Page 1 of 8

Battle of Britain: Failure

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 2:54 pm
by Scorpiоn
OK, this is mildly involved topic, so get comfy.

Part I

Awhile ago on PBS, I saw this "documentary" about how Germany could've won World War II.  It went in depth about the special forces Churchill ordered to pester the occupying forces, though they weren't designed to live for more than a few weeks.  The main jist of the program is, Operation Sealowe is successful, and by using the same tactics they used in France, Germany conquers Britain.  That in itself was about 40 minutes of the program, so I don't remember mush of it.  An interesting point I do remember was Germany would keep the populace under control by using duty tactics, "Herr Officer, yes that silly little cross has replaced the Union Jack everywhere, but you still have a duty to protect and serve your people."  With Britain taken care of, no reinforcements are ever sent to the Balkans to confront Mussolini's forces, thereby never tying down the Wehrmacht to assist them.  Hitler invites all the World leaders to his art museum in Linz, but it is a distraction.  Simultaneously, Germany now launches an all out assault on Russia, as originally scheduled.  Moscow is taken, and Hitler dominates all his opponents, except that itty bitty country with three letters.  With the US of A completing it's Manhattan project, and Germany refining V2s, the two superpowers call it a truce, and a Cold War different to the one we know begins.  And because Germany was never defeated, all of its top scientist are never forced to work for NASA.  The program concludes with a picture showing that famous picture of the man on the moon, except the flag isn't the stars and stripes and the astronaut has this peculiar armband.

Part II

As some of you may know, I've been planning to make a World War II "mod" for this nifty little strategy game I have.  Well, I thought yesterday that as far as games go, World War II is a tired subject, so why not make something where it's the dawn of the 21st century and the US, Germany and a resistance group all go to war?  While sparing you the details, Germany conquers almost all of Africa as no other European countries are there to colonize it.  The US and Germany go to war (Hitler's died by now) and the African resistance attempt to free themselves.

Part III

For any of this to take flight, the Battle of Britain must be lost, sorry Britons. :P How, could this have most feasibly happened and what would

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:07 pm
by Woodlouse2002
If we lost the Battle of Britain then the Royal Navy would have flattened any invasion force that tried to land. The Royal navy was over 10 times the size of the Kreigsmarine and by 1940 the Kreigsmarine had lost 3 of their capital ships. Basically Britannia ruled the waves, especially the English channel.

Also, Russia is far to big to be occupied. If the Germans did take Moscow (and lets face it, they nearly did) then the Russians would simply have pulled further back and regrouped.

Basically, the Germans could never have won what they started. ;)

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:12 pm
by ozzy72
Its an interesting idea Scorpion, but like Woodie says the Soviet Union was a huge error!
If the Germans had succeeded in nabbing the UK then I would imagine similar events would have occured as happened in other countries, the Royals would have fled, politicians would have been imprisoned, and a vichy government setup (like France).
The only effect on Japan is that it would have maintained control of the Far East, probably conquered large parts of China, and then it would have become an industrial powerhoues (oops thats already happened ;D).

Ozzy

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:19 pm
by Woodlouse2002
Its an interesting idea Scorpion, but like Woodie says the Soviet Union was a huge error!
If the Germans had succeeded in nabbing the UK then I would imagine similar events would have occured as happened in other countries, the Royals would have fled, politicians would have been imprisoned, and a vichy government setup (like France).
The only effect on Japan is that it would have maintained control of the Far East, probably conquered large parts of China, and then it would have become an industrial powerhoues (oops thats already happened ;D).

Ozzy


I don't believe that the Royals would have fled the country. After all they didn't leave London in the bombing. They would not have been executed or imprisoned because they would be needed if the Germans were to keep any sort of control over the nation.

