against the Soviet-Union? Is it really going to automatically ensure German domination of the european continent? Would it be a blessing or a curse disguised as one?


With Churchill or someone like-minded fleeing to Canada and military forces in the rest of the empire continue the fight, merchant fleet would most probably stop supplying the isles.
Thus, it would be up to the european axis to feed the population of the isles and to supply ressources for local factories to run (even more so if at least part of the local industrial capacity is meant to assist the european axis war effort), with its own merchant fleet and perhapse with some Vichy French and Italian assistance.

To Hitler and much of the high command for that matter, the war itself would be even more effectively over than historically. Demobilization that followed the battle of France would be even greater than historically, even more military/scientifical projects would be canceled. In short, the victory disease would be even greater.

Mussolini might very well still start a war with Greece and this time Hitler might well decide not to assist him in that matter, since TTL Greece and Albania cannot be used as a base to strike the Ploesti oilfields.
If Greeks forces smashes their way into Albania without Hitler lifting a finger, Mussolini might well decide participating in a coming campaign against the Soviet-Union isn´t really in his interest. Alternatively, Mussolini might decide to extend Italian influence to Egypt, Jordania, Palestine, Sudan to satisfy his imperial ambitions.
Such a move could be supported by Hitler, if it open the way to Iraqi and Iranian oilfields. Helas, it would require quiet a significant efforts from the Italians and the Soviet-union would be much closed to these oilfields than Germany or Italy...

Points in axis favour would be Spain and Portugal. Portugal have a small population and because of the civil war legacy, Spain cannot fully mobilise its manpower. Not just because of casualties during this conflict but because of all the left-wing sympathisers an army of draftees would have.

Historically, the UK receives 3.3 times more lend-lease than the Soviet-Union. With it being a German occupation zone, paranoia would be running high in the US, that would allow Roosevelt to send more lend-lease and the US governement would be far more carefull as to the quality of it. This increased lend-lease would be sent to only the Soviet-Union.
Supplying it would not be overly difficult, the US would have a strong military presence in Iceland and merchant fleet that historically kept Britain supplied would do so for the Soviet-Union instead. Hitler would be more keen to avoid war with this alt-US than historically, as it would be more militarised and more agressive.
With the the British threat definitively solved, Stalin himself would this time realise Hitler intend to turn east in 1941.

The issue of Japan, the Japanese might decide to move against colonial south-east asia some 5-10 months after the victory against GB and just as IOTL, decide that preventive strike is the way to go with the US.
The US economy is mobilised for total war much earlier than IOTL as a result.
If Japan doesn´t attack the US, the port of Vladivostock might be very active after Hitler start TTL-Barbarossa.



In short, the war would probably have been over earlier instead of later. Perhapse, 1939-1940 would be called WW2 and 1941-1943 would be called WW3?

What else?

[PaulPierce]

It wouldn't be very useful. The majority of the British flee to Canada, and continue the war. Hitler wastes time, troops, and momentum and thus Barbarossa is a larger failure than OTL.

Basically, Britain would not surrender.
Thus WW2 would continue with the Western Allies fighting Germany. No idea if the USA joins the same time or perhaps even earlier as they see the British fall back to Canada.

[Beedok]

Canada should get some more respect in the post war. Maybe keeping some of Britains fleet?
The empire would be in bad shape though. Also liberating Britain might take up enough troops that we see a fully soviet Germany or Austria.

[Eternity]

Assuming a successful invasion, then the airforce and fleet would evacuate to Canada thus giving Hitler no new ships or anything. Churchill would also evacuate, but I believe the King planned to remain in England if it was invaded.

Hitler would probably force the King to order a surrender, which Churchill would ignore.

The population of England would never accept an occupation. Everybody would be suspect of being a member of the resistance and plans were in place in 1940/1 for a resistance if an invasion occured. Small underground bunkers and supply centers were built all over the place.

All in all - It would secure Europe as England was used as an unsinkable aircraft carrier by the US during WWII, and invasion would be much harder as England was also used as the stepping stone for this. Any US/Empire invasion to re-take England would have to come from either the US or Iceland - or be via Europe (Southern France/Spain via the Med. initially).

