What if the Germans take England And the B36 becomes operational

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: What if the Germans take England And the B36 becomes operational

Post by T. A. Gardner » 24 Oct 2019 17:45

wm wrote:
23 Oct 2019 21:36
Threatened by the US Hitler will not attack the USSR, there is no need for that. He attacked it because he couldn't defeat Britain, because Britain will be defeated in Russia.
He attacked Russia because it was part of his grandiose and megalomaniacal plan for a greater Germany with libenstraum.
He will not declare war on the US, there is no need for that. The war was declared because Barbarossa failed and he desperately needed more time to defeat Russia.
The US will have to declare war itself, committing an act of aggression.
What difference does it make if the US declares war on Germany rather than the other way around?
Here we have:
1940 - the fall of Britain,
1945 - first American atomic bombs,
1948 - the B-36 arrives (it wasn't called a billion-dollar blunder for nothing).
More like a B-36 first flying in late 1945 or early 46 because of wartime production rather than slower peacetime pacing. The US would also be going to jets and outpacing the Germans in that field except in high speed aeronautics where they'd still be catching up some. By mid 1945 the US had exceeded Germany in jet engine development and would have continued to outpace them.
So the Germans have at least five but more likely eight years to produce masses of fighters and bombers they need (as they actually intended).
They'd be doing it under Allied attack. Just because Britain was gone as a base doesn't mean the Allies couldn't find alternative ways to attack Germany.
They have time to produce their own atomic bomb.
The Germans were so far behind in this field it hurts. They weren't getting an atomic bomb anytime soon. They had next to zero enrichment program for uranium, didn't know about the alternative of plutonium, and didn't even have a working reactor to do research with. The design of the one they were working on was almost sure to be a failure.

Image

That's the one shown here.
They have the resources of entire Europe at their disposal, millions of determined and courageous soldiers.
At a reduced rate at best as most of Europe isn't going to be particularly willing to help them. They would have roughly the same base of manpower they had historically as well.
The people who heroically fought even meters from the center of Berlin will not surrender because some of their cities are going to be destroyed.
That's fine. Let them live in the ruins then. Wiping out major portions of the economy would have an effect on fighting capacity. For all we know, the Allies in this situation might focus first on ending Germany's ability to fight any sort of war at sea. They turn the U-boat campaign into a slaughter. Once that menace is finished and over, they then use freedom of sea movement-- Germany having no navy to counter things with-- to launch nuclear strikes from ships at sea.
Or, the Allies having intercontinental and long-range very heavy bombers use simple standoff missiles to deliver nukes.

Image

The problem for Germany would remain that they are land power engaged in a war with several other land powers (USSR and US) as well as several sea powers (US and Britain). Even with more of the economy of Europe at their disposal that doesn't change. It means they are a one-dimensional strategic power facing a multi-dimensional enemy. Germany loses.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2932
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: What if the Germans take England And the B36 becomes operational

Post by Takao » 24 Oct 2019 18:21

wm wrote:
24 Oct 2019 16:58
The Soviet program commenced in 1942 but till 1945 achieved nothing as other priorities intervened.
The German program similarly wasn't allocated sufficient funds and manpower. Nazi Germany - facing defeat couldn't afford such a project and concentrated on short, emergency projects capable to deliver results in a year or faster.

The point is in this scenario, the Germans have at their disposal resources of entire Europe and can afford such projects and more - from day one.

If you can't do thousand-bomber raids you have to do nuclear strikes by the dozens - because, by area, Hiroshima-type bombs were less destructive.

Again the point is after "destroying" Germany you have to destroy the production capacity of occupied countries, and the American public won't accept the resulting casualties of innocent people.
The Soviet and German programs faltered because their scientists did not believe that a bomb was possible. Just as early US scientists believed a bomb was not possible. It was only after British scientists proved that it was, did the US program really take off. Only after Trinity convinced the Soviets of the bombs feasibility, did they begin their research in earnest.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 1811
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 18:15
Location: Canada

Re: What if the Germans take England And the B36 becomes operational

Post by maltesefalcon » 25 Oct 2019 17:51

If the UK fell, Canada would be a belligerent in name only. They could provide safe haven for Royal Navy units, at least temporarily.
They could also provide a safe haven for the Royal Family.
That being said, my Dominion forebears had the courage to carry on without Britain; but lacked the capital, population or manufacturing capacity. We would only be able to offer a fraction of the land and air forces needed to create a force strong enough to challenge the Axis.
Of course, Australia and New Zealand could also lend a hand. But they were quite far from Europe and needed to keep a close eye on Japan.
As for the Royal Navy itself, I feel strongly that Hitler would demand its return to him in return for a more equitable occupation of the UK. If that happened, it is entirely possible that it could be scuttled buy its own crews....

