Flying Squirrel Entertainment

The Lounge => Historical Discussion => Topic started by: TWking on August 08, 2013, 01:08:48 am

Title: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: TWking on August 08, 2013, 01:08:48 am
This has been nagging me for a while. Would have America joined the war on the Allies side if Britain had been successfully invaded? And by that i mean the German army had gotten considerable gain in the south of the country. There is something that tells me yes, but that could be modern feelings mixed in.
I'll leave it to you to decide as I have come to no solid conclusion.

Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 08, 2013, 01:16:59 am
If the Germans had invaded, the UK would have surrendered and the world war would be over before Japan would even attack Pearl harbour.

That being said, the Germans never considered a sea-born invasion of British mainland. They lacked the equipment for that.

And now I'm going to leave this topic before people who actually know things about WWII arrive and bomb my statements into smithereens.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: zac on August 08, 2013, 01:20:41 am
xD i wont even begin
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Hugh MacKay on August 08, 2013, 07:01:25 am
If they only had a gain on the southern part of the british isles, maybe.
If the british isles was to be completely overrun in a very short time by the germans (which I think it would have been), the Americans would have had a very hard time invading across the Atlantic ocean, so my guess would have been no in that case.

Quote
That being said, the Germans never considered a sea-born invasion of British mainland. They lacked the equipment for that.
Well Operation Seelöwe wasn't that far away from being executed. Germans almost had the aerial control, only the decision to bomb cities instead of RAF and the industry corrupted that. The naval superiority is of course another talk, but with air-superiority, I'm sure the germans could hold the strait for some time to make an invasion.
If an invasion would have happened, I'm in no doubt that the british isles would have been steamrolled by the Nazis.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Docm30 on August 08, 2013, 07:22:20 am
Germans almost had the aerial control, only the decision to bomb cities instead of RAF and the industry corrupted that.

I think the fact that the Luftwaffe was constantly outmatched by the RAF and Commonwealth air-forces might played some role. That the Germans lost significantly more aircraft and suffered over 5 times the number of human casualties as the allies can't be solely attributed their decision to focus on terror bombings and attacks on industry. I seriously doubt the Germans could have done anything to gain air superiority.

I don't think any real historian believes that even with air superiority the Germans could have beaten the Royal Navy, and the invasion would have been impossible with the Royal Navy in the channel. Even discounting the Royal Navy, the Germans couldn't have possible launched an Overlord like naval invasion. It proved damned near impossible for the greatest naval powers in the world---Overlord just barely worked, and that's with the vastly superior logistics the allies had.

Several high-ranking German officers, including Field Marshal von Rundstedt, said that the invasion was never seriously thought possible and the preparations were mainly to scare the British into accepting peace terms.

Even if they could launch an invasion and keep it supplied, there's no guarantee they'd win. A look at the rest of the war will tell you that the Commonwealth usually beat the Germans in a stand up fight.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Prince_Eugen on August 08, 2013, 09:04:21 am
Apparently they won't. US politics was greatly influenced by the protectionists. But this is like a time spiral, if they wont join war in Britain, they would have 100% war with Japan (Japanese had the great plans for Asia, and the American-British interestest always got crossed with Japanese) and all will take from the beggining. If Hitler invaded and captured Britian he'll also 100% attack Soviet Union. But the war on East wouldnt be so unexpectable for USSR, they must already see the escalation of agression, and split that pact and attack first (for that USSR had all possibilities).
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Millander on August 08, 2013, 09:25:50 am
If the uk was invaded we would have entered. FDR wanted to get the US into the war and it would have been good enough of a cause to do so. Alternative histories are to weird for e to debate over.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 08, 2013, 10:41:32 am
If the uk was invaded we would have entered. FDR wanted to get the US into the war and it would have been good enough of a cause to do so. Alternative histories are to weird for e to debate over.

That makes absolutely no sense.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Pinball Wizard on August 08, 2013, 02:30:36 pm
If the uk was invaded we would have entered. FDR wanted to get the US into the war and it would have been good enough of a cause to do so. Alternative histories are to weird for e to debate over.

