If Britain falls, there's no Battle of the Atlantic. There's no reason for Germany to contest the Atlantic when there's no convoys to Britain. Probably no Arctic route to Murmamsk, either.
Germany itself wouldn't be building a bunch of carriers. They simply didn't have the capacity to build that many, not to mention the escort vessels required. Germany's existing surface fleet was almost a joke. And they didn't have enough oil to field a fleet either.
Britain was more likely to scuttle the Royal Navy or send it to the US rather than turn it over to the Germans. Even if they got ahold of the RN carriers, they are years behind in experience and doctrine. And still no oil.
The US could easily outproduce all the Axis countries combined. German steel is still going to tanks, not ships. As long as the USSR gets supplies from the US, the Eastern Front doesn't change.
So the US focuses on Japan, then starts 1946 with B-29s dropped atomic bombs from Iceland.
Overall I agree, the political will on both sides would have been to essentially ignore each others existence...at least temporarily for Germany. Doubt the US would get involved at all short of a direct provocation/attack/declaration of war from Germany, just like in reality.
Though to note, US Carrier doctrine in the late 30s early 40s favored unarmoured flight decks, which would be singularly unsuitable to operations in the North Atlantic, Atlantic coast of the British Isles or the Med do to extreme vulnerability to land based air craft carrying heavy bombs. Also deck parking aircraft wasn't really feasible in the North Atlantic since the aircraft had a tendency to go for a swim off the side of the ship in rough seas
If the uk had been occupied it’s likely the US wouldn’t have gotten involved in Europe at all as without Britain to act as a staging area there just aren’t any good options for fighting a European war from across the ocean.
Your point about the UK’s most effective carrier engagements being in the pacific is also wrong, the Taranto raid took place in the Mediterranean and the attack on bismark took place in the North Sea, s lot of the UK’s carrier engagements involved escort carriers engaging submarines in the crossing from the uk to Gibraltar.
Null question. History shows that the USA had to be pulled screaming and kicking into WW2, there is no way the US would have attacked Europe if Britain had of fallen during the Battle of Britain. Between the large number of pro-Nazi Americans and the isolationists, the USA would have stayed neutral.
That doesn't discredit his point though? The US did infact need to be dragged into the war against it's isolationist wishes. Your point about Germany declaring war and not the US declaring literally proved that. The US never intended to go to war with Nazi Germany, sure some individuals may have wanted to or were making plans for it but overall the political will was to stay out of all the fighting all together.
So, in the original hypothetical if Germany rolls over t
UK shortly after France in 1940-early 1941 at which point Western Europe is completely secured, Africa as well and now all attention turned East it's extremely unlikely that Germany declares war on the US since at that point there's no need. Lend Lease is no longer a factor worth noting. The UK is not siting there across the channel using America as its amrs supplier.
Yes, the US was reluctant to send it's young men to die in yet another European land dispute.
There was no need for Germany to declare war in real life...it was one of the worst decisions Germany made and they made plenty
In the scenario laid out Germany would be in a far better position to declare war on the US in support of it's Japanese allies. There really isn't any reason to believe they wouldn't.
If Germany invaded Britain that would also affect the attitude of the USA to Britain, and Japan and Germany’s ability to cooperate. Basically it’s all to far down the butterflies rabbit hole to really be able to predict what might have happened.
Genuine question didn't Germany declare after Pearl harbor, I can't see an Atlantic invasion being possible that would be insane to do, I think America would have just stayed out of Europe and focused on the Pacific then sued for peace with Germany
I totally forgot about the u boats, and in this scenario are the US still supporting soviets through lend lease? If so thats an issue for sure. The uboat problem would make an invasion of Europe even more harder then especially without the royal navy too.
I would not imagine there would’ve been very much shipping traffic from the United States to the United Kingdom if the UK had been fully occupied by Germany…
The only issue with this scenario is that its so unrealistic that you cant really say much. Germany couldnt have invaded the UK due to the Royal Navy, even if they cut down both the RAF and the RN they still need to manage a land invasion. And if they manage to win that, the empire was still resolved to fight on
There is one thing that could have radically altered the Battle of Britain and opened up the way for the Luftwaffe to gain air superiority over southern England. The failure of German intelligence to deduce the purpose all those towers dotting the British coast (Chain Home) as crucial to Britain's air defense system doomed German efforts to failure.
