Reich-5: Battle of Britain question

[cptbutton]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

For bonus points:

4) The French Navy gets handed over to the Germans instead of sunk?

[Tomsdad]

I think you going to have to go back to an early point of departure.

The problem Germany has is that it is resource starved and is operating on a shoestring budget* and blitzkrieg is a resource intensive way to fight. So extra subs or extra landing craft means less of something else (and if that's less army than you may have no French 'miracle' to trap the BEF with or to leave you in position to invade Britain). If it's more planes then it's not more subs etc, same for the surface fleet.

The reality is when the BEF faces the German army that's Britain's weakest military force facing Germany's strongest/best. Invading Britain requires beating the Britian's navy and airforce.

Britain's navy is ridiculously stronger than Germany's, and the RAF is soon out producing the LW (and has home field advantage, as well as radar etc). For instance the LW can only target southern English airfields, now the RAF never abandoned those since it needed them to better interdict the city bombing raids. But if there's no city bombing raids then they can operate out of the midlands and fight the LW over southern England.

Similarly the LW isn't going to beat the RN without significant changes in it's capabilities, e.g training to hit ships, and more torpedoes planes! But again if it's spending resources to do that then it's less fighters so the RAF has an easier job winning the BoB, and then shooting down torpedo planes as they try and sink the RN. The LW didn't do a great job at sinking the RN destroyers when they parked or slowly manoeuvring in tight quarters at Dunkirk.

Moving more of RAF into France with the BEF might work but the UK was produced more planes in 1940 than it did in 1939, and more again in 1941 then it did in 1940. So there's only so many to lose at the battle of France. And just like the BEF is a small expeditionary force it's unlikely that a proportionally greater equivalent of the RAF will go. It was also getting pilots etc from Canada and elsewhere.


As pointed out unrestricted sub warfare isn't going to starve Britain (and if they go unrestricted they're only going to **** more people off), and in 1940 and much of 1941 Britain was buying it's food in with currency reserves so the US would have to not just not do lend lease but refuse to sell.

I think politically is the way to go, with Britain suing for peace. But you still have problem with that. It's not going to be an unconditional peace** as Britain hasn't lost and Germany has no real way to defeat Britain or enforce de-militarisation or transfer of territory. But since Britain has no way to get onto Europe, it's really just a stalemate. But ultimately Germany in 1940-41 is still locked in Europe, the British Empire is 25% of the world population etc. Now mobilising all that whether it's men or economics will have it's own knock on effects (large chunks of it are going to most certainly want something in return).

All of which isn't much fun for Reich triumphant timeline of course so forget all that, but the reality is the deck is stacked against Germany here, even just vs. Britain in this scenario, but even more so overall.

So I'd go no Churchill, Stalin thinking those cars are coming to take him away rather than ask him what to do shoots himself***, Germany goes earlier and gets really lucky with the weather in 1941. Leningrad falls. Japan somehow doesn't **** off the US enough to unify over involvement and bring them in until it can beat the US navy completely and somehow keep them bottled up. Germany manages to really integrate conquered economies into war production (helped by stuff like the UK doesn't sink the French fleet in '40), and funds a Nuclear programme. Of course if the US does go full fascist quickly and economically cleanly then that's the game.

Reading the chapter again how does Germany invade Canada in '45 ?!





*In terms of launching a quick succession of attacks on several countries! It's not just raw GDP but how you mobilise it. (although the Axis never has the advantage there even in just abstract GDP). Despite the façade of German efficiency, their economic mobilisation and resource management was famously "not great". Found a good piece on it touching on some of the major factors

**Unless Pacifist & isolationist also means stupid, Germany has lost all pretence of righting the injustices of Versailles at this point. Even if there's not open declaration of war there will be opposition. Especially when Germany handily invade the USSR. An ideal solution for isolationist US and pacifist UK (or a UK that can't do anything about the Germany in Europe) is an ongoing conflict between Germany and the USSR with the Soviets getting just enough aid to keep them going but ultimately both exhausting the other. The problem is for Germany is that they can't do a long war, and well the Soviets are better suited at that. Also the problem with the isolationist US is what happens when Japan starts messing with US interests in the Pacific even if the Fascist party is stronger in the US? (Still maybe at that point it's a Fascist US beats Japan, and US and Germany divides up the world)

***not that I think Stalin is single handedly responsible for the USSR war effort or anything, but a loss of leadership and subsequent dealing with that at that point is really not what the Soviets need at that point!

