Jump to content


The Anglo-Teutonic Axis. (A what if)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
83 replies to this topic

Dennis420b #1 Posted 02 June 2014 - 07:31 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
Okay another what if. This one requires a little bit of a stretch. Let me set the scene: The miracle at Dunkirk fails and the BEF is left stranded on the continent to surrender. Then the Vichy adhere to the German terms of armistice and cede the French fleet to the Axis, giving them an advantage in the Mediterranean sea war, allowing the conquest of North Africa a real possibility. During the Blitz (battle of Britain) the Germans stay on task and keep hitting the RAF rather than responding to the British city busting campaign, bleeding Fighter Command white (as it was before changing target focus). Lets add in a more successful U-boat campaign to ratchet up the hurt on the population and give it more willingness to accept Germany's armistice that would have allowed the British to keep its empire in return for ignoring Germany's ambitions in the east (again Hitler gave the British so much more in terms of niceties that no other Allied belligerent received). Would the UK and USA then see a German war against the USSR as reason to go to war against Germany? Remember that ideologically Capitalism and Fascism are closer than Communism, and was seen as an enemy to both. The USSR is only an Ally in the "the enemy of my enemy" sense to the UK and USA. Would the UK and USA stay neutral? or Would they seize the initiative and help the Germans eradicate Communism?

Remember its a what if. And I am only seeing it pragmatically rather than with emotion.

Or how about a different outcome in the Polish affair? What if the Allies do not guarantee the Poles and WW2 does not start in 1939. Would the Germans seek a war against the Communist with the Allies? Again keeping in mind that the USSR was not liked by any nation at this time.

Edited by Dennis420b, 02 June 2014 - 07:34 PM.


Party Poison91 #2 Posted 02 June 2014 - 09:02 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013
Doubtful. The British people would not adhere to hitlers holier than thou opinion. We would not accept being allied to a tyrant.
"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

Dennis420b #3 Posted 02 June 2014 - 09:50 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostParty Poison91, on 02 June 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

Doubtful. The British people would not adhere to hitlers holier than thou opinion. We would not accept being allied to a tyrant.


Not very pragmatic. German peoples and English have until the great wars not had too many run ins and shared mutual enemy's often. The UK may like to think it has been a righteous upstanding moral empire, but history shows this to be false. The UK after all had no quarrel with the Germans (other than colonial) until the Germans invaded neutral Belgium in the first world war. They had no love or help to be offered to the Allies before then. To say that the English people were galvanized against Germany prior to the Battle of Britain is a little bit of looking at history through propaganda goggles. England had not wanted war prior to 39. I dont see how they would be so hell bent in 1 year to change their mind (again not until the Battle of Britain). Churchill was obviously worried about a similar situation that happened to the French government by his actions after the fall of France. He was quick to point out any minor victory and squashed any defeatist talk (actually its a little covered part of history, as he knew how ill prepared the UK was, and his propaganda team put up plenty of bluff. Bluff that has transformed unfortunately into "history"). We now can look back and see what was going to happen, but in the time they had no such luxury. You have to see what was, and add in the variables I laid out and then ask yourself what would happen? In that situation an Armistice could be advantageous to the British Empire. Prior to the war most Capitalist nations did not fear the Fascist but rather they all feared and hated the Communist. Many seen Germany as the buffer against westward expanding communism. I do not think a Germany that goes to war against the USSR only, will have to much to fear from the western allies, as they are just as eager to see communism exterminated as the NAZIs. (See the Winter War and the attitudes of the French and British towards the Russians then).



Dennis420b #4 Posted 02 June 2014 - 09:52 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostParty Poison91, on 02 June 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

Doubtful. The British people would not adhere to hitlers holier than thou opinion. We would not accept being allied to a tyrant.