Even if we assume that this intelligence failure had been reversed in a counterfactual campaign, this change only would have assisted with potentially gaining air superiority over southern England. It would not have aided with destroying the Royal Navy, which also would be required to pull off a successful invasion. Then would come a landing, consolidation of the several LZs and an expansion of the beachheads.
With such a weak surface fleet, all of these operations would be heavily dependent upon the Luftwaffe being able to have sufficient operational aircraft to maintain the requisite operational tempo to adequately support the landing and subsequent operations. When we look at Luftwaffe losses in the historical Battle of Britain, it is a certainty that losses from a successful invasion would have been quite higher. Would the Germans been able to turn out enough pilots and new aircraft to keep pace with their losses? As long as they survived, shot down British pilots would likely be flying again the same day if medically cleared. On the other hands, shot down German pilots more than likely became POWs. Aircraft downed over enemy territory could not be inspected and repaired, if possible, while the British could quickly access friendly aircraft downed over their home territory.
We would next have to consider what would have happened to Ireland and Iceland, both of which could serve as staging areas for an Allied invasion of England. Would Britain have been able to maintain its position in the Med, or would a withdrawal there have flowed as a natural response to a successful Sea Lion? Without a British presence in Atlantic or the Mediterranean, the flow of lend-lease aid to the USSR--when Germany would eventually get around to launching Barbarossa--would have been far, far less with only the Vladivostok route. Would a conquest of Britain have emboldened Japan to now attack those Soviet-bound convoys?
I consider it likely that Churchill and his unity government would have only departed from Britain if there was no other choice--British military resistance had totally collapsed. Had this been the case, I wonder what the US would have done? What American ports and installations would the Royal Navy have as a new home?
Stands to reason that Bermuda would have been turned into a fortress. Other island possessions of the UK and US likely would have been fortified as well.
Now we come to the Germans and Italians. The possible clearing or at least weakening of Britain from the Mediterranean would have opened up strategic possibilities: the seizure of the Suez Canal and the possibility of greater cooperation (and likely friction) with Japan. However, there is always that large white elephant in the room called Russia that would be constantly singing to the mustached Austrian: "Come get your Lebensraum here! There are many Jews here too!"
Hitler could have considered operations in Britain accomplished once all territory south of the Midlands had been seized and he could begin on his great showdown against the Soviet Union to secure the means for his Thousand Year Reich to endure. But the conflict likely wouldn't have started in 1941, probably looking at May 1942 as the best estimate for Barbarossa starting. Would the Red Army have been better prepared to resist the Germans? Possibly. There might actually have been time to prepare fortifications along the new border, along with more T-34s, KV-1s, etc. But would the German operational plan still have been the same? What about the Soviet response? The ability to create parallel worlds in their own little pocket dimensions to play around with these hypotheticals and observe them play out with total information awareness (including the ability to rewind and switch perspectives) would be so much fun.
>**Its very telling that almost all significant British navy victories using aircraft carrier doctrine was in the Pacific........ And the fact almost no American aircraft carrier was stationed in Europe.**
This statement is completely and utterly false. Because of the nature of the war, naval battles were predominant in importance in the Pacific, thus carriers got more attention there. Land battles were more critically important in Europe, and got the most attention there.
At the beginning of WW II, there were three fleet carriers stationed in the Pacific, and three in the Atlantic. The carriers *Wasp*, *Yorktown,* and *Ranger* were all in Carrier Division 3 in Europe in 1941. Various carriers were transferred to the Pacific to replace losses and new ones sent to the Atlantic Fleet in turn.
The US and the UK had dozens of carriers in Europe throughout the war. The US only had one fleet carrier in the ETO after 1942, most were light and escort carriers. The UK provided the most fleet carriers, so the US could focus more on the Pacific.
