Its September 1940, France and the west, with the exception of Britian have been defeated. The battle of the Atlantic rages. The battle of Britian has been lost, there will be no sea lion this year.
Hitler believes that an invasion of the Soviet Union in the next step in the war.
You're a senior general in the Heer. He calls you in for a private conference. What advise do you give him? How should he prosecute the war?
German invasion of the Soviet Uniton
Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil
Personally I would stiffen the Luftwaffe and issue drop tanks. Await the FW190 that is coming online soon and then re-launch BoB the following summer. With these additions victory could be achieved and Sea Lion could go ahead.
On land I would send more units to Rommel in Afrika and enable him to push for the Nile and thus bring Turkey in on our side. Also the invasion of Malta and Gibralter must go ahead to secure the Med.
At sea I would release the surface ships for commerce raiding and intensify the U-boat war.
You never know it might work.
On land I would send more units to Rommel in Afrika and enable him to push for the Nile and thus bring Turkey in on our side. Also the invasion of Malta and Gibralter must go ahead to secure the Med.
At sea I would release the surface ships for commerce raiding and intensify the U-boat war.
You never know it might work.
Actually in September 1940 Rommel is still in France ... but I know what you are getting at.
I don't know if the Luftwaffe will ever prevail against the RAF to the extent that Germany would be able to invade. The Royal Navy is to strong and the Luftwaffe will still not have a strategic bomber worthy of the name.
Malta will be important once Rommel is in place, but how are you going to get at Gibralter? You'll have to convince Franco to join the axis or convince Vichy to give you transit rights across North Africa.
Do you still conquer the Balkans? Or do you convince Italy to stay with one disaster at a time?
I don't know if the Luftwaffe will ever prevail against the RAF to the extent that Germany would be able to invade. The Royal Navy is to strong and the Luftwaffe will still not have a strategic bomber worthy of the name.
Malta will be important once Rommel is in place, but how are you going to get at Gibralter? You'll have to convince Franco to join the axis or convince Vichy to give you transit rights across North Africa.
Do you still conquer the Balkans? Or do you convince Italy to stay with one disaster at a time?
-
Henrik Krog
- Contributor
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 12:50 pm
- Contact:
Re: German invasion of the Soviet Uniton
Some time ago (maybe half a year), a somewhat like WI was posted to the old Feldgrau forum. It was set just after the French armistice, though, before the BoB.
In response, I wrote a memo as if done by a general to advise Hitler on how he should act in the immediate future. Basically, the plan was to use stick and carrot to bring about a change of government in GB, that would agree to a negotiated peace. There were no immediate plans for war with the USSR.
If there is an interest, Id like to post the memo. Its just that it is pretty big.....
Henrik
In response, I wrote a memo as if done by a general to advise Hitler on how he should act in the immediate future. Basically, the plan was to use stick and carrot to bring about a change of government in GB, that would agree to a negotiated peace. There were no immediate plans for war with the USSR.
If there is an interest, Id like to post the memo. Its just that it is pretty big.....
Henrik
-
Henrik Krog
- Contributor
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 12:50 pm
- Contact:
Memo (Big)
As it turns out, it was too big for one posting, so I broke it into two. OK, here it goes:
Mein Fuehrer, let me commend you for hearing us, your most loyal generals, on our thougts about the current situation.
While your military judgement has shown itself to be impeccable, the task at hand is still great. The enemy has fled across the ocean, where we so far cannot pursue.
The forces we can put to use to get to him are fewer than those he can put to use preventing us from doing so.
The following is my suggested path of action, all working towards one goal: a negotiated peace this fall.
Let us have a look at the situation first:
- France is out, but not more out than that a too harsh peace can bring her to re-enter the war from the colonies. She is, after all still at war with Italy (armistice due
to be signed tomorrow), and fears an Italian move against her colonies.
- Great Britain is still in the war, scarred but undefeated. The two major obstacles to a German invasion are the RAF and the RN.
- Italy is in the war, but as yet in the "parrallel war"-mode, so you cannot order her around as you would like to. Mussolini is unlikely to ask for or accept help, so as
to not compromise Italian honor.
- The countries in the Balkans are still uncommitted, neutrals actually, all of them. Hungary and Bulgaria are rather pro-German, though, and Romania, Yugoslavia
and Greece might be influenced in that direction also.
- The USSR is on our side, and is sending large amounts of raw materials to us.
- On the Iberian Peninsula, the two countries there are both fascist, but leaning towards each its side, Spain to us and Portugal to the Brits. Both are too weak to
enter the war any time soon without massive support from the outside.
- Outside Europe, the US and Japan are as yet still uncommitted, but the US is quietly supporting the Allies, and Japan is eyeing a chance now that France is weak.
- Little fighting is going on besides over the English canal. The Italians are bombarding French Somaliland and Malta. Some skirmishing is taking place along the
Libyan-Egyptian border, but that is pretty much it.
Prospects for change in the immediate future center around the French colonies, where political and military maneuvering is intense, to gain control over them for
either the French government or that upstart rebel deGaulle.
In these same colonies is also concentrated a large part of the French fleet, with most of the remainder in British (or Egyptian) harbors, and those vessels have to be
prevented from falling into British (or "Free" French) hands.
No in-depth preparations have been made as of yet for an invasion of the UK, and if it is to be made at all, we have to subdue the RAF and RN first.
Mein Fuehrer, the following should be looked upon as main goals for the immediate future:
1) France has to be prevented from re-entering the war in any way, shape or form, "France" being the Vichy or deGaulle variant. That includes the French fleet.
2) With this Churchill in power in Great Britain, there is no prospect for peace with her in the immediate future. We have to give the British peace party incentives to put him aside.
3) Any other powers have to be prevented from joining the war, especially the USA and the USSR.
PART 1 - France
Mein Fuehrer, let me first share with you my view of the situation France currently stands in, and how we can use that to our own good:
1) France is effectively out of the war. She still retains possession of two major assets, though: a) Her Fleet and b) her colonies. We should strive to at least prevent both from falling into British hands, but ideally bring them into ours. Some observations:
2) The bulk of the fleet of France is concentrated in harbors outside our reach, the major concentrations being in:
- Great Britain, various harbors: 2 battleships, 3 destroyers and 6 submarines
- Oran, Algeria: 7 destroyers and 5 submarines
- Mers el Kebir, Algeria: 2 battleships, 2 battlecruisers and 6 light cruisers/superdestroyers
- Alexandria, Egypt: 1 battleship, 4 cruisers, 3 destroyers and 1 submarine.
The terms of the armistice stipulate, that all the vessels are to return to France, where they are to be neutralized for the duration of the war. It is my feeling, that the British, knowing our lack of naval strength, will do anything to prevent us from gaining it from other powers. Denmark in 1807 should be a good example.
Thus, we should make the French with all urgency bring their vessels home. It is my belief that British moves to prevent this will certainly lead to bloodshed, that will push the possibility of France rejoining the war on the British side somewhat into the future. But ordered back they must be, preferably today, and if not today tomorrow. To not make it too much a show of our might, we should consider making it look like a positive bargain, though. Given that we are in occupation of 60% of France, we can gladly barter some of their own territory for concessions of theirs. We should consider offering at least some departements in the Champagne to the French, and also a port on the Atlantic side, so the fleet units in England have somewhere to return to. Of course, we could allow those to be abandoned - the British dont have the machinery to make spares and ammunition of the specifications of the French vessels, and the humiliation of having the British seize part of their fleet would further add to French rage. I will let this be up to you to decide.
To help the French get their vessels through from Algeria and Egypt, we might want to make the Italians sortie with their fleet. This will both act as distraction for the British and at the same time make them more prone to attack the fleeing French. Both vessels lost and vessels getting through will aid our cause.
3) While they may not realize it themselves as of yet, the French colonies will soon find themselves racked by violent political maneuvering between those that want to stay loyal to France, and those that want to join that upstart deGaulle. We already have intercepted 4 days ago a message from him to Nogues, the commander in French North Africa. Add to this that a liner is still on the way to Morocco carrying some 30 deputees and senators of the French parliament. This could easily be turned into a government in exile, and must be returned immediately.