[Michael Cule]

One variation you might throw in is Watson-Watt not creating RDF for whatever reason. The Chain Home and Chain Home Low stations were massive force multipliers for the RAF and without them the prospect of the Luftwaffe gaining air superiority is a lot more likely.

Perhaps that manages to allow them to neutralise the Home Fleet and if you're going to have a successful Sea Lion that is absolutely necessary.

And without Sea Lion you don't get a German occupation and without a German occupation you don't get Edward VIII put in place as monarch.

Thinking about that though I could perhaps see a dominant Germany forcing the British to install him as Regent for his niece Elizabeth if her father died young. And we have had 'wicked uncles' who stepped up from Lord Protector and Regent to take the throne for themselves before.

[mlangsdorf]

Originally Posted by cptbutton

4) The French Navy gets handed over to the Germans instead of sunk?

Events in 1942 can't influence a surrender in 1940 =)

[mlangsdorf]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

Historically, Britain and America both started re-arming around 1937-1938, which meant their war production was just becoming available by 1941 or so. Slightly more adroit German diplomacy, or another economic downtown, might have delayed rearmament another two years and might have resulted in a smaller rearmament program. Hypothetically, Britain could have gone into the war in France with half as many Hurricanes and with the factories still gearing up to produce Spitfires. The Chain Home radar stations may not have been built either, or as fully.

Reading up on this a bit more, the big pushes for British rearmament were the 1931 Manchurian Incident and the failure of the 1932-4 World Disarmament Conference. If Tokyo had managed to keep a tighter rein on the Manchurian Army HQ - hard but not impossible - and Hitler had been a bit more cunning about the value of acceding to treaties that you don't intend to keep, the initial impetus for rearmament could have been delayed a couple of years.

I agree with the other posters that Britain's inherit advantages in 1940 meant that a prepared Britain was unlikely to surrender. A feckless Britain that is still preparing is a different story, so I think Reich-5's point of departure needs to start earlier so that America and Britain are less prepared.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by nothri

T. Also, the timeline from Alternate Earths states "1940- Fall of France and Britain to Germany; Edward VIII made Protector of German-occupied Britain after King George V “commits suicide.” " .

This timeline is off by more than a few years. In our timeline by 1938 you see the transition from Edward VIII to Duke of Windsor and the coronation of George VI (the current Queen's father).

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

A third alternative is that the US becomes far more Isolationist and/or pro-Nazi, making it clear - even to Churchill - that the US was never going to enter the war on the side of the Allies. Historically, from 1940 until Pearl Harbor, Churchill's grand strategy was "hang on until America enters the war." He knew that Roosevelt was a willing ally but had to manage extreme Isolationist/pro-Nazi sentiment by conservative Republicans and other reactionary elements of American society. So, taking out Roosevelt and/or making the political calculus for an Anglo-American alliance impossible is another option.

Well, the official PoD for Reich-5 is that Giuseppe Zangara kills President-elect Roosevelt in 1933.

[cptbutton]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

Events in 1942 can't influence a surrender in 1940 =)

Oops

touche

[cptbutton]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Japan somehow doesn't **** off the US enough to unify over involvement and bring them in until it can beat the US navy completely and somehow keep them bottled up.

My idea for this, is to add the obligatory zeppelins. The Japanese Navy develops very high altitude long range reconnaissance zeppelins in great secrecy, given them an enormous advantage until the US can invent their own VHALRZs and effective weapons for attacking them.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Reading the chapter again how does Germany invade Canada in '45 ?!

Maybe the Germans somehow manage to get some or all of the British Navy to support them by then?

And the US Navy is destroyed or off in the Pacific.

[cptbutton]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Reading the chapter again how does Germany invade Canada in '45 ?!

Originally Posted by cptbutton

Maybe the Germans somehow manage to get some or all of the British Navy to support them by then?

And the US Navy is destroyed or off in the Pacific.

On the really logistically implausible front, maybe they invade through Japanese held Alaska?

Yeah getting troops and supplies across the defeated USSR and on to ships, etc...