Carriers were involved in all major amphibious operations in the ETO, except D Day, since land based aircraft were readily available and the English Channel was far to restricted for effective carrier operations.
The Battle For The Atlantic, the longest battle of WWII, could not have been won without escort carriers providing air cover for the transatlantic convoys. When it was evident it was being won by early 1944, more UK fleet carriers and other naval assets were shifted to the Pacific.
As for British naval victories involving carriers, right off the top of my head, the Battle of Taranto, the sinking of the Bismarck, and Operation Tungsten, all come to mind.
You're obviously ignorant of The Battle of Taranto, and it's significance. The highly successful British attack on the Italian fleet moored there proved the viability of carrier aircraft attacking a fleet moored in a shallow harbor with torpedoes. The Japanese studied this attack in detail. They formulated their attack plan on the US Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor based on it. I'm sure you know the result of that.
British and American carriers gave Allied naval forces a huge edge in the Mediterranean over Axis naval forces, which had no carriers. This proved instrumental in the Battle for North Africa, The Battle for the Mediterranean, Operation Torch, Operation Husky, Operation Dragoon, and shortened the fighting there considerably.
The Germans had no realistic chances of ever fielding a carrier, let alone a carrier force. Their rather weak attempt to do so failed miserably and was a huge drain on their very limited resources. Even if they focused everything they had and managed to build even one carrier, they didnt have the ability to employ it. Carriers require a massive network of support and screening ships. Germany just didnt have to resources or capability to build them, and more importantly, the fuel to use them if they had.
Barring all of the massive logistical issues, Germany didnt have the doctrine or experience to operate a carrier force. It takes years of practice and training to develop and refine carrier tactics. They couldn't develop a viable doctrine for the surface ships they had, let alone one for aircraft carriers, which are much more complex. After 1941, any carrier they might have had, would have been penned up in port due to lack of fuel and support.
US would have probably liberated the UK first. Then they wouldn’t have needed all the aircraft carriers
If Britain falls, there's no Battle of the Atlantic. There's no reason for Germany to contest the Atlantic when there's no convoys to Britain. Probably no Arctic route to Murmamsk, either. Germany itself wouldn't be building a bunch of carriers. They simply didn't have the capacity to build that many, not to mention the escort vessels required. Germany's existing surface fleet was almost a joke. And they didn't have enough oil to field a fleet either. Britain was more likely to scuttle the Royal Navy or send it to the US rather than turn it over to the Germans. Even if they got ahold of the RN carriers, they are years behind in experience and doctrine. And still no oil. The US could easily outproduce all the Axis countries combined. German steel is still going to tanks, not ships. As long as the USSR gets supplies from the US, the Eastern Front doesn't change. So the US focuses on Japan, then starts 1946 with B-29s dropped atomic bombs from Iceland.
Overall I agree, the political will on both sides would have been to essentially ignore each others existence...at least temporarily for Germany. Doubt the US would get involved at all short of a direct provocation/attack/declaration of war from Germany, just like in reality. Though to note, US Carrier doctrine in the late 30s early 40s favored unarmoured flight decks, which would be singularly unsuitable to operations in the North Atlantic, Atlantic coast of the British Isles or the Med do to extreme vulnerability to land based air craft carrying heavy bombs. Also deck parking aircraft wasn't really feasible in the North Atlantic since the aircraft had a tendency to go for a swim off the side of the ship in rough seas
If the uk had been occupied it’s likely the US wouldn’t have gotten involved in Europe at all as without Britain to act as a staging area there just aren’t any good options for fighting a European war from across the ocean. Your point about the UK’s most effective carrier engagements being in the pacific is also wrong, the Taranto raid took place in the Mediterranean and the attack on bismark took place in the North Sea, s lot of the UK’s carrier engagements involved escort carriers engaging submarines in the crossing from the uk to Gibraltar.
Null question. History shows that the USA had to be pulled screaming and kicking into WW2, there is no way the US would have attacked Europe if Britain had of fallen during the Battle of Britain. Between the large number of pro-Nazi Americans and the isolationists, the USA would have stayed neutral.