The French government is already of itself interested in keeping control over her colonies, so there is no need for us to try to meddle in that. We should, however, offer any help possible for her to achieve that aim successfully. French honor does not allow us to intervene in force militarily, and in any case we are without the means to influence things outside Africa and the Middle East in any way, so the following should be viewed as suggestions relating to those two areas only:
- Following the successful, or even partial concentration of the French naval vessels in the Mediterranean at Toulon, we should allow it to sortie from time to time for a period of some months, until the situation in the French colonies is sorted out.
- We should induce the Italians to conduct aggressive naval patrolling, to protect the French somewhat from British interference. How we make the Italians do this, I will detail later.
- A contingent of at least 50 transport aircraft should be put at the disposal of the French, to fly in loyal troops and administrators and extract disloyal ones. Rumor has it the Senegalese troops that the French depend on in the colonies are of somewhat dubious loyalty. To not compromise French honor, we should consider selling or at least leasing them to the French. Pilots is another problem: if possible, non-German pilots capable to fly our transports should be found, but within the next 2 weeks. It might be opportune to go through the list of employees in the Latin American branches of the Lufthansa for this. And again, territorial concessions to France should be considered, along with loosening the constraints laid upon the French army. Whether we allow an army of 100 or 150.000 men is of little consequence, and the point has already been made, vis-a-vis the terms handed down to us at Versailles. Anything after that could be interpreted either as German benevolence, or regenerating French power. Both works towards our goals, and should be encouraged, at least in the short term.
4) Should territorial and military concessions, the carrot, not work towards making the French do as we please, we can always use Italy as a stick. While we have signed an armistice with the French, the Italians have not done so yet, and can be used to threaten Tunisia and French Somaliland.
That, My Fuehrer, are my suggestions towards France. Unfortunately, we are left without the means to project power across the oceans to any degree, so we should expect not to be successful on all counts here.
Part 2 - Great Britain
My Fuehrer, now to the second part of my suggestions, those concerning Great Britain.
While the situation of Great Britain is vastly different to that of France, it also shares one common trait, that works beneficiary to her: her remaining territories and forces are shielded by the oceans from your might, My Fuehrer, and those oceans are so far in the possession of the British navy.
Presently only our ally Italy is in contact with British forces, and Italian honor prevents us from intervening on those fronts without compromising Italian honor. While we can ourselves engage British aerial and naval might, we are not in a position to achieve a sufficient decisive victory so as to defeat Great Britain decisively.
I am sorry to state this so bluntly, My Fuehrer, but we will have to settle for a negotiated peace. To force the British, especially with this Churchill in power, to the negotiating table, we have to confront them with a situation where the benefits of making peace are greater than those of fighting on. Simply confining the British to their isles will not be enough, the British have been there before. At the very least, we will have to deprive them of sizeable portions of their colonies to use as bargaining chips, and almost assuredly also confront them with a serious threat of invasion. This was how it worked when Great Britain made peace with Napoleon in 1803.
To make such a situation appear, we have to seize the current opportunity in which Great Britain is badly weakened in the air and on the ground following the defeats in France. If we do not act this year, we most probably wont be faced with another chance like this: Great Britain will have rebuilt her strength by next year.
Thus, the following few months will have to be devoted solely to nibble away at the remaining vestiges of British might, to bring about a situation where invasion seems imminent to the British.
This "stick" has to be accompanied by a sizeable "carrot" to overcome the legendary British stubbornness. Nothing short of an official peace-offer will do. Napoleon had British war-weariness after 10 years of war to build upon, a luxury we do not posses. Thus, we have to, over the following few months, to batter the British to such an extent as to make them feel to have been warring for those 10 years.
The following are my suggestions to weaken the British, divided by arm:
The Army
Though defeated by your troops, Mein Fuehrer, the British army is still very much in existence, and getting stronger by the minute. We thus have to find a way to drain away that increase in fighting power. Without ground troops to go along with them and a frontline to tie them down, aerial attacks will not achieve much. My suggestions is thus, that we draw away British troops and production to sustain combat in other theatres. For the time being, there are only two in existence: Libya and Italian East Africa, the AOI as the Italians call it. In detail:
The AOI
The AOI, however, is hampered by the fact that she is completely cut off from any supplies, other than by transport planes. And though the number of troops the Italians have amassed in the AOI is considerable, especially compared with what the British can pit against them, most of these numbers are for internal use against guerillas, or simply dont have the transport necessary to sustain them on offensive operations.
Still, it would be well if the Italians, through local offensives, could keep the British off balance, inflict losses on them and draw troops to them. The occupation of British Somaliland offers a good opportunity, and it might be combined with offensive thrusts towards either Khartoum in the Sudan, threatening a juncture of the Italian troops in Libya and the AOI, or Mombasa, severing the main supply line for the British troops threatening the AOI from the south.
Of those two, I would have the Italians go after Khartoum. Not only does it find the British at the end of a longer line of supply than at Mombasa, the threat of an Italian juncture is also sure to draw attention, especially if it is combined with an invasion from Libya.
It also has to be taken into account, though, that the Kenya/southern AOI region is wide open to mobile warfare, to which the Italians are very badly equipped in the theatre, even though they themselves used it for exactly that in the Italo-Ethiopian war only 5 years ago. Id advise the Italians to stay on the defensive here, maybe even evacuate and concentrate her troops in the mountain massifs of Ethiopia, where they are likely to hold out for a long time.
In the end, however, the AOI position, due to its lack of supplies, has to be seen as expendable, though. I give them 1 year, maybe slightly more, before they are out of the fight, should we not gain LOCs to it.
Libya
In Libya the Italians are in an equally un-envious position. Though they vastly outnumber what forces the British can throw against them, the key here is not quantity, but quality. Though the Italians have some 10 divisions to throw against the British, our planners when considering employment of 20 Italian divisions in Elsass-Lothringen generally considered them resembling our 10th Wave divisions in worth. Not a flattering comparison.
Against this, the British can throw the one armored division they have that has been fine-tuned to the point of resembling ours in proficiency. When the British army in the early 1930s got rid of their armor enthusiasts, they unfortunately dumped the best of them in Egypt, and formed a Mobile, later armored divisions there for him to toy around with. This, now named the 7th Armored, is the prime opponent of the Italians, and I estimate they are not ready to take it on.
Without much motorization, the Italians are essentially sitting ducks for this formation, especially so given the environment, where being cut off from supplies means death by thirsting within a few days. The Grand Chaco War concluded only 5 years ago should be enough proof to this. In 3 years of fighting, inferior Paraguayan troops again and again infiltrated and surrounded Bolivian forces, cutting them off from water supplies in this arid region and thus forcing them to surrender. By the end of the war, some 30.000 Bolivians were POWs faced with only 3.000 Paraguayans.
Thus, the theatre needs mechanized opposition.
Italy has herself some 3 armored and 2 motorized divisions that could act as opposition to the 7th Armored, even though their armor is far from up to modern standards. Instead of sending them to Libya to actually fight a war, they sit around in the Po Valley, watching Switzerland and Yugoslavia and waiting for an opportunity to make a land grab. This situation has to be remedied.
It has to be said, though, that while we want the Italians to endure and smash the 7th Armored divisions, the mechanized units they are likely to send to Libya are only likely to blunt the defeat somewhat. Their armor and motorization is simply too bad to make anything else happen. Thus, we should supply them with certain amounts of AT guns, tanks and motor vehicles to better counter the British armor. As we discovered with our type I and II panzers, mid-30s designs are not of much use in the 40s.
Now, of course the Italians will still persist in their notion of a "Parallel War" without German meddling, and they will for sure refuse any offers of German armaments so as to nut insult the honor of the Italian people. But to use the chance offered us to defeat Great Britain, we should use all means to make them listen. We need a common focus, a pooling of resources.
Therefore, mein Fuehrer, I suggest you appoint a meeting with the Duce as soon as possible, preferably within the next few weeks, and pressure him into following the above suggestions. Should the Duce not want to listen to reason, I suggest the threat of cutting off German coal supplies (and supplies of anything else, for that matter), and the offer of Tunisia, Egypt and Sudan might incline him otherwise.