That makes absolutely no sense.
I thought it was actually pretty easy to follow. Hes basically saying: UK invaded, Franklin Roosevelt (who wanted in) would use it as a reason to enter the war.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 08, 2013, 02:31:57 pm
So how would he enter a war when the British ARE invaded (AKA, losing hard) while he didn't enter the war while the British WEREN'T invaded.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: joer5835 on August 08, 2013, 02:44:55 pm
So how would he enter a war when the British ARE invaded (AKA, losing hard) while he didn't enter the war while the British WEREN'T invaded.

'Murica saves the day
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 08, 2013, 02:49:46 pm
I'm starting to believe that's the general spirit.

Time to wake up from your fantasies, 'Muricans. You didn't enter until after Pearl harbour and god knows how long it would have taken you to do so if you hadn't been attacked.

Still, I give a huge amount of credit what the Americans did during World war 2 (Patton <3), and it's doubtful if the Allies could have won without the USA (Not without a few million more casualties and several years), but you can't deny the fact they waited two years.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Pinball Wizard on August 08, 2013, 03:30:30 pm
So how would he enter a war when the British ARE invaded (AKA, losing hard) while he didn't enter the war while the British WEREN'T invaded.
Read what you just said and reflect on it.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 08, 2013, 03:33:56 pm
What? You think it's far more liker the USA would have entered a war that was pretty much over? They had a hard time entering even when the war had reached a stalemate.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Archduke Sven on August 08, 2013, 03:34:09 pm
Well just remember that America didn't really join the war, they were attacked by Japan and 5 days later the Germans declared war on America.

So your question is invalid in the first place.



Germany didn't have the equipment or a realistic chance to actually invade Britain. Their Aircraft casualties through '40-'41 were immense and the Luftwaffe started to lose the strenght to combat the RAF early on. Which is why Hitler persuded the more realistic goal of invading the USSR.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Pinball Wizard on August 08, 2013, 03:37:50 pm
What? You think it's far more liker the USA would have entered a war that was pretty much over? They had a hard time entering even when the war had reached a stalemate.
Invasion of a very close ally is something really any nation would join a war over especially if it was already a year in, about the time it would take to push their way to Britain.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Archduke Sven on August 08, 2013, 03:41:44 pm
What? You think it's far more liker the USA would have entered a war that was pretty much over? They had a hard time entering even when the war had reached a stalemate.
Invasion of a very close ally is something really any nation would join a war over especially if it was already a year in, about the time it would take to push their way to Britain.

Are you forgetting how negative the American people were to be in 'another European war'? FDR didn't have his home front with him!

It was only when Japan attacked America that the people became willing to go to war...
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Allasaphore on August 08, 2013, 04:26:10 pm
If Britain had been invaded (assuming the Germans had the logistics to do so), it's likely the USA would have remained neutral. We need to remember that the US was still being wracked by the Depression and many were against involvement in another European war, especially after World War I (the "Great War").

FDR's personal feelings wouldn't result in a declaration of war, as that has historically been up to the US Congress (the President has had the power to intervene in other nation's affairs since the Korean War, WWII is the last war in which the US issued a formal declaration of war). Given the layout of the country in 1939-1940, I'd say he would have an uphill battle to secure the declaration, even if the UK was invaded.

Only a severe tragedy/attack on American soil would have united the nation (and Congress) and led to war.

Of course, it's doubtful the Germans would have tried to invade Britain with ground troops in the first place.

On the matter of the Royal Navy, it's important to realize it was bypassed at the Jutland by German air forces during the invasion of Norway, following the landing of ground troops there via the sea. It was possible to avoid the Royal Navy, and the idea that the entirety of Eastern/Southern Britain could be protected from air strikes is implausible. Of course, the German planes couldn't fly off far from the Norwegian coast, so Britain was spared that front.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 08, 2013, 04:28:52 pm
What? You think it's far more liker the USA would have entered a war that was pretty much over? They had a hard time entering even when the war had reached a stalemate.
Invasion of a very close ally is something really any nation would join a war over especially if it was already a year in, about the time it would take to push their way to Britain.

