Europe 1940

>Europe 1940
>Hitler just defeated and occupied France, has occupied or allied all of mainland Europe
>airwar ongoing with the UK
>UK refuses peace
>great relations with the USSR, Germany gets all its raw materials and oil in trade from the Soviet Union

If Hitler decided to just "okay, that's enough" and called it a day, and decided to stop conquering, what would have happened? The war for all intents and purposes would have been over with Germany as the winner, whether Britian recognised it or not, right? If Hitler quit while he was ahead and consolidated his positions instead of trying to expand further, no north africa campaign, no operation barbarossa, how would things have gone?

Would he have economically struggled? Would Stalin eventually invade? Would Britain or America attempt any naval invasion of mainland Europe?

The war would have been for all intents and purposes over, with Hitler as the winner and dominator of Europe, right?

Other urls found in this thread:

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf
dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf
amazon.com/Path-Victory-Mediterranean-Theater-World/dp/0374529760
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Just because one faction stops fighting doesn't mean the other ones will. If he had stopped, the Russians would have kept coming either way.

>If Hitler quit while he was ahead and consolidated his positions instead of trying to expand further, no north africa campaign,

Well, for starters, there'd still need to be a North Africa campaign. The British were on the offensive originally there, and all the long term advantages in terms of harbor space, railroad capacity, ability to project troops there, etc. favor the British. Rommel's initial orders weren't to go conquer Egypt, it was to prevent imminent collapse of Italian forces in Cyrenica. If you don't attack the British, they'll attack you.

>Would he have economically struggled

Probably, but that's almost a given; the Nazi economy was very badly mismanaged.

>Would Stalin eventually invade?

Probably not, not unless it was looking like the Nazis were about to collapse on their own. Stalin was, first and foremost, a cautious opportunist. He liked his wars short, and against tiny, diplomatically isolated countries. He's not about to start a war against a power of near equal size and with quite a few advantages in their bag.

> Would Britain or America attempt any naval invasion of mainland Europe?


Not immediately, maybe not ever. Much more likely is that Britain would keep the war up on a low intensity level more or less forever. They have a larger economy, and an air doctrine that's far more effective for that sort of strategic bombing war than the German CAS doctrine. And the U.S. was getting more pro-Allied and anti-German by the month after France fell. Sooner or later, they'd pile in.

That being said, if there's no Eastern Front, you're probably not ever going to see an invasion of mainland Europe; too many German troops and too easy for them to reinforce wherever you landed.

Much more likely is an attempt to win the war by airpower alone, and doubling down on that, as well as overrunning of tertiary theaters like North Africa where it would be hard for the Axis to meaningfully project force.


1/2

Then, in 1945, you see the atom bomb. You probably wouldn't get full bomb production going until 1946, at which point Germany is in deep, deep shit.


>The war would have been for all intents and purposes over, with Hitler as the winner and dominator of Europe, right?

No. Because Hitler has broken too many bridges and is considered too politically unreliable to stop the war on anything short of a total victory over all. Unless he can bring a close to the UK at the least, he's probably going to lose eventually.

The war will take enormously longer than the WW2 we're familiar with, and will kill probably more people overall, but no, Germany doesn't win this scenario either.

And that's assuming there is no economic collapse, which is quite frankly unlikely.

The main goal of the Nazi ideology was always to destroy socialism which they viewed as the biggest threat. Defeating France was just the first goal that had be to conquered.

German military command learned from the 1st world war and even the 200-300 years of the Prussian state existing that fighting a two front war from the German homeland(no geographic obstacles such as mountains and seas) made them super vulnerable.

French just took the dick. Soviet Union and its destruction was always the goal. To assume otherwise is to ignore Nazi ideology.

Let's say peace happened in 1941. Military economy has a tendencey to struggle getting back to full civilizan oriented production. Hitler's rapid militarization also hurt German exports and its international competitiveness on non military goods.

US invasion of Normandy was basically irrelevant and was just a landgrap to prevent USSR from taking all of western Europe.

Stalin would not have invaded. He was even shocked USSR was invaded.

It didn't stop, it kept relatively low intensity until june 41, with the invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece being the primary focus.

The premise of 'no war with USSR' is very unlikely. First, due to what the other user commented about nazi ideology, and second because simply put, they could try it. The operations in Yugoslavia and Greece were a parade, the forces commited to support the italians in Lybia were little more than testimonial, and basically like 99% of the Wehrmacht was idle/garrisoning occupied territory after the Bslkans campaign ended. Britain was impotent and didn't pose any threat beyond some meme bombing. So, let's have a go against the Ruskis.

