It's July 1, 1940 . . .

[Horatio Parker]

How? The weakest link was the Italian Navy. Italy in general, in fact. To operate in the Med meant relying on Italy.

Once Gibraltar was taken, it would be easy. The Germans had Crete, the French held Syria, the Italians were in Libya. And the British were totally discombobulated in 7/40.

Another Crete-style operation to take Malta, land divisions in Syria and Libya, come at Palestine and Egypt from two directions. Once the Suez and Gibraltar were gone, game over. Then up to Iran, and you're in the Caucasus.

 

[Sarpedon]

Did I miss something? How do you take Gibraltar without first invading Spain?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Did I miss something? How do you take Gibraltar without first invading Spain?

What invade? They're just passing through...

 

[Sarpedon]

That was proposed, and Franco didn't agree.

 

[Horatio Parker]

That was proposed, and Franco didn't agree.

What do you want to do? Drive Britain out of the war or allow the Franco tail to wag the dog? So they make up some baloney about an impending British landing, and invite themselves in to "protect" Spain. Franco can either make the best of it, or take his chances in exile.

It's not as hazardous as invading the USSR.

I just remembered - the Germans weren't in the Balkans until 1941, so they wouldn't have been able to use Crete.

 

[bilby]

That was proposed, and Franco didn't agree.

What do you want to do? Drive Britain out of the war or allow the Franco tail to wag the dog? So they make up some baloney about an impending British landing, and invite themselves in to "protect" Spain. Franco can either make the best of it, or take his chances in exile.

It's not as hazardous as invading the USSR.

I just remembered - the Germans weren't in the Balkans until 1941, so they wouldn't have been able to use Crete.

Even if the Germans are able to transit through Spain (or even have Spain join the Axis and add their own armies to those of Germany and Italy in the European theatre), Gibraltar remains a tough nut to crack.

It's an excellent defensive position, and if besieged can be resupplied by sea; The Spanish have wanted it back for centuries, but Britain isn't letting go of such an important strategic position without a very bloody fight.

It's difficult to see how Gibraltar could be taken without massive losses for any attacking force; it would be worse than Crete, which cost the Germans over 5,000 highly trained and hard to replace Fallschirmjäger dead, missing or wounded, and discouraged any further German airborne attacks for the duration of the war.

 

[Horatio Parker]

What do you want to do? Drive Britain out of the war or allow the Franco tail to wag the dog? So they make up some baloney about an impending British landing, and invite themselves in to "protect" Spain. Franco can either make the best of it, or take his chances in exile.

It's not as hazardous as invading the USSR.

I just remembered - the Germans weren't in the Balkans until 1941, so they wouldn't have been able to use Crete.

Even if the Germans are able to transit through Spain (or even have Spain join the Axis and add their own armies to those of Germany and Italy in the European theatre), Gibraltar remains a tough nut to crack.

It's an excellent defensive position, and if besieged can be resupplied by sea; The Spanish have wanted it back for centuries, but Britain isn't letting go of such an important strategic position without a very bloody fight.

It's difficult to see how Gibraltar could be taken without massive losses for any attacking force; it would be worse than Crete, which cost the Germans over 5,000 highly trained and hard to replace Fallschirmjäger dead, missing or wounded, and discouraged any further German airborne attacks for the duration of the war.

It's true that it would be a tough nut, with possibly more casualties than Crete. It's riddled with tunnels and underground facilities, with supplies for two years.

But if the Luftwaffe were based nearby, seaborne communications would become problematic.

The stakes were high. Post Dunkirk, the British Empire was at a vulnerable point. The resources needed by the Germans would only marginally affect the demonstrations in the channel.

 

[Sarpedon]

I believe Hitler considered invading Spain, and decided against it. I know he wasn't the best judge of who should and shouldn't be invaded, but in the end there's a limit to the number of Germans. In fact he reached and exceeded that limit without also invading Spain.

