North America

[JerseyJohn]

After taking France, Germany can build some naval units in the Bay of Biscay and use them to cover a transatlantic invasion of Canada--the opposition is usually a single corps.

Regarding the U.S.A., if Germany conquers England America remains defensively on it's side of the Atlantic. An "Operation Torch" move at either occupied England or France would be interesting in such circumstances while Germany is off ravishing the USSR. The U.S. will ambphibiously liberate Canada unless the Axis has posted units along all the coastal squares.

I have mixed feeling about Germany being able to conduct an invasion across the Atlantic -- they couldn't even conduct one across the English Channel, which is a bit smaller on most maps. On the other hand, it adds an interesting concept but one that is difficult to imagine.

[hans-micael]

Have You forgotten the british navy - if You build navy you should at least have taken that out. An invasion on the american continent is normally not possible against a human counterpart. Nor should it be against the AI if the brits have their three fleets two to cover the north atlantic and one to cover the meds.

Hans

[hans-micael]

Another thing - if you go against the americas you will have the two-front war - Russia and an amphibious invasion that seems to be stretching the economy to its breaking point - have you played or considered a PBEM game - here most ideas get squashed by intelligent counterplay - not that I don't like the AI - but there are some flaws...

Hans

(I'll be happy to take you on in a PBEM - you can be AXIS but wait tll the 25th I'm on holiday)

[JerseyJohn]

Points well taken and agreed on.

The Canadian/North America entry was posted as an observation and nothing more. Naturally a human player should be able to stop a German trans-Atlantic expedition.

The AI usually has a battle ship or two in the vicinity but I've found four U-boats to be an adequate screening force for the transports.

Despite their poor reputation, U-boats are an effective and economic answer to the Royal Navy and it's French remnants. They have to be used in fleets (Wolf Packs?). Three or four of them adjacent to each other become very effective.

Against the AI, the Canada operation succeeds when the Royal Navy is distracted. A massive bombing campaign against Southern England and moving a few naval units from the Baltic to the North Sea usually does the trick. The AI responds in force, as it should and as most humans would, though perhaps not to the same extent.

Personally I can't imagine a German invasion of Canada succeeding historically. One thing is certain, United States isolationism would have vanished and there would have been direct and immediate U.S. intervention under the Monroe Doctrine -- a bit unfair, considering Canada was providing men and material for a war in Europe --perhaps Washington would have pressured Canada to withdraw from the war while Germany withdrew its troops from North America. I don't know about anyone else, but I find even that scenario to be quite interesting.

There were plans for a post war German Atlantic fleet to include numerous large battleships and aircraft carriers. But I think the idea was to control Africa and South America and not to attempt a trans-Atlantic invasion of the United States. During the course of the war Germany became ever more interested in actually controling former Dutch and Belgian colonies, especially the Congo, specifically for it's uranium deposits.

A transatlantic invasion of North America, even without other fronts and even with a powerful navy, would have posed incredible logistical problems. Conversely, it's difficult to imagine something like the Normandy invasion without the British Isles as a supply base.

It might even have been impossible for the United States to supply an army in France directly out of American ports -- it would have been counter attacked savagely and I doubt a three thousand mile life-line could have replaced losses and kept the force supplied.

Then there's the matter of air support for the landing and protection of the lifeline against German naval units (presumably quite strong after conquering Britain) based in England.

The whole trans Atlantic topic is far fetched from either Axis or Allied perspective.

Even the comparatively small Operation Torch involved enormous difficulties, logistically, which was why it's seperated components took so much time reaching Tunisia -- they had a bare minimum of supplies! First the men were landed, then it was anyone's guess about a supply line!

Additionally, Torch sapped so much escort support from the convoys that Britain nearly went under from catastrophic shipping losses.

A German army in Canada would have faced far more impossible logistics.

But, regardless of it's historical feasability, I believe oceanic operations present an interesting variant.

The English Channel remark was not intended as a put down of German abilities. I think Germany could actually have invaded England after the fall of France, but not by gathering canal barges and converting them to landing craft.

Beyond a doubt the Luftwaffe could have wrested complete air superiority over southeastern England. Assuming they had a large enough force of paratroopers, an airborne operation could have been conducted in force probably in the Dover region.