Problem with that is that you're cutting out your supply of resources by doing that. The other one is the Mediterranean, but since it's in british hands and you are essentially not commited to that theatre, you are now running red numbers in a lot of strategic war resources.

Second problem is the likely eventuality of an American intervention. Again, you are letting your flanks (the Mediterranean and Britain proper) exposed to an american take over first and massing of forces in preparation for an assault on continental europe later. So you're fucked.

The only it could work was if you knock out the Soviet Union quickly, which is what Hitler thought he could do because le slav inferiority, le communism incompetence, and le brilliant fuhrer, in spite of the entire OKH thinking the opening that front would be a mistake.

But assuming Hitler doesn't go full retard and stops targeting the USSR, the focus of the war should then have logically gone to the flanks, the Med and Britain proper, reformulating the military industry to provide for the needs of those theatres (i.e more fighters an larger, longer range bombers instead of mass producing le happy Tiger heavy tank, Elephant counter-tank, and all the etc of models), and attrition Britain in the air war while pressuring in the Med as well.

Would the U.S. really start a war with Germany if the Germans don't join up with Japan after Pearl Harbor?

Stalin would have zerg rushed them by 1942-1943. The Russians were preparing an invading force against the holy Europa.

This. He should have left Poland alone and STARTED by invading the Soviet Union.

Germany didn't even share a border with the USSR in 1939

Was't stalin's whole plan to let hitler conquer europe then come in and be greeted as a saviour and achieve his version of utopia? Can't remember my sources.

Not all at once. But the pre-war scenario was slipping towards war nonetheless.

First it was "Cash and carry", an ostensibly neutral arms trade setup that was actually totally in favor of the British because they could actually send cargo ships to the east coast.

Then you had Lend-Lease

Then you had Lend-Lease shipped on American cargo vessels, not British ones.

Then you had USN firing on submarines trying to stop the cargo vessels.

All of the above happened historically before Pearl Harbor. You also had the Americans seizing a couple of naval bases in neutral countries to facilitate said movements of goods.

It probably would have dragged onward for another year or two before the U.S. formally enters the war, but it was definitely trending in that direction.

What could Germany do to placate America?

Keep Britain out of the war. American-British bonds were always going to be tighter than American-German bonds, and America is naturally going to gravitate towards the UK's side in any conceivable WW2 permutation.

However, either defeating or mollifying Britain is going to be very tough to do. Doing so would probably require such enormous changes that we don't have a recognizable WW2 anymore.

How would Germany defeat the UK or get the U.S. to drop them like a hot potato?

Russian troops had been given booklets with questions like "Where is the nearest petrol station?" in german

>How would Germany defeat the UK or get the U.S. to drop them like a hot potato?

To be honest, I don't think either is within their capabilities.

It's from the Icebreaker, but it is not a book to be taken seriously.

you have to go through Poland to get to the USSR you mong

So if Germany just stayed on the mainland and defend against British air attacks, but did not send out uboats, and frequently asked the Soviet Union and America to help mediate peace between Germany and England America would just let England keep fighting?

drop the blockade and hope the British recognize his rule over Europe as a done thing and stop their naval and air raids and African shenanigans. Hitler never in thousand years would be able to amass the seapower to perform a hostile amphibious invasion of Britain against the British and American fleets; operation Sealion was a joke. But while he can't beat the baits, the only reason the Americans were persuaded to get involved beyond Lend Lease, cultural ties notwithstanding, is that the Germans were trying to starve the British out via blockade and U Boat attacks, which then drew in the American navy in as a de facto combatant, even before Pearl Harbor. No naval warfare with the Americans means they have no real cause to enter other than just helping Britain. The Brits would still be a major thorn in Germany's side via aerial bombing, but without the US they wouldn't have the strength or materiel for an invasion of Europe.

that's my read of it, although I think it would be a close call. Lots of people underestimate American isolationist feelings in those days and see it in retroapect as inevitable that the US should cross the ocean to get involved in European "world" wars, even if we do show up late and overestimate our contributions, but while American citizens were certainly dismayed at the regimes and tragedies in Europe the same way we're today dismayed at events in the Middle East, we, unlike the European powers we were economic and military peers with, were under no threat whatsoever of invasion. (Britain might have been safe from actual invasion but unlike the US still had to fear bombing and massive economic disruption)

I can understand not beating the U.S but why can't they invade the UK eventually? I mean if Germany keeps it's conquests before Barbarossa, they have Germany, Austria, half of Poland and France. Why can't they digest those lands make them loyal parts of the German empire and use the resources of most of europe to fuck the English decades or centuries later?

decades or centuries later, sure, but in centuries anything could happen, and I frankly don't see a pan-European empire holding together over the strain of nationalist revolts for more than a few decades. Just look at Napoleon's empire. The only way to remove that nationalist tinderbox would be an ethnic cleansing on a frankly laughably sci-first scale, something that would make the Holocaust look like a warmup.