When I play Hearts of Iron, I generally DO invade Spain, entirely for that same reason. But sometimes life is not like a video game. I don't think invading yet another neutral country, one filled to the brim with battle-hardened veterans, containing several mountain ranges perpendicular to one's lines of march and surrounded by seas controlled by the British Empire would be a short or simple affair. Hitler remembered what happened when Napoleon invaded Spain. What happened? Guerrillas happened. Lots of them. And it meant that lots of French troops, who could otherwise be used against Russia, were instead stuck in Spain.

The problem is that there was no move that could have allowed Germany to win if only they'd just seen it. There was never a time when the GDP of the Axis countries wasn't well below that of the Allies. The British Empire alone contained a quarter of the Earth's population. Together, the Axis powers probably could have defeated the British Empire, OR they could have defeated the Soviet Union OR they could have defeated the United States. That is ultimately the problem, in that three countries that weren't superpowers tried to take on three superpowers at the same time. Invading another country wouldn't have solved that, it would have only added another enemy to the pile.

 

[bilby]

I believe Hitler considered invading Spain, and decided against it. I know he wasn't the best judge of who should and shouldn't be invaded, but in the end there's a limit to the number of Germans. In fact he reached and exceeded that limit without also invading Spain.

When I play Hearts of Iron, I generally DO invade Spain, entirely for that same reason. But sometimes life is not like a video game. I don't think invading yet another neutral country, one filled to the brim with battle-hardened veterans, containing several mountain ranges perpendicular to one's lines of march and surrounded by seas controlled by the British Empire would be a short or simple affair. Hitler remembered what happened when Napoleon invaded Spain. What happened? Guerrillas happened. Lots of them. And it meant that lots of French troops, who could otherwise be used against Russia, were instead stuck in Spain.

The problem is that there was no move that could have allowed Germany to win if only they'd just seen it. There was never a time when the GDP of the Axis countries wasn't well below that of the Allies. The British Empire alone contained a quarter of the Earth's population. Together, the Axis powers probably could have defeated the British Empire, OR they could have defeated the Soviet Union OR they could have defeated the United States. That is ultimately the problem, in that three countries that weren't superpowers tried to take on three superpowers at the same time. Invading another country wouldn't have solved that, it would have only added another enemy to the pile.

For sure any move by Germany that brings the USA into the war is an unrecoverable mistake.

Hitler's declaration of War on the US after Pearl Harbor was insane; the smart move would have been to declare war on Japan; Using the 'Yellow Peril' racial gambit would not have been out of character for the Third Reich, and might at the very least have kept the USA neutral. There was no particular need for Germany to actually attack Japan - after all, they didn't attack the mainland US either, and the Japanese didn't bring any vital support to the German cause. So it's all just diplomacy.

Defeating one superpower at a time might have been doable; Taking on both the British and the Soviets at the same time probably wasn't; But to have even a minuscule chance of winning, it was essential to keep America neutral. That was far more important than alliance with the Japanese Empire.

America clung to neutrality for a very long time; I doubt that the American people would have accepted getting involved in another war in Europe, if the Germans had quickly and decisively thrown Japan under the bus in December 1941.

Certainly many anti-isolationists in the US feared that the result of Pearl Harbor would be a concentration on the Pacific Theatre and a drastic reduction in the level of aid to the British and Soviets; There was much relief in that faction when the German declaration of war was made, four days after Pearl.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I believe Hitler considered invading Spain, and decided against it. I know he wasn't the best judge of who should and shouldn't be invaded, but in the end there's a limit to the number of Germans. In fact he reached and exceeded that limit without also invading Spain.

When I play Hearts of Iron, I generally DO invade Spain, entirely for that same reason. But sometimes life is not like a video game. I don't think invading yet another neutral country, one filled to the brim with battle-hardened veterans, containing several mountain ranges perpendicular to one's lines of march and surrounded by seas controlled by the British Empire would be a short or simple affair. Hitler remembered what happened when Napoleon invaded Spain. What happened? Guerrillas happened. Lots of them. And it meant that lots of French troops, who could otherwise be used against Russia, were instead stuck in Spain.