A good thing would also be if you could convince him to let a German mechanized corps under the leadership of a proficient general join his forces in Libya, under the "Brothers in Arms"-banner. After all, both our countries campaigned in France. Something along those lines. This Rommel seems fine for the task, by the way, and an assignment to Libya would also keep him out of his superiors hair.
Keeping certain limits on our support of the Italians should enable us to let the Egyptian theater stay in being and draw away British forces from Great Britain. From time to time, we should let our forces get within reach of the Nile, but taking it would be folly, only reduce British commitments.
Though not yet in the war, we might also lobby with our Japanese allies to make some threatening noises in Asia, perhaps a demonstration towards British Borneo and Brunei because of the oil there, to draw away British forces.
The Navy
The British navy by far outnumbers any naval force we can put together, even if we only take the British Home Fleet into account. As it is the main opponent of any sea-borne invasion of the British Isles, it is also the main obstacle to our plan. To diminish its strength, our actions must take two courses simultaneously:
- Drain away the vessels to other theatres
- Outright sink them.
Apart from in the Atlantic, which theatre I will detail later, we will have to rely mostly on our allies, Italy and Japan (to draw away British vessels to the Indian and Mediterranean Seas, respectively) to make the threatening moves and draw away enemy vessels. Divided up into smaller groups, they also make easier targets, and are easier to sink. .
The Indian Sea
As we have no leverage over Japan, we should be satisfied if we can make her make some threatening noises, drawing away maybe a capital ship or two. Every vessel we dont have to face is a win for us. The best thing for us would obviously be, if the Japanese could be induced to sortie into the Indian Ocean, threatening India and the British communications with East Africa and Egypt. But whether we can achieve that is highly doubtable.
The Mediterranean Sea
As to Italy, we should not expect to be able to make the Italians commit to an attack on neither Alexandria nor Gibraltar. Losses thus have to be inflicted on the British either in convoy battles, or by attacking an objective of worth for the British. As we cant control when the British will attack Italian convoys, the latter course should be chosen, and the objective is right there, in our faces: Malta.
Should we succeed in making the Italians deploy more forces to Libya, an increase in the amount of supply needed there is following. This will on the one hand diminish the possibility of Italy trying her luck in other theatres (Greece, for example), and on the other hand make Malta more of a thorn in the side of the Italians.
You, main Fuehrer, should propose to the Duce, that he invade Malta. The forces based there, both aerial, naval and ground, are so few that an easy victory should be assured. To insure a quick success, we should consider offering the Duce our paratrooper force to add to that of Italy, and an air corps should probably be offered, too.
While the occupation itself might be easy, the follow-up is the most important though: an invasion of Malta is sure to draw the British fleet in defense. As of now, British forces within reach only include those based at Alexandria, in all matching the Italian fleet in capital ships, but only half as strong in cruisers and destroyers. Two Italian battleships that are finishing as we speak, should turn the table on the British in the capital ship category soon, though. This is, however, depending on what the British do about the sudden loss of the French fleet to their cause. In all probability, we will soon see a British fleet based out of Gibraltar containing at least one each carrier (there i no airbase at Gibraltar yet) and battleship, probably more. This is good inasmuch as those vessels will all have to come from the Home Fleet, thus diminishing the number of vessels they have on immediate call for countering an invasion threat.
As we in all probability will not have finished planning for the Malta invasion before the British deploy forces to Gibraltar, I again underline that we need to send an air corps, preferably two, to aid the Italians and provide them aerial cover. My sources tell me that the Italians are short of topedoes for their torpedo bombers. We should help them out there, too.
In the following showdown, with a British fleet admittedly comprising aircraft carriers, but outside reach of its land-based air cover, and subjected to attack by an enemy fleet possessing superior air cover and numbers, we should be able to sink a number of British ships. The most important thing, though, is to preserve the Italian fleet in being so that, should the battle turn against us, it still exists to tie British vessels down. A British naval defeat is not necessary, as the forces we can put ashore in Malta before they show up will be enough to defeat the garrison, and attrition will undoubtedly force the British navy to retreat at some point.
A final suggestion to help the odds in a battle around Malta: given that pitting our few remaining capital any concentration of vessels of the British Fleet would be futile, even stupid, let me propose we send a pair of them on a raid into the Northern Atlantic, to draw away British vessels should they be posted to Gibraltar. Add to this eventual losses in British shipping.
Should the Battle of Malta end in a British defeat, our position would be vastly improved, also considering the possibility of brining Spain into the war and through her attack Gibraltar. In any event, even should Spain chose to stay out, the Italian navy would be free to raid the base.
In my oppinion, it all hinges on the Italian allowing us in to help. My observations from before on our options to make the Italians see our way remain valid.
If we manage to remove the British from the Mediterranean, there is a possibility of having the Italians join us with a naval squadron for our feigned invasion. Given the right circumstances and pressures applied, we might even get the French to chip in. They might be intercepted by the British fleet at Gibraltar, but in any case, losses to the British is our gain. If they get through, they can be used in a follow-up attack on Gibraltar, when the British are weakened navally from our "invasion"
The Atlantic
In the Atlantic, we are left solely to our own means. As earlier explained, our means to wage war here are sorely depleted following the Norwegian campaign. In fact, short of the continuing submarine warfare and the raids by battleships, battle-cruisers and cruisers into the North Atlantic there is little more to be done.
It must also be emphasized, though, that the tactic we use now can be devastating under the ideal circumstances. The sinking of the Royal Oak in Scapa Flow by captain Prien last fall, and the raid by the "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" two weeks ago, that sank a carrier and two destroyers clearly show.
Ideal circumstances must thus be established at all times. Cooperation between the long-range forces of the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine must be assured. Especially further raids by our capital ships must be launched, and they must be allowed to engage enemy war vessels if the situation allows it.
Summing up, over the next three months it is most important that we sink as many British ships as possible. Even if we dont achieve our aim of brining Great Britain to the negotiation table this year, warships take years to build, and the Royal navy will be weakened for years no matter what the outcome.
The Air force
The RAF is, thanks to the British retaining a sizeable fighter force at home through the French campaign (a thing we can not let the French forget at any time), left in a position to seriously hinder any threatened invasion. Of the same reason it is also not feasible to draw away RAF strength to other theatres. The RAF must thus be ground into dust where it is now.
Though we have been able to force Denmark and the Netherlands to surrender by threatening to bomb their capitals, that is a course no great power can go, and we should be ill advised if we tried to bring about British defeat by bombing her cities. After all you, mein Fuehrer, would not consider surrendering to Great Britain should a measely few bombs fall on the Rhur (sorry for implying that to be an even distant possibility, herr Reichsmarschall).
What we have to do, then, is throw all available might at the RAF installations within our reach. These include air bases, radar stations and airplane factories. Should excess capacity be available, other war industries should be bombed also. I hear the Armaments Ministry has done some interesting calculations on what targeting a few strategic installations in the British coal-mining industry would mean to the British economy. I urge you, mein Fuehrer, and you, Reichsmaschall, to have a look at these.
Invasion
As a last ploy, should the other measures fail to drain away enough British sea- and air-power, I propose a feigned invasion.
No matter what we do, we will have to draw together transport vessels enough to make for a believable threat anyway - the only vessel available in numbers being the barges and tugs used on our inland canals - , and if all else fails, we should consider feigning an invasion to draw out the RAF and RN reserves preserved in case an invasion occurs. Given, as I mentioned before, no invasion of ours shows great promise of succeeding anyway, I have discarded the option of actually going through with one beforehand, especially as calculations show that the minimum crew required for the vessels to transport an invasion force the size of which we need to put ashore is not available anyway.
What is propose, then, is to assemble the number of craft necessary to put the invasion through, train the required troops, issue all the order and so on. But in the event only feigning an invasion, substituting as big a number as possible of the troops and craft with dummies. When the RN and RAF comes crashing in, we should have a good opportunity to pummel away at them with every available plane, ship and shore battery, to which can be added the damage increased mining on our part might make.
When all is over, you let the press gloat about the losses to the British incurred in this operation. And make sure they suspect the actual invasion will happen soon after, now that they have been weakened.
