Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
No. Ultimately it was Hitler's call to invade the Soviet Union. Once they did that their defeat was inevitable. "Do not march on Moscow" isn't said to be the first rule of war for nothing. Trying to wage a land war in Russia is just a really dumb thing to do.

Mongols didnt have too many problems. There are always exceptions.

Of course, the Mongols started out IN what is now Russia in the first place. They roamed all over north-central Asia for centuries even before Genghis Khan...

I'm pretty sure that the Mongols started out in, you know, Mongolia.

Is that like how Indians only lived in Indiana?

Don't confuse the boundaries of a modern nation with the area a HIGHLY nomadic group of tribes inhabited in a part of the world that wasn't (at the time) known for strict border control.

Nope (or yep?). The mogols started out in Xinjian, which is a good deal not modern Mongolia. They spread out and eventually lived in what is now Mongolia but that's not their ethnic origin point.

People seem to be hung up on the idea that Hitler didn't have to attack Russia, yet both Stalin and Hitler knew their Non Aggression pact wasn't going to last and one would attack the other, coming off the back of the Purges/ Winter War / general poor showing from the Red Army, it makes sense to go for it.

The delay is shoring up the Balkan underbelly didn't help, Stalin packing up his things and moving over the Urgals didn't help, but as far as conditions go, you either go when you've got control of continental Europe and the British stuck in Britain and the Red Army looks like a bunch of bumbling incompetents, or you give them the time to get themselves sorted and let Stalin be the one to attack first.

Didn’t finish off the UK, then starts a land war in Asia....to put the cherry on top declared war on the USA in 1941.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
People seem to be hung up on the idea that Hitler didn't have to attack Russia, yet both Stalin and Hitler knew their Non Aggression pact wasn't going to last and one would attack the other, coming off the back of the Purges/ Winter War / general poor showing from the Red Army, it makes sense to go for it.

The delay is shoring up the Balkan underbelly didn't help, Stalin packing up his things and moving over the Urgals didn't help, but as far as conditions go, you either go when you've got control of continental Europe and the British stuck in Britain and the Red Army looks like a bunch of bumbling incompetents, or you give them the time to get themselves sorted and let Stalin be the one to attack first.

In Soviet Russia Stalin attacks you.

I concur that the pact would have ended in one side invading the other. The difference is that without the pressing need to defend the homland Soviet resolve would be far less. Finland was defended successfully and the last ant-German human wave offensive in 1917 was stopped. Without the dep sense of national outrage plus the long Great Patriotic War to take the Soviets to Berlin it would be far harder to get to Berlin just because Stalin says so. Also mistakes would continue to be made as per 1941 wheras the Germans already understood the tactics needed to defend themselves. They climbed the learning curve rapidly in almost every situation.

The one stumbling block would be if Stalin led his attack with a horde of IS-2's or equivalent before the Germans understood which way the Soviets were going in tank production. If the Soviets learned radio doctrine by themselves in the peace before Stalin's attack they might be prepared and face the Nazis with something they cannot hope to counter. The Germans did have schwerepanzer designs prior to Barbarossa, but it wasnt their core thinking, they were inefficient and lazily produced. Panzer III's were apparently perfectly good enough for their need.

 Chute82 wrote:
Didn’t finish off the UK, then starts a land war in Asia....to put the cherry on top declared war on the USA in 1941.

The initial problem here is they didn't actually have any way of finishing off Britain. There was no way for the Luftwaffe to win the Battle of Britain; no way for them to push the British out of North Africa, and certainly not out of the Middle East; and Sealion was a pipe dream that would've been an unmitigated disaster. As it was, the preparations they already did before cancelling Sealion cost the German warmachine a considerable amount.

The closest strategy to success was the Battle of the Atlantic, but Germany couldn't produce enough submarines in the early war before they lost the arms race. Maybe if they hadn't wasted resources on a surface fleet...