The problem is that there was no move that could have allowed Germany to win if only they'd just seen it. There was never a time when the GDP of the Axis countries wasn't well below that of the Allies. The British Empire alone contained a quarter of the Earth's population. Together, the Axis powers probably could have defeated the British Empire, OR they could have defeated the Soviet Union OR they could have defeated the United States. That is ultimately the problem, in that three countries that weren't superpowers tried to take on three superpowers at the same time. Invading another country wouldn't have solved that, it would have only added another enemy to the pile.

The USSR had a very primitive road network. That was a larger impediment to the Nazis than their horse drawn vehicles or marching armies. Spain might not have had a road network comparable to France, but I'm sure it was far superior to Russia's. I doubt the Germans would've been stopped.

As for Spanish veterans, the Germans were veterans too, who had just defeated decisively the best armies in Europe using the most modern weapons and tactics. So what if there were guerillas, with Britain gone, would the Spanish continue?

Your analysis is based on a long war. But if Britains empire communications were cut before 1941, how long could they continue? And if the British sued for peace, then there are no longer any enemies. All this before the Japanese even attacked.

 

[Sarpedon]

So you take Gibraltar. So they take the long way around Africa. That would hurt and weaken them certainly. Would it be the same as 'cutting' their communications? No. The british empire existed before the Suez canal existed. This isn't a magic war winning move. Your problem is that you don't attribute any cost to these conquests. Your solution to the problem of Germany fighting too many countries at once is to fight more countries. What would have happened was a reorganization of how supplies were shipped around. India and the middle east had plenty of resources to sustain the Meditteranean theater via the Suez, and the british isles could get all their food and oil from the US and Canada.

So you take Gibraltar, you still face the problem that the Italian Navy still has to defeat the british one. Granted, with Gibraltar taken, it would absolutely be harder to reinforce it, but my money is still on the British Mediterranean fleet. It was just that much stronger. But even if you are right, then what? Capturing Egypt and the Middle east and attacking Russia from the south won't solve the problem. You will still have the same, small army attacking Russia from a more advantageous position, but reduced in size for all the troops they lost fighting and occupying all these additional regions. Something will give eventually.

The link across the atlantic was probably much more important to than the link to india. Unless you think India would have revolted and joined the axis, this whole scheme weakens, but does not destroy the British Empire, which, as I pointed out, is only one of three superpowers that beat the Axis. and I'm not sure that assuming India would revolt is a safe assumption. After all, did French colonies revolt immediately after France fell? Dutch colonies? Belgian colonies? No. The Indians weren't going to join the guy who praised the English occupation of India as evidence of the superiority of the nordic race, when they had already secured the promise of their independence after the war ended.

 

[bilby]

So you take Gibraltar. So they take the long way around Africa. That would hurt and weaken them certainly. Would it be the same as 'cutting' their communications? No. The british empire existed before the Suez canal existed. This isn't a magic war winning move. Your problem is that you don't attribute any cost to these conquests. Your solution to the problem of Germany fighting too many countries at once is to fight more countries. What would have happened was a reorganization of how supplies were shipped around. India and the middle east had plenty of resources to sustain the Meditteranean theater via the Suez, and the british isles could get all their food and oil from the US and Canada.

So you take Gibraltar, you still face the problem that the Italian Navy still has to defeat the british one. Granted, with Gibraltar taken, it would absolutely be harder to reinforce it, but my money is still on the British Mediterranean fleet. It was just that much stronger. But even if you are right, then what? Capturing Egypt and the Middle east and attacking Russia from the south won't solve the problem. You will still have the same, small army attacking Russia from a more advantageous position, but reduced in size for all the troops they lost fighting and occupying all these additional regions. Something will give eventually.