And since when do the British hate tyranny? lol. You need to take off the rosey sun glasses. The UK when not being a tyrant themselves are usually backing a tyrant or working with one.  Dont believe me? ask 2/3 of the world or a historian.



rainsilent #5 Posted 02 June 2014 - 09:57 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4252 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013
Britain almost went to war with the Nazis against the Soviets. There is a British document (I don't remember the name of it) from WWII that states Britain would have declared war on whichever attacked first. Germany happened to invade Poland before the Soviets invaded Finland by a mere few months. Had Germany waited until after the Soviets attacks we would have been fighting alongside the Nazis and he Cold War had been very different.

http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


Dennis420b #6 Posted 02 June 2014 - 10:05 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View Postrainsilent, on 02 June 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

Britain almost went to war with the Nazis against the Soviets. There is a British document (I don't remember the name of it) from WWII that states Britain would have declared war on whichever attacked first. Germany happened to invade Poland before the Soviets invaded Finland by a mere few months. Had Germany waited until after the Soviets attacks we would have been fighting alongside the Nazis and he Cold War had been very different.


Now we are talking! I would sooner believe in a great western powers alliance against the Communist before I believe that Britain is in some kind of death duel with Germany. There is just so much more evidence to support it. Its easy for people to say in hind sight, that our governments would still hate Hitler. But from everything I have read there is nothing to support this except for the wartime propaganda.



Gyrfalcon 642 #7 Posted 02 June 2014 - 10:13 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12614 battles
  • 343
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

I highly suggest you read Kissingers excellent book "Diplomacy" specifically the chapters on the 19th century.

 

British geopolitics is ruled by one simple assumption: if the European continent is divided no one will have the strength to mount a cross channel attack and destroy England.  If all of continental Europe is united, then that nation would be strong enough to mount a successful cross channel attack.

 

If you look at British diplomacy during the 18th century, the Brits ALWAYS backed the weaker side against the stronger one with the aim of keeping Europe fragmented and as such not a threat to England.  The Brits played the field, allying with one nation in one conflict only to oppose the same nation in the next conflict.  It was always about backing the weaker side.

 

So to answer your question, the only way the Brits would have allied with the Germans is if they felt Soviets were going to dominate the continent.  However, in the 1930s no one thought the Soviets could do this, hence the Brits reflexive resistance to the Germans.



Party Poison91 #8 Posted 02 June 2014 - 10:43 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 02 June 2014 - 10:52 PM, said:


And since when do the British hate tyranny? lol. You need to take off the rosey sun glasses. The UK when not being a tyrant themselves are usually backing a tyrant or working with one.  Dont believe me? ask 2/3 of the world or a historian.

Again you compare the British public of the thirties to those in the 18th and 19th century. I'm all for a theoretical debate but if you're just going to disagree with everything I say and be insulting then I shan't bother. I've noticed a disturbing trend that your threads seem to be increasingly anti British. 


"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

rainsilent #9 Posted 02 June 2014 - 10:52 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4252 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostGyrfalcon 642, on 02 June 2014 - 06:13 PM, said:

I highly suggest you read Kissingers excellent book "Diplomacy" specifically the chapters on the 19th century.

 

British geopolitics is ruled by one simple assumption: if the European continent is divided no one will have the strength to mount a cross channel attack and destroy England.  If all of continental Europe is united, then that nation would be strong enough to mount a successful cross channel attack.

 

If you look at British diplomacy during the 18th century, the Brits ALWAYS backed the weaker side against the stronger one with the aim of keeping Europe fragmented and as such not a threat to England.  The Brits played the field, allying with one nation in one conflict only to oppose the same nation in the next conflict.  It was always about backing the weaker side.

 

So to answer your question, the only way the Brits would have allied with the Germans is if they felt Soviets were going to dominate the continent.  However, in the 1930s no one thought the Soviets could do this, hence the Brits reflexive resistance to the Germans.

You may be missing something. The Finns were close allies of the British and the Soviets had attacked them once already with the British heavily supporting the Finns with weapons. The British warned the Soviets that if they attacked again that they would declare war. They sent the same ultimatum to the Nazis about expanding. It just so happened that the Nazis attacked first.


http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


MegaB0B0 #10 Posted 02 June 2014 - 11:02 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9991 battles
  • 3,963
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

Even with whole bef is taken the Brits would still resist, with the alcoholic Churchill in charge. 

 

The German airforce maybe able to dominate the sky wipe the raf fighters but by that time, the time table is up, cause hitler did have the best time frame in attacking ussr, any delay for. 6 month plus would not see them achieve better results than it managed as planned better defences and training of red army increases. 