After seizing the airfields regular infantry could have been flown in, the Luftwaffe would have established air strips within the beachhead as it expanded and, the Royal Navy being unable to intervene (if they would have they'd have been sunk by Germany's land based air fleets). Once a functional harbor had been taken (and there are no shortage of them on England's Channel coastline) troops and supplies would have crossed the channel on seized freighters, sizable German army formations would have been established, and Britain would have fallen.

I'm sure many others have had the same idea before I ever thought of it -- of course, at that particular moment, the last thing Hitler wanted was, or thought he'd have to do, was continue to fight Britain, which in itself explains why nothing along those lines were done.

Also, in 1940 airborne tactics weren't seen as a stand alone operation. The operation just presented, however, is very similar to the German campaign on Crete. Ironically, there were far more British troops defending Crete in '41 than there would have been defending Dover in '40! By 1943 I doubt either side would have hesitated to conduct a similar invasion under the same circumstances.

In the actual event Britain had time to prepare defenses and, by the time Sea Lion was being discussed, the opportunity for an airborne operation had probably passed. I believe the Summer of 1940 was the only time, historically, that it could have succeeded.

Hans -- I wish you a fine holiday and appreciate your offer. Aside from being a coward, I'm stuck working oppressively long shifts and am only able to play against the AI during erratic spare moments; an actual series of play sessions would result in my divorce! But the offer is greatly appreciated and at a future date, if still open, I'd greatly enjoy it.

[Zeres]

interesting thread. I have to admit It never occured to me to invade Canada before SU or England. I'm going to try it against the A.I tonight just for fun. Might be a fun hair-brained stunt to pull in my next hot-seat game. Thanks Jersey John.

[dgaad]

The fact that this is even possible while England and the SU are still in the game kind of puts the nail in the coffin of game balance and historicity doesn't it?

[I/O Error]

Of course. However, it IS still possible to play according to realistic ideas. We just have the option of throwing history one hell of a curveball. That's the whole point of us playing all these war games anyway, nothing wrong with that.

Besides, outside of a hardcoded error message popup saying "transatlantic invasion impossible", how could you possibly prevent it? We have only ourselves to "blame" if historicity goes out the window, you should know that.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by I/O Error:

Of course. However, it IS still possible to play according to realistic ideas. We just have the option of throwing history one hell of a curveball. That's the whole point of us playing all these war games anyway, nothing wrong with that.

Besides, outside of a hardcoded error message popup saying "transatlantic invasion impossible", how could you possibly prevent it? We have only ourselves to "blame" if historicity goes out the window, you should know that.

You are throwing programming one hell of a curve, not history; and that is the point.

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by dgaad:

You are throwing programming one hell of a curve, not history; and that is the point.

I'm not so sure. There's some downside to invading Canada, too:

1. It immediately brings the US into the war.

2. The only way to reinforce Canada by ground is the same way you got there in the first place: by sea route. (You can op air units there.)

3. If the Allied player has moved the Canadian corps, then you're in pretty good shape. If he hasn't, you're not: you're facing a unit at 6 entrenchment, without air support (at least on the first turn). You're going to need about three armies in that case to guarantee success, because if you don't take it on the first turn, you're probably screwed.

I agree that the transatlantic invasion thing is pretty goofy, from an historical standpoint. But that also highlights the defects with amphibious invasions in the game, which are exemplified by the Allied invasions of Italy and the Axis invasion of Northern Russia at the onset of Barbarossa. That's another subject entirely.

[JerseyJohn]

Thanks for all the interest and feedback -- even the antagonistic side is enjoyable.

1) Yes, the best thing is for the Axis to simply NOT invade Canada because it's primarily a game possibility and not an historical feasability. But, as one response mentioned, the same can be said of early Allied landings on undefended Sicily and Southern Italy -- only a game possibility, it couldn't have been done historically (for one thing, Southern Italy WAS defended and, for another, after landing there would have been no way to supply troops while Italy still held Libya and had a reasonably intack fleet.) That being said, there's no harm in exploring such possibilities even if only for our own amusement. When looking for a real degree of historic legitimacy I do not launch a German invasion of Canada!