A very close ally? Since when was Britian a very close ally of the USA in the early 1940's? Even so, An ally that doesn't help you when bombs are killing your civilians by the thousands is a very lousy ally.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Riddlez on August 08, 2013, 05:43:03 pm
What? You think it's far more liker the USA would have entered a war that was pretty much over? They had a hard time entering even when the war had reached a stalemate.
Invasion of a very close ally is something really any nation would join a war over especially if it was already a year in, about the time it would take to push their way to Britain.

A very close ally? Since when was Britian a very close ally of the USA in the early 1940's?

Since never, America had a plan, a nearly executed plan, to invade canade and war with the Brits, after all.
It would be more likely (Hate incoming), if America signed a Non-offensive pact with Germany and allies, if Britain was to be invaded.
And don't forget the US was already mobilising since the start of WW2.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Millander on August 08, 2013, 10:54:25 pm
Duuring im not sure what you were talking about. FDR wanted the United States to enter the war prior to Pearl Harbor. He had speaches on the subject and made plans for it. Hell even issued a peacetime draft and passed the Lend lease act. If the UK was invaded prior to Pearl Harbour the US would have definitely entered the war. Likely would not have been bale to save Bitain if they were losing but would have entered none the less.

What? You think it's far more liker the USA would have entered a war that was pretty much over? They had a hard time entering even when the war had reached a stalemate.
Invasion of a very close ally is something really any nation would join a war over especially if it was already a year in, about the time it would take to push their way to Britain.

A very close ally? Since when was Britian a very close ally of the USA in the early 1940's? Even so, An ally that doesn't help you when bombs are killing your civilians by the thousands is a very lousy ally.

They were. The US gave equipment, food and ships to the UK before entering the War to help them against the Germans.



Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 08, 2013, 11:03:38 pm
Give or sold?

The battle of Britian was criticial for the survival of the UK, and it happened over a year BEFORE the Pearl. Why didn't the Americans jump in they were so faithful allies? Wether Rooseveldt did or did not want to enter the war doesn't settle the case. I'm talking actions here, not plans.

Though, at the other hand, the same can be said about the British and French letting the Dutch and Belgians die on their own while telling them help is underway.

By the way, don't think I'm playing the vailant hero here. I can admit fair and square the Netherlands had no desire to enter the war.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Hadhod on August 08, 2013, 11:11:41 pm
Spoiler
Duuring im not sure what you were talking about. FDR wanted the United States to enter the war prior to Pearl Harbor. He had speaches on the subject and made plans for it. Hell even issued a peacetime draft and passed the Lend lease act. If the UK was invaded prior to Pearl Harbour the US would have definitely entered the war. Likely would not have been bale to save Bitain if they were losing but would have entered none the less.

What? You think it's far more liker the USA would have entered a war that was pretty much over? They had a hard time entering even when the war had reached a stalemate.
Invasion of a very close ally is something really any nation would join a war over especially if it was already a year in, about the time it would take to push their way to Britain.

A very close ally? Since when was Britian a very close ally of the USA in the early 1940's? Even so, An ally that doesn't help you when bombs are killing your civilians by the thousands is a very lousy ally.

They were. The US gave equipment, food and ships to the UK before entering the War to help them against the Germans.




[close]

Meh, the US gave equipment to the Russians aswell but I would not agree that they were allies in that time. They only worked together because of their enemy (Hitler) who was way too powerful. And see what happened after the war.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 08, 2013, 11:13:21 pm
They also sold the KNIL modern weapons, tanks and aircrafts (Sold, not give. Learn the difference). Then the KNIL got beaten before the Americans could deliver most of the shit, so they just took confisquated for their own war effort. Can't blame them for that, though.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Millander on August 08, 2013, 11:14:31 pm
Give or sold?
Sold at extremely low prices to justify it to the Germans and the Public. Basically they payed the sales tax :P

The battle of Britian was criticial for the survival of the UK, and it happened over a year BEFORE the Pearl. Why didn't the Americans jump in they were so faithful allies? Wether Rooseveldt did or did not want to enter the war doesn't settle the case. I'm talking actions here, not plans.

Because Roosevelt did not think he could sway the American Public at that time to be on board for war.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 08, 2013, 11:23:42 pm
Quote
Sold at extremely low prices to justify it to the Germans and the Public. Basically they payed the sales tax

Taken.