 

Usa sea would still join the war, thanks to stupid japan. Hence, I still believe it was japan whom is the central problem for the ultimate failure of hitlers war. 


That one bounced... WTF..not at 100m and not twice in a roll and not on the side of a Walfe-100 with a BL-10!!!

rainsilent #11 Posted 03 June 2014 - 12:29 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4252 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostMegaB0B0, on 02 June 2014 - 07:02 PM, said:

Even with whole bef is taken the Brits would still resist, with the alcoholic Churchill in charge. 

 

The German airforce maybe able to dominate the sky wipe the raf fighters but by that time, the time table is up, cause hitler did have the best time frame in attacking ussr, any delay for. 6 month plus would not see them achieve better results than it managed as planned better defences and training of red army increases. 

 

Usa sea would still join the war, thanks to stupid japan. Hence, I still believe it was japan whom is the central problem for the ultimate failure of hitlers war. 

 

Technically the Nazis and Soviets were allies based upon their treaty. They weren't really much for allies but Hitler should have tried to really get them to side with the Nazis. They would have given the Germans a great production and resource center. If you think this possibility is far fetched remember the Soviets were the ones helping the Nazis rebuild militarily in the 30s. I find it somewhat ironic that they never became closer allies and rather became enemies.


http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


MegaB0B0 #12 Posted 03 June 2014 - 12:49 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9991 battles
  • 3,963
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View Postrainsilent, on 03 June 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

 

Technically the Nazis and Soviets were allies based upon their treaty. They weren't really much for allies but Hitler should have tried to really get them to side with the Nazis. They would have given the Germans a great production and resource center. If you think this possibility is far fetched remember the Soviets were the ones helping the Nazis rebuild militarily in the 30s. I find it somewhat ironic that they never became closer allies and rather became enemies.

All because of stupid hitlers fetish with the German descent British monarch would side with them for the great struggle with the sub human... This whole racial crap is what prompted the invasion of Ussr, and it was funny that history repeats itself, the rement of Russian loyalist actually actively feeding crap to nazis much like Iraq anti saddam clan did by feeding crap to us before the second gulf war. The data obtain by hitler on ussr armament status and state of the purge of military was confirmed with the red army's horrible (I think a better word may be needed to describe that) display in the Finnish war. It was that ultimately trigger hitlers decision in go ahead of Barbarossa. 

There were other sources such as Heinz Guderian's report on soviet technical and production capacity that contradict with the loyalist data, but hitler and high command overlook them. It turned out, Guderian's data was true and hitler himself admit if he knew Guderian's stuff were true, he would not started the whole soviet campaign.

 

 


That one bounced... WTF..not at 100m and not twice in a roll and not on the side of a Walfe-100 with a BL-10!!!

TKoddaL33 #13 Posted 03 June 2014 - 05:17 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 23775 battles
  • 3,526
  • Member since:
    07-01-2013
Well I think US would still be neutral. If all that happened then the secret telegram, Pearl Harbor, and sinking of merchant ships never happened. US would still be stuck in isolationism.

"SPEED IS THE ESSENCE OF WAR" - Sun Tzu

 

"Anti-social behavior is a trait of intelligence in a world full of conformists." - Nikola Telsa


GingerNinjaMax #14 Posted 03 June 2014 - 06:55 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6523 battles
  • 510
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 02 June 2014 - 10:52 PM, said:


And since when do the British hate tyranny? lol. You need to take off the rosey sun glasses. The UK when not being a tyrant themselves are usually backing a tyrant or working with one.  Dont believe me? ask 2/3 of the world or a historian.


Knew it wouldnt be long before you started Brit bashing. Even though you said in the OP  "Iam only being pragmatic rather than seeing it with emotion"

Just couldn't help yourself could you. I tell you what you can't get your head around is the fact that for such a small nation the clout Britain used to have in the world was beyond your imagination. America was just a place on the left hand side of the world map, that is why Hitler treated Britain with more Respect than the handwringing U.S. Powerful countries don't get there by being timid. Not right but thats how it is and accept the way the world was back then.

All of these so called historical debates  you like to start are just  thinly disguised  Anti-British and to a lesser extent anti American just to try in your own mind  to bring  some balance.