Keeping others out
As was mentioned, I feel the need to state some self-evident truths: While there is no sign of neither the USA nor the USSR joining with Great Britain in the foreseeable future, I think we should make sure nevertheless.
As to the USA, there are no signs the USians will not stay content for the time being with merely supplying the British and earn a hefty profit in the process. There really is not much we can do about this save sink the ships as they come. If need be, we might want to induce Japan to send its fleet patrolling around the Philippines, but again, we lack influence with the Japanese. Perhaps some sort of contact with the army, a promise of supplies of tanks to offset the superior Soviet armor that humbled them at Khalkin Gol can make them lobby on our behalf. Any move should first go the government, though, just so as to not offend anyone.
The Soviet union is another matter, bound as they are by their non-aggression treaty with us. For the foreseeable future I dont see any Soviet attack in the cards, just supplies of raw materials. We should try to divert Soviet attention away from their present goals too close to German borders for comfort. The meeting planned for October between Ribbentrop and Molotov should perhaps be moved forward somewhat, not the least to worry the British, perhaps make them move troops into Iraq to secure the place against any Soviet moves. My sources tell me they already considered this just prior to the Italian declaration of war.
At this meeting we should try to divert Soviet interest towards the Middle East, maybe thrown Bulgaria and the Dardanelles into the mix if that has to be done to console Soviet interest. No Soviet air force presence can be allowed there, though, and we will have to insist on reciprocal Soviet permission to base more troops in Romania. We might even have to make concessions on Finland, but only in the basing and economic areas.
Again, Japanese rumblings, this time along the Manchurian border, would help.
Mein Fuehrer, let me commend you for hearing us, your most loyal generals, on our thougts about the current situation.
While your military judgement has shown itself to be impeccable, the task at hand is still great. The enemy has fled across the ocean, where we so far cannot pursue.
The forces we can put to use to get to him are fewer than those he can put to use preventing us from doing so.
The following is my suggested path of action, all working towards one goal: a negotiated peace this fall.
Let us have a look at the situation first:
- France is out, but not more out than that a too harsh peace can bring her to re-enter the war from the colonies. She is, after all still at war with Italy (armistice due
to be signed tomorrow), and fears an Italian move against her colonies.
- Great Britain is still in the war, scarred but undefeated. The two major obstacles to a German invasion are the RAF and the RN.
- Italy is in the war, but as yet in the "parrallel war"-mode, so you cannot order her around as you would like to. Mussolini is unlikely to ask for or accept help, so as
to not compromise Italian honor.
- The countries in the Balkans are still uncommitted, neutrals actually, all of them. Hungary and Bulgaria are rather pro-German, though, and Romania, Yugoslavia
and Greece might be influenced in that direction also.
- The USSR is on our side, and is sending large amounts of raw materials to us.
- On the Iberian Peninsula, the two countries there are both fascist, but leaning towards each its side, Spain to us and Portugal to the Brits. Both are too weak to
enter the war any time soon without massive support from the outside.
- Outside Europe, the US and Japan are as yet still uncommitted, but the US is quietly supporting the Allies, and Japan is eyeing a chance now that France is weak.
- Little fighting is going on besides over the English canal. The Italians are bombarding French Somaliland and Malta. Some skirmishing is taking place along the
Libyan-Egyptian border, but that is pretty much it.
Prospects for change in the immediate future center around the French colonies, where political and military maneuvering is intense, to gain control over them for
either the French government or that upstart rebel deGaulle.
In these same colonies is also concentrated a large part of the French fleet, with most of the remainder in British (or Egyptian) harbors, and those vessels have to be
prevented from falling into British (or "Free" French) hands.
No in-depth preparations have been made as of yet for an invasion of the UK, and if it is to be made at all, we have to subdue the RAF and RN first.
Mein Fuehrer, the following should be looked upon as main goals for the immediate future:
1) France has to be prevented from re-entering the war in any way, shape or form, "France" being the Vichy or deGaulle variant. That includes the French fleet.
2) With this Churchill in power in Great Britain, there is no prospect for peace with her in the immediate future. We have to give the British peace party incentives to put him aside.
3) Any other powers have to be prevented from joining the war, especially the USA and the USSR.
PART 1 - France
Mein Fuehrer, let me first share with you my view of the situation France currently stands in, and how we can use that to our own good:
1) France is effectively out of the war. She still retains possession of two major assets, though: a) Her Fleet and b) her colonies. We should strive to at least prevent both from falling into British hands, but ideally bring them into ours. Some observations:
2) The bulk of the fleet of France is concentrated in harbors outside our reach, the major concentrations being in:
- Great Britain, various harbors: 2 battleships, 3 destroyers and 6 submarines
- Oran, Algeria: 7 destroyers and 5 submarines
- Mers el Kebir, Algeria: 2 battleships, 2 battlecruisers and 6 light cruisers/superdestroyers
- Alexandria, Egypt: 1 battleship, 4 cruisers, 3 destroyers and 1 submarine.
The terms of the armistice stipulate, that all the vessels are to return to France, where they are to be neutralized for the duration of the war. It is my feeling, that the British, knowing our lack of naval strength, will do anything to prevent us from gaining it from other powers. Denmark in 1807 should be a good example.
Thus, we should make the French with all urgency bring their vessels home. It is my belief that British moves to prevent this will certainly lead to bloodshed, that will push the possibility of France rejoining the war on the British side somewhat into the future. But ordered back they must be, preferably today, and if not today tomorrow. To not make it too much a show of our might, we should consider making it look like a positive bargain, though. Given that we are in occupation of 60% of France, we can gladly barter some of their own territory for concessions of theirs. We should consider offering at least some departements in the Champagne to the French, and also a port on the Atlantic side, so the fleet units in England have somewhere to return to. Of course, we could allow those to be abandoned - the British dont have the machinery to make spares and ammunition of the specifications of the French vessels, and the humiliation of having the British seize part of their fleet would further add to French rage. I will let this be up to you to decide.
To help the French get their vessels through from Algeria and Egypt, we might want to make the Italians sortie with their fleet. This will both act as distraction for the British and at the same time make them more prone to attack the fleeing French. Both vessels lost and vessels getting through will aid our cause.
3) While they may not realize it themselves as of yet, the French colonies will soon find themselves racked by violent political maneuvering between those that want to stay loyal to France, and those that want to join that upstart deGaulle. We already have intercepted 4 days ago a message from him to Nogues, the commander in French North Africa. Add to this that a liner is still on the way to Morocco carrying some 30 deputees and senators of the French parliament. This could easily be turned into a government in exile, and must be returned immediately.
The French government is already of itself interested in keeping control over her colonies, so there is no need for us to try to meddle in that. We should, however, offer any help possible for her to achieve that aim successfully. French honor does not allow us to intervene in force militarily, and in any case we are without the means to influence things outside Africa and the Middle East in any way, so the following should be viewed as suggestions relating to those two areas only:
- Following the successful, or even partial concentration of the French naval vessels in the Mediterranean at Toulon, we should allow it to sortie from time to time for a period of some months, until the situation in the French colonies is sorted out.
- We should induce the Italians to conduct aggressive naval patrolling, to protect the French somewhat from British interference. How we make the Italians do this, I will detail later.
- A contingent of at least 50 transport aircraft should be put at the disposal of the French, to fly in loyal troops and administrators and extract disloyal ones. Rumor has it the Senegalese troops that the French depend on in the colonies are of somewhat dubious loyalty. To not compromise French honor, we should consider selling or at least leasing them to the French. Pilots is another problem: if possible, non-German pilots capable to fly our transports should be found, but within the next 2 weeks. It might be opportune to go through the list of employees in the Latin American branches of the Lufthansa for this. And again, territorial concessions to France should be considered, along with loosening the constraints laid upon the French army. Whether we allow an army of 100 or 150.000 men is of little consequence, and the point has already been made, vis-a-vis the terms handed down to us at Versailles. Anything after that could be interpreted either as German benevolence, or regenerating French power. Both works towards our goals, and should be encouraged, at least in the short term.
4) Should territorial and military concessions, the carrot, not work towards making the French do as we please, we can always use Italy as a stick. While we have signed an armistice with the French, the Italians have not done so yet, and can be used to threaten Tunisia and French Somaliland.
