[vNZsk39B]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

But that doesnt give them command of the Med yet. They still need to win the war in Egypt and THEN push the UK out of Syria/Palestine.
It's worth remembering that just in terms of manpower, the British/Commonwealth forces were greatly outnumbered in Africa- the Italians were already in Italian Somaliland and Abyssinia and Libya, and took British Somaliland (which was recaptured).

Also, Egyptians such as Nasser and Sadat were pro-Axis, like the Grand Mufti and Rashid Ali.

Perhaps with a fallen Malta and Gibraltar, the Germans could have 'persuaded' Vichy France to lend some arms/equipment/bases in North and Western Africa too... after all, Senegal and Madagascar were not exactly pro-de Gaulle and the Free French.

Darlan too, was an Anglophobe- something of a family tradition, apparently, but exacerbated by his experiences at naval conferences with the British in the 30s.

[Gmvkgkmn]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
How about letting the French and British escape at Dunkirk?

Attacking Russia, especially before defeating England?

Signing the treaty with Japan that allowed the Japanese to force the US into the European War.
Originally posted by Lord Avalon
Actually, Japan did not force the US into the European war - it was Germany's declaration of war on the US which enabled the US to go to war there. If Germany had not declared war, FDR would have had a hard time getting a declaration of war on Germany.



http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/triparti.htm

The US did not attack Japan, therefore Germany was not obligated to declare war on the US. Yes , but if Germany had not made such a treaty they would not have felt obligated to declare war on the US. If it makes you feel better you can restate number 3 of my 3 reasons to say:

Pulling America into the European conflict.

Either way, to me, those were Hitler's 3 largest blunders. If he had avoided all 3, I think you may have seen the 40's end with a continental Germany, Russia in the East and a totally different Cold War/Iron Curtain situation.

[harriettvanders]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

Yes , but if Germany had not made such a treaty they would not have felt obligated to declare war on the US. I don't know about that. The US was supplying Britain, and if you look at the DoW, the US was defending its shipping against the German subs (which were probably attacking to prevent Britain from getting it, but that's another issue):

excerpt of German Declaration of war on US

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German sub-marines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gerdec41.htm

So I don't know if Hitler "felt obligated" to declare war on the US, the treaty was probably just an excuse, and he was just nucking futs enought to do it anyway, right?

But it (the DoW) was a mistake. Better to go about business as usual, because the US can't get fully involved without a DoW (at least in those days). Germany and Japan would both end up at war with Britain, so it's not surprising that they'd make a treaty.

[Kimeoffessyr]

Originally posted by Ned

You identified the problem about a German invasion of England: transports and logistics. They had enough air power to do it if they only had the transports.
But what would they do about the Royal Navy?

[Zesavenue]

Originally posted by Myrddin


But what would they do about the Royal Navy? Air supremacy over the Channel would have done the job.

[MeeveStesia]

Originally posted by Ned

Air supremacy over the Channel would have done the job. Air supremacy is important, but often overrated.

[UitEz0Qo]

Lord Avalon, but if Germany cannot take Britain, they loose. The Brits know this, which is why they never considered surrendering even during the darkest days of '40.

Hitler had no choice, no choice whatsoever. He had to take England to survive.

He failed.

[dr-eavealer]

Originally posted by Ned


Air supremacy over the Channel would have done the job. First the best the Germans could have hoped for was a numerical advantage in the air not superioity.
Even if they did have that advantage the Royal navy was so much bigger than the German navy they would have mauled any attempts to supply a becahead which probably could have been established.

Britain would have has in excess of 500,000 troops to chuck at the Germans and with the Germans out of suppply and with few tanks they would have been destroyed

[avitalporatova]

Originally posted by TheStinger


First the best the Germans could have hoped for was a numerical advantage in the air not superioity.
Even if they did have that advantage the Royal navy was so much bigger than the German navy they would have mauled any attempts to supply a becahead which probably could have been established.

Britain would have has in excess of 500,000 troops to chuck at the Germans and with the Germans out of suppply and with few tanks they would have been destroyed Maybe, maybe not. I agree with this in 1940 and 1941. But if Germany builds up as the allies did, I think an invasion would have been possible eventually.