When a British person says we would not do a deal with Hitler you rubbish their answer saying not very pragmatic. This shows yourtotal lack of Knowledge of the British mind set. We will not be told by a jumped up dictator what to do. never have never will. just ask Napolean.



Party Poison91 #15 Posted 03 June 2014 - 07:18 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostGingerNinjaMax, on 03 June 2014 - 07:55 PM, said:


Knew it wouldnt be long before you started Brit bashing. Even though you said in the OP  "Iam only being pragmatic rather than seeing it with emotion"

Just couldn't help yourself could you. I tell you what you can't get your head around is the fact that for such a small nation the clout Britain used to have in the world was beyond your imagination. America was just a place on the left hand side of the world map, that is why Hitler treated Britain with more Respect than the handwringing U.S. Powerful countries don't get there by being timid. Not right but thats how it is and accept the way the world was back then.

All of these so called historical debates  you like to start are just  thinly disguised  Anti-British and to a lesser extent anti American just to try in your own mind  to bring  some balance.

When a British person says we would not do a deal with Hitler you rubbish their answer saying not very pragmatic. This shows yourtotal lack of Knowledge of the British mind set. We will not be told by a jumped up dictator what to do. never have never will. just ask Napolean.

+1 exactly. Every time I mention something about the British during the Second World War he comes back with negativity. If I take pride then I'm being swayed by propaganda. If I talk about our military strength then I have to listen to how weak or lucky we were. If I talk about our standing against tyranny then it's time to compare us to the empires actions 200 years ago. It's ridiculous.


"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

Major Fulcrum #16 Posted 07 June 2014 - 10:16 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 12595 battles
  • 24,863
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    08-23-2013

View PostParty Poison91, on 02 June 2014 - 11:43 PM, said:

Again you compare the British public of the thirties to those in the 18th and 19th century. I'm all for a theoretical debate but if you're just going to disagree with everything I say and be insulting then I shan't bother. I've noticed a disturbing trend that your threads seem to be increasingly anti British.

I agree, the blood is on our hands, but what about Vietnam? what about the revenge attacks against captured Wehrmacht? Britain was right wing during the war, but not crazy, nationalistic WP right wing, rational, good willed people (I'm a left wing guy) who stood up against the German horde and bit back.



Dennis420b #17 Posted 08 June 2014 - 03:45 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
I harbor no ill feelings towards the British. I rather think you have a unrealistic idealized vision of the history of the UK. I have no horse in the race. I do play devils advocate often but I dont really find the UK to be neither "Good" nor "Evil", and that the concept of a "good" nation or an "evil" one is all propaganda when looked at pragmatically. Hitlers use of race and heritage to justify wars of conquest and subsequent genocide are no different than the US expansionist foreign policy in the 1800s. "Manifest Destiny" was just a more successful and efficient "Lebensraum". The UK is not without its bloody hands, and neither is any other nation. You tend to (IMHO) paint the UK in a rosy light and gloss over cracks in the nice guy facade the UK wears. Again I have no horse in this race since I see all nations as bloody genocidal warmongers. I really dont hate British people, or any people for that matter. I see WW2 not in some emotional epic struggle of "good vs evil", but rather opposing ideology's competing for resources and power. If anything it was evil vs. a different brand of evil. Of course there are degrees, but that's just justification when in the perspective of the oppressed and murdered. Polish Jews in Auschwitz and Native Americans on the Trail of Tears have a lot in common, making the US no different than the Nazis. I guess a few decades go by and all is forgiven, but only if you win those wars. If you lose your shame is far reaching. So I guess Good and Evil are actually more like Victor and Vanquished? Making the dilemma of who is "good" and who is "evil" less about morals and more about perception and perspective. That falls under propaganda. ... and why I stay away from that argument and stick with facts.