That, My Fuehrer, are my suggestions towards France. Unfortunately, we are left without the means to project power across the oceans to any degree, so we should expect not to be successful on all counts here.
Part 2 - Great Britain
My Fuehrer, now to the second part of my suggestions, those concerning Great Britain.
While the situation of Great Britain is vastly different to that of France, it also shares one common trait, that works beneficiary to her: her remaining territories and forces are shielded by the oceans from your might, My Fuehrer, and those oceans are so far in the possession of the British navy.
Presently only our ally Italy is in contact with British forces, and Italian honor prevents us from intervening on those fronts without compromising Italian honor. While we can ourselves engage British aerial and naval might, we are not in a position to achieve a sufficient decisive victory so as to defeat Great Britain decisively.
I am sorry to state this so bluntly, My Fuehrer, but we will have to settle for a negotiated peace. To force the British, especially with this Churchill in power, to the negotiating table, we have to confront them with a situation where the benefits of making peace are greater than those of fighting on. Simply confining the British to their isles will not be enough, the British have been there before. At the very least, we will have to deprive them of sizeable portions of their colonies to use as bargaining chips, and almost assuredly also confront them with a serious threat of invasion. This was how it worked when Great Britain made peace with Napoleon in 1803.
To make such a situation appear, we have to seize the current opportunity in which Great Britain is badly weakened in the air and on the ground following the defeats in France. If we do not act this year, we most probably wont be faced with another chance like this: Great Britain will have rebuilt her strength by next year.
Thus, the following few months will have to be devoted solely to nibble away at the remaining vestiges of British might, to bring about a situation where invasion seems imminent to the British.
This "stick" has to be accompanied by a sizeable "carrot" to overcome the legendary British stubbornness. Nothing short of an official peace-offer will do. Napoleon had British war-weariness after 10 years of war to build upon, a luxury we do not posses. Thus, we have to, over the following few months, to batter the British to such an extent as to make them feel to have been warring for those 10 years.
The following are my suggestions to weaken the British, divided by arm:
The Army
Though defeated by your troops, Mein Fuehrer, the British army is still very much in existence, and getting stronger by the minute. We thus have to find a way to drain away that increase in fighting power. Without ground troops to go along with them and a frontline to tie them down, aerial attacks will not achieve much. My suggestions is thus, that we draw away British troops and production to sustain combat in other theatres. For the time being, there are only two in existence: Libya and Italian East Africa, the AOI as the Italians call it. In detail:
The AOI
The AOI, however, is hampered by the fact that she is completely cut off from any supplies, other than by transport planes. And though the number of troops the Italians have amassed in the AOI is considerable, especially compared with what the British can pit against them, most of these numbers are for internal use against guerillas, or simply dont have the transport necessary to sustain them on offensive operations.
Still, it would be well if the Italians, through local offensives, could keep the British off balance, inflict losses on them and draw troops to them. The occupation of British Somaliland offers a good opportunity, and it might be combined with offensive thrusts towards either Khartoum in the Sudan, threatening a juncture of the Italian troops in Libya and the AOI, or Mombasa, severing the main supply line for the British troops threatening the AOI from the south.
Of those two, I would have the Italians go after Khartoum. Not only does it find the British at the end of a longer line of supply than at Mombasa, the threat of an Italian juncture is also sure to draw attention, especially if it is combined with an invasion from Libya.
It also has to be taken into account, though, that the Kenya/southern AOI region is wide open to mobile warfare, to which the Italians are very badly equipped in the theatre, even though they themselves used it for exactly that in the Italo-Ethiopian war only 5 years ago. Id advise the Italians to stay on the defensive here, maybe even evacuate and concentrate her troops in the mountain massifs of Ethiopia, where they are likely to hold out for a long time.
In the end, however, the AOI position, due to its lack of supplies, has to be seen as expendable, though. I give them 1 year, maybe slightly more, before they are out of the fight, should we not gain LOCs to it.
Libya
In Libya the Italians are in an equally un-envious position. Though they vastly outnumber what forces the British can throw against them, the key here is not quantity, but quality. Though the Italians have some 10 divisions to throw against the British, our planners when considering employment of 20 Italian divisions in Elsass-Lothringen generally considered them resembling our 10th Wave divisions in worth. Not a flattering comparison.
Against this, the British can throw the one armored division they have that has been fine-tuned to the point of resembling ours in proficiency. When the British army in the early 1930s got rid of their armor enthusiasts, they unfortunately dumped the best of them in Egypt, and formed a Mobile, later armored divisions there for him to toy around with. This, now named the 7th Armored, is the prime opponent of the Italians, and I estimate they are not ready to take it on.
Without much motorization, the Italians are essentially sitting ducks for this formation, especially so given the environment, where being cut off from supplies means death by thirsting within a few days. The Grand Chaco War concluded only 5 years ago should be enough proof to this. In 3 years of fighting, inferior Paraguayan troops again and again infiltrated and surrounded Bolivian forces, cutting them off from water supplies in this arid region and thus forcing them to surrender. By the end of the war, some 30.000 Bolivians were POWs faced with only 3.000 Paraguayans.
Thus, the theatre needs mechanized opposition.
Italy has herself some 3 armored and 2 motorized divisions that could act as opposition to the 7th Armored, even though their armor is far from up to modern standards. Instead of sending them to Libya to actually fight a war, they sit around in the Po Valley, watching Switzerland and Yugoslavia and waiting for an opportunity to make a land grab. This situation has to be remedied.
It has to be said, though, that while we want the Italians to endure and smash the 7th Armored divisions, the mechanized units they are likely to send to Libya are only likely to blunt the defeat somewhat. Their armor and motorization is simply too bad to make anything else happen. Thus, we should supply them with certain amounts of AT guns, tanks and motor vehicles to better counter the British armor. As we discovered with our type I and II panzers, mid-30s designs are not of much use in the 40s.
Now, of course the Italians will still persist in their notion of a "Parallel War" without German meddling, and they will for sure refuse any offers of German armaments so as to nut insult the honor of the Italian people. But to use the chance offered us to defeat Great Britain, we should use all means to make them listen. We need a common focus, a pooling of resources.
Therefore, mein Fuehrer, I suggest you appoint a meeting with the Duce as soon as possible, preferably within the next few weeks, and pressure him into following the above suggestions. Should the Duce not want to listen to reason, I suggest the threat of cutting off German coal supplies (and supplies of anything else, for that matter), and the offer of Tunisia, Egypt and Sudan might incline him otherwise.
A good thing would also be if you could convince him to let a German mechanized corps under the leadership of a proficient general join his forces in Libya, under the "Brothers in Arms"-banner. After all, both our countries campaigned in France. Something along those lines. This Rommel seems fine for the task, by the way, and an assignment to Libya would also keep him out of his superiors hair.
Keeping certain limits on our support of the Italians should enable us to let the Egyptian theater stay in being and draw away British forces from Great Britain. From time to time, we should let our forces get within reach of the Nile, but taking it would be folly, only reduce British commitments.
Though not yet in the war, we might also lobby with our Japanese allies to make some threatening noises in Asia, perhaps a demonstration towards British Borneo and Brunei because of the oil there, to draw away British forces.
The Navy
The British navy by far outnumbers any naval force we can put together, even if we only take the British Home Fleet into account. As it is the main opponent of any sea-borne invasion of the British Isles, it is also the main obstacle to our plan. To diminish its strength, our actions must take two courses simultaneously:
- Drain away the vessels to other theatres
- Outright sink them.
Apart from in the Atlantic, which theatre I will detail later, we will have to rely mostly on our allies, Italy and Japan (to draw away British vessels to the Indian and Mediterranean Seas, respectively) to make the threatening moves and draw away enemy vessels. Divided up into smaller groups, they also make easier targets, and are easier to sink. .
The Indian Sea
As we have no leverage over Japan, we should be satisfied if we can make her make some threatening noises, drawing away maybe a capital ship or two. Every vessel we dont have to face is a win for us. The best thing for us would obviously be, if the Japanese could be induced to sortie into the Indian Ocean, threatening India and the British communications with East Africa and Egypt. But whether we can achieve that is highly doubtable.