While I've argued the US wouldn't have gotten involved otherwise, I think they certainly would have if Britain was in direct danger of invasion. Even if they didn't, however, it certainly would have been at least a decade or two before the Germans could have built German Europe into a seapower capable not only of a massive landing but of defeating the British fleet and keeping the sea lanes open to supply a massive invasion and occupation. I'm not sure you understand the sort of naval power that really needs. To put it in perspectre, I don't know if the USSR at its height in the cold war could have done such a feat, although they were never a true sea power.

>So if Germany just stayed on the mainland and defend against British air attacks, but did not send out uboats, and frequently asked the Soviet Union and America to help mediate peace between Germany and England America would just let England keep fighting?

No, very probably America would continue to help the UK and quite probably join in on the commonwealth's side eventually, albeit slower than if Germany did not go on their u-boat attacks.

Furthermore, the cessation of U-boat attacks allows for the redirection of a truly colossal amount of British resources away from convoy protection; in real life they needed to replace almost 15 million tons of shipping over hte course of the war, to say nothing of the amounts of new (usually smaller) fighting vessels and planes to protect them. Take that millstone off the CW's back, and you suddenly have a lot of industrial potential that can be utilized offensively.

Thirdly, it's just politically unfeasible to play total defense like that, even when offense is more a nuisance than an actually effective move; both the Germans and the British were engaged in attempts to bomb and attack the shipping of each other, despite the futility and high risk nature of such sorties, and showed no signs of stopping but for the opening of more lucrative fronts.

Gallup polls had been showing a clear trend in anti-German sentiment (very high) and even willingness to go to war (low, but steadily climbing)


>I can understand not beating the U.S but why can't they invade the UK eventually?

Because UK ship and plane building (as well as prersonnel training for both) outpaced all of the German sphere of influence, even with the conquest of Europe.

Decades or centuries down the line, they'll probably still be putting down revolts of the people they conquered. Especially because the Nazi system of reacting to such involved collective punishment, which tended to keep the cycle of revolt and suppression spinning

So is the only way to deal with England nuclear holocaust?

As I said upthread, defeating the English involves resources and techniques that are simply not within the capabilities of Nazi Germany.

You'd need to reset history from a long, long way off to even make it plausible. Probably to WW1 if not before. At that point, you don't have a recognizable WW2.

Grounding things more with what actually happened, the only way to "Deal" with England is not to expand so aggressively and raise the threat profile so high such that Britain is going to go to a total war economy to bring down Germany.

Or take the long view and deal with them in a few decades after building industry and economy up. I know its not practical but.

it's not only the ships they'd need to built but the development of a whole strategic and tactical mindset and sea-focused military conception that Germany had never really had. Such changes can be done, of course, as can be seen by the rise of the Japanese as a sea empire, but during their rise pretty WW2 the Japanese weren't actively fighting a hostile fleet.

I'm not trying to argue that the Kriegsmarine as it existed in WW2 was nothing, but just saying that for such an invasion to work, you can't have merely a navy that is capable and strong but a secondary part of your military, which the KM basically was. The only navy's I can think of that carried off similar invasions were the WW2 USA, and, to a lesser extent, the IJN. For the USA and the invasions of Normandy and Italy, though, the British had already taken care of much of the opposing fleet and Germany was distracted by the USSR. To an even greater extent for the IJN's invasion of Southeast Asia the British and Dutch fleets only partially present due to concerns in Europe.

And, as Japan in particular shows, the trouble is not only invading initially but keeping your over-water holdings supplied and reinforced while you have an enemy trying to prevent that. (And if there is one thing the Japanese and Nazis had in common, it was shit logistics ability). I will admit that unlike Japanese SEA, however, the British naval theater would at least have been largely within range of German land-based aircraft.

Real life isn't like some RTS where you can say "Well go for the turtle production strategy". Resource acquisition from conquered territory sans some sort of legitimacy on the local populace is not easy, especially when you have an active major enemy who can and will foment revolt in your said conquered territories. Economies develop (or don't) largely out of control of the political leaders who are starting or stopping wars.


Then there's the fact that the combined UK+Empire economy was massively larger than the German economy, and even her territorial acquisitions did little to solve her problems.

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf

There is little reason to suppose that the UK also can't continue developing and industrializing their possessions, and if the U.S. is helping, even just on the level of economic aid, the task gets even harder.

It's extremely impractical.

It is not an rts because of politics, but the actions of Germany turtling up and developing is not against the laws of physics it could hypothetically be done, it might not happen because of human nature but it's possible.

