I don't think Britain could be knocked out permentley after the Dow, though Halifax or Chaimberlain could negotiate a ceasefire to buy time. There is a possibility to keep Britain and France out of the war altogether though. After the Von Ribbintrop Moletov pact is signed Hittler does what Stalin did in real life. Sit back and let the other dammed fool attack first, then go in as a liberator. Britain and France would be faced with an interesting dilemma then, what to do? Abbandon Poland altogether or join Hittler and the Nazi's in defending Europe from the Bolshivik hoards?
plausible ways of getting Great britian out of WW2?
- Thread starter Saladan
- Start date
The capture of Malta does little to hurt the British but it does a lot to help the Axis and make their supply line more secure. If the Axis doesn't invade Russia, not only will they have far more troops available for North Africa (far too many to send, in fact), but they'll also have a lot of resources free to enlarge their ports and expand roads. If they can use all the available planes to regain air superiority, it will prevent British bombers from interfering with the logistical improvements too much. Going to be a hard fought campaign but not a guaranteed defeat for Germany and Italy - or for the British, either.
There were also fewer defenders and it would be easier to support the attackers with air/naval bombardment.
What about building up a stockpile of supplies before the decisive offensive?
What about developping someting like the mullberry to expand the harbour capacity?
What about airdropping supplies from Italy/Crete?
Actually, what about taking Egypt with an amphibious invasion? I know it sounds risky, but if the Axis are fully comitted to winning in North Africa, they could concentrate enough air assets to cover such an invasion.
1. It is possible only if your inflow of supplies in the theater is greater than needed. Axis most of the time ran deficit, only sometimes barely covering all of the needs of their forces in Africa.
2. Seriously? Mullberry without TOTAL naval and air supremacy? No way. Aside from the fact that Allies developed Mullberry for specific usage only.
3. Airplanes have too limited a capacity. They are suitable for some things. But how to deliver tanks and most of all oil? I have a feeling that airplanes would spend more oil in flight than what they would deliver. As for Crete you run additional problem. How do said supplies get there?
4. The problem here is not only assets. It is the lack of experience and training. Besides German only experience of 'amphibious' operation in Med is Crete. And it was not good.
Um, no, bombardement would be very limited once the troops were assure, I mean the only ships getting closer than km to the troops on D-Day were the destroyers, and they had a direct line-of-sight.
Because the British will be doing it as well.
Could be done I suppose, but they're far from a permanent solution.
Because aircraft are thirsty, have a limited carrying capacity, and are very vulnerable to ground fire.
They don't have any landing craft, and would have to contend with the Mediterranean Squadron, which would require pulling ships in from the Atlantic/Baltic, which would get noticed by the British, and responded to.
How about this: Dunkirk evacuation mostly doesn't come off. Maybe at the most crucial point there is a truly nasty storm in the channel like the one that hit about two weeks after the D-day landings. As a result, the fall of France is seen as a British defeat as well as a French one. With the reduction of British prestige:
(1) Indian Nationalism boils over/turns violent. There were Indian Nationalists that advocated violence. They come to the fore. Indian troops become unreliable.
(2) The original Shah of Iran says: "Time to renegotiate those oil concessions that give you the bulk of the profits."
(3) Turkey decides that they want a slice of northern Iraq that has a lot of Turks in it.
(4) Spain demands that Britain remove all ships from Gibraltar and refrain from firing on ships passing through the chokepoint there--or Spain will allow German troops passage to take Gibraltar.
Essentially, the 'gummed to death by minnows' approach. Stack all of those little powers together and then add in a more aggressive Japan.
(1) Indian Nationalism boils over/turns violent. There were Indian Nationalists that advocated violence. They come to the fore. Indian troops become unreliable.
(2) The original Shah of Iran says: "Time to renegotiate those oil concessions that give you the bulk of the profits."
(3) Turkey decides that they want a slice of northern Iraq that has a lot of Turks in it.
(4) Spain demands that Britain remove all ships from Gibraltar and refrain from firing on ships passing through the chokepoint there--or Spain will allow German troops passage to take Gibraltar.
Essentially, the 'gummed to death by minnows' approach. Stack all of those little powers together and then add in a more aggressive Japan.
About British forces in Egypt:
I would think that in case of a "Britain First" strategy the Luftwaffe (having no other comittments) could at least chase away the British Med squadron, which could then allow the deployment of mullberrys and other stuff.
Also I would think that the U-Boats could at least interdict the supply line to Egypt, if they had no other comittments (like trying to stop the arctic convoys, etc...)
I would think that in case of a "Britain First" strategy the Luftwaffe (having no other comittments) could at least chase away the British Med squadron, which could then allow the deployment of mullberrys and other stuff.