Ultimatly the the British, German, American, Russian, French, etc, people are mostly just poor people being tossed around by their wealth ruling class's. Brand it as Capitalism, Fascism or Marxism the ideology just ends up being a tool for those in charge and a justification for its behavior. Capitalist democratic freedom loving good guys America, committed a more successful mass murder and genocide than Stalinist USSR or National Socialist Germany, so what is your criteria for "Good" and "Evil"? My quarrel is actually with your insistence that war is some kind of crusade of right and wrong. Thats exactly what the Joseph Goebbels and Carl Roves of the world want people to think about war. Why? So that they can get you poor people out in the service and do the bidding of the wealthy class. The slogan and ideology may change but its all a ploy to keep you believing in some nationalist nonsense and fighting for the "Cause". Yesterdays "Lebensraum" is today's "Enduring Freedom". War is tragic for all who have to participate. There is nothing noble about being locked in a death struggle with another human simply because the rich people in those nations dont like each other or are in competition. To buy into the propaganda cheapens those lives lost and helps keep alive the myths that propagate more wars.

My problem isn't that you are British, my problem is that you are a nationalist.

Edited by Dennis420b, 08 June 2014 - 03:47 AM.


Dennis420b #18 Posted 08 June 2014 - 03:54 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
In order for me to "Bash Brits" I would have to have an agenda that I am championing. Again I bash equally, but I do tend to fight for the guy labeled as "the bad guy" because after all this is just a perspective best left to the propaganda mill and less the history books.

If a German came on here and acted as if his nation had no blood on its hands or somehow tried to justify the atrocity's committed than I would debate and "bash" him the same. But that does not happen because they lost, so the world wont allow it. I guess since the British and Americans won the war and get to write the history books, they can be forgiven of their indiscretions? ... I find that hypocritical.

Dennis420b #19 Posted 08 June 2014 - 04:15 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostGingerNinjaMax, on 03 June 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:


Knew it wouldnt be long before you started Brit bashing. Even though you said in the OP  "Iam only being pragmatic rather than seeing it with emotion"

Just couldn't help yourself could you. I tell you what you can't get your head around is the fact that for such a small nation the clout Britain used to have in the world was beyond your imagination. America was just a place on the left hand side of the world map, that is why Hitler treated Britain with more Respect than the handwringing U.S. Powerful countries don't get there by being timid. Not right but thats how it is and accept the way the world was back then.

All of these so called historical debates  you like to start are just  thinly disguised  Anti-British and to a lesser extent anti American just to try in your own mind  to bring  some balance.

When a British person says we would not do a deal with Hitler you rubbish their answer saying not very pragmatic. This shows yourtotal lack of Knowledge of the British mind set. We will not be told by a jumped up dictator what to do. never have never will. just ask Napolean.


Wow. How far back does that history book go? Last week? Clout? How delusional is that? As if those under the crown invited the British to occupy their land and exploit them. How is it different than What Hitler did? You are justifying your own nations expansionist policy's and genocidal behavior while showing contempt for anyone who calls its so called good record into question. ... That's a nationalist. I wanted a pragmatic discussion about the possible differing scenarios of how the war could have went and you guys counter with emotional nationalistic rhetoric and left over war time propaganda. I didn't rubbish away the answer because he is British or because it was in support of the UK, but rather because he inserted a British idealized view of history that has no basis on fact but rather sentiment. The mere thought that the UK could be involved with tyranny seemed absurd to you guys yet history and fact show your warped nationalistic perspective to be nonsense.

To say that any nation is better or justified is garbage. If you kill one person you are a murderer. If you kill two you are still a murderer. The severity of the title really does not change. Your still just a murderer.


Edited by Dennis420b, 08 June 2014 - 04:17 AM.


rainsilent #20 Posted 08 June 2014 - 04:23 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4252 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013
Dennis there is a phrase you may want to hold onto. History is written by the victor. I personally see president Andrew Jackson and Christoper Columbus exactly the same way I see Adolf Hitler. The only difference is two were "winners" in the eyes of history. Of course the winners are going to paint themselves as good by covering up what they did and the defeated as horrible by magnifying anything possible or even just bringing to light some horrors that were done. I don't see any nation as good or bad save a few due to bad leaders. Their history doesn't neccisarily reflect its current self. I personally try to see things as seperate from the two sides as possible without holding anything from the past in the present. Every nation at one point in history was the "good" guy and also at another the "bad" guy. All of that being said I support the US troops and vote to try to improve the government (maybe more accurately remove the ineptness in government) to make the country better.

http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users