That was not meant to invade Sweden. The plan was if the UK could gain access to Norway and Sweden with the intention of fighting in the winter war in Finland. The actual seizure of Swedish property would of been for the iron ore mines in the far north or rather the rail lines that sent them off to port. This would of been a bonus objective and non essential to the larger goal and would of only halved the iron ore needed by Germany. Ultimately the situation changed when Germany invaded Norway. If it were me I would of focused on gaining naval control of the Baltic and pursued Finland for airfields in order to support the RN.
I agree with the first part of what you said. I would have left the Germans to control the Batlic, Britain has no interest their. The North sea is what Britain must control, so we must stop our enemies using Norway has a base to attack Britain. The point is the Germans stop the Soviets and the French backed by Britain stops the Germans so we have a balance of power in Europe. I have no problem with this becoming a two power balance in Europe between the Soviets and Germans if they don't attack Britain or her colonies, or try and challenge British naval domination of Europe. This is why Japan was a much greater threat than Germany ever was to Britain. Just kick the Italians and Germans out of North Africa and take back Norway, then see of the Germans want peace.
The aim wasn't to defeat Germany, but restore Britain power over the North Sea and Mediterranean. We never really cared about Europe until it threatened Britain. Then leave the Germans and Soviets to battle it our.
The whole point of the 1940 campaign in Norway was Narvik, which is the ice-free port that serves the Swedish iron ore mines. The Baltic freezes and makes navigation impossible several months a year. Narvik is warmed by the Gulf Stream and hasn't frozen in centuries. Britain getting control of the Baltic would mean transiting the Skaggerak which is way beyond Spitfire/Hurricane range. Any Royal Navy units would be subject to unmolested attack by swarms of Stukas. Stukas were murder on RN destroyers. Once the destroyers had sunk the U-boats would have eaten up the capital ships. If he doesn't go into Russia, Hitler easily garrisons Norway with dozens of divisions. Norway has no beaches suitable for amphibious landings and precious few roads. If Churchill has waited til January 1942, he isn't gonna pry Hitler out of Norway.
Well it is based upon the idea of moving to support Finland against the USSR and the disruption of Swedish Iron ore supplies. But having control over the Baltic would stop those shipment irrespective of whether they were shipped from Sweden or passed through Norwegian ports. It would also allow us to help the Finns by placing bombers in it's territory which would allow us to covertly help the Finns as well as annoy the Germans. Seizure of the Baltic would also ease of the threat of Submarines. Now of course this would mean that there are only two options left for the Kriegsmarine; Skaggerrack (Jutland) or Kiel both of which are easily blockaded. However if we occupied Norway then we would still have a major problem of Germany still being able to move heavy assets such as tanks and artillery far more quickly via Denmark which could be ferried more easily than we could. So I don't think it would be defensible unless there was a way to stall them which brings me back to the idea of domination over the Baltic. As for the African theatre of war. Yes the Somaliland campaign was easy enough but to fight in N Africa would of been a much more difficult proposition as we would also be facing off against a fresh and well motivated Italian military including the Germans. But if we held the line at Egypt then in time we could possibly build up for an offensive towards Libya. There is a problem with the idea of an occupation of Norway and that would be the likely reduction of the BEF in France which might prompt an early offensive from Germany and a major loss of support from France. Although if Egypt and Norway were held and the Germans put into a stalemate in France then we would have little problems from the UBoats as well as air raids and that would speed up the building of war materiel and give us more soldiers from Canada.
The problem here is that the Finns were allies of Nazi Germany. The period of WWII in Finland is commonly known as the "Continuation War", extra innings if you will of the Russo-Finnish Wars. These are the wars that gained Finland independence from Russia-Soviet Union, and caused future issues for decades to come. After all, it was the Finnish Support of Nazi Germany that after the end of WWII gave us the word "Finlandization". So before you ever even suggest this as possible, I suggest you research the origin of the word Finlandization, how it came to be, and why it came to be. Because you could not be more wrong in your idea here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Finnish_War
Hilter put 300,000 troops in Germany, but they weren't the best German troops and didn't have the best equipment in the German army. Well we didn't have a large enough navy to sustain the Atlantic and Mediterranean, then go and attack Norway. We needed more carriers to defend against the U-boats and German aircraft attacking the landing ships, we didn't have them until 1944. We just didn't have the cold weather troops, equipment and naval assets to invade Norway.