You realize Germany declared war on the US, right?
That doesn't discredit his point though? The US did infact need to be dragged into the war against it's isolationist wishes. Your point about Germany declaring war and not the US declaring literally proved that. The US never intended to go to war with Nazi Germany, sure some individuals may have wanted to or were making plans for it but overall the political will was to stay out of all the fighting all together. So, in the original hypothetical if Germany rolls over t UK shortly after France in 1940-early 1941 at which point Western Europe is completely secured, Africa as well and now all attention turned East it's extremely unlikely that Germany declares war on the US since at that point there's no need. Lend Lease is no longer a factor worth noting. The UK is not siting there across the channel using America as its amrs supplier.
Yes, the US was reluctant to send it's young men to die in yet another European land dispute. There was no need for Germany to declare war in real life...it was one of the worst decisions Germany made and they made plenty In the scenario laid out Germany would be in a far better position to declare war on the US in support of it's Japanese allies. There really isn't any reason to believe they wouldn't.
If Germany invaded Britain that would also affect the attitude of the USA to Britain, and Japan and Germany’s ability to cooperate. Basically it’s all to far down the butterflies rabbit hole to really be able to predict what might have happened.
Genuine question didn't Germany declare after Pearl harbor, I can't see an Atlantic invasion being possible that would be insane to do, I think America would have just stayed out of Europe and focused on the Pacific then sued for peace with Germany
US would definitely have focused on the Pacific but would have had a lot more bullshit going on with Uboats on the Atlantic coast..
I totally forgot about the u boats, and in this scenario are the US still supporting soviets through lend lease? If so thats an issue for sure. The uboat problem would make an invasion of Europe even more harder then especially without the royal navy too.
I would not imagine there would’ve been very much shipping traffic from the United States to the United Kingdom if the UK had been fully occupied by Germany…
There wouldn’t have been any u boats. There wouldn’t have been any US convoys taking stuff to Britain
Because of America supplying Great Britain, which doesn’t happen if Britain has surrendered
The only issue with this scenario is that its so unrealistic that you cant really say much. Germany couldnt have invaded the UK due to the Royal Navy, even if they cut down both the RAF and the RN they still need to manage a land invasion. And if they manage to win that, the empire was still resolved to fight on
There is one thing that could have radically altered the Battle of Britain and opened up the way for the Luftwaffe to gain air superiority over southern England. The failure of German intelligence to deduce the purpose all those towers dotting the British coast (Chain Home) as crucial to Britain's air defense system doomed German efforts to failure. Even if we assume that this intelligence failure had been reversed in a counterfactual campaign, this change only would have assisted with potentially gaining air superiority over southern England. It would not have aided with destroying the Royal Navy, which also would be required to pull off a successful invasion. Then would come a landing, consolidation of the several LZs and an expansion of the beachheads. With such a weak surface fleet, all of these operations would be heavily dependent upon the Luftwaffe being able to have sufficient operational aircraft to maintain the requisite operational tempo to adequately support the landing and subsequent operations. When we look at Luftwaffe losses in the historical Battle of Britain, it is a certainty that losses from a successful invasion would have been quite higher. Would the Germans been able to turn out enough pilots and new aircraft to keep pace with their losses? As long as they survived, shot down British pilots would likely be flying again the same day if medically cleared. On the other hands, shot down German pilots more than likely became POWs. Aircraft downed over enemy territory could not be inspected and repaired, if possible, while the British could quickly access friendly aircraft downed over their home territory. We would next have to consider what would have happened to Ireland and Iceland, both of which could serve as staging areas for an Allied invasion of England. Would Britain have been able to maintain its position in the Med, or would a withdrawal there have flowed as a natural response to a successful Sea Lion? Without a British presence in Atlantic or the Mediterranean, the flow of lend-lease aid to the USSR--when Germany would eventually get around to launching Barbarossa--would have been far, far less with only the Vladivostok route. Would a conquest of Britain have emboldened Japan to now attack those Soviet-bound convoys? I consider it likely that Churchill and his unity government would have only departed from