Of course that would probably degenerate into a stalemate and eventual ceasefire without other powers getting involved, but Germany could not defeat Britain alone, only draw with them.

Hitler is surely to blame. If Hitler did not divert his center army marching on Moscow. There would have been no Stalingrad.

There is no telling what would have happened but from all the literature I have seen. There is no way Russia could have repelled a siege at Moscow in the early stages of Barbarossa. Hitler (fearing for the loss of oil supplies) Directed his center army supposed to take Moscow (which was mostly undefended) to assist in the Southern front. This Delayed the siege on Moscow by approximately 2 months - Put the Russian winter into the equation.

Imagine for a second that the center army was not diverted and the Germans were able to take Moscow quickly (Realistically they should have) I don't know if that means Russia surrenders (Maybe-Maybe not) I don't know if that means Stalin would have been captured or killed. It certanly would have hurt production and Morale all over the Country.

This was surely Hitlers fault.

Hitler also hasted the defeat of his eastern armies by not allowing them to make tactical retreats. He also wasted resources trying to devlop super weapons when what they really needed was more Tiger 1's.

If germany invested more heavily in tiger 1's instead of terror weapons and projects like the tiger 2's. They probably could have heald the Russians back for another year or so. It also would have helped the western front too.

The problem with focusing all your efforts on Moscow is that your flank security goes up in smoke. Even 2 weeks after Barbarossa started, 21st Russian army cobbled together 10 divisions for a counter-attack on Army Group South's flank. I remember that scenario well from Combat Mission

And people forget that yeah, the Panzer Divisions raced behind the Russians and created huge cauldrons, or Kessels as the Germans would call them, but these Kessels need to be reduced by German infantry divisions, and that takes time and a lot of hard fighting.


Panzer divisions could have zoomed ahead to Moscow but that was likely to end in disaster without infantry divisions backing you up, and those infantry divisions had to walk from Poland to Moscow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
People seem to be hung up on the idea that Hitler didn't have to attack Russia, yet both Stalin and Hitler knew their Non Aggression pact wasn't going to last and one would attack the other, coming off the back of the Purges/ Winter War / general poor showing from the Red Army, it makes sense to go for it.

The delay is shoring up the Balkan underbelly didn't help, Stalin packing up his things and moving over the Urgals didn't help, but as far as conditions go, you either go when you've got control of continental Europe and the British stuck in Britain and the Red Army looks like a bunch of bumbling incompetents, or you give them the time to get themselves sorted and let Stalin be the one to attack first.

In Soviet Russia Stalin attacks you.

I concur that the pact would have ended in one side invading the other. The difference is that without the pressing need to defend the homland Soviet resolve would be far less. Finland was defended successfully and the last ant-German human wave offensive in 1917 was stopped. Without the dep sense of national outrage plus the long Great Patriotic War to take the Soviets to Berlin it would be far harder to get to Berlin just because Stalin says so. Also mistakes would continue to be made as per 1941 wheras the Germans already understood the tactics needed to defend themselves. They climbed the learning curve rapidly in almost every situation.

The one stumbling block would be if Stalin led his attack with a horde of IS-2's or equivalent before the Germans understood which way the Soviets were going in tank production. If the Soviets learned radio doctrine by themselves in the peace before Stalin's attack they might be prepared and face the Nazis with something they cannot hope to counter. The Germans did have schwerepanzer designs prior to Barbarossa, but it wasnt their core thinking, they were inefficient and lazily produced. Panzer III's were apparently perfectly good enough for their need.

Panzer IIIs were perfectly good for the Germans from 1939-42, though.

If you listen to David Willey from the tank Museum Bovington, he makes the point that infantry and tanks that train together, and get used to each other in combat scenarios, more often or not will beat better armed opponents, even if their tanks are INFERIOR to the enemy.

So, German Combat Veterans + better doctrine/training + inferior tanks = victory over superior T-34s and inexperienced Red Army troops.