Also I would think that the U-Boats could at least interdict the supply line to Egypt, if they had no other comittments (like trying to stop the arctic convoys, etc...)
Egypt has supplies from the Red Sea too, that U-boats in the Med couldn't touch.
India occupied (as in kept busy) as many active British troops as it contributed to the war.
Britain has logistical advantages fighting in the Iberian Peninsula that make Fascist Spain glad they are neutral. Too much coastline to defend. No Spanish navy left to speak of. War exhaustion.
India occupied (as in kept busy) as many active British troops as it contributed to the war.
Britain has logistical advantages fighting in the Iberian Peninsula that make Fascist Spain glad they are neutral. Too much coastline to defend. No Spanish navy left to speak of. War exhaustion.
Last edited:
Destruction of the BEF at Dunkirk, the shock of losing that many men, and then a failed second dunkirk could start the process. After that the continued bombing and destruction of airfields, and factories, along with a more audacious U-Boat offensive could force something out of that. Have Chamberlain beat Churchill, by blaming him for Norway and the Dunkirk fiasco's, and then you might be able to achieve a peace of sorts. The Conference would be interesting. I imagine Elsass-Lothringen going back to Germany, along with Danzig corridor and Posen...
King Thomas
Banned
A defeat is ASB, but have Halifax come to power and be scared into coming to terms with Hitler and dropping out of the war.
if the first BEF is captured there won't be a second BEF.
Yeah, like the death of the Luftwaffe. If you don't beleive me, take a look at the statisitics, Germany was replacing their pilots and aircraft slower than Britain.
Churchill became PM the day Germany invaded Belgium, and less than 2 1/2 weeks before the OTL evacuation of Dunkirk so no blame can be attached to him over that, it all falls onto Chamberlain.
Last edited:
I shall remind you also that Germany in 1940,even in 1941 was not in a war footing yet;even under those conditions,the Luftwaffe NEED NOT have fought the RAF over England(Actually,European military staff are still puzzled by that
unecessary action!) If Goring had elementary operational knowledge he would have turned the Luftwaffe to achieve air-superiority over the channel and the
RN(look at Operation Mercury).The Royal Navy would have to leave the Channel,stay in port or get destroyed(later it wouldn't be possible to even stay in the ports...) the RAF would have to fight the Germans on equal terms over the channel and the destruction of the RAF would have been unavoidable.Under those conditions,and on balance of probabilities the invasion would have taken place
at the same time and as a result the RAF would have had the impossible mission to destroy the Luftwaffe over the Channel.
That is a very interesting point,one would have been curious to see such a development.
Max Hastings actually commented that the best way for Hitler to knock Britain out of the war in 1940 would to have completely ignored mainland Britain and instead gone after them in the Med. This would have involved seizing Malta, maybe allying with Franco to get Gibraltar and of course sending an expedtionary force to Libya to get the British out of Egypt and the Near East. That way Churchill would not have been able to rally support through the Battle of Britain and he may have been kicked out of office if Britain had suffered a series of reversals in the south in late 1940.
Britain would not have surrendered, but it probably would have been to happy accept quite harsh conditions in exchange for peace at that point.
Britain would not have surrendered, but it probably would have been to happy accept quite harsh conditions in exchange for peace at that point.
Maybe, but doing so ignores prevalent thinking of the day. It is easy to look back and say Germans should have done this or that.
In July 1940, Germany defeated France in heartbeat. Campaign in France left bulk of German army exhausted and in dire need to recuperate and absorb replacements. Britain has shown no intention to abandon war, but it looked like they needed one last hard nudge and they would roll over and die too. Any plan of campaign in the Med involves time period longer than (at best and most optimistic estimate) a year. And Luftwaffe, commanded by second most prominent individual in Germany at that moment, claims that they will be able to knock Britain out in fortnight.
By that point, Luftwaffe record was of unmitigated success unless we count Dunkirk, but it was perceived as an insignificant blot, easily attributed not to any flows within the force, but objective circumstances and tactical situation. After all, British did escape only with their naked lives.
Besides, bombing Britain nets better result than attacking widely dispersed British colonial interests, of which those easy to reach are of little or no significance to British war effort (manpower, production or resources wise). Bombing Britain and destroying or neutralizing it as an enemy base of operation virtually guarantees safety of Western Europe, while conquering Egypt is at best a blow to enemy moral and nothing more.
The Germans won at Crete due to an absolute superiority in air,adequate troops from the air and the Italian landings at the bay of Mirabellou in the second phase.Crete was better defended than Malta.
Malta was a much easier target due to its proximity to Italy and so long as Luftwaffe was pounding it.
The Germans would have had greater "punch" with more mechanised and armour units,so Tobruk would fall in the first attempt in 41,without the 8th army in its 42' strength to face in the final leg.