2) When Germany is in the chips I send four armies and an expendable HQ, one of the six's; if they're really rolling in resources I send two aircraft carriers screened by U-Boats. The aircraft carriers soften the defending corps and it falls right away. After the landing I transport the whole bunch immediately to join in the invasion of England, which has already begun as the original North Sea distraction. When I do this America is set at neutral; I set it on RANDOM after leaving Canada and the U.S. comes into the war right away. At that point it's easy to finish off Britain and build up along the Soviet border. The U.S.S.R. has been on RANDOM all along but it's usually a long time before it prepares for war.

Once Manchester falls the U.S. retakes Canada (but leaves Germany with the mine and half the country's MPPs!) and sits passively within it's own borders.

If Canada is garrisoned by Germany -- the observation about this is totally correct, Germany has to either leave the invasion force or transport enough corps to cover the beaches and an airfleet needs to be built on the site --the U.S. explores a little but doesn't invade. To avoid that I leave the place open as I can't imagine the United States not liberating the place as it's #1 priority.

3) Agreed about it's being a mixed proposition; the Axis never gets back what it invested to capture the place and it's MPPs are not vital to the UK; at the point where it's reduced to Manchester it's beyond help, neither 20 MPPs nor 20 million will help when the only square it holds is Manchester itself.

4)Especially agreed about the whole thing being offbeat and screwy. I did it originally because I was fighting Russia and the U.S.A. (which was doing nothing at all as England had already fallen!) and happened to notice Canada was still in the war. On a lark I sent a small invasion force and was able to take her, which is what first started all this insanity.

5)In real geography a Canadian invasion via the United States seems fairly straightforward, especially considering the overwhelming force the U. S. would have (of course such an attack is unlikely -- see movie "Canadian Bacon" starring Alan Alda and John Candy for the definitive examination of the subject). But to invade it (especially in early forties terms) from it's eastern coastline would REALLY be an adventure! A very small invasion force would have needed to seize the St. Lawrence Seaway, secure it's harbors, then trek 3,000 miles west through extremely rough terrain, fighting both Canadians and their horrible weather -- I'd give anything to hear F.D.R's speaches while all this was taking place.

No offense intended to the Canadians with my weather remark -- of course you don't think your weather is horrible, after all, it isn't actually the Arctic -- at least not a lot of it!

My thanks to everyone who's found an interest in all this. When first posting the topic I assumed it would be a minor curiosity and languish in well deserved obscurity.

By the way, I completely agree with the people who say we shouldn't play this option -- I just wanted to note it's possibility.

I think it's interesting to explore unintended and unlikely strategies because, if nothing else, perhaps there actually was some possibility of an Axis move on North America?

I think it would have come via Iceland and Greenland. Prior to throwing away the Bismark, Germany could have secured a precarious supply route for reasonably sized garrisons on those locations. Once airbases had been established the Lufwaffe the hold would no longer have been precarious at all. Germany would have controled the North Atlantic -- it isn't too far fetched to say U-Boats based at Iceland and Greenland, with air and surface support, would have easily WON the Battle of the Atlantic!

From there, who knows? The Axis would have possessed a staging area for further westward moves. -- Would they actually have done it?

Germany would have needed to take them before those places were garrisoned by the the United States, which came in to relieve the British.

None of this gets much coverage in history books, but the United States and Britain obviously realized the strategic importance of those places. I recall it being mentioned once in the "Why We Fight" wartime morale builder series -- the narrator (Walter Houston) says something about denying Greenland's turpentine and other vital resources to Axis industry -- yeah, right!

You all have quotes, so here's mine -- Grant, when leaving office after his second term fiasco was asked if he hated his enemies. He sighed and shook his head slowly, "My enemies, no, just my friends -- my Goddam friends."

[dgaad]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

I think it's interesting to explore unintended and unlikely strategies because, if nothing else, perhaps there actually was some possibility of an Axis move on North America?

I think it would have come via Iceland and Greenland. Prior to throwing away the Bismark, Germany could have secured a precarious supply route for reasonably sized garrisons on those locations. Once airbases had been established the Lufwaffe the hold would no longer have been precarious at all. Germany would have controled the North Atlantic -- it isn't too far fetched to say U-Boats based at Iceland and Greenland, with air and surface support, would have easily WON the Battle of the Atlantic!

From there, who knows? The Axis would have possessed a staging area for further westward moves. -- Would they actually have done it?

Germany would have needed to take them before those places were garrisoned by the the United States, which came in to relieve the British.