Quote
Because Roosevelt did not think he could sway the American Public at that time to be on board for war.

So there's the answer. Tell me, Millander, how long do you think it would have taken him to get to war if the USA hadn't been attacked?
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Schmidtche on August 09, 2013, 12:44:14 pm
A succesfull german Invasion of Britain would have made American war effort in Europe insanly difficult. So I doubt they would have activly entered the war without being attacked.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Riddlez on August 09, 2013, 01:21:45 pm
Everyone here is talking about the 'When'.
Why not question the 'if', in the first place.

If they hadn't been attacked, would they have joined at all?
Get those blinker off.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Noodlenrice on August 09, 2013, 09:40:57 pm
Everyone here is talking about the 'When'.
Why not question the 'if', in the first place.

If they hadn't been attacked, would they have joined at all?
Get those blinker off.

There was no way in the world the japanese would not have attacked the U.S. or the U.S. attacked them(eventual). The japanese ambitions for the pacific was just too big and interfered with everything everyone else wanted.(especially the U.S.)  Therefore Hitler and germany IF they invaded Britain would have declared war on the U.S.A. because of the fact that he was the closest of allies with the japanese.  Therefore the U.S. would not have joined the war at the congress's permission but rather from a decleration of war by another country(germany).
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 09, 2013, 09:48:08 pm
Everyone here is talking about the 'When'.
Why not question the 'if', in the first place.

If they hadn't been attacked, would they have joined at all?
Get those blinker off.

There was no way in the world the japanese would not have attacked the U.S. or the U.S. attacked them(eventual). The japanese ambitions for the pacific was just too big and interfered with everything everyone else wanted.(especially the U.S.)

Carefully ignoring the fact the USA had stood and watched how the Japanese had attacked Russia, China and the British, French and Dutch indies. The only country not yet invaded by ground forces was Australia. When would the USA have finally decided to join the war on their own? Late 1942? Early '43? Is there really a way to tell IF they would have even joined? I don't think the American populace would have supported a war to support a Britain in shatters and a USSR that was being completely nailed.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Noodlenrice on August 09, 2013, 10:07:07 pm
Everyone here is talking about the 'When'.
Why not question the 'if', in the first place.

If they hadn't been attacked, would they have joined at all?
Get those blinker off.

There was no way in the world the japanese would not have attacked the U.S. or the U.S. attacked them(eventual). The japanese ambitions for the pacific was just too big and interfered with everything everyone else wanted.(especially the U.S.)

Carefully ignoring the fact the USA had stood and watched how the Japanese had attacked Russia, China and the British, French and Dutch indies. The only country not yet invaded by ground forces was Australia. When would the USA have finally decided to join the war on their own? Late 1942? Early '43? Is there really a way to tell IF they would have even joined? I don't think the American populace would have supported a war to support a Britain in shatters and a USSR that was being completely nailed.

The Japanese government refused to declare war on Russia because it would have been a multi-front war and the valuable resources the japanese wanted were in the southern part of china. Second the chinese have been fighting the japanese for almost a decade already therefore no one intervened until the European Clashes occurred happened.  France had already surrendered and vichy france felt there was no need to fight over Vietnam or Indochina as a whole.  Britain, India, and burma were not attacked until after hostilities opened with the U.S.  Lastly Indonesia was attacked by the japanese after the dutch in europe had no control over their colony because they capitulated.  Even if the japanese attacked India then the Indians would definitely have accepted the Japanese as overlords. If Indonesians were getting pissy about the japanese imagine how the Indian reaction would have been.

Edit: The japanese would have still have the thinking the U.S. would intervene because the U.S. was already blocking off trade from japan which the warmongers in the Japanese Imperial court would have eventually used as context to bring a war against america and therefore germany would have declared war on the U.S. and bringing the U.S. into the war
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 09, 2013, 10:16:06 pm
  Lastly Indonesia was attacked by the japanese after the dutch in europe had no control over their colony because they capitulated. 

Ehm, Bullshit. The Dutch ARMY had capitulated. The Dutch Government had evacuated to Britain where it became a Government in exile - It kept control over the Dutch indies until those were invaded themselves, which was over a year later. The KNIL, the Dutch east-indies army, spend that year expanding and re-organizing - It received light tanks, machine guns and even airplanes before it was defeated.