I think it would be a hinderance to Hitler and Germany due to the quantity of supplies, food and troops that would have to be poured in, for questionable gains.

Of course, if Hitler managed to get a fairly large chunk of the Royal Navy by invading, it could be worth it. Given the fleet would never surrender - Even if ordered by the King (A mass scuttling or fleeing to the US to continue to fight would probably occur) this is unlikely.

Just my thoughts here.

[Beedok]

Maybe Portugual becomes the new landing point? Being neutral until near the end and then letting the Allies land en mass? Of course the Pyrennes will be a hindrance.

[The Red]

A large part of the British military ans establishment flees to Canada and Hitler has no chance of successfully pulling off Barbarossa by this point. Not only will the Soviets now be frantically arming themselves to the teeth but the Nazis will actually lack the means to pull it off in the first place now that they've lost so much equipment and are so over-extended.

In fact Stalin might have a fair chance of over running Germany in 1941 in these circumstances.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Wyragen-TXRG4P

With Churchill or someone like-minded fleeing to Canada and military forces in the rest of the empire continue the fight, merchant fleet would most probably stop supplying the isles.
Thus, it would be up to the european axis to feed the population of the isles and to supply ressources for local factories to run (even more so if at least part of the local industrial capacity is meant to assist the european axis war effort), with its own merchant fleet and perhapse with some Vichy French and Italian assistance.

If Churchil really does try to continue the war by starving his countrymen then someone is going to kill that fat basterd. Canada will welcome British refugees but that is all the British politicians will be. Canada will be an independent country. The war for them is over, trade with Britain and hence the Third Reich will resume. Hitler will have full access to Britains industrial capacity.

[Monty Burns]

One question is whether the British would surrender/accept an armistice or not. Churchill won't - but I'm not sure whether he'd stay in power if Britain is lost. I'd say the British flee and keep on fighting - although it'S not much left what they can do.

Invasion of Europe without Britain must go through the Med. So the next question is whether Spain and Portugal would join the Nazis, which seem truly invincible by now.

Nevertheless, all these considerations are fruitless. Hitler will start Barbarossa. And the Nazis will loose it. We might see American and British troops fighting in Russia, we'll likely see a massively extended lend-and-lease, we might see a Japan-first strategy. Ultimately, however, the Nazis will loose in Russia, and the Soviets will take over most of Europe.

Actually, I think the most likely outcome of this war is German troops in Western Europe desperately trying to surrender to the Western Allies and inviting them to come over the ocean just to avoid the Soviets.

[Stephen]

Churchill will not be talking Roosevelt into giving Russia lendlease without the hope that this will be weakening Germany for progress on the Western front there just wouldnt be any point in it. With no lend lease for the Russians and no distractions in the west for Germany plus full use of Britain and Europes industry the Russians are going to be pushed back to an armistice line somewhere near the Urals with all the survivors exhiled to this rump state.

[I Blame Communism]

The essential questions rising here are:

Would Britain surrender? To what extent? It was absolutely the government's intention to carry on (Eden talked to the army leadership about how many men could be evacuated to Canada in morale terms: the conclusion was the officers and most of the NCOs, the young, and the unmarried would go). There were plans in place to evacuate the naval and air assets, the government, and the gold, and to establish relations between a Canadian exile government and America.

I see no reason why the British armies in differant parts of the globe would be any more anxious to lay down arms than De Gaulle was. The population at home would certainly continue efforts at resistance and sabotage.

Would the dominions continue the war? I honestly don't know: I'd be swayed either way by a convincing thesis, especially if it came from a Canadian or an Ozzie, but I don't really see why not, except that some people are determined that the Axis always wins.

What happens in India? The Princely States "asserting their independence" is chuckleworthy: they were Britain's creatures. Nevertheless, why do the BIA have any less reason to fight than before?

Would Roosevelt suspend L-L for no reason whatever? ...No?