None of this gets much coverage in history books, but the United States and Britain obviously realized the strategic importance of those places. I recall it being mentioned once in the "Why We Fight" wartime morale builder series -- the narrator (Walter Houston) says something about denying Greenland's turpentine and other vital resources to Axis industry -- yeah, right!

The long-term plans for German expansion are well known and contained in numerous documents, chief among them are the long term naval planning program that went beyond just what was put on paper.

In Sum, the idea was that, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Germany would have the resources to build a blue water navy. This new navy would be used to continue the reduction of British possessions, including in fact Canada and, later, the United States. German naval planners assumed that any attempt to invade Canada would bring the US into the war, so the navy would have to be strong enough to defeat it. The general plan for a cross Atlantic campaign followed the idea of taking the Azores and Iceland, followed by landings in North America.

These plans were more than just paper, too, as I have said. Keels were laid for the beginnings of this blue water navy, which was to include aircraft carriers. In addition to German construction, it was hoped that portions of the French, Italian and even the British navys would be available for the operation. Most of the construction was terminated in 1942, when it became clear, at least from an economic standpoint, that the Soviet Union was not going to collapse anytime soon. Indeed, because someone at the Naval Ministry forgot to cancel an order, four gigantic battleship engines were delivered to the Kriegsmarine in, get this, 1944!!!

[ October 18, 2002, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[Zeres]

Dgaad- interesting idea for a scenerio

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Im on it, ill have it next week!

[dgaad]

As for scenario design along these lines, keep in mind that (and one of the great flaws of SC in my opinion) the Italian navy in 1942-43 was almost completely immobilized due to, not fear of the British, but Oil. The diplomatic correspondence between Italy and Germany makes numerous references to requests for high-grade oil to replenish the Italian fleet supply. These were never approved by the Germans, who had other demands on their oil supply, and consequently the Italian fleet lay at anchor in Taranto and other harbours (this immobility contributing, in part, to the fleet's vulnerability to various forms of attack, including suprise air, sub, frogmen attacks, etc). The flaw in the game is that none of these considerations apply; fleets are always mobile.

It was hoped by both the Italians and the Germans that the 1942 Fall Blau campaign would be successful at capturing and using the Maikop and Caucasus oilfields sufficiently to generate enough oil to not only meet German shortages, but also to replenish the Italian fleet. This was one small reason among many for the participation of the Italian 8th Army in Fall Blau.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

You got it, email me at winnieisback@yahoo.com if you want me to follow anything else.

CvM

[JerseyJohn]

Indeed -- Hitler loved thinking big -- gigantic battleships, gigantic tanks, etc -- and I'm agreed entirely on the "Blue Water Navy" entry.

I'm not certain how much of it would have been built as planned in the Axis controled Europe of 1945 or '46.

If all other things proceeded historically, the fate of Japan's 18" 65,000 ton battleships, both sunk by carrier aircraft, would not have been lost on German naval thinkers. And of course the Japanese did it first against Prince of Wales and Repulse. Likewise, Bismark and Tirpitz were themselves done in by aircraft etc & etc, so it would have been painfully apparent that BBs were very vulnerable to air attack and no longer the prime capital ship.

The Blue Water plans cited had BBs of 100,000 tons with 20" & 22" main armament (the 16" Hindenburg class [never actually built] were already becoming too small in post war plans!].

I believe Hitler would have understood the shift away from battleships and begun building aircraft carriers -- my guess is they'd have been mammoths.

The stumbling block was the Luftwaffe. Petty rivalries before the war had blocked the kriegsmarine's plans for the carrier Graf Zeppelin -- Goering wouldn't train navy aviators nor transfer his own pilots for carrier duty, etc. At one point an idiotic idea was dropped that the ships would be controlled by the navy but the pilots and planes had to be Luftwaffe -- what fun that would have been ("Attack!" -- "No, the Reichsmarschal is out hunting and only HE can issue the order!")

With all that infighting no German aviators were being trained and no German cruiser captains were learning how to aircraft carriers. I doubt these skills and new doctrine could have been learned overnight, and they definitely could not have been learned in action! -- perhaps British and Frenchmen (France also had carriers, though not on the scale of England, the U.S. or Japan) might have helped train Germans, or escaped Japanese -- I'm assuming Japan lost while Germany won. And after all that, would they make the same mistake Japan made and train their aviators in small elite groups -- deadly in combat but irreplacable when the war starts.