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: What if the Germans take England And the B36 becomes operational

Post by T. A. Gardner » 25 Oct 2019 18:27

If Britain fell, the Commonwealth and a British government in exile would likely still be in place. Certainly, the Commonwealth nations would have been largely unaffected.

Both Canada and Australia tried hard to increase their wartime home production. With the fall of England, I would assume that this would actually increase substantially, probably with assistance from the US. Both Canada and Australia produced a considerable number of aircraft. India also got into assembling planes from crated parts-- This started as CAMCO (Chinese / Central Aircraft Manufacturing COmpany.) that had moved from China after a couple of relocations to stay ahead of the Japanese to Rangoon then to Bangalore India. It became the genesis of Hindustan Aircraft Company.
Marmon-Herrington made armored vehicles in S. Africa. Canada also produced a good number of AFV and especially trucks.
What these countries really lacked was manpower. They were far less populated-- except India-- than Britain herself.

Since this thread implies that the US enters the war at some point, it's very likely the Americans would have helped Commonwealth countries develop industrially to contribute to the war effort.

An interesting spin off from this would be Does Germany continue a large U-boat campaign? After all, now there are essentially ZERO ships moving from the US etc., to Europe. No need for convoying to support Britain, that's Germany's problem now. On the other hand, the USN has every reason to start their own submarine campaign against German shipping moving to Britain.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 1811
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 18:15
Location: Canada

Re: What if the Germans take England And the B36 becomes operational

Post by maltesefalcon » 25 Oct 2019 18:51

Most of the contribution from Canada in terms of manufactured goods took place well after the time frame indicated in the OP. A resource based economy meant that initially we contributed mostly raw materials, foodstuffs and petroleum products to the war effort.

In any case the real life timeline showed that bombing alone cannot win wars. The Allies needed a substantial land force to retake Europe. That would need a substantial Navy to land and supply them.

I think they would have been better served in creating a large naval air/task force a la PTO and using it to wear down the Axis in Britain, then they could reinvade Europe from bases there.
Last edited by maltesefalcon on 25 Oct 2019 21:46, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: What IF The Germans Take England And The B-36 Becomes Operational.

Post by Robert Rojas » 25 Oct 2019 21:45

Greetings to both cousin Maltese Falcon and the community as a whole. Howdy M.F.! Well sir, in light of your posting of Friday - October 25, 2019 - 2019 - 8:51am, old yours truly was hoping that at least one member of the forum's broader Anglosphere would offer a bit of commentary about the theoretical fate of the Royal Navy and the Canadian Confederation's 'continued role" in the Second World War. Under the given set of geopolitical circumstances, I would have been much happier if his majesty's fleet had sailed to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and dropped anchor at Norfolk, Virginia. I, for one, would have hated to see the scuttling of such a magnificent tool of naval warfare. On the other hand, I would have personally loathed the very notion of visiting upon the Royal Navy an American version of Mers el-Kebir in let's say Halifax, Nova Scotia if the Royal Navy had initially sought refuge in the Canadian Maritimes after the collapse of the British Isles in year 1941. Now, I suspect (rightly OR wrongly) that if there was any one act that would have driven Canada out of the war is a preemptive strike upon the Royal Navy under the sovereign protection of Canada. I rather imagine that Prime Minister King would have had many choice and descriptive words with President Roosevelt over such a heinous action from both a historically "trusted neighbor" and "ally". Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this sojourn down the road to perdition - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day up in your corner of the proverbial GREAT WHITE NORTH that is Canada - EH!?

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: What if the Germans take England And the B36 becomes operational

Post by T. A. Gardner » 26 Oct 2019 02:28

maltesefalcon wrote:
25 Oct 2019 18:51
Most of the contribution from Canada in terms of manufactured goods took place well after the time frame indicated in the OP. A resource based economy meant that initially we contributed mostly raw materials, foodstuffs and petroleum products to the war effort.

In any case the real life timeline showed that bombing alone cannot win wars. The Allies needed a substantial land force to retake Europe. That would need a substantial Navy to land and supply them.