The Mediterranean Sea
As to Italy, we should not expect to be able to make the Italians commit to an attack on neither Alexandria nor Gibraltar. Losses thus have to be inflicted on the British either in convoy battles, or by attacking an objective of worth for the British. As we cant control when the British will attack Italian convoys, the latter course should be chosen, and the objective is right there, in our faces: Malta.
Should we succeed in making the Italians deploy more forces to Libya, an increase in the amount of supply needed there is following. This will on the one hand diminish the possibility of Italy trying her luck in other theatres (Greece, for example), and on the other hand make Malta more of a thorn in the side of the Italians.
You, main Fuehrer, should propose to the Duce, that he invade Malta. The forces based there, both aerial, naval and ground, are so few that an easy victory should be assured. To insure a quick success, we should consider offering the Duce our paratrooper force to add to that of Italy, and an air corps should probably be offered, too.
While the occupation itself might be easy, the follow-up is the most important though: an invasion of Malta is sure to draw the British fleet in defense. As of now, British forces within reach only include those based at Alexandria, in all matching the Italian fleet in capital ships, but only half as strong in cruisers and destroyers. Two Italian battleships that are finishing as we speak, should turn the table on the British in the capital ship category soon, though. This is, however, depending on what the British do about the sudden loss of the French fleet to their cause. In all probability, we will soon see a British fleet based out of Gibraltar containing at least one each carrier (there i no airbase at Gibraltar yet) and battleship, probably more. This is good inasmuch as those vessels will all have to come from the Home Fleet, thus diminishing the number of vessels they have on immediate call for countering an invasion threat.
As we in all probability will not have finished planning for the Malta invasion before the British deploy forces to Gibraltar, I again underline that we need to send an air corps, preferably two, to aid the Italians and provide them aerial cover. My sources tell me that the Italians are short of topedoes for their torpedo bombers. We should help them out there, too.
In the following showdown, with a British fleet admittedly comprising aircraft carriers, but outside reach of its land-based air cover, and subjected to attack by an enemy fleet possessing superior air cover and numbers, we should be able to sink a number of British ships. The most important thing, though, is to preserve the Italian fleet in being so that, should the battle turn against us, it still exists to tie British vessels down. A British naval defeat is not necessary, as the forces we can put ashore in Malta before they show up will be enough to defeat the garrison, and attrition will undoubtedly force the British navy to retreat at some point.
A final suggestion to help the odds in a battle around Malta: given that pitting our few remaining capital any concentration of vessels of the British Fleet would be futile, even stupid, let me propose we send a pair of them on a raid into the Northern Atlantic, to draw away British vessels should they be posted to Gibraltar. Add to this eventual losses in British shipping.
Should the Battle of Malta end in a British defeat, our position would be vastly improved, also considering the possibility of brining Spain into the war and through her attack Gibraltar. In any event, even should Spain chose to stay out, the Italian navy would be free to raid the base.
In my oppinion, it all hinges on the Italian allowing us in to help. My observations from before on our options to make the Italians see our way remain valid.
If we manage to remove the British from the Mediterranean, there is a possibility of having the Italians join us with a naval squadron for our feigned invasion. Given the right circumstances and pressures applied, we might even get the French to chip in. They might be intercepted by the British fleet at Gibraltar, but in any case, losses to the British is our gain. If they get through, they can be used in a follow-up attack on Gibraltar, when the British are weakened navally from our "invasion"
The Atlantic
In the Atlantic, we are left solely to our own means. As earlier explained, our means to wage war here are sorely depleted following the Norwegian campaign. In fact, short of the continuing submarine warfare and the raids by battleships, battle-cruisers and cruisers into the North Atlantic there is little more to be done.
It must also be emphasized, though, that the tactic we use now can be devastating under the ideal circumstances. The sinking of the Royal Oak in Scapa Flow by captain Prien last fall, and the raid by the "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" two weeks ago, that sank a carrier and two destroyers clearly show.
Ideal circumstances must thus be established at all times. Cooperation between the long-range forces of the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine must be assured. Especially further raids by our capital ships must be launched, and they must be allowed to engage enemy war vessels if the situation allows it.
Summing up, over the next three months it is most important that we sink as many British ships as possible. Even if we dont achieve our aim of brining Great Britain to the negotiation table this year, warships take years to build, and the Royal navy will be weakened for years no matter what the outcome.
The Air force
The RAF is, thanks to the British retaining a sizeable fighter force at home through the French campaign (a thing we can not let the French forget at any time), left in a position to seriously hinder any threatened invasion. Of the same reason it is also not feasible to draw away RAF strength to other theatres. The RAF must thus be ground into dust where it is now.
Though we have been able to force Denmark and the Netherlands to surrender by threatening to bomb their capitals, that is a course no great power can go, and we should be ill advised if we tried to bring about British defeat by bombing her cities. After all you, mein Fuehrer, would not consider surrendering to Great Britain should a measely few bombs fall on the Rhur (sorry for implying that to be an even distant possibility, herr Reichsmarschall).
What we have to do, then, is throw all available might at the RAF installations within our reach. These include air bases, radar stations and airplane factories. Should excess capacity be available, other war industries should be bombed also. I hear the Armaments Ministry has done some interesting calculations on what targeting a few strategic installations in the British coal-mining industry would mean to the British economy. I urge you, mein Fuehrer, and you, Reichsmaschall, to have a look at these.
Invasion
As a last ploy, should the other measures fail to drain away enough British sea- and air-power, I propose a feigned invasion.
No matter what we do, we will have to draw together transport vessels enough to make for a believable threat anyway - the only vessel available in numbers being the barges and tugs used on our inland canals - , and if all else fails, we should consider feigning an invasion to draw out the RAF and RN reserves preserved in case an invasion occurs. Given, as I mentioned before, no invasion of ours shows great promise of succeeding anyway, I have discarded the option of actually going through with one beforehand, especially as calculations show that the minimum crew required for the vessels to transport an invasion force the size of which we need to put ashore is not available anyway.
What is propose, then, is to assemble the number of craft necessary to put the invasion through, train the required troops, issue all the order and so on. But in the event only feigning an invasion, substituting as big a number as possible of the troops and craft with dummies. When the RN and RAF comes crashing in, we should have a good opportunity to pummel away at them with every available plane, ship and shore battery, to which can be added the damage increased mining on our part might make.
When all is over, you let the press gloat about the losses to the British incurred in this operation. And make sure they suspect the actual invasion will happen soon after, now that they have been weakened.
Keeping others out
As was mentioned, I feel the need to state some self-evident truths: While there is no sign of neither the USA nor the USSR joining with Great Britain in the foreseeable future, I think we should make sure nevertheless.
As to the USA, there are no signs the USians will not stay content for the time being with merely supplying the British and earn a hefty profit in the process. There really is not much we can do about this save sink the ships as they come. If need be, we might want to induce Japan to send its fleet patrolling around the Philippines, but again, we lack influence with the Japanese. Perhaps some sort of contact with the army, a promise of supplies of tanks to offset the superior Soviet armor that humbled them at Khalkin Gol can make them lobby on our behalf. Any move should first go the government, though, just so as to not offend anyone.
The Soviet union is another matter, bound as they are by their non-aggression treaty with us. For the foreseeable future I dont see any Soviet attack in the cards, just supplies of raw materials. We should try to divert Soviet attention away from their present goals too close to German borders for comfort. The meeting planned for October between Ribbentrop and Molotov should perhaps be moved forward somewhat, not the least to worry the British, perhaps make them move troops into Iraq to secure the place against any Soviet moves. My sources tell me they already considered this just prior to the Italian declaration of war.
At this meeting we should try to divert Soviet interest towards the Middle East, maybe thrown Bulgaria and the Dardanelles into the mix if that has to be done to console Soviet interest. No Soviet air force presence can be allowed there, though, and we will have to insist on reciprocal Soviet permission to base more troops in Romania. We might even have to make concessions on Finland, but only in the basing and economic areas.
Again, Japanese rumblings, this time along the Manchurian border, would help.