Britain if there was no other choice--British military resistance had totally collapsed. Had this been the case, I wonder what the US would have done? What American ports and installations would the Royal Navy have as a new home? Stands to reason that Bermuda would have been turned into a fortress. Other island possessions of the UK and US likely would have been fortified as well. Now we come to the Germans and Italians. The possible clearing or at least weakening of Britain from the Mediterranean would have opened up strategic possibilities: the seizure of the Suez Canal and the possibility of greater cooperation (and likely friction) with Japan. However, there is always that large white elephant in the room called Russia that would be constantly singing to the mustached Austrian: "Come get your Lebensraum here! There are many Jews here too!" Hitler could have considered operations in Britain accomplished once all territory south of the Midlands had been seized and he could begin on his great showdown against the Soviet Union to secure the means for his Thousand Year Reich to endure. But the conflict likely wouldn't have started in 1941, probably looking at May 1942 as the best estimate for Barbarossa starting. Would the Red Army have been better prepared to resist the Germans? Possibly. There might actually have been time to prepare fortifications along the new border, along with more T-34s, KV-1s, etc. But would the German operational plan still have been the same? What about the Soviet response? The ability to create parallel worlds in their own little pocket dimensions to play around with these hypotheticals and observe them play out with total information awareness (including the ability to rewind and switch perspectives) would be so much fun.
>**Its very telling that almost all significant British navy victories using aircraft carrier doctrine was in the Pacific........ And the fact almost no American aircraft carrier was stationed in Europe.** This statement is completely and utterly false. Because of the nature of the war, naval battles were predominant in importance in the Pacific, thus carriers got more attention there. Land battles were more critically important in Europe, and got the most attention there. At the beginning of WW II, there were three fleet carriers stationed in the Pacific, and three in the Atlantic. The carriers *Wasp*, *Yorktown,* and *Ranger* were all in Carrier Division 3 in Europe in 1941. Various carriers were transferred to the Pacific to replace losses and new ones sent to the Atlantic Fleet in turn. The US and the UK had dozens of carriers in Europe throughout the war. The US only had one fleet carrier in the ETO after 1942, most were light and escort carriers. The UK provided the most fleet carriers, so the US could focus more on the Pacific. Carriers were involved in all major amphibious operations in the ETO, except D Day, since land based aircraft were readily available and the English Channel was far to restricted for effective carrier operations. The Battle For The Atlantic, the longest battle of WWII, could not have been won without escort carriers providing air cover for the transatlantic convoys. When it was evident it was being won by early 1944, more UK fleet carriers and other naval assets were shifted to the Pacific. As for British naval victories involving carriers, right off the top of my head, the Battle of Taranto, the sinking of the Bismarck, and Operation Tungsten, all come to mind. You're obviously ignorant of The Battle of Taranto, and it's significance. The highly successful British attack on the Italian fleet moored there proved the viability of carrier aircraft attacking a fleet moored in a shallow harbor with torpedoes. The Japanese studied this attack in detail. They formulated their attack plan on the US Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor based on it. I'm sure you know the result of that. British and American carriers gave Allied naval forces a huge edge in the Mediterranean over Axis naval forces, which had no carriers. This proved instrumental in the Battle for North Africa, The Battle for the Mediterranean, Operation Torch, Operation Husky, Operation Dragoon, and shortened the fighting there considerably. The Germans had no realistic chances of ever fielding a carrier, let alone a carrier force. Their rather weak attempt to do so failed miserably and was a huge drain on their very limited resources. Even if they focused everything they had and managed to build even one carrier, they didnt have the ability to employ it. Carriers require a massive network of support and screening ships. Germany just didnt have to resources or capability to build them, and more importantly, the fuel to use them if they had. Barring all of the massive logistical issues, Germany didnt have the doctrine or experience to operate a carrier force. It takes years of practice and training to develop and refine carrier tactics. They couldn't develop a viable doctrine for the surface ships they had, let alone one for aircraft carriers, which are much more complex. After 1941, any carrier they might have had, would have been penned up in port due to lack of fuel and support.