The link across the atlantic was probably much more important to than the link to india. Unless you think India would have revolted and joined the axis, this whole scheme weakens, but does not destroy the British Empire, which, as I pointed out, is only one of three superpowers that beat the Axis. and I'm not sure that assuming India would revolt is a safe assumption. After all, did French colonies revolt immediately after France fell? Dutch colonies? Belgian colonies? No. The Indians weren't going to join the guy who praised the English occupation of India as evidence of the superiority of the nordic race, when they had already secured the promise of their independence after the war ended.

I agree.

Having seen the shipping losses as detailed in the Cabinet War Rooms in Whitehall (now the 'Churchill War Rooms Museum'), it is clear that the Battle of the Atlantic was absolutely critical to Britain's ability to stay in the war, particularly in the years before the Americans joined, when US Naval efforts against German submarines were limited in scope, and before the development of microwave radars that could detect U-boats on the surface at night. Merchant ships were being sunk considerably faster than they could be replaced.

With 20-20 hindsight, even a fairly modest additional investment by Germany in the U-boat force could have knocked out the British before the end of 1941. Perhaps if the resources that went into surface vessels for the Kriegsmarine, which were largely useless, had instead gone into more and better U-boats, the British could have been starved into surrender.

The standard rations on which the British people subsisted during the war (and for a decade afterwards) was a truly tiny amount of food, and imports from the Empire, and particularly from America, were absolutely vital.

After the war, Churchill said that the only thing he had ever been truly scared by was the U-boat menace.

 

[Horatio Parker]

So you take Gibraltar. So they take the long way around Africa. That would hurt and weaken them certainly. Would it be the same as 'cutting' their communications? No. The british empire existed before the Suez canal existed. This isn't a magic war winning move. Your problem is that you don't attribute any cost to these conquests. Your solution to the problem of Germany fighting too many countries at once is to fight more countries. What would have happened was a reorganization of how supplies were shipped around. India and the middle east had plenty of resources to sustain the Meditteranean theater via the Suez, and the british isles could get all their food and oil from the US and Canada.

So you take Gibraltar, you still face the problem that the Italian Navy still has to defeat the british one. Granted, with Gibraltar taken, it would absolutely be harder to reinforce it, but my money is still on the British Mediterranean fleet. It was just that much stronger. But even if you are right, then what? Capturing Egypt and the Middle east and attacking Russia from the south won't solve the problem. You will still have the same, small army attacking Russia from a more advantageous position, but reduced in size for all the troops they lost fighting and occupying all these additional regions. Something will give eventually.

The link across the atlantic was probably much more important to than the link to india. Unless you think India would have revolted and joined the axis, this whole scheme weakens, but does not destroy the British Empire, which, as I pointed out, is only one of three superpowers that beat the Axis. and I'm not sure that assuming India would revolt is a safe assumption. After all, did French colonies revolt immediately after France fell? Dutch colonies? Belgian colonies? No. The Indians weren't going to join the guy who praised the English occupation of India as evidence of the superiority of the nordic race, when they had already secured the promise of their independence after the war ended.

And your problem is you overestimate the difficulty the Germans faced in the Mediterranean, and overestimate British capabilities. Compared with Barbarossa, it would've been a walk in the park.

Let's say that Gibraltar and Suez have fallen. So what exactly is the British fleet going to do? My guess is it would go the way of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse. I think though, that if one end of the Med were closed, with the other threatened, the fleet would be withdrawn.

Now you appear to be arguing that Britain would remain in the war even after losing the Med. Perhaps these points are not really all that strategically significant? Or only as long as the British hold them? I'm not prepared to argue in any detail the difficulty of Britain's remaining in the war after losing the Med, but the strategists I have read suggest that remaining would've been untenable.

And please stop with all the three superpowers stuff. In 1940 the US and USSR were both neutral. You appear to think the war would have to follow the course it did. My point is that's not necessarily so.