Hitler would not needed to put his best troops in Norway. He'd barely need to send any vehicles. Just lots of old artillery and the excellent German machineguns. The terrain of Norway confers huge advantage to the defense. You can say much the same of Italy. The most Germany sent to Italy was twelve divisions, of which only two were first-rate. But they held an army four times their size at bay until right up til the end. The Balkans are just as mountainous as Italy and the road net is not as dense. The only avenue of approach that would not entail a grinding war of attrition was the one historically taken - through northern France. Would the British people accept a long series of Sommes and Passchendaeles? Or more to the point, a long series of Monte Cassinos?
You're also forgetting that the Finns were also taking military supplies from the UK during the winter war and it was not just from us but anybody who was willing to sell which included the Axis. In fact anybody who opposed to the USSR supplied Finland. I admit that the continuation war did bring Finland into the German sphere but of course in the end that went the other way. It should also be noted that Finland only granted Germany right of passage in September 1940. The period I'm referring to is between April and May a month after the end of the Winter war. But I think that during the winter war Finland was not aligned with Germany.
*sigh* The is is not about the Winter War (1939-1940), but the Continuation War (1941-1944). One happened prior to the outbreak of WWII, so is mentioned only as background. The one I directly mentioned happened during WWII, in which both Finland and Germany were attacking the Soviet Union at the same time.
Well why did you mention the Continuation war when my post was basically about the early days of 1940? I mean when I mentioned the idea of using an airfield in Finland for assisting Britain and potentially Finland it was during that period. I probably should of been a little clearer.
As long as whoever is fighting the British wait for the 4 o'clock afternoon tea time, the British can be defeated. The Brits would be fumbling with their portable heaters trying to boil some snow to make tea, while snipers find their mark. "I say good man, is that chap over there in the German uniform shooting at us?" "I believe he is" "Bad form, bad form indeed, doesn't he know it's afternoon tea time" "Those Jerry's are such savages"
Rommel's Afrika Korps was no more than four divisions. Two panzer and two motorized infantry divisions. It was a sideshow to Hitler and it got a paltry four divisions run on a logistical shoestring. If Hitler had been serious about the Med, he would have used the fallschirmjaeger at Malta rather than Crete. If the Axis had held Malta, they could have easily provided logistical support for ten German divisions plus the (useless) Italians. With no more than he had, Rommel got to the only defensible spot in North Africa (El Alamein). With ten German divisions Rommel busts out of the Qattara Depression narrows and takes Alexandria. Without Alexandria, the Royal Navy has to bug out of the Med before those pesky Germans close the Suez Canal and bottle them up in a logistical wasteland. There are not ports on the Red Sea that can support a large fleet as well as Alex. If Alexandria falls to the Germans, Egypt falls. Once the Germans cross the Suez Canal, there is nothing between them and the British-held oil fields at Abadan but sand. The Germans swing north and grab Beirut, Joppa, and Latakia (there is nothing to stop them). That gives them strong ports and a railroad that runs to Baghdad. At Aleppo that railroad intersects the Berlin-to-Basra railroad. Now Rommel is not hindered by logisitics and taking the Persian oil fields is easy going. The British cannot support an army through the specialized oil port of Abadan. Can Britain go on without the Kuwayt-Persian oil fields? Nigeria was not yet developed. Burma and Brunei are a long, long way from Britain. If Hitler controls the Persian oil fields, the Royal Navy gets much less active, and the British economy is dealt a staggering blow. Without the USA and USSR in the war, a whole world of possibilities open up for the Germans and things get very grim for Britain.