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

Would the dominions continue the war? I honestly don't know: I'd be swayed either way by a convincing thesis, especially if it came from a Canadian or an Ozzie, but I don't really see why not, except that some people are determined that the Axis always wins.

I'm not sure about the rest, but I do no that even before the US entered the war King was in negotiations for how to create a defensive alliance in case Britain fell. It seems like a good chunk of Canadians half expected it to happen and to have to fight on anyway. Not sure about the other Dominions though.

[Commissar]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

What happens in India? The Princely States "asserting their independence" is chuckleworthy: they were Britain's creatures. Nevertheless, why do the BIA have any less reason to fight than before?

Better question is who is going to enforce Britain's claims over India? The Biggest source of Imperial Power is gone. Do you honestly think India's people who for the most part did not want in on the war are going to support it?

Or are they going to say to themselves that the Yoke they existed under for so long is gone and it is time to take their destiny into their own hands.

[mrmandias]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

I see no reason why the British armies in differant parts of the globe would be any more anxious to lay down arms than De Gaulle was. ?

But how would they be supplied? L-L, maybe?

[Grey Wolf]

The British defeat will be in 2 stages, as there were contingencies for withdrawing government Northwards in the event of invasion. IIRC Churchill said he would stay and fight, whilst again IIRC the royal family would be evacuated regardless of their individual wishes. George V is needed to run an imperial government from out of Canada

British resistance will not cease with a ceasefire because those signing it will be viewed as not having legitimacy by the resisters. RAB Butler was one of those slated to go underground and continue to lead the resistance AFTER a defeat.

If we assume Mosley does some flip-flopping and tries to play a British Quisling he is not going to have the authority to command the fleet to stay, which would be one of the terms that the Germans would want.

Can the Wehrmacht subdue the Highlands? Probably, but it would be fertile ground for resistance, like how Serbia was.

Can the Germans take the Orkneys and Shetland? If not, the British will have the potential of forward bases, for submarines at least.

Any German concentration on making their time in Britain work would mean they would have to remain in alliance with the USSR and not invade there

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[I Blame Communism]

Grey Wolf raises excellent points. Scotland forever!

Originally Posted by Stephen

Churchill will not be talking Roosevelt into giving Russia lendlease without the hope that this will be weakening Germany for progress on the Western front there just wouldnt be any point in it.

So preventing the Nazis conquering Eurasia isn't a valid strategic concern?

Originally Posted by Stephen

With no lend lease for the Russians and no distractions in the west for Germany

Invading and occupying Britain is a pretty major distraction (), implying many losses and overstretch. After that, there's no reason for there to not be North African and Balkan campaigns.

Originally Posted by Stephen

plus full use of Britain and Europes industry

You know how France reverted to a pre-motorisation economy? Britain is like that, but more.

Originally Posted by Stephen

the Russians are going to be pushed back to an armistice line somewhere near the Urals with all the survivors exhiled to this rump state.

The technical term is "genocide".

Hurrah for the Axis!

[Ice-Titan]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Churchill will not be talking Roosevelt into giving Russia lendlease without the hope that this will be weakening Germany for progress on the Western front there just wouldnt be any point in it.

Who said it was Churchill’s idea to give lend-less to the Russians?
Who says the Russians even need lend-less? Stalin is going to be on his feet this time around, in OTL he though Hitler would not start a two front war.

With no lend lease for the Russians and no distractions in the west for Germany plus full use of Britain and Europes industry the Russians are going to be pushed back to an armistice line somewhere near the Urals with all the survivors exhiled to this rump state.

Tell me do you have any idea how far the Urals are; even from say Moscow? There is zero chance in hell of little Germany occupying that much territory, period.

Also just because Germany occupies Britain doesn’t mean they automatically gain Britain’s industry, life is not a video game; that is not how things work.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Ice-Titan

life is not a video game; that is not how things work.

Though civ leaves conquered states even less useful than real life.

I do see the Allies sending more supplies to Russia as instead of trying to distract the Germans to protect Britain they need to beet the Germans on that only front in order to regain Britain.