Naturally, the Red Army learns the hard army and gets better itself, but as I say, better equipment is no good if the troops are badly trained, unused to their equipment, or poorly led/motivated.

Steven Zaloga, another tank expert, makes the point that the worst thing France did in 1940 was introduce new tanks to the troops. They had to re-train, re-learn and get used to the break downs and unfamiliarity.

The French army would have been better sticking to the older equipment that they knew inside out and that the tank crews knew like the back of their hands. A lot of French losses with their new tanks were not COMBAT losses, but fuel shortages and mechanical breakdown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
People seem to be hung up on the idea that Hitler didn't have to attack Russia, yet both Stalin and Hitler knew their Non Aggression pact wasn't going to last and one would attack the other, coming off the back of the Purges/ Winter War / general poor showing from the Red Army, it makes sense to go for it.

The delay is shoring up the Balkan underbelly didn't help, Stalin packing up his things and moving over the Urgals didn't help, but as far as conditions go, you either go when you've got control of continental Europe and the British stuck in Britain and the Red Army looks like a bunch of bumbling incompetents, or you give them the time to get themselves sorted and let Stalin be the one to attack first.

Not even the need to capture Moscow IMO. Capture Ukraine, gran the Baltics, and dig in, because you have all the land and resources you need. Could even have shaken down Stalin for a negotiated peace.

Even when on their last legs, we saw how skilful the Germans were in defence. A fully functioning German army, free from defeat at Moscow and Stalingrad, might have been a bridge to far for the Soviets.

I don't see any reason to think that Stalin would inevitably have invaded Germany if Germany had not invaded the SU.

The peace pact was beneficial to both sides.

It was Hitler's dreams of "lebensraum" and his view of the Slavs as "untermensch" that led him to attack the SU.

I don't know either. Stalin did not like Hitler at all, but he genuinely believed he could team up with him to defeat the common Bourgeois-capitalist foe. He was really shocked when Hitler broke his word and invaded the USSR, despite having been told for months by the secret services that this was coming. He kinda saw Hitler as his only ally in a war against Great Britain (which Stalin hated far more than the Nazis).

Stalin must have known the core Nazi ideology was incompatible with Communism and the USSR though, at least in the long run. After all, the Nazis came to power by first killing off the German Communist party, and were explicit in their objectives for the east.

I think it is entirely fair to suggest that Stalin did not expect Germany to attack when they did, or even for quite some time. But he must've known they would attack eventually.

I was under the impression Stalin had the strategy of allowing Hitler to exhaust themselves and the UK, before rolling into the void, and he was beginning to rearm for this very purpose when Barbarossa began. Any Soviet attack would be some years later than Barbarossa, and may never happen, but I thought it was the ultimate goal. After all, it also matches with Bolshevik doctrine of a revolutionary war.

A German-British stalemate peace without significant loss to either would probably be the worst case scenario for Stalin (a resurgent Germany stripping resources out of occupied Europe without resistance), so it would be in his interests to prepare a first strike whilst Hitler was distracted. Of course, Hitler beat him to it...

No matter how you look at it Germany didn't have the production capability much less the resources to sustain said production further than taking France comfortably. Germany almost sucker punched a victory in the East, but again that was miraculous.....to actually accomplish that sucker punch is relatively unfathomable. A million things had to go right for that to happen, Germany got 999,950 of them to swing their way.

All Germany needed to do was stop they would have owned mainland Europe from Poland to France.......I think it it would have been hard enough for them to sustain that occupation much less push on and defeat Russia. Had they actually accomplished taking out Moscow.....who knows. Most Russians not from major cities (which was most of them) could have could not have cared less who was in power, given a choice between Hitler and Stalin; I really see the Russian government and military having a very hard time if Moscow is taken.

You can go into the details or keep it very basic, Hitler is not unfairly blamed.
You can also blame some of the Generals for doing so or not trying to tell him is fails.