-
Henrik Krog
- Contributor
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 12:50 pm
- Contact:
Re: Memo (Big)
Other considerations
As I mentioned earlier you, mein Fuehrer, would be well advised to put before the British a peace proposal that would be impossible to reject, and so intrigueing compared with the imminent threat of invasion that, should Churchill chose to reject it, the peace party would have incentive to depose him. To further make sure it cant be buried in diplomatic cirlces, we should consider broadcasting it in detail to the general British public, indeed to the whole world, instead of just go through the diplomatic circles.
You, my Fuehrer, might be well advised to begin to learn some English, should you choose to offer the peace terms yourself.
Such a peace proposal would have to be very wide-ranging to be acceptable. I suggest it should include:
- Evacuation of the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway
- Evacuation of France and Belgium, but with plebiscites taking place in Eupen-Malmedy and Elsass-Lothringen, in the latter region on a county-by-county level. We might keep troops in occupation until the plebiscites are through.
- Evacuation of those portions of Poland not part of Germany pre-1918
- Plebiscites in the former provinces of Posen and Westpreussen, until last year part of Germany, outvoters allowed. If German majority in at least Westpreussen is not assured, staging of plebiscites on a county-per-county basis.
- Evacuation of Czechia, but with Czechia demilitarized. Germany can always at a later date together with Slovakia force Czechia into an economic union. Of course, no mention of who owns the Skoda works.
- An international conference on disarmament
Some other points I have not made before: with France out of the picture, and another continental war at least several years in the future, I think it opportune to demobilize a big chunk of the army. The number of 30 divisions has been tossed around. I would rather prefer we demobilize 60, keeping cadres of 30 of that number. The demobilized men could then be put back in the war economy, and the POWs (well, at least the French ones, as another bargaining chip towards her) could be released as a sign of goodwill.
At the same time, I feel the events during the French campaign have shown, that he type I, II, 35(t) and 38(t) tanks are obsolete. Production of them should be wound down immediately, and substituted for the PZ III and IV, as has been the plan for long. Based on the sorry showing in the fighting around Arras, I also feel, that these should be provided with additional armor, and a more powerful gun. At the same time, a switch to full-time war economy may be opportune. Even though the same thing last war proved to produce unrest in the population, the current war has produced victories noone would have dreamt about back then, and I feel certain in recommending the switch done, so we next year can face any opponent even stronger, should anyone offer themselves.
The tanks rendered surplus by the substitution of the "weaker" designs in the German army might very well then be offered to the Italians, for whom they in any case will be superior to what they have (at least their CV 33/35 tankettes). Consideration should also be put to supplying some to our clients in the Balkans.
As we dont intend to invade Great Britain anyway, the policy of re-equipping the mechanized units with standardized and modern equipment can then continue. By this time next year, some 30 armored and motorized divisions should be in existence, though not all equipped fully up to standards.
Resources should also be poured into submarines. Doenitz tells me, he need 300 submarines to ensure British defeat. If our bid to bring Great Britain to the negotiation table this fall fails, we will need them.
Finally a consideration about military research. My sources tell me, that you have put consideration to end all further research into new weapons, so as to focus resources upon the war at hand.
As I have pointed out, we will be faced with either a very short war, that will last for another 3 or 4 months, or a long one, lasting at least into late 1941. In the first case, time is too short to divert any resources from research, and in the other case we may stand in need for newer, more devastating weapons. With three major powers (the USA, the USSR and Japan) and a host of smaller ones still uncommitted, we will have to guard our selves against any possibilities. Maintaining the technological edge we have over all other powers is most important. Both the USSR and the USA can, while not in quality, more than match us in quantitative production. This also goes for weaponry.
My sources tell me research into jet-powered aircraft and actual submarines (instead of the submersible boats we have now) is showing most promising. We should progress at least along these two paths, in addition to what others you, mein Fuehrer, would allow.
These, mein Fuehrer, are my suggestions, outlined as best I saw fit, and under use of all information at my disposal. Follow them or not as you see fit, but rest assured I am at your disposition to clarify matters of doubt 24 hours a day.
As I mentioned earlier you, mein Fuehrer, would be well advised to put before the British a peace proposal that would be impossible to reject, and so intrigueing compared with the imminent threat of invasion that, should Churchill chose to reject it, the peace party would have incentive to depose him. To further make sure it cant be buried in diplomatic cirlces, we should consider broadcasting it in detail to the general British public, indeed to the whole world, instead of just go through the diplomatic circles.
You, my Fuehrer, might be well advised to begin to learn some English, should you choose to offer the peace terms yourself.
Such a peace proposal would have to be very wide-ranging to be acceptable. I suggest it should include:
- Evacuation of the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway
- Evacuation of France and Belgium, but with plebiscites taking place in Eupen-Malmedy and Elsass-Lothringen, in the latter region on a county-by-county level. We might keep troops in occupation until the plebiscites are through.
- Evacuation of those portions of Poland not part of Germany pre-1918
- Plebiscites in the former provinces of Posen and Westpreussen, until last year part of Germany, outvoters allowed. If German majority in at least Westpreussen is not assured, staging of plebiscites on a county-per-county basis.
- Evacuation of Czechia, but with Czechia demilitarized. Germany can always at a later date together with Slovakia force Czechia into an economic union. Of course, no mention of who owns the Skoda works.
- An international conference on disarmament
Some other points I have not made before: with France out of the picture, and another continental war at least several years in the future, I think it opportune to demobilize a big chunk of the army. The number of 30 divisions has been tossed around. I would rather prefer we demobilize 60, keeping cadres of 30 of that number. The demobilized men could then be put back in the war economy, and the POWs (well, at least the French ones, as another bargaining chip towards her) could be released as a sign of goodwill.
At the same time, I feel the events during the French campaign have shown, that he type I, II, 35(t) and 38(t) tanks are obsolete. Production of them should be wound down immediately, and substituted for the PZ III and IV, as has been the plan for long. Based on the sorry showing in the fighting around Arras, I also feel, that these should be provided with additional armor, and a more powerful gun. At the same time, a switch to full-time war economy may be opportune. Even though the same thing last war proved to produce unrest in the population, the current war has produced victories noone would have dreamt about back then, and I feel certain in recommending the switch done, so we next year can face any opponent even stronger, should anyone offer themselves.
The tanks rendered surplus by the substitution of the "weaker" designs in the German army might very well then be offered to the Italians, for whom they in any case will be superior to what they have (at least their CV 33/35 tankettes). Consideration should also be put to supplying some to our clients in the Balkans.
As we dont intend to invade Great Britain anyway, the policy of re-equipping the mechanized units with standardized and modern equipment can then continue. By this time next year, some 30 armored and motorized divisions should be in existence, though not all equipped fully up to standards.
Resources should also be poured into submarines. Doenitz tells me, he need 300 submarines to ensure British defeat. If our bid to bring Great Britain to the negotiation table this fall fails, we will need them.
Finally a consideration about military research. My sources tell me, that you have put consideration to end all further research into new weapons, so as to focus resources upon the war at hand.
As I have pointed out, we will be faced with either a very short war, that will last for another 3 or 4 months, or a long one, lasting at least into late 1941. In the first case, time is too short to divert any resources from research, and in the other case we may stand in need for newer, more devastating weapons. With three major powers (the USA, the USSR and Japan) and a host of smaller ones still uncommitted, we will have to guard our selves against any possibilities. Maintaining the technological edge we have over all other powers is most important. Both the USSR and the USA can, while not in quality, more than match us in quantitative production. This also goes for weaponry.
My sources tell me research into jet-powered aircraft and actual submarines (instead of the submersible boats we have now) is showing most promising. We should progress at least along these two paths, in addition to what others you, mein Fuehrer, would allow.
These, mein Fuehrer, are my suggestions, outlined as best I saw fit, and under use of all information at my disposal. Follow them or not as you see fit, but rest assured I am at your disposition to clarify matters of doubt 24 hours a day.
All solutions need not be military ...
Hitler's aim in the east was Living Space. How much living space he wanted is never known or discussed to the best of my information.
May be best course would have been occupy some states of USSR specially Ukraine, give genuine freedom to others from Communist rule - so that they act as buffers between Expanded Germany and Contracted Russia. Plus these states would be hostile to Russia.
I mean instead of conquering endlessly, why not limit the greed to what is genuinely required AND maintainable?