In any event there would most certainly have been a powerful German ocean fleet. If it was first started in '45, at three years per battleship and two per aircraft carrier, '48 seems the earliest year it becomes operational.

We have to also remember Hitler's Z-plan from before the war. It looked formidable on paper but since the war many economists believe Germany, within it's 1939 borders, could not have completed the project. Which might explain the sudden attack on Poland at a time when he was telling all his aids and Mussolini that war would not come before 1941 at the earliest.

There's another factor, of course. The Axis wins the war in Europe, but how much long does it take to rebuild the ruined continent? Beyond doubt the Nazis wouldn't have done it compassionately, it would have been battleships before butter, but rebuilding ruins is, if anything, more difficult for a brutal slave state than it is for a free society.

But that's all way off in the Twilight zone.

Very glad the Blue Navy entry was made -- great food for thought.

Also, I like the suggestion about a potential scenario but it goes beyond the limits of this particular set-up. If we're talking post war Axis victory with aggressions against the Western Hemisphere a revised map would need to be drawn with it's eastern border going something like (north to south) Bergen to Bay of Biscay to Gibralta with all of England in the picture and ending; to the west it should extend a little beyond the Mississippi. It would probably have to be abstracted if the Gulf of Mexico were included -- I'm not sure it would include both, The Gulf and The Great Lakes, St. Lawrence, etc. --

In terms of units Germany would have a huge lead in jet aircraft and rocket technology but the United States would have the A-Bomb. How would the U.S. use it? One thing is certain, based on the Bikini Atol tests, American planners were already thinking in terms of destroying approaching task forces with a quick Fat Man or Little Boy strike!

If there's allowance for a period of peace and Germany takes possession of the Congo with it's uranium, which it most certainly would have, then it's reasonable to assume an Axis A-bomb would have been developed, perhaps helped by information given by Soviet agents in exchange for -- what? -- assuming a defeated U.S.S.R. still existed east of the Urals what would it's relationship have been with other countries? Presumably it would have kept Manchuria and Korea in the east -- no doubt Stalin would have blamed his defeat on America's inability to tie Germann down on a second front.

Also, how much patience would Hitler have exhibited, approaching 60 and probably very ill -- would he have ranted about Americans being a breed of mongrels, who needs a large fleet, just land a few storm troopers at Coney Island and they'll kick in the whole rotten structure, etc?

It's all anyone's guess.

Anyway, enjoying all this and hope it keeps going till the subject is exhausted.

-- -- --

"Everyone writes on the walls, but me."

-- from a wall in Pompeii.

[EB.]

I do not think that the Axis should be allowed to invade North America in the game. It is just not historically accurate. I do not think that the Germans would have had the ability to do this even in the best of circumstances--that is, even if UK and USSR suffered fast, terrible defeat. Like one poster said, the Germans could not even manage to cross the English Channel. Think about the US which had a far stronger navy than Germany ever dreamed of--when they did invade Axis territory, they did not go directly from North America but of course used staging / embarkation areas in Europe itself--that is, in England. Now, in the reverse, from where would the Germans invade the US or Canada? Surely not from Europe directly. They would need a safe, German-allied area in the Western Hemisphere from which to invade. Not likely though. Plus, they just would not have the logistical capability to sustain an invasion of North America, even if they were only facing hillbillies with shotguns. Same with any Japanese invasion of America from the Pacific--no way at all. America was actually very safe from invasion, I would say.

Also, I would congratulate Dgaad who quite correctly points out that one of the chief difficulties facing the Italin navy was a lack of OIL. Excellent point, as this is an important fact which is very rarely discussed in the West but is instead usually ignored. I am reminded by the similar point of the British and French refusing to stop Italian attacks against Ethiopia / Abyssinia in 1937 or so because they refused to impose an oil blockade against Italy. They made formal complaints against Italian aggression but refuse to take any practical steps where it most mattered--with OIL. From our viewpoint, this is one more piece of evidence of Western refusal to resist the Axis powers prior to the war--that is, appeasement. But anyway, good that you see that OIL was a very important thing with respect to Italian affairs. You show good analysis there.