Let's try it this way: Hitlers justification for Barbarossa while Britain was still undefeated was to remove the only potential European ally left to her. So, keeping our eye on Britain, what was a more effective strategy, closing the Med or invading the USSR?

 

[Sarpedon]

I assume the war would go the way it went because nothing you have said changes certain facts:

Fact 1: Nazi Germany and the USSR were natural enemies and a confrontation was inevitable.
Fact 2: Japan's atrocities in China had led to US sanctions, which in turn led to Japan's military response.
Fact 3: The USA was already preparing for war by 1940.
Fact 4: the mediterranean would have been no Barbarossa, because there's no way they could deploy even a small fraction of the Barbarossa forces in the Mediterranean.

Please review my first post in this thread, wherein I explained why it was already too late by 1940.

So whether it was 1941, or 1942, or 1943, the USSR and USA were coming into the war. Nothing Germany could do could change that. You falsely make neutrality equivalent to passivity. Neither the USSR nor the USA was being passive. Both were preparing for war. The USA was surprised by the Japanese attack, largely because we were preparing for war against Germany.

I think you, in turn, underestimate axis difficulties in the Mediterranean. Need I point out that historically, the advance into Egypt was halted, primarily due to the problems of supply. An army simply can't be supplied in north africa without shipping. The germans tried it, and failed. The british, who could supply their forces by sea succeeded. There would have been no reason to evacuate the british fleet before the germans reached the nile. How were they to cross the nile with no ships? The fact that you ignore these enormous logistical problems makes you hard to take seriously. I contend, Gibraltar or no Gibraltar, the Axis couldn't take Suez.

Unless...and this is the only big if-if these successes could bring Turkey into the war on the Axis side. Only then would taking Suez become possible. If Turkey were to join, troops and supplies could be moved by rail all the way to the middle East, and the whole thing easily accomplished. However, I bet that would have led to other consequences, like the end of the USSR sitting around and waiting to be attacked. And would Turkey have joined before the British Empire was defeated? I doubt it.

Also, I'd just like to briefly discuss the Malta vs Crete issue. It is true that in hindsight, squandering the german airborne forces on Crete rather than malta was a mistake. But why did they choose Crete to begin with? Let me tell you. Crete would have made the perfect place to bomb Romania from. Romania, the sole source of German oil. So trading Malta for Crete means allowing this bombing to take place. Just remember, everything you change has a cost to it, which I think you all too frequently ignore.

And finally, I am not overestimating the strength of the British Empire. Everything I have said has a strong basis in fact. The British navy was the most powerful in the world in 1940. The italian fleet never even dared leave port to challenge them. Facts. If you had managed to take Malta, all you would have gained was a narrow corridor to get shipping as far as Benghazi. After that, you have to truck everything across the desert. You think Russia is bad? You don't have to truck water in Russia. You couldn't send a bigger army to Africa, because you could never keep it supplied.

My contention that the British Empire could function even if divided in half is also well based on fact. The French, Dutch, and Belgian colonies in africa and indonesia continued to function after their home countries were completely occupied. India itself is a mighty nation and had a large industrial base even during that time.

To sum up, your plan involves invading another neutral country, and yet expecting the USA to remain neutral even longer than it did. Occupy another country, but fail to discount the number of troops necessary from your total avaiilable. For comparison, the occupation of Yugoslavia took more than 600,000 troops, and cost over 50,000 deaths to Germany and Italy, not even counting the minor axis contingents. Spain would have been just as costly. Then you surmise that this would allow the Axis to take Egypt, despite doing nothing to solve the Axis' own logistical problems, and ignoring the natural barriers to this advance, including that of one of the Earth's LARGEST RIVERS. You assume that the loss of Gibraltar would lead to the british fleet's withdrawl from the med, despite the fact that they had somewhere else to draw their supplies from (India via Suez). Indeed, you also ignore that Axis operations in the Eastern Med would be greatly hindered by Allied aircraft operating from Crete, which your plan leaves in their hands. The one factor that COULD actually have been a game changer, Turkey, you ignore.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Given Hitler's desire to expand to the east, a confrontation with the USSR was likely inevitable. The chances with Britain out of the war, bases in the Middle East, and the US neutral were much better. Or no?