Oh, by the way, stop calling it Indonesia. That name would not be used to describe the Indies until it became an independent country. In this time frame, it's the Dutch East-indies.

Quote
Edit: The japanese would have still have the thinking the U.S. would intervene because the U.S. was already blocking off trade from japan which the warmongers in the Japanese Imperial court would have eventually used as context to bring a war against america and therefore germany would have declared war on the U.S. and bringing the U.S. into the war

Very good. You just explained what happened in World war 2. The question remains if the USA would have joined if they had not been directly attacked.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Noodlenrice on August 09, 2013, 10:42:02 pm
  Lastly Indonesia was attacked by the japanese after the dutch in europe had no control over their colony because they capitulated. 

Ehm, Bullshit. The Dutch ARMY had capitulated. The Dutch Government had evacuated to Britain where it became a Government in exile - It kept control over the Dutch indies until those were invaded themselves, which was over a year later. The KNIL, the Dutch east-indies army, spend that year expanding and re-organizing - It received light tanks, machine guns and even airplanes before it was defeated.

Quote
Edit: The japanese would have still have the thinking the U.S. would intervene because the U.S. was already blocking off trade from japan which the warmongers in the Japanese Imperial court would have eventually used as context to bring a war against america and therefore germany would have declared war on the U.S. and bringing the U.S. into the war

Very good. You just explained what happened in World war 2.

Ehhhh.... i am trying to stay on topic and your second quote from me would have happened whether it was britain being invaded or not. Britain being invaded would have still had japan attacking the U.S. and therefore back on subject america would have been dragged into war.

Lastly the K.N.I.L. had a resistance of 3 months. Had they , as you claim, had a year then the american supplies of the beautiful ol' medium tanks called Lees and other supplies That were used instead for the american efforts in the Pacific.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 09, 2013, 11:47:24 pm
The Dutch indies surrendered the 9th of March 1942 - That's 22 months after the surrender of the Dutch army in the Netherlands. They weren't at war with Japan until December 1941 funnily enough. Not that anyone expected the Japanese not to come. Pretty much none of the civilians bothered to evacuate though, because they thought Japanese occupation would be like the German occupation of the Netherlands. How wrong they were...

But we are going off-topic here. Like I said, the Netherlands didn't want to get involved in the 2nd World war anyway, so that point is settled.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Noodlenrice on August 10, 2013, 01:13:03 am
The Dutch indies surrendered the 9th of March 1942 - That's 22 months after the surrender of the Dutch army in the Netherlands. They weren't at war with Japan until December 1941 funnily enough. Not that anyone expected the Japanese not to come. Pretty much none of the civilians bothered to evacuate though, because they thought Japanese occupation would be like the German occupation of the Netherlands. How wrong they were...

But we are going off-topic here. Like I said, the Netherlands didn't want to get involved in the 2nd World war anyway, so that point is settled.

agreed
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 10, 2013, 01:57:09 am
But then again, The Netherlands isn't claiming we came in and saved the day because were such nice guys.

There is still a huge gap of more then a year between the battle of Britian and the USA joining in after being attacked. Their attention was with Japan, not Germany (Though those were of course allied). I just fail to see how the USA WOULD have joined in if the battle of Britian had been lost and the Germans would have crippled Britians army. A land invasion is not even necessary for that.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Noodlenrice on August 10, 2013, 03:58:43 am
i'm not saying the U.s. would have declared war on germany but a war in the pacific was inevitable which then germany would have been even more confident about victory that he would have used his alliance with japan as context to declare war on U.S.

Summery of all my posts is that whether or not britain was invaded the U.S. would have been dragged into the war by the japanese and german alliance therefore the subject of the american participation is done and settled.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 10, 2013, 11:05:07 am
Not really, because had the British lost, they would have surrendered/signed peace in 1940. The US may have gotten in a war with Japan later on, but the world war would be over.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Olafson on August 10, 2013, 01:50:47 pm
What if the germans put huuuge sails on Britain and sailed their whole army into the direction of the USA to invade them?