May be best course would have been occupy some states of USSR specially Ukraine, give genuine freedom to others from Communist rule - so that they act as buffers between Expanded Germany and Contracted Russia. Plus these states would be hostile to Russia.
I mean instead of conquering endlessly, why not limit the greed to what is genuinely required AND maintainable?
-
Henrik Krog
- Contributor
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 12:50 pm
- Contact:
Re: All solutions need not be military ...
That is all nice, but you still havent changed anything in the quagmire Hitler put himself in. No matter how much living space he wanted in the east, he would have to defeat the USSR.
Henrik
>May be best course would have been occupy some states of >USSR specially Ukraine, give genuine freedom to others from >Communist rule - so that they act as buffers between Expanded >Germany and Contracted Russia. Plus these states would be >hostile to Russia.
>I mean instead of conquering endlessly, why not limit the greed >to what is genuinely required AND maintainable?[/quote]
Henrik
>May be best course would have been occupy some states of >USSR specially Ukraine, give genuine freedom to others from >Communist rule - so that they act as buffers between Expanded >Germany and Contracted Russia. Plus these states would be >hostile to Russia.
>I mean instead of conquering endlessly, why not limit the greed >to what is genuinely required AND maintainable?[/quote]
Not necessarily Henrik. Stalin was trying to get peace agreement with Hitler (I can't remember where I read this - but I think in Feldgrau or in some other forum there was an article link which talks of Russian attempts to make peace with Germany at the loss of land in October-November 1941 - when the losses suffered by Red Army were astronomical).
If someone can remind me of the link (and of course to Henrik) that would be greatly appreciated.
It seems that the Nazi regime turned the proposals down because they were confident of utlimate victory and total defeat of Soviet Russia - which obviously did not happen.
But Living Space could have been created at this stage.
If someone can remind me of the link (and of course to Henrik) that would be greatly appreciated.
It seems that the Nazi regime turned the proposals down because they were confident of utlimate victory and total defeat of Soviet Russia - which obviously did not happen.
But Living Space could have been created at this stage.
-
Henrik Krog
- Contributor
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 12:50 pm
- Contact:
Peace in 1941
As far as I know there was no actual peace proposal. Stalin DID consider making peace and offering Hitler the Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic countries, and summoned the Bulgarian ambassador to the USSR to bring the proposal to the Germans.
When faced with it, the ambassador refused to even consider bringing it to the attention of the Germans. Being a Russophile (as most Bulgarians are), he thought the better option would be for the USSR to fight on. Surprising, considering Bulgaria was a German ally at the time, but thats the way it went down.
Later in the war, the Soviets did make some low-level contacts through their Stockholm embassy, but they came to nothing. I have even seen mention that Molotov and Ribbentrop should have met on the German side of the front, somewhere in Belorussia in 1943, but have seen nothing to substantiate this.
Anyway, my point was that German would have to go to war with the USSR anyhow. Could a peace deal have been made in 1941?? Maybe. The Germans failed to provide the Soviets with a carrot (a peace proposal), and just used the stick. If a German peace proposal had been there, with acceptable terms, I think Stalin might have taken the chance in the early fall 1941.
Henrik
When faced with it, the ambassador refused to even consider bringing it to the attention of the Germans. Being a Russophile (as most Bulgarians are), he thought the better option would be for the USSR to fight on. Surprising, considering Bulgaria was a German ally at the time, but thats the way it went down.
Later in the war, the Soviets did make some low-level contacts through their Stockholm embassy, but they came to nothing. I have even seen mention that Molotov and Ribbentrop should have met on the German side of the front, somewhere in Belorussia in 1943, but have seen nothing to substantiate this.
Anyway, my point was that German would have to go to war with the USSR anyhow. Could a peace deal have been made in 1941?? Maybe. The Germans failed to provide the Soviets with a carrot (a peace proposal), and just used the stick. If a German peace proposal had been there, with acceptable terms, I think Stalin might have taken the chance in the early fall 1941.
Henrik
Paul_PJ wrote:Not necessarily Henrik. Stalin was trying to get peace agreement with Hitler (I can't remember where I read this - but I think in Feldgrau or in some other forum there was an article link which talks of Russian attempts to make peace with Germany at the loss of land in October-November 1941 - when the losses suffered by Red Army were astronomical).
If someone can remind me of the link (and of course to Henrik) that would be greatly appreciated.
It seems that the Nazi regime turned the proposals down because they were confident of utlimate victory and total defeat of Soviet Russia - which obviously did not happen.
But Living Space could have been created at this stage.
Re: Peace in 1941
Yes .. I agree.
I wonder if the local populations in these countries would have rebelled against the Germans though. Why not?
[quote="Henrik Krog"]As far as I know there was no actual peace proposal. Stalin DID consider making peace and offering Hitler the Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic countries, and summoned the Bulgarian ambassador to the USSR to bring the proposal to the Germans.
When faced with it, the ambassador refused to even consider bringing it to the attention of the Germans. Being a Russophile (as most Bulgarians are), he thought the better option would be for the USSR to fight on. Surprising, considering Bulgaria was a German ally at the time, but thats the way it went down.
Later in the war, the Soviets did make some low-level contacts through their Stockholm embassy, but they came to nothing. I have even seen mention that Molotov and Ribbentrop should have met on the German side of the front, somewhere in Belorussia in 1943, but have seen nothing to substantiate this.
Anyway, my point was that German would have to go to war with the USSR anyhow. Could a peace deal have been made in 1941?? Maybe. The Germans failed to provide the Soviets with a carrot (a peace proposal), and just used the stick. If a German peace proposal had been there, with acceptable terms, I think Stalin might have taken the chance in the early fall 1941.
Henrik
I wonder if the local populations in these countries would have rebelled against the Germans though. Why not?
[quote="Henrik Krog"]As far as I know there was no actual peace proposal. Stalin DID consider making peace and offering Hitler the Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic countries, and summoned the Bulgarian ambassador to the USSR to bring the proposal to the Germans.
When faced with it, the ambassador refused to even consider bringing it to the attention of the Germans. Being a Russophile (as most Bulgarians are), he thought the better option would be for the USSR to fight on. Surprising, considering Bulgaria was a German ally at the time, but thats the way it went down.
Later in the war, the Soviets did make some low-level contacts through their Stockholm embassy, but they came to nothing. I have even seen mention that Molotov and Ribbentrop should have met on the German side of the front, somewhere in Belorussia in 1943, but have seen nothing to substantiate this.
Anyway, my point was that German would have to go to war with the USSR anyhow. Could a peace deal have been made in 1941?? Maybe. The Germans failed to provide the Soviets with a carrot (a peace proposal), and just used the stick. If a German peace proposal had been there, with acceptable terms, I think Stalin might have taken the chance in the early fall 1941.
Henrik
-
Tom Houlihan
- Patron
- Posts: 4301
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:05 pm
- Location: MI, USA
- Contact:
My first thought would be to hold what we've got, consolidate, and strengthen our position. Have von Ribbentrop keep stringing the SOVs along, meanwhile milking them for all we can get from them. DO NOT launch Barbarossa in the immediate future!!! Bearing in mind that with 50+ years of hindsight, successful execution of Seelöwe would have in my opinion prevented an invasion of Europe like we actually pulled off. There's a book out by a major in the RTR, who analyzed that potential operation, and the results are less than good for the Brits. Had it happened, no staging area for Overlord!
BTW, Henrik, interesting post. I had to copy it to Word so I could read it, but I'm highly impressed!!
BTW, Henrik, interesting post. I had to copy it to Word so I could read it, but I'm highly impressed!!
Another question to consider. If Germany does not take the war to the Soviet Union, will the Soviets take it to them?
There is a theory that the Germans beat the Russians to it by a couple of months in June 1941. If Germany does not start preparing for the war in 1940, they may be in serious trouble by the end of '41.
Can diplomacy hold off the Soviets until the Germans can force a peace on Britian?
There is a theory that the Germans beat the Russians to it by a couple of months in June 1941. If Germany does not start preparing for the war in 1940, they may be in serious trouble by the end of '41.
Can diplomacy hold off the Soviets until the Germans can force a peace on Britian?