The very basic problem always was that Hitler had a plan for a War
It was a good one and it would have worked, but this plan was always against the Soviets only (the Plan B for France was there, but the won easily because France made a lot of mistakes)

There was no concept how to handle Britain or the US.
There was not even a basic idea on what should happen if Italy needs help

Malta, Greece and North Africa happend because they did not know what else to do
And of course those needed time and resources that were needed in the East.

The original plan, executed with the original planned manpower and without delay would have worked.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
No matter how you look at it Germany didn't have the production capability much less the resources to sustain said production further than taking France comfortably. Germany almost sucker punched a victory in the East, but again that was miraculous.....to actually accomplish that sucker punch is relatively unfathomable. A million things had to go right for that to happen, Germany got 999,950 of them to swing their way.

All Germany needed to do was stop they would have owned mainland Europe from Poland to France.......I think it it would have been hard enough for them to sustain that occupation much less push on and defeat Russia. Had they actually accomplished taking out Moscow.....who knows. Most Russians not from major cities (which was most of them) could have could not have cared less who was in power, given a choice between Hitler and Stalin; I really see the Russian government and military having a very hard time if Moscow is taken.

Why do you attach so much importance to Moscow? Moscow was only important because it was the seat of the Soviet government. However, the Soviet government during WW2 led the country from Samara, not from Moscow. Moscow is very far to the west, so it was vulnerable. The Soviets realised this early and evacuated the city. If the Germans had taken Moscow, all they would have gotten was an unrecognisable pile of rubble since the Soviets would have destroyed everything behind them as they retreated.
The leadership and the resolve of the Soviet Union would not have wavered for even a moment. In fact it would have just given the Soviet propaganda machine new ammunition with which to sweep up the people in even greater rage and patriotic fervour. The Soviets were highly skilled propagandists and experts in sweeping up the masses. Soviet morale remained very high all throughout the war, even when massive losses were suffered in 1941-1942. That is how the Soviets were able to put army after army of soldiers into the field, despite their forces being continually decimated throughout the first years of the war.

And contrary to what you say, most Russians, including those not from major cities, cared very much who ruled them. Russians have always been a xenophobic bunch, but I don't think you quite understand the intense hatred of Germans that washed over Russia after the Nazi invasion. Most people from Western Russia (and that is a big part of the Russian population) had witnessed German brutality first hand. They wanted to see the Germans suffer as much as possible, there was no question about serving them.To this day, many Russians still believe the Germans got away easy with their crimes. In other words, the Soviet Union or the Russian people would never have surrendered or accepted any sort of peace deal with Germany. The genocidal aims and brutality of the Nazis was too well known for that. They would have fought to the death regardless of who controls the former capital of Moscow. Most people in Russia never liked the city of Moscow and its people anyways.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
All Germany needed to do was stop they would have owned mainland Europe from Poland to France........

Not true. The occupation was sapping oil from Germany and it was going to end up crashing their economy. At the time 70% of the world's oil came from the US. The Royal Navy blockaded Europe. The only place Germany had to go for Europe at this point was the Caucasus.

Watch the video I posted. It answers all of your questions.

 KTG17 wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
All Germany needed to do was stop they would have owned mainland Europe from Poland to France........

Not true. The occupation was sapping oil from Germany and it was going to end up crashing their economy. At the time 70% of the world's oil came from the US. The Royal Navy blockaded Europe. The only place Germany had to go for Europe at this point was the Caucasus.

Watch the video I posted. It answers all of your questions.

If they negotiated peace that could well re-open international trade though. Then Germany could potentially get on with plundering Europe for resources and selling it abroad to finance their next military build-up.

The problem is that Germany bankrupted itself preparing for the war. Once the German war machine got rolling, it couldn't stop because it depended on the resources conquered, so there it went rolling until it finally crashed and burned.

Honestly, it got much farther than any right it originally had.

Hitler was definitely to blame for how bad the war went. Namely that he bit off way more than he could chew, and in the later stages of the war went completely crazy/junkie and micromanaged everything in that state.