(https://abload.de/img/4297836-3d-map-of-grepfjdd.jpg)
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Hawke on August 10, 2013, 01:51:29 pm
What if the germans put huuuge sails on Britain and sailed their whole army into the direction of the USA to invade them?
:o
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Archduke Sven on August 10, 2013, 01:57:39 pm
What if the germans put huuuge sails on Britain and sailed their whole army into the direction of the USA to invade them?

(https://abload.de/img/4297836-3d-map-of-grepfjdd.jpg)

dats it, im repurting u fer trolololing
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: zac on August 10, 2013, 02:07:49 pm
What if the germans put huuuge sails on Britain and sailed their whole army into the direction of the USA to invade them?

(https://abload.de/img/4297836-3d-map-of-grepfjdd.jpg)

xD *falls of chair laughing*
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 10, 2013, 02:12:24 pm
What if the germans put huuuge sails on Britain and sailed their whole army into the direction of the USA to invade them?

Spoiler
(https://abload.de/img/4297836-3d-map-of-grepfjdd.jpg)
[close]

And then the wind came from the wrong direction and poor old Netherlands got smacked between Tommies and Jerries.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Noodlenrice on August 10, 2013, 08:04:19 pm
What if the germans put huuuge sails on Britain and sailed their whole army into the direction of the USA to invade them?

(https://abload.de/img/4297836-3d-map-of-grepfjdd.jpg)

All 100% realistic and proven to be authentic
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Millander on August 10, 2013, 08:34:19 pm
actual authentic footage
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: TWking on August 10, 2013, 09:53:36 pm
Olafson............
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Noodlenrice on August 11, 2013, 07:12:29 am
How do i change my vote to the last choice?
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Oakenshield on August 11, 2013, 01:19:29 pm

That being said, the Germans never considered a sea-born invasion of British mainland. They lacked the equipment for that.

The Germans did consider a sea-born invasion of the UK, as part of Operation Sea Lion, they actually made quite detailed plans for it.

In the end of the day, without a safe base of operations (i.e. the UK) for the USA to launch a campaign against the Germans, it would of been very unlikey that they would of joined the war in Europe as launching an invasion from across the Atlantic would of been impossible.

What if the germans put huuuge sails on Britain and sailed their whole army into the direction of the USA to invade them?

Why didn't they think of that?  ;)
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 11, 2013, 01:27:57 pm

That being said, the Germans never considered a sea-born invasion of British mainland. They lacked the equipment for that.

The Germans did consider a sea-born invasion of the UK, as part of Operation Sea Lion, they actually made quite detailed plans for it.

Plans yes, but no equipment. They had to confiscate thousands of river barges to transport the troops. 'Nuff said.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: TheBoberton on August 11, 2013, 05:51:03 pm
Plans yes, but no equipment. They had to confiscate thousands of river barges to transport the troops. 'Nuff said.

The Allies practically had to do the same during the Dunkirk fiasco, so that doesn't say much for moving large numbers of troops. Heavier equipment may have been a problem, but had the Germans been able to immediately gain air superiority, and follow the Allies after they pulled out of France, I doubt heavy weapons would have been necessary at all.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on August 11, 2013, 05:52:44 pm
Plans yes, but no equipment. They had to confiscate thousands of river barges to transport the troops. 'Nuff said.

The Allies practically had to do the same during the Dunkirk fiasco, so that doesn't say much for moving large numbers of troops.

Yes it does. The Dunkirk campaign was a retreat, not an attack.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Archduke Sven on August 11, 2013, 05:56:57 pm
Plans yes, but no equipment. They had to confiscate thousands of river barges to transport the troops. 'Nuff said.

The Allies practically had to do the same during the Dunkirk fiasco, so that doesn't say much for moving large numbers of troops. Heavier equipment may have been a problem, but had the Germans been able to immediately gain air superiority, and follow the Allies after they pulled out of France, I doubt heavy weapons would have been necessary at all.

Are you forgetting that Germany's air force was the most depleted combat arm after the French campaign? The Dutch alone shot down a quarter of it.