I think they would have been better served in creating a large naval air/task force a la PTO and using it to wear down the Axis in Britain, then they could reinvade Europe from bases there.
The war might drag on longer, allowing the Allies to build up new capacity, but in the end the same thing happens. Germany gets stomped into the ground.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 4845
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: What if the Germans take England And the B36 becomes operational

Post by wm » 26 Oct 2019 22:06

Takao wrote:
24 Oct 2019 18:21
The Soviet and German programs faltered because their scientists did not believe that a bomb was possible.

Not true. Kurt Diebner of German Army Ordnance said postwar:
It will be seen that it was the elimination of German heavy-water production in Norway that was the main factor in our failure to achieve a self-sustaining atomic reactor before the war ended.
Heavy-water is easy to produce, you could do it in your kitchen if you could afford the enormous electric bill. The Germans couldn't either.
The created a reactor but it failed, it was too small and they couldn't do anything about it without more heavy water.

Heisenberg said later:
It was from September 1941 that we saw an open road ahead of us, leading to the atomic bomb.
But as they estimated their bomb would arrive too late to save Germany, their project was on a back burner in 1942.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 4845
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: What if the Germans take England And the B36 becomes operational

Post by wm » 26 Oct 2019 22:16

T. A. Gardner wrote:
24 Oct 2019 17:45
He attacked Russia because it was part of his grandiose and megalomaniacal plan for a greater Germany with libenstraum.
That's not true.
T. A. Gardner wrote:What difference does it make if the US declares war on Germany rather than the other way around?
The difference is the Americans would be less enthusiastic to die by hundreds of thousands in such a war - a war in a far-away continent between people of whom they knew nothing.
Especially that they will be dying in great numbers in war with Japan first.

That's not about who has the shiniest toys, it's about the fact the Americans wouldn't accept such (two) wars, especially if a million or two of them die.

btw The total economic potential of occupied by Germany Europe (including Britain) will be 135 percent of the so-called Western Offsohots: the US, New Zeland, Australia, Canada.
And 65 percent of it was located in cities/towns populated by innocent people, in occupied by the Germans countries.
Last edited by wm on 26 Oct 2019 22:30, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 4845
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: What if the Germans take England And the B36 becomes operational

Post by wm » 26 Oct 2019 22:28

*** - Anti Semitic phrase removed by this Mod. Please refrain from using such terms on these boards as it all racist terms are banned.
T. Duncan
It's not a racist term by any stretch of the imagination.
It was frequently used then by everybody including Jews, and it's only slightly less used today by Jews.
And it's a firm part of history.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency used it in 2939 of its dispatches, including:
OCTOBER 24, 2019
Ambassador to the U.N, H.E. Nikki Haley, proved to be a giant in this realm, exemplifying this country’s unwavering friendship for Israel and commitment to world Jewry.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
The 30 scholars and activists met this week in Jerusalem to hammer out a Declaration of Our Common Destiny, meant to start a worldwide discussion about the shared values and principles by which world Jewry will treat, support and engage one another.
JULY 5, 2019
his followers had become whipped up by his frenzied “Moshiach Campaign,” a movement to arouse messianic fervor among world Jewry
Again it's a frequently used term, especially by Jewish media.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: What if the Germans take England And the B36 becomes operational

Post by T. A. Gardner » 26 Oct 2019 23:54

wm wrote:
26 Oct 2019 22:16
T. A. Gardner wrote:
24 Oct 2019 17:45
He attacked Russia because it was part of his grandiose and megalomaniacal plan for a greater Germany with libenstraum.
That's not true.
Hitler certainly wrote about it at length in Mein Kampf. Given that he had clearly had such an expansion of Germany in mind for years, it a very valid reason for him to have attacked. What alternate reason is there for him attacking the Soviet Union?
That's not about who has the shiniest toys, it's about the fact the Americans wouldn't accept such (two) wars, especially if a million or two of them die.

btw The total economic potential of occupied by Germany Europe (including Britain) will be 135 percent of the so-called Western Offsohots: the US, New Zeland, Australia, Canada.
And 65 percent of it was located in cities/towns populated by innocent people, in occupied by the Germans countries.
You obviously haven't studied American politics and opinion leading up to the war in Europe.

For example Gallup polled the US population on 8 March 1941. 56 percent favored a war against Germany. 27% were opposed. (Public Opinion Quarterly vol V, pg 325).