This was very much a non-issue. Remember, oil had only been discovered in the area a year or two before WWII broke out. They at that time had no real idea how vast they were, or how easy it would be to drill. And it is not only the oil, at that time there were no refineries, no pipelines, no terminals, absolutely nothing that would turn that oil into diesel and gasoline, and nothing to transport it to the ships. This is why Hitler ignored the recent finds in the ME, and went after the known oil reserves in the Soviet Union. And the largest oil exporter in the world at this time was still the United States. As for the Africa Corps, that was never really a major issue for Hitler. German involvement in Africa was more in the interest of supporting Italy then anything else. In Operation Compass, the UK and Free France forces has routed the Italians in an embarrassing loss in Libya. And I do mean embarrassing, the Italians outnumbered the Allies by about 4 to 1 in almost everything, yet they still lost (and got most of their troops captured). Basically, it was just to try and pull the Italian chestnuts out of the fire, and prevent them from bailing out of the war. Hitler himself had no real plans in Africa, but he could not afford to have the Italians so totally trounced in 1941 that they might seek a separate peace and sit out the rest of the war. When most people talk about WWII, on the Axis side they generally only mention Germany and Japan. Even games like Axis & Allies do not have Italy as a playable nation, simply as part of Germany. This is because Italy in WWII was essentially worthless, and Hitler might have been even better off if he had cast off the Italians altogether and arranged for them to just sit the war out like Spain did.
"...oil had only been discovered in the area a year or two before WWII broke out. They at that time had no real idea how vast they were, or how easy it would be to drill. And it is not only the oil, at that time there were no refineries, no pipelines, no terminals, absolutely nothing that would turn that oil into diesel and gasoline, and nothing to transport it to the ships." Taxcutter says: Huh? The Anglo-Persian Oil company was founded in 1908 to exploit the Abadan oil fields. The Queen Elizabeth class battleships were designed around fuel oi from the Abadan fields. C'mon, dude. Get it right. If the Germans take Alex, Abadan is not defensible. British victory was never inevitable. A few different decisions and France is still speaking German.
Yep. There's an interesting idea going around that the naval switch from coal to oil helped bring about WW1. Hmm I don't think so. I mean in order to get to Abadan then Afrika korps would have to pass through Palestine which had a Jewish population. Then through Jordan which probably would not of been a problem but then they would have to face off against the British garrison in Iraq then the other problem would be the British Indian Army once they entered Persia. I don't think that it would be a quick move on the part of the Germans. True it was close run thing. A bit of bad luck and things could of been different. I'd be doubtful that France would be German speaking though.
Britain holds out but eventually surrenders. It had actually won the war in 1940 when Hitler did not continue bombing RAF airfields and radar and/or follow up Dunkirk with some sort of ship that would actually have made it across the Channel. OTOH Britain is still being starved out by the Battle of the Atlantic and given Germany does not have to divert resources to Russia it might have been able to bring in the bigger subs they had planned. There are also the German jets possibly coming online sooner. Hitler wanted them as bombers, maybe they would have been good ones against England, particularly in 1943. So, England backs out of the war and loses most of her Empire to the Germans and/or Japanese but retains Home Island integrity. Germany keeps most of Europe and arms up to attack Russia in 1943. Scary, because this is what Hitler's Generals had recommended in 1939, only with a lot more resources Wild card here is the Atom Bomb. Likelihood is that America still gets it first as the Manhattan Project had officially started the day BEFORE Pearl Harbor and not having a war on would just give it more resources. Germany's bomb project still had to contend with some British bombing, Hitler's lukewarm at best support and Heisenberg's supposition (I really wanted to say Heisenberg's certainty, but I successfully resisted. I deserve applause ) that a non-reactor type bomb was impossible OTOH Teller et al might not have joined if the MP didn't have wartime motivation and the project would have been shelved, and/or the Japanese might have succeeded earlier. The Japanese had two bomb projects, one in Japan was pretty much bombed out but the one in Korea was left pretty much untouched and rumors persist to this day that they exploded one in 1945 but had no more left. Doubtful, IMO, but only Kim knows for sure.
I would love to know how the Germans are going to land thousands of paratroops on Malta you can see right across it from 200 ft in the air. Unless the Germans have invented helicopters able to move enough troops. So with the Germans unable to take Malta the rest of what you say doesn't matter. However if by some stroke of luck they are able to take Malta the rest of what you say is correct.