It was anyones game at the start as Britain still had a decent quantity of Airplanes at that point, they were still able to match the Germans, and they had the advantage of fighting in their airzone.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: TheBoberton on August 11, 2013, 06:00:45 pm
Yes it does. The Dunkirk campaign was a retreat, not an attack.

And that changes.. what, exactly?

The retreat at Dunkirk was done under fire, just as a landing in Britain would have been. Further, assuming that the Germans had air superiority, any real resistance on the beaches that would prevent a landing would be bombed out of existence.

Unlike France in 1944, Britain did not have a giant wall of machine-guns and minefields on their shores. A landing (With proper air cover) would have been a cakewalk compared to any other landing during the war.



Are you forgetting that Germany's air force was the most depleted combat arm after the French campaign? The Dutch alone shot down a quarter of it.

It was anyones game at the start as Britain still had a decent quantity of Airplanes at that point, they were still able to match the Germans, and they had the advantage of fighting in their airzone.

Which is why the invasion did not happen. I am working under the assumption that the one thing that would allow the invasion to happen had occurred. Without air superiority, there is no invasion, because it would have been suicide, especially with a lack of dedicated landing craft.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Friedrich on August 11, 2013, 10:53:44 pm
You can turn it as you like it, but Japan had allready 1940 and before the plan to start a war against USA.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Prince_Eugen on August 12, 2013, 10:24:34 am
Invasion couldnt happen because Hitler planned on invansion in USSR. However USSR had a plan on invasion to Germany in 1942, but that plan turned in a wasted paper after first shot.


You can turn it as you like it, but Japan had allready 1940 and before the plan to start a war against USA.
They hadnt such plans, Japanese feared the economical powers of USA and GB, also the admiral Esida Dzengo as well as all fleet commanders were against axis (fleet had a lot of power in that Japan). But the fact of trade and supply decrease from that countries played great part in Japanese war escalation. They wasted time in China, had problems in Indochina, and finnaly failed on first attemps to take Holland East-Indies.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Completenoob on August 12, 2013, 12:54:42 pm
Yes it does. The Dunkirk campaign was a retreat, not an attack.

One could easily just cross the English Channel with tons of rowboats and do it perfectly fine as long as it's as functionally unopposed. Since even in 1944 aside from Omaha, almost every landing was mostly unopposed until they got past the beach just a wee bit further inland it is not out of the question such thing would be definitely within realm of possibility. Just audacious move by the end of the day. Of course presuming they would have been able to prevent Royal Navy from interfering with the landings is bigger stretch compared to the RAF, not to mention the inevitable supply bottleneck issue and relatively rapid rate of defence buildup in fear of the invasion.

(Presuming other things in UK would have rolled as they did while we presume RAF was temporarily knocked out and RN would have been unable to intervene properly by some stroke of impossible luck.)

Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Turin Turambar on October 10, 2013, 12:26:55 am
I think, Germany would never have invaded the British Isles, because we did not want to fight against England.

Germany tried to make peace.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Norman_the_Owl on October 14, 2013, 02:46:53 am
If Britain had been invaded (assuming the Germans had the logistics to do so), it's likely the USA would have remained neutral. We need to remember that the US was still being wracked by the Depression and many were against involvement in another European war, especially after World War I (the "Great War").
Well, the depression was ending, if not over, by mid/late 1940 because of the ramp up for wartime started by the president.
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Norman_the_Owl on October 14, 2013, 02:51:31 am
Carefully ignoring the fact the USA had stood and watched how the Japanese had attacked Russia, China and the British, French and Dutch indies. The only country not yet invaded by ground forces was Australia. When would the USA have finally decided to join the war on their own? Late 1942? Early '43? Is there really a way to tell IF they would have even joined? I don't think the American populace would have supported a war to support a Britain in shatters and a USSR that was being completely nailed.

The Japanese launched their invasion of the British French and Dutch indies on December eighth, 1941.

We were actively opposing the Japanese was in china throughout the mid 1930's.

And the USSR wouldn't have been completely 'nailed' by any account
Title: Re: A WW2 alternative Question.
Post by: Duuring on October 14, 2013, 12:15:19 pm
The USSR would never have made it without US support. Unlike what most people think, the Soviet army was on breaking point even after they had won Stalingrad.