Germany would have done far better had Hitler played the long game. He needed to leave the actual warfare to his generals, as he was completely garbage at that. He was a master political manipulator, but he deluded himself into thinking he was also a brilliant strategist.


First off, Dunkirk needed to be where the British army was totally destroyed or used as a bargaining chip. Immediately give Britain an ultimatum and sue for peace. Either after destroying the British forces on the beach or capturing them. Britain likely would have accepted a peace even at the cost of losing all of mainland Europe at that exact moment, simply due to the shock of the rapid defeat. Its even possible that Britain might have ceded much of the middle east at such a conference, which is what Germany really needed.

This gives Germany control over pretty much all of mainland Europe, and they no longer have an active enemy on the Western front. Let Britain sit on their island, they're not going anywhere and will hardly object to an eventual Soviet/German war.

And of course, a war with Russia would have to be put off while Germany consolidates their gains in Europe and whatever colonies Britain gives up for peace. Build up a bigger army, develop more advanced weapons and tactics based on what was learned. Indoctrinate the populations of France and the Benelux to your beliefs so you have access to their cooperation and manpower. 10 years or so would have been enough that you'd now have the youth of the occupied country's indoctrinated and on your side.

This would let Germany become stronger without bleeding itself dry in the process. Russia might get stronger too, but they would be isolated. Britain and the US wouldn't feel any need to prop them up if there wasn't an active war at that exact moment. Plus Japan would have been at war with the US at this point, as well as making Russia nervous on their own eastern front.

Hitler is to blame in the sense that he started the war. But in terms of strategy he was actually more often right than wrong. Germany would never had defeated France it it hadn't been for Hitler.

Also, at the end of the war many of his generals were still alive, so everyone started blaming him to make themselves look good.

I often go through historical what-ifs. Had Germany and the Soviet Union not attacked each other, or at the very least declared some kind of formal no-man's land cutting across Poland, I think things would be different, and messier.

If the soviets weren't fighting Germany, Germany could focus on the Western Front. We'd have likely still beaten them, likely taking an extra couple years. Likely not a total surrender either. Hitler may have even remained as Chancellor. What really worries me is the Pacific.

Without Germany to fight, the Soviets would focus on Japan, likely teaming up with China and working their way down from the north. Both Russian and China showed they were willing to drown the enemy in bodies. Japan showed they were willing to fight to the last man/boy. I think this would have put the northern half of the Japanese mainland into a total bloodbath.

With the Soviets more focused on Japan, and the need for more support in Europe, Americans would likely have diverted troops from the Pacific to Europe.

The US would still have taken many outlying islands, but I think the Russians would have taken mainland Japan, and they weren't known for giving up territory. Imagine Warsaw like conditions in Tokyo.

US influence in the Eastern Hemisphere would be close to non-existent outside of the Philippines, Japan would look like modern day Mexico, Communist empires would be spanning, and fascism embedded in Europe.

Instead of Korea and Vietnam, I think conflicts in the Balkans would have been likely.

Why are we talking about peace as a win for Germany? Germany has two possible options:

1) Lose the war before 1946-47.

2) Cease to exist as nuclear armed bombers flying directly from the US annihilate anything of value in a single day.

There is no scenario where Germany wins.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why are we talking about peace as a win for Germany? Germany has two possible options:

1) Lose the war before 1946-47.

2) Cease to exist as nuclear armed bombers flying directly from the US annihilate anything of value in a single day.

There is no scenario where Germany wins.

Continuing to exist is a victory in this hypothetical scenario. And that is indeed the goal of any nation.

The US only entered direct conflict with Germany because they declared war immediately after Pearl Harbor, along with the sinking of merchant shipping heading to Britain. If you remove those variables, the US would have no incentive to go to war with Germany. If Germany and the UK sign a truce, the US doesn't need to prop up Britain and Germany has no need to raid shipping. Germany also wouldn't declare war when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.