How does the Indian Army get to southwest Persia? How does it supply itself? Not by land with 1,700 miles of desert and mountains with few roads to the next outpost of Empire at Karachi. You gotta move and supply your army by ship. Yes, the British have the world's largest merchant marine, but where do you unload them if Alexandria is cut off? There is a good port at Aden but it is too far away from the oil fields. Bandar e-Abbas is no great shake as a port and it is also hundreds of kilometers from the oil fields - over trackless mountains. The railroad at Bandar goes to Tehran, not the oil fields. Sooner or later you have to unload at the small ports of Basra and Abadan. Abadan was (and to a great extent still is) a specialized oil port like Ras Tanura on the other side of the Gulf. It has to be Basra. Basra is a decent-sized port but it is well up the river and would not be amenable to big (>5,000 GRT in 1942) ocean going ships. Basra in 1942 could handle a fair number of ships after the Great War upgrade, but they could not (in 1942) accommodate ships much over 3,500 GRT due to the shallow water. In 1942 its capacity would be roughly that of Latakia in Syria. The Germans would not approach directly but rather they would follow the Berlin-to-Basra railroad to Baghdad then down the rivers top the head of the Gulf. The British would want to confront the Germans a couple hundred miles upriver, so that Basra remained beyond Stuka range. That far up river it is flat as a pool table and Rommel would have not one but two flanks that could not be anchored to work with. Good luck, Monty but my money (tactically) is on Rommel. Passing through Palestine with its Jewish population would be a feature - not a bug.- to the Nazis. How much do the British dare strip the Indian Army? India has been restive since the mid-20s. A campaign in southwest Asia offers a lot more scope for victory to the Germans than to the British. Without the USSR and USA in the war, the Germans have nothing better to do than pummel the British.
I agree. And it is the quickest way. Well that does present a couple of problems. 1. They would have to go through neutral Turkey which would be hesitant at allowing the Germans through. 2. There is a possibility of sabotage of the railway particularly at the final stretch heading to Baghdad. 3. The possibility of being kicked from behind from Egypt and Palestine 4. Overstretch. Unless the decisive blow happens in Iraq. If it were me I would shore up my defences at Basra. Whilst withdrawing from RAF Habbinaya I would assign a couple of squadrons to harass and disrupt the Germans. I'm doubtful. As the Jews of Palestine more interested in siding against the Germans rather than fighting against Britain. It would not be necessary to send the remainder of the BIA from India to Iraq but only reinforce the Iraq garrison. I think it's an even chance and by the time they invaded the USSR then it would of changed to our favour. I think it would of been a stalemate.
You know, this thread is funny in a way. You keep stacking the deck in favor of the germans... You know what? With such silly scenario i could also build a scenario where even albania would have come out on top! Here what we have now: Hitler doesn't invade russia Stalin forget about his european ambitions Hitler doesn't lose his most experience aircrew during the battle of britain Hitler has no problem shipping thousands of troop and material to africa despite the british control of the mediteranean but the british wouldn't be able to move their troops and supply despite her control of the sea. The usa would pass on the chance to make a fortune by selling old destroyers and supplies to the british. Canada wouldn't build 9,000 boats and ships, 50,000 tanks and armored vehicules, 16,000 aircrafts like it did in ww2 and this while being out of reach of germany... Germany wouldn't run out of fuel forcing her to produce cheaper synthetic fuel that destroyed her over engineered tank engine and froze in cold weather. Mmmmm yeah, i see how such a scenario could have happened...
A non aggression pact is not a loose alliance, it's just an agreement to not attack each other. You've made a very common mistake in understanding.
Well you are both wrong, the Soviets looked on it like a losse alliance and the Germans saw it as a agreement not to attack each other until the Germans want to attack the Soviet Union. The British and French saw it as the Soviets helping the Germans. So it all the depends which point of view you can at it from. Most issue are like this.
From September 1939 to May of 1941 the USSR was Nazi Germany's biggest trading partner. In the fall of 1939 Hitler and Stalin divvied up Poland. In 1940, Hitler looked the other way as Stalin attacked Finland and absorbed the the Baltic states. In 1940, Stalin looked the other way as Hitler nabbed Norway. In 1940, Stalin looked the other way as Hitler crushed France and the Low Countries. Both offered each other a free hand (if not direct support) and generous trading conditions. Would that the US could get that much out of its 'allies' these days.