The RTS derisive comparison was solely in the sense that the Nazi regime turtling up could have accelerated their industrial development. Sure they could have ceased offensive operations, but it wouldn't have gotten them much.

I'm still more interested in what Stalin's reaction to all this would be. user up thread said he was a cautious opportunist who wouldn't have imaged Germany/Europe if Hitler hadn't invaded him first, but I've always heard the M-R treaty was just a temporary act of mutual convenience, given the Nazis' view of communism, and that one was going to invade the other sooner or later. What do you a anons thibk?

I do see Hitler and the Nazis as having more of a direct hatred for the USSR, while it was more just a fear of that hate in the USSR, which makes me less likely to believe they'd invade preemptively. Even with the more "aggressive" ideology of Lebensraum vs "socialism in one country" (can't call it National Socialism, lol), though, I could totally see Nazis a few years down the line with no war with the USSR having been launched rationalizing away a detente, if not actually friendly relations, with the same logic we use for making dealing with Islamist countries acceptable today. Maybe a cold war of some kind? The problem with an actual cold war situation between the two powers, though, is the massive (really larger than either) Anglo-American third power ready to provide an opportunity for the cold war to go hot and for the USSR to join in against the Reich, much as happened in actual history.

The Germans should have done everything in their power to seize Malta and punch through to Egypt, Suez, link up with the pro-German Iraqis, seize the lightly-defended oil in the Middle East.

Then they would have been in a very good position to force peace on Britain, and threaten the Soviets from the south as well as the west (and an independent supply of oil)

In the scenario, with Egypt taken and the light British forces in Palestine and Iraq swept aside, the Arabs mostly friendly to Germany, war with the USSR becomes quite possible because the main oil infrastructure in the Persian Gulf was in southern Iran. Iran had a sizeable pro-German faction in the government.

It also becomes quite possible that Turkey and Spain would have to drop their neutrality, seeing no powers around to balance against Germany, with the Mediterranean a German/Italian lake. This would bring a new ally into the fray against the USSR (Turkey) and take Gibraltar out of the picture.

You are so wrong it hurts.

>The Germans should have done everything in their power to seize Malta

Malta's effect on the supply situation was less than the simple distance and desert terrain. Seizure of Malta would not have led to decisive victory in North Africa.

dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf

> Egypt, Suez,

Probably won't fall even if you do get Malta.

>link up with the pro-German Iraqis,

Who have already been crushed if you're doing this by the time of Operation Herkules.

>seize the lightly-defended oil in the Middle East.

Yes, 350,000 troops is "lightly" defended, that's a hell of a lot more than were in North Africa proper. Not to mention that there wasn't even taht much oil being drilled in the 1940s.

>Then they would have been in a very good position to force peace on Britain,

Not really, no.

>and threaten the Soviets from the south as well as the west (and an independent supply of oil)


Again, no, because the Soviets have, by this point, dug in at the Zagros Mountains during the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, placing literally hundreds of miles of mountainous terrain between you and da oils.


If you're wanking this much, why not just insist that the 1 division or so they could have landed in Sealion could conquer all of England and save you all the trouble?

>German logistics being able to supply anything in Iraq

Russia would had attacked eventually and probably win the war.

If Germany is going big in the Mediterranean rather than going for Sealion or Barbarossa they would have been able to dedicate the resources that they needed to beat the British in Egypt. The Afrika Korps nearly did it, and they were just a sideshow of the German war effort. If North Africa had been made priority #1 they definitely could have punched through and taken Cairo

>If Germany is going big in the Mediterranean rather than going for Sealion or Barbarossa they would have been able to dedicate the resources that they needed to beat the British in Egypt.


No, they would not have, because they have no means of actually transporting said resources over the Libyan desert.

Which is, of course, why the mission to North Africa was always defensive in nature, until Rommel got his hands on things.

>. The Afrika Korps nearly did it,

No, they did not. Not even close. They beat up a few isolated brigades in Sonnenblume, then got stuck at Tobruk for half a year, got their asses royally kicked at Crusader, and then rolled forward again the next year to try again, this time getting crushed at El Alamein when surprise, the British railroad system meant they could actually mass their troops instead of dribbling them in.

>If North Africa had been made priority #1 they definitely could have punched through and taken Cairo

No, they could not have, because prioritization doesn't build railroads out of nothing, nor does it lessen the difficulties of hauling troops and supplies over the desert, nor does it end the enormous advantage the RN had over the Regia Maria.

Read this book. amazon.com/Path-Victory-Mediterranean-Theater-World/dp/0374529760

It's very simply written, and it busts pretty much all of the nonsense that you've been spouting.

He tried to, churchill didnt want peace.