As we showed in the Pacific War, airpower dominates seapower. If the British navy shows up in an area dominated by the German airforce, it loses, not the Germans.

But this whole discussion begs another issue I have never been clear about. Just when did Germany lose air parity, at least, over the channel? Had they maintained the air assault on Britain and stayed at least even over the years, D-Day 1944 does not happen and Germany does not lose the war -- at least not so soon.

But you say, they needed their airforce in Africa and Russia.

My point.

[gluckmeea]

Originally posted by Ned

Maybe, maybe not. I agree with this in 1940 and 1941. But if Germany builds up as the allies did, I think an invasion would have been possible eventually. Except that Germany did not have the industrial capacity to do so.

As we showed in the Pacific War, airpower dominates seapower. If the British navy shows up in an area dominated by the German airforce, it loses, not the Germans. A lot of that airpower was seaborne. Also, according to wiki (I'm at work, so I'm not going to spend the time to see if there's a better source):
Some veterans of the battle point out that the Royal Navy would have been vulnerable to air attack by the Luftwaffe if Germany had achieved air superiority[38], quoting the fate of Prince of Wales and Repulse in December 1941 - overwhelmed only by air power.[39] This assertion ignores the fact that Germany at the time had no armour piercing bomb capable of doing to a British cruiser (let alone a battleship) what Japan did to Prince of Wales. (emphasis added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_britain

Also, a Channel battle is very localized. The RN can dock in various places and still be close enough to hinder an invasion. Even if the Luftwaffe establishes local air superiority, the RN has too many ships to be dominated. Air power is also limited by planes' load capacity - eventually they run low on fuel and/or out of ammo and have to return to base.

But this whole discussion begs another issue I have never been clear about. Just when did Germany lose air parity, at least, over the channel? Had they maintained the air assault on Britain and stayed at least even over the years, D-Day 1944 does not happen and Germany does not lose the war -- at least not so soon. Britain was outproducing Germany in planes. A big issue for the RAF was a lack of experienced pilots. Also at some point German fighters were made to do more bomber escort duties, where they had increased casualties.

[kubekniekubek]

Originally posted by Ned
Lord Avalon, if Germany could not keep up with Britain in the air war over Britain, it was insane to take on more enemies or diversions. It diverted to Africa, attacked the USSR and DOWed the US -- all at a time, you say, it could not even match Britain. Actually, Rommel didn't go to Africa till Sept 40, which was near the end of the Battle of Britain. Battle of Britain Day is celebrated on 15 Sept, which in 1940 was when the Luftwaffe suffered a major defeat. Though fighting continued into Oct, it was clear that the Luftwaffe was not going to gain air superiority, so therefore an invasion was out of the question. So Germany turned elsewhere.

Operation Barbarossa wasn't until June of 41, and the US wasn't even involved till Dec 41.

Somehow, I doubt that what you say is true. Not surprising - I imagine this is why people bring up the Nediverse.

I think Germany could have kept up with Britain and really needed to do so to win -- in addition to not spreading itself thin by taking on even more opponents. http://www.iwm.org.uk/upload/package.../luftwaffe.htm

The Luftwaffe suffered various problems, both structural and operational, which hampered its effectiveness in the Battle of Britain. It was not designed for a strategic bombing campaign against a well-equipped and well-entrenched opposing fighter force, but as a close support weapon to move forward in concert with ground troops. The rapid occupation of France and the Low Countries in the spring of 1940 compelled the hasty preparation of many new air bases and caused supply problems. More significantly, the difficulties in establishing adequate localised facilities forced the removal of damaged aircraft back to Germany for repair. As a result of underachievement in aircraft production, the Luftwaffe suffered from a lack of reserves throughout the battle. German aircrew were well-trained and with much greater combat experience than their RAF counterparts. Fighter pilots survived longer, but the Germans had fewer of them than the British. The Luftwaffe's vitally important fighter, the Messerschmitt 109, had a very short combat endurance over Britain and the fighter force as a whole suffered from two decisive disadvantages. It had no method of plotting the positions of Fighter Command aircraft and it had no means of ground -to-air control of its machines. Rather than switch to bombing London, if Germany had kept going after planes, bases, radar stations, and plane production industry (if they even knew where to find it), they might have won air superiority over the south of England. I still don't think they can invade for reasons stated previously in the thread. With the RAF having to come from bases further north, and if the radar is down, maybe the Luftwaffe can bomb the south almost at will and cause Britain to submit to an armistice.