Japan going to war against us doesn't mean Germany can't remain neutral.

There was no need to deploy force on the scale of Barbarossa in the Med.

Yes, I remember your point about Japan preferring southern expansion. But also remember again, Britain and Germany would be at peace. So why would war between the US and Germany be inevitable? Seems to me both countries would prefer to avoid a two front war.

Hitler regarded North Africa as a backwater. The Afrika corps were there to help the Italians, not because Hitler realized the strategic potential. They could've committed far more resources. Even during Barbarossa, the Germans increased their strength there to over 250k after Torch. Are you suggesting that they couldn't do in summer 1940 what they were able to do in 1943?

In the air age, navies without at least air parity are sitting ducks. Which is what the British fleet would've become had the entrances to the Med been closed. They would've pulled out.

The Italians supplied a far larger force than the Germans. Replace the Italians in the forward areas with Germans. Done.

As I said earlier, even if Spain did turn into Yugoslavia, it would still be more economical than relying on Barbossa to convince Britain to make peace.

I surmise that taking Gibraltar and Malta would allow a sufficient force buildup to take Egypt, yes. Easily. Remember your parameters: July 1940. Without Crete, maybe getting a force to Syria would be too much, I don't know. Then again, Italy didn't invade Greece until Oct 1940, so maybe it was doable. A much better risk than the one they took.

 

[SLD]

Another plausible route was to sit on your conquests, and build up your U boats. Eventually the Germans built another 100 U boats and had 200 available for action. The one thing to do was to listen to Donitz and try to strangle Britain's life lines with the US. 200 might have been sufficient. But by the time they got there they'd lost so many they couldn't make a difference.

While I certainly think Hitler was a fool for declaring war with the US, I'm skeptical we wouldn't have been in it a few months after Pearl Harbor anyways. FDR had promised a referendum on war against Germany and I suspect it would have passed by that point.

At some point though, you have to invade the Soviet Union. Bolshevism is your sworn enemy. It must be destroyed if you are ever going to establish your thousand year Reich. I just think you should give it two years at least, bring on your allies, even the French. There were enough anti communist there too. A little better treatment of them, and they would gladly have joined in the fight.

SLD

 

[Sarpedon]

If you think that Germany not declaring war upon us would have kept us out you aren't paying attention. It's absurd. It may have bought a month or two while Roosevelt arm wrestled Congress, but everyone understood that war with Germany was inevitable. That is the war we were preparing for, not Japan. Your problem is that you assume the allies are passive, just sitting around waiting for Germany to unleash its master plan upon us. You assume that the USA would ignore its interests in favor of a legal technicality. You assume that Britain would withdraw its fleet and surrender without Gibraltar. You assume that without Gibraltar the RAF would have nowhere to land. You assume the Spanish wouldn't resist invasion. You assume the USSR would just sit passively by and allow themselves to be encircled. Why not assume Stalin would retire, and put Leon Trotsky in charge? Assume the German-American Bund would win the 1940 election? Your scenerio is sounding more and more like cheap-ass Turtledove fan-fic every post. Your assumptions are based on absurd fantasies, whereas mine are based on facts. I assume the USA would go to war with Germany, because that is what the policy of the government was leading towards. I assume that the USSR would be preparing for war with Germany in 1942, because that is what they were doing in 1939, 1940, and 1941. If Hitler had waited a year, or two years to attack them, they would keep on preparing. I assume Japan would attack the USA, because they did. I have historic precedent for every single one of my assumptions. Nothing that you imagine has even the slightest grounding in reality.