If we define "win" as conquer the whole world in the span of a few years, then no. Nazi Germany doesn't win. But they would still exist today, and likely be considered a super power.

Remember that there was little support for entering WW2 until Pearl Harbor. And even once the war started the Nazis weren't viewed with the massive negativity they have today. They were just another expansionist European government starting yet another war in Europe.

In the scenario where Nazi Germany is more cautious and conservative in their aggression, they perform much better than what actually happened. They probably end up being the first to develop and use Nuclear weapons as well, the Soviets being on the receiving end.

Hitler's idea of the Third Reich was a plan that would require hundreds of years to accomplish and would require slow and steady progress, but he tried to accomplish it overnight, and thats why it failed so spectacularly.

Best case scenario is probably that Germany replaces the USSR in the Cold War. The US and Nazi Germany squaring off against each other, with the Cold War lasting possibly indefinitely without end as Nazi Germany's economy wouldn't have the fatal flaws that the Soviet Union had.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why are we talking about peace as a win for Germany? Germany has two possible options:

1) Lose the war before 1946-47.

2) Cease to exist as nuclear armed bombers flying directly from the US annihilate anything of value in a single day.

There is no scenario where Germany wins.

Peace would be a win for Nazi Germany because that means they would continue to exist, since there is no way they could have won the war in the long run.
If they had made peace Germany might well have developed nuclear weapons before the US, considering the US project would have had a lot less resources without the pressure of war and the German project a lot more. Although it would probably have been the British, since their project was ahead of the US' but failed because the war stretched British resources far over their limits (British war debts have only been paid off in 2006). Without the strains of war the British team would have had a lot more funds to work with and they would not have been forced to pool their knowledge with the US instead. Also, the Soviet Union would have developed nuclear weapons much sooner, since they knew everything about the Manhattan Project (it was riddled with Soviet spies) but historically could not start building a nuclear weapon of their own until the war was over because keeping up the war effort took up all resources.
But most importantly, if they had made peace then the US would not have felt the need to send over nuclear bombers. Because you know, they would be at peace. And finally, the bombers would just be shot down unless there is a massive conflict first to take out most of the enemy air force.

Nazi Germany's economy was about to collapse on the eve of WWII. Unless they heavily restructured after capturing France, they would still be at heavy risk of collapsing economically. The only way to avoid this was more war. War was inevitable for Nazi Germany because it was the only way they could sustain their economy.

If they did consolidate most of Europe, I'd give them ten years max before they had to invade someone else to sustain their economy. Probably the USSR at that stage.

Also, for the Soviets to take the Japanese home islands, they would actually need a Navy... What they had in the East was pitiful.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Continuing to exist is a victory in this hypothetical scenario. And that is indeed the goal of any nation.

The point is that the only way that Germany can continue to exist is to lose the war and surrender before the US removes it from the map.

The US only entered direct conflict with Germany because they declared war immediately after Pearl Harbor, along with the sinking of merchant shipping heading to Britain. If you remove those variables, the US would have no incentive to go to war with Germany. If Germany and the UK sign a truce, the US doesn't need to prop up Britain and Germany has no need to raid shipping. Germany also wouldn't declare war when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.

This theory is contradicted by history. The US was developing the B-36 (with a specific intent of bombing Germany directly from the US) before they even entered the war, as a backup plan for the UK falling. If anything a hypothetical fall of the UK (and yes, a truce in the face of military defeat is a fall, and a temporary truce at best) makes the US more aggressive in developing the means to remove Germany from the map. And with no need to build and deploy a conventional army the US has even more resources to devote to the task.

They probably end up being the first to develop and use Nuclear weapons as well, the Soviets being on the receiving end.

The German nuclear program was nowhere near success, and had critical errors that likely made it impossible for it to ever succeed.

as Nazi Germany's economy wouldn't have the fatal flaws that the Soviet Union had.