Also a vichy government would not have been set up. The Vichy french were a bunch of bloody collaberators who accepted german rule. That would not have happened here. Whats more it was only called a Vichy government because the area they were in control of started at the village of Vichy. ;)

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:24 pm
by Hagar
It's an interesting idea & worth considering. People either don't realise or tend to forget that part of Britain was occupied for most of WWII. Look up the Channel Islands which are still part of the UK & see what they went through.
http://www.ahier.demon.co.uk/occ1st.html

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:24 pm
by ozzy72
It was purely an example Woodie, and this was just my opinion mate ;D
Personally I think this is a rather fascinating theoretical discussion.
What do you reckon would have happened vis-a-vis the British armed forces?

Mark 8)

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:37 pm
by Hagar
Woody. I admire your loyalty but don't share your optimism. There were plenty here who would have welcomed the German army & collaborated with them. Some in very high positions. There were also plans in place for the evacuation of the King & Queen to Canada. I dread to think where we would be without this man. Like everyone else he made mistakes - some of them big ones. No matter what anyone may think or say about him, I'm sure in my own mind that we couldn't have done it without him.
Image

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 5:06 pm
by ATI_7500
get prepared in a better way.
well,fire some personnel (namely g

~

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 5:21 pm
by Scorpiоn
The Royal navy was over 10 times the size of the Kreigsmarine and by 1940 the Kreigsmarine had lost 3 of their capital ships.

Yes, but wasn't this the point of flattening the RAF?  With the RAF permanently grounded, the Luftwaffe could thereby, in masse, patrol the channel.  The Royal Navy may be mighty, but I'm not sure I'd want to battle the Kriegsmarine while under heavy aerial bombardment, with no air cover for myself. :P

Look up the Channel Islands which are still part of the UK & see what they went through.

That's curious.  I remember the show specifically stating that the Wehrmacht and all other branches were ordered to treat civilians with courtesy and respect, and were to pay regular prices at shops.  At least for France and Britain, had they gotten there, though I can't say the same for the Polish. :'(

Also, the program also mentioned how conspirators and the local police chief were to be shot, since he knew all the people in the underground resistance cells.  The fact that these guerillas were given special equipment for sympathizers says a bit.

Another thing I considered as far as Japan's situation goes.  Didn't Britain own quite a bit in the Pacific?  I know France did.  If so, couldn't it be possible, that Britain would have to surrender these colonies in a treaty, and thereby Japan would have a willing seller of the raw materials it so desperately needed?  Pearl Harbor could've never happened, keeping America neutral, at least officially.

This gets more interesting by the minute! :D

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 5:27 pm
by Hagar
but one thing is most important to me: don't get civilists directly involved in the war (no bombing of towns or other civil targets).

Silent. I admire you for saying that. Unfortunately you can't invade a country without getting civilians involved. It might have been possible when armies faced each other & fought it out on the battlefield but modern war ain't like that. Also, never forget that it's their country you're invading & those that resent it will fight back with everything at their disposal.

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 5:53 pm
by ATI_7500
okay,there will always be accidential bombings of civilian targets,but i wouldn't do what the germans,britains and americans did in WW2,namely bombing cities for (almost) no reason.

Re: ~

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 6:03 pm
by Woodlouse2002
[quote]
Yes, but wasn't this the point of flattening the RAF?

Pooey

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 6:04 pm
by Scorpiоn
Yeah, "reducing the labor force" is a pretty lame excuse.

Re: ~

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 6:23 pm
by Smoke2much
It takes one hell of a lot to sink a battleship and the luftwaffe would take very heavy losses.


Yeah, take a look at what happened to the Hood.  One salvo then, BOOM!

Re: Battle of Britain: Failure

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 6:25 pm
by Hagar
It's pointless discussing the rights & wrongs of what happened in history. We could argue for a year & can't change a single thing. What we can do is to do our utmost to make sure it never happens again. It's the ordinary citizen that gets hurt or killed every time. I reckon the main protagonists should be put on an island to fight it out amongst themselves. This would be more like the old way of doing things when kings led their armies into battle. When the king was killed the battle was won.