Your talk of the withdrawl from the med is ignorant bullshit. The Royal Navy wouldn't have air cover? Why the fuck wouldn't they? They had airfields in Egypt, Palestine, Cypress and Crete. When the Germans advanced to El Alemain, it was them who were advancing beyond their air cover. And you think Barbarossa was an effort to getBritain to surrender? Britain was NOT going to surrender. They made that perfectly clear.

And they could do in 1940 what they couldn't do in 1943? Of course. There's a difference between sending an army to the part of Africa that is closest to your supply route(Tunisia) and the part that is far away from it (Egypt). IF you can't understand that basic fact, you have no basis for this argument. Also, need I point out the German army in operation Torch performed quite well...until their supplies ran out. So no, Germany couldn't send a large army to Africa and keep it supplied. And a German eats as much as an Italian. Switching the troops out wouldn't solve the supply problem.

 

[bilby]

If you think that Germany not declaring war upon us would have kept us out you aren't paying attention. It's absurd. It may have bought a month or two while Roosevelt arm wrestled Congress, but everyone understood that war with Germany was inevitable.

I think war with Germany was inevitable, IF Japan hadn't attacked the US. But it likely would have been the middle of 1942 at the earliest, even in that case - and it was by no means a sure thing that the isolationists would lose the debate.

Pearl Harbor changed everything - and made war against Germany LESS likely. There was a real feeling in Washington that the US might decide she had to defeat Japan before making taking any further steps towards war against Germany, at least for the four brief days before the German declaration of war on the US. The Roosevelt faction, who wanted to go to war against Germany were HUGELY relieved to hear Hitler declare war.

Now, had Hitler instead declared war ON JAPAN, everything would have been changed. There was no certainty that the US would go to war against Germany before Pearl, but it was very likely she would. After Pearl, the chances were drastically lowered, and there was a real prospect of a 'Japan first' (meaning, at least for the next couple of years, 'Japan only') policy dominating. Had Germany invoked her racial policies, declared that Japan attacking a white nation was a step too far, and declared war on the Japanese Empire, that would almost certainly have guaranteed US/German neutrality at the very least until Japan was defeated.

Obviously we can never know what might have been; But I think your claim that it is absurd to imagine the US remaining neutral with respect to Germany is going a bit far. It's not even implausible, absent the German declaration of war on the US (which appears to have been a purely personal whim of Hitler's); and if we are further allowed to imagine any diplomatic or military stance from Germany that positively condemned the attack on Pearl (even just a publicly known stern rebuke to the Japanese ambassador in Berlin) we could easily project that it would have put the lid on a US/Germany war for at least several more years.

I tend to agree with your analysis of the situation in the Mediterranean; I don't think that there's an easy winning move for Germany in that theatre.

 

[Horatio Parker]

If you think that Germany not declaring war upon us would have kept us out you aren't paying attention. It's absurd. It may have bought a month or two while Roosevelt arm wrestled Congress, but everyone understood that war with Germany was inevitable. That is the war we were preparing for, not Japan. Your problem is that you assume the allies are passive, just sitting around waiting for Germany to unleash its master plan upon us. You assume that the USA would ignore its interests in favor of a legal technicality. You assume that Britain would withdraw its fleet and surrender without Gibraltar. You assume that without Gibraltar the RAF would have nowhere to land. You assume the Spanish wouldn't resist invasion. You assume the USSR would just sit passively by and allow themselves to be encircled. Why not assume Stalin would retire, and put Leon Trotsky in charge? Assume the German-American Bund would win the 1940 election? Your scenerio is sounding more and more like cheap-ass Turtledove fan-fic every post. Your assumptions are based on absurd fantasies, whereas mine are based on facts. I assume the USA would go to war with Germany, because that is what the policy of the government was leading towards. I assume that the USSR would be preparing for war with Germany in 1942, because that is what they were doing in 1939, 1940, and 1941. If Hitler had waited a year, or two years to attack them, they would keep on preparing. I assume Japan would attack the USA, because they did. I have historic precedent for every single one of my assumptions. Nothing that you imagine has even the slightest grounding in reality.