Germany's economy was already in trouble, and unlike the USSR Germany gets vastly out-produced by the US. A cold war never develops into a stalemate, even ignoring the potential for nuclear war the US can simply through its superior resources at the problem and win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And finally, the bombers would just be shot down unless there is a massive conflict first to take out most of the enemy air force.

Unlikely. Remember, the B-36 is not the B-17. Even late-war German interceptors under ideal circumstances would have had questionable at best chances of reaching its cruising altitude, and those interceptors are not on 24/7 standby alert. And the US strike would be arriving as a complete surprise. One day you're going about your life thinking you won the war, the next day ever major German city and industrial area is under a mushroom cloud.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why are we talking about peace as a win for Germany? Germany has two possible options:

1) Lose the war before 1946-47.

2) Cease to exist as nuclear armed bombers flying directly from the US annihilate anything of value in a single day.

There is no scenario where Germany wins.

Continuing to exist is a victory in this hypothetical scenario. And that is indeed the goal of any nation.

Peregrine's solution to every scenario is "US nukes everything". German makes peace with UK? Nuke the German!

But yeah if Nazi's and UK had made peace treaty very unlikely US would ever have got bothered with whole Europe in WW2.

Bigger Q would have been would UK make a deal or try to basically siege out the Nazi's out of resources? Nazi's didn't have resources to just consolidiate and wait out. Did UK know it? Or would they have been worried Nazi's get those from elsewhere like succesfully invading Russia? If they figure nazi's won't be short of resources peace treauty would look lot more appealing...

tneva82 wrote:
Peregrine's solution to every scenario is "US nukes everything".

Because it's the historical answer to the question. Why do you think the US was developing nuclear weapons and bombers explicitly designed to reach Germany from bases in the US? The plan was already that the UK being forced to surrender would only change the means by which Germany is destroyed.

German makes peace with UK? Nuke the German!

Any "peace" with the UK would be a temporary delay in the war resuming. The UK may be forced to concede military defeat but that doesn't make them like Germany. Germany is still the enemy, and as soon as the UK has the ability to do so they will resume the war.

If the UK surrenders after Dunkirk, before the Tizard mission, then the US likely never gets any of the Tube Alloys research, and their own project is likely delayed by years.

Also, just having the capacity to fly a nuclear bomber across the Atlantic doesnt guarantee the capability to successfully nuke Germany. They would be flying without escort, potentially against jet interceptors. The Allies are likely to be much less integrated as a force, so there is no guarantee of using Britain as an unsinkable aircraft carrier.

 Haighus wrote:
If the UK surrenders after Dunkirk, before the Tizard mission, then the US likely never gets any of the Tube Alloys research, and their own project is likely delayed by years.

Why would you assume that? The UK isn't going to surrender with the intent of long-term peace, and they know (as in the real world) that the US is key to winning the war. Much like the farce of US "neutrality" before officially entering the war the UK would probably remain "neutral" while sharing information with the US.

Also, just having the capacity to fly a nuclear bomber across the Atlantic doesnt guarantee the capability to successfully nuke Germany. They would be flying without escort, potentially against jet interceptors. The Allies are likely to be much less integrated as a force, so there is no guarantee of using Britain as an unsinkable aircraft carrier.

Again, the B-36 is virtually immune to interception even against late-war German fighters. It's just too high for anything to reach it.

Yes, the 1948 B-36 flew at ~40,000ft. The 1945 Me262 had a ceiling of 37,500ft. That is a full three years later, and it barely flew any higher. It wasn't until 1954 that the B-36 was able to operate at 48,000ft. Assuming the B-36 would be uninterceptable is dangerous, and liable to cause a disaster. Strategic bombing theorists thought the same thing in the 30's- strategic bombers would be immune to interception.

The British would be unlikely to share all their tech, including Tube Alloys, if they were no longer in imminent risk of invasion. They would be preparing for future Nazi aggression, sure, but things wouldn't be so desperate as to share key technology with a strategic rival.