[oronozopiy]

I see the problem. I know the Germans could not launch an invasion of Britain in 1940 for any number of reasons, including the complete lack of proper bases of all sorts in France. But this does not argue that Germany should have given up and diverted its resources elsewhere so that it could no longer invade Britain even if it wanted to, it argue for the buildup, the kind of buildup that the allies actually did from 1942-44 in order to invade itself.

The German airforce may not have had the ability to dominate even Southern England, but it had enough, I suspect, to dominate Northern France to cover the buildup. Over time, the balance of power would have swung in Germany's favor just as it did later in the allies' favor.

The attack in Africa that they actually conducted was just as difficult, if not more so, than waging war over Britain. There they faces long supply lines and the British navy, two problems for which they had no solution.

Finally, taking on Russia while the first two fronts were unresolved could not have been a sane choice as well. Only if the USSR is knocked out very quickly does it make sense. But, given the shear size of Russia, that was hardly possible.

So given the alternatives, the only sane choice for Germany was to build up for an invasion of Britain.

Try to imagine this as a war game. I have played several where you can take Germany or Britain, etc. The one thing they all have in common is the assumption that Germany does invade the USSR and the US gets into the war. Even under these circumstances, Germany is strong enough to do well, if not win. But everyone knows that if Germany can keep both the USSR and the US out of the war, it wins by invading England.

In real life, it just could not do so immediately. It had to be patient just like the allies were patient.

[dubGucKcolo]

Lord Avalon, I have no detailed knowledge of the Luftwaffe's plans, but I am sure that Germany would have done something to match Britain's fighter production and to develop long range bombers that could strike Northern England and Scotland. But sending the airforce off to support ground invasions of Egypt and the USSR hardly helps correct the imbalance in airplane production.

If the Italians lost its possessions in Africa - so what. She was under no real threat of invasion from Britain.

As to Stalin, he was being courted by both Germany and England and probably was content just to sit back and watch the show for the time being as the other two major powers of Europe pounded each other. Besides, if he invaded Germany and not the other way around, he would not have the sympathy of the world and would have a hard time attracting allies and support if things went badly. You have to remember that Stalin was able to beat Hitler only because he was supplied by Britain and the US.

[nAKMzyBN]

Lord Avalon, I never said Germany had to match Britain's surface fleet. All they had to do was get air supremacy over the channel. That would have been enough to keep the Brit fleet at bay.

Admittedly, this will not have happened overnight. Germany would have had to make serious investments in new fighter and bomber designs and ramp up production of these new new designs. That would have taken time -- which would have deferred the date for an invasion for years -- perhaps even to 1943 or 44. During this entire time, they would have been pounding Britain daily and wearing her down. In the end, I think Germany would have prevailed.

[libertiespana]

Lord Avalon, the battle certainly was not over. Germany could have reversed the situation with its own airfields and repair facility, RR connections, and new plane and bomb designs. The rate of technical progress of German war machines of all sorts was astounding. I think they overtake Britain in one or two years at most.

No other plan knocks Britain out of the war, which is the only way Germany could have won it.
I still think the fleet issue is a red herring. No naval commander in his right mind wound send surface ships anywhere near concentrated air power.

[Poothevokprot]

Originally posted by Ned
You have to remember that Stalin was able to beat Hitler only because he was supplied by Britain and the US. So not because the Nazis over reached themselves and were bogged down in Autumn rain and mud, and Winter snow and blizzards then ?

And were caught without sufficient winter clothing or vehicles that could operate in below freezing conditions ?


And not because the Japanese (having been beaten by the Russians in the East, quite badly prior to the outbreak of WWII in Europe) chose not to attack Russia, thus freeing up Zhukov and men and supplies from the East of Russia ?


I seem to recall some of those things certainly had an impact.

In this universe, anyway....

[Serereids]

Originally posted by Ned
Sara, are you believing your own propaganda again? It's Saras, not Sara.

And that "propaganda" is more commonly known as "history". You know, the disciplined, rigorous and scientific study of past events and people.