When should Germany have surrendered?

Grumbler · 04-06-2007, 04:24 AM,

"By 1941 the war in the Atlantic had been won."

Completely wrong! The Battle of the Atlantic was won in March of '43.
What would you accept as evidence? There are reams available, no point in producing a 15,000 word thesis on the subject, which I believe has been done several times. I'm getting started on a house renovation project and don't have access to my library, so in a couple of weeks, I'll be able to give you chapter and verse on this subject. Working from memory, the battle of the Atlantic didn't peak until late '42. In '41 is was just getting started.
And I stand by my statement that without American aid, England was doomed.
It was American Jeep carriers, operating with B-24's and PBY's from the various Island bases acquired in the Destroyer deal that beat the U-Boats.
And the 300,000 rescued at Dunkirk WAS critical to England surviving until American might could be brought against the Germans.
Did you know that when the Ban was called, men were showing up with Longbows? While I would never laugh a Longbow, it wouldn't be my weapon of choice against Mg-34's. If the Germans had used the paras they dropped on Crete to grab a airhead, or a port along the English coast, It would have been over for England. The Germans ran out of bold at just the right time to save England, since England was incapable of saving it's self in the Summer and fall of '40.

Sgt Barker · 04-06-2007, 04:37 AM,

Great thread here, by the way. :)

Even with the loss of 300,000 at Dunkirk Britain would have neither negotiated a peace nor been invaded. It wasn’t the balance of ground forces that determined whether or not Sea Lion took place, it was air and sea forces. (Even with the evacuation the balance was heavily German. WWII was a war of equipment, and the evacuees had none to speak of. The real hurt to the Germans from their failure at Dunkirk was in NA, and Italy, and France in 1944, when the trained men that they let go returned to battle.) Those would have been unaffected by a no Dunkirk scenario.

Even if the Battle of Britain had gone against them, the Brits still would not have been successfully invaded in 1940 or 41. The high command was willing and ready to literally sacrifice the entire RAF fighter force and Home Fleet to oppose an invasion. And the German’s ‘winning’ the Battle of Britain (defined as destroying the RAF fighter strength) was physically impossible. Had that been imminent the RAF would have evacuated considerable forces out of range of the Luftwaffe and only committed them when an invasion began. As well the Luftwaffe wasn’t the Japanese air force – their anti-shipping performance would not have been enough to keep the Royal Navy from reaching and pulverizing the shipping being used to support an invasion. At best the German units would have landed and then been completely isolated as their shipping was destroyed. At worst the RN would have actually engaged the landing forces, and the cream of the Wermacht would have died in the Channel.

If the war had dragged on, and Germany had an opportunity to rebuild it’s shattered sea assets then another invasion might have worked. But that begs the question of WWII not turning into WWII, but rather remaining Germany v. Britain for years. Not likely.

Periander · 04-06-2007, 06:20 AM,

Periander · (This post was last modified: 04-06-2007, 07:20 AM by Periander.)

Periander · 04-06-2007, 07:10 AM,

Sgt Barker Wrote:Great thread here, by the way. :)

I think so, although come the first sign of anyone (me included!) having a hissy fit I'm out of here. It's far to easy to get worked up on a thread like this and say something you might later regret; and to be frank I'm only here to play a bit of WF (and maybe the other CS games if I can lay my hands on copies) and have a little chat now and again.
cheers

Sgt Barker · (This post was last modified: 04-06-2007, 08:26 AM by Sgt Barker.)

Periander Wrote:I think so, although come the first sign of anyone (me included!) having a hissy fit I'm out of here. It's far to easy to get worked up on a thread like this and say something you might later regret; and to be frank I'm only here to play a bit of WF (and maybe the other CS games if I can lay my hands on copies) and have a little chat now and again.

Couldn't agree more.

Big assumption, but given the site (old board games gone digital) and the interest (WWII, not exactly the hippest thing on earth) I assume we've all been around the block enough times to avoid turning a good discussion into internet shitte.

Narwan · 04-06-2007, 08:43 AM,

Periander;

The scuttling of the german fleet at Scapa Flow happened AFTER the new conditions (the german 'Diktat' seems more apporiate to them) had been decided upon and presented to the germans. The scuttling was a reaction to and not a cause of the terms of Versailles. It did severely weaken the postion of the german delegation though to try and get even a few very minor points amended.

While the allies in WW1 were full of talk of noble motives, in Versailles they again degenrated into the old imperialistic game of land stealing and furthering their own interests instead of setting the stage for a more endurable and lasting peace. Many of the major problems we see today in the Balkan, eastern europe and the middle east can be directly linked to Versailles. The allies made a lot of promise prior to the armistice, both to (potential) allies and to enemies. And quite a few of those promises were broken.

Narwan

Sgt Barker · 04-06-2007, 09:49 AM,

Periander · (This post was last modified: 04-06-2007, 07:09 PM by Periander.)

Narwan Wrote:Periander;

The scuttling of the german fleet at Scapa Flow happened AFTER the new conditions (the german 'Diktat' seems more apporiate to them) had been decided upon and presented to the germans. The scuttling was a reaction to and not a cause of the terms of Versailles. It did severely weaken the postion of the german delegation though to try and get even a few very minor points amended.

Yes, quite true in a public sense, however (and I'll have to have a root around to find the references) there is more than a suggestion that Llyod-George was going to give a significant part of the fleet back to Germany and was certainly not going to enforce all the treaty conditions.

(Should also be noted that although the treaty was signed the week after the scuttling it wasn't ratified until 1920 ... plenty of time for a bit more horse trading and back door diplomacy).

There was certainly a feeling in some quaters that sacrificing Germany in the way it was would rebound on the other major powers in particular the UK. Allowing Germany to remain "armed" would provide a bulwark against French expansion abroad ... that is if the German's still had guns then the French would have to keep troops at home and stop messing around in the colonies ... no more repeats of Fashoda for instance.

Likewise allowing Germany to keep its colonies would keep the presure of the UK colonies ... at least to a certain extent.

The European's don't call us "Perfidious Albion" for nothing.
Shark