Sinkings of US ships, and torpedoing of US war ships prior to the US entering the war certainly didn't help the German cause. These were enough that the overwhelming majority of Americans thought the country was already at war with Germany and really didn't object. A Fortune magazine poll in June 1941 found that 79.5% of Americans thought the country was at war with Germany for all practical purposes while only 10.9% rejected that idea. (Public Opinion Quarterly Vol V p 477).

US occupation of Iceland was looked on favorably by the public with just 17% disapproving.

In fact, poll after poll showed that American public opinion was rising month after month in 1941 to approval of war with Germany.

Congress was passing larger and larger defense appropriations by large margins.

I'd say if Britain went under, the US might not declare war immediately on Germany but it would have been inevitable and the American public would have been heavily in favor of it. What's not so clear is what US strategic aims would have been in such a case. This goes especially if Japan has yet to attack the US and start the Pacific War.

As for economic power, Germany would still be inferior simply because, as history shows, they were only able to harness a fraction of the economies of captured nations. For example, how would Germany easily harness British capacity? The British are using Imperial standards for their engineering and design while Germany is metric. It isn't a simple throw of a light switch sort of thing to change from one to the other.
There'd be resistance to production and efficiency would be much lower. The Germans would also have to feed the civilian population and garrison these nations.
Most of the tangible wealth of England was already moved to Canada for safekeeping. Thus, Germany doesn't get that benefit either.

If Japan jumps in before the US declares on Germany, you're looking at maybe about 100K in casualties total for the US to stomp Japan into the ground. And, the US will do that. That's hardly a moral busting number of casualties for the time. Then highest loss rate for the US in terms of numbers of casualties to men involved was in aircrew bombing Germany.
The whole of WW 2 cost the US less than half a million casualties. Notably, more Americans were seriously injured and died in industrial accidents than on battlefields in WW 2.

A good question here is How does Germany keep England supplied given their lack of a Navy? If the US were to wage a submarine campaign on German shipping going to England, how long before the Germans decide it's costing them too much to do it? Once that point is reached, how do they keep a large garrison there that is combat effective?

HistoryGeek2019
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 06 Aug 2019 03:55
Location: America

Re: What if the Germans take England And the B36 becomes operational

Post by HistoryGeek2019 » 27 Oct 2019 00:08

A blockaded Europe has no more economical potential than Germany realized in the OTL. Without imports of oil, rubber, metals and food, Europe's factories are just big useless buildings.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: What if the Germans take England And the B36 becomes operational

Post by T. A. Gardner » 27 Oct 2019 00:16

HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
27 Oct 2019 00:08
A blockaded Europe has no more economical potential than Germany realized in the OTL. Without imports of oil, rubber, metals and food, Europe's factories are just big useless buildings.
And, the only way to end that blockade is build a real navy of very large size. That pretty much kills off any 'war bonus' in taking Britain out of the war for the most part.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 4845
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: What if the Germans take England And the B36 becomes operational

Post by wm » 27 Oct 2019 00:43

T. A. Gardner wrote:
26 Oct 2019 23:54
Hitler certainly wrote about it at length in Mein Kampf. Given that he had clearly had such an expansion of Germany in mind for years, it a very valid reason for him to have attacked. What alternate reason is there for him attacking the Soviet Union?
I've read Mein Kampf, a couple of times, there is no such a thing there. He wanted to make Germany great, i.e., a great power that would dominate Europe, he wasn't even interested in North Africa. He intended to recreate Poland after the September Campaign but Stalin disagreed.

The reason is below, Soviet exports to Germany:
ussr to nazi germany.png
The Soviets also granted Germany the right to transit for German traffic to and from Romania, Iran, Afghanistan and other countries in the east, while reducing by 50 percent freight rates to Manchukuo, which was under Japanese control.
The Americans supported a war, but they would have changed their minds later. Roosevelt constantly worried they would have changed their mind sooner.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 4845
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: What if the Germans take England And the B36 becomes operational

Post by wm » 27 Oct 2019 01:19

More; Sweden supplied Nazi Germany with 9 million tons of iron ore per year. Turkey was exporting boron and chrome to Germany. Albert Speer said:
that much of Germany's manufacture of armaments would come to a halt within 10 months if Turkey's chromite exports to Germany were ended.
The blockade was illusionary.

Return to “What if”