I never said anything about Britain surrendering. There are other settlements possible than surrender, you know. You're attempting to turn my arguments into a straw man, never mind the other ad absurdum baloney.

I'm not making assumptions about Spanish resistance, but I do think the Germans would've easily prevailed. My point is that the stakes were high enough to justify the risk. The Spanish weren't even ready.

Your assumption about the inevitability of war between the US and Germany is based on the continuation of their war in Europe. I think that if Europe were at peace, and Japan attacked at Pearl Harbor, there would be zero chance of war with Germany.

Your talk of the withdrawl from the med is ignorant bullshit. The Royal Navy wouldn't have air cover? Why the fuck wouldn't they? They had airfields in Egypt, Palestine, Cypress and Crete. When the Germans advanced to El Alemain, it was them who were advancing beyond their air cover. And you think Barbarossa was an effort to getBritain to surrender? Britain was NOT going to surrender. They made that perfectly clear.

I would advise against taking politician's talk of never surrendering too seriously.

As for your other objections, you seem to not understand your own scenario. Strategically, it's a case exterior vs interior lines. Taking Gibraltar would force the British to operate on exterior lines, meaning that keeping the RAF in the air in the Med would become more difficult, whereas the Germans would have a far easier time.

It may have been an excuse, but Hitler justified Barbarossa by claiming he was removing a potential British ally. Again, surrender is your word, not mine.

And they could do in 1940 what they couldn't do in 1943? Of course. There's a difference between sending an army to the part of Africa that is closest to your supply route(Tunisia) and the part that is far away from it (Egypt). IF you can't understand that basic fact, you have no basis for this argument. Also, need I point out the German army in operation Torch performed quite well...until their supplies ran out. So no, Germany couldn't send a large army to Africa and keep it supplied. And a German eats as much as an Italian. Switching the troops out wouldn't solve the supply problem.

You're just repeating yourself. Those troops were supplied, even under the prevailing austere conditions. You don't think swapping Italian infantry divisions for mobile Germans would make a difference? Please.

Your understanding seems to be limited by what happened, without much vision or grasp of what could've happened. The Germans short changed the African theater, so your mind, nothing more was possible.

 

[Sarpedon]

Europe would have been at peace? With Germany occupying how many countries? Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece, France and Spain? You call that peace? That isn't peace. Why would the United States respect the 'neutrality' of Germany, when Germany didn't respect the neutrality of so many other countries? I can't 'imagine' it because it is absurd. The isolationists were able to drag their feet until Pearl Harbor. After that, hey had no credibility. None. Do I have to remind you that a US destroyer was sunk by a U-boat a couple of months before Pearl Harbor? And that Germany and Japan had a formal alliance? Roosevelt had all the pretext he needed. I bet if Pearl Harbor hadn't happened, something else would have been used. No one on Earth would have been stupid enough to believe in German Neutrality, or a fake declaration of war on Japan. Your alt-history fanfic is premised on everyone but the Ubermenschen being imbeciles.

And we are not talking about any politician. We are talking about Winston Churchill. I know quite a bit about the man, and I am not a fan. However, one thing I will bet every dollar I have on is his belligerence. He would not surrender, and I say surrender because whatever sort of diplomatic solution that would have happened at that time would have been seen as a surrender. No matter what. The british wouldn't negotiate with Hitler because Hitler so many times proved himself untrustworthy. You can only invade so many neutral countries before people stop listening to your promises. Besides, for the last 1,000 years Britain has had a policy not to let any one country dominate Europe. I am 'limited' in that I can't imagine they'd abandon that policy for the sake of your scenerio.

Yes, I am 'limited' by what happened, as well as what is 'possible' and consistent with human 'history,' and 'psychology.' Your idea that a German-occupied Europe would be seen as 'at peace' is absolutely bonkers, and deserves no respect whatsoever.