[Norse]

[ October 18, 2002, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Norse ]

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

. . . one of the chief difficulties facing the Italin navy was a lack of OIL. Excellent point, as this is an important fact which is very rarely discussed in the West but is instead usually ignored. I am reminded by the similar point of the British and French refusing to stop Italian attacks against Ethiopia / Abyssinia in 1937 or so because they refused to impose an oil blockade against Italy. They made formal complaints against Italian aggression but refuse to take any practical steps where it most mattered--with OIL. From our viewpoint, this is one more piece of evidence of Western refusal to resist the Axis powers prior to the war--that is, appeasement. But anyway, good that you see that OIL was a very important thing with respect to Italian affairs. You show good analysis there.

Is it at all possible for you to make any kind of comment at all without inserting jibes at "the West"? Try to contribute ONE post that is not in some way aimed at pointing out the limitations of "the West", or the "appeasement" of "the West", or the limitations of intellect in "the West."

Might I remind you, EB, that it was THE WEST that DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY on September 3, 1939, NOT the SOVIET UNION? Might I remind you EB, that the SOVIET UNION was doing not "appeasement" but ACTIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT of Nazi Germany at that time which INCLUDED shipping OIL, food and other material to Germany, and which included military assistance and political guarantees to Germany?

Try to make one, just one, post or response that speaks OBJECTIVELY, instead of POLITICALLY.

[ October 18, 2002, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[dgaad]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

The Blue Water plans cited had BBs of 100,000 tons with 20" & 22" main armament (the 16" Hindenburg class [never actually built] were already becoming too small in post war plans!].

I believe Hitler would have understood the shift away from battleships and begun building aircraft carriers -- my guess is they'd have been mammoths.

The stumbling block was the Luftwaffe. Petty rivalries before the war had blocked the kriegsmarine's plans for the carrier Graf Zeppelin -- Goering wouldn't train navy aviators nor transfer his own pilots for carrier duty, etc. At one point an idiotic idea was dropped that the ships would be controlled by the navy but the pilots and planes had to be Luftwaffe -- what fun that would have been ("Attack!" -- "No, the Reichsmarschal is out hunting and only HE can issue the order!")

With all that infighting no German aviators were being trained and no German cruiser captains were learning how to aircraft carriers. I doubt these skills and new doctrine could have been learned overnight, and they definitely could not have been learned in action! -- perhaps British and Frenchmen (France also had carriers, though not on the scale of England, the U.S. or Japan) might have helped train Germans, or escaped Japanese -- I'm assuming Japan lost while Germany won. And after all that, would they make the same mistake Japan made and train their aviators in small elite groups -- deadly in combat but irreplacable when the war starts.

The history of Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe non-cooperation is a prime example of what NOT to do in war. Goering is famous for his statement that, with regards of control of aircraft "Everything that flies belongs to me." And he meant it.

While there seems to me to be little question that inter-service rivalry would have been a huge problem for Germany in the Z-Plan fantasy, Luftwaffe non cooperation did positive damage to German naval efforts that were actually effectuated in the war. The Kriegsmarine's attempt to get search planes, resupply planes and other aircraft to support the sub war were mostly failures. A large portion of all German subs sunk were destroyed by allied airpower on the way back to ports in the Bay of Biscay, when they could have been protected by Luftwaffe deployment there.

[EB.]

Well, Dgaad, what I meant was that your point was very correct with respect to Italy and oil. I also note that the West in general has not included your proper analysis of this particular point (Italy/Oil) in its literature. I think that on this point, the rest of the West should follow your analysis. Now, how could you find a way to complain about this? God, I am actually complimenting your analysis on this. Some people want to argue with everything, even with praise. Now that is strange.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

Well, Dgaad, what I meant was that your point was very correct with respect to Italy and oil. I also note that the West in general has not included your proper analysis of this particular point (Italy/Oil) in its literature. I think that on this point, the rest of the West should follow your analysis. Now, how could you find a way to complain about this? God, I am actually complimenting your analysis on this. Some people want to argue with everything, even with praise. Now that is strange.

Frankly, EB, I don't need your rewards or compliments. What I do need is for you to make one post that does not insert twisted political jibes at "the West." Even in this one, you failed to do even that.

Why not say "Lack of oil is something that is overlooked in many analyses", rather than specifically saying "the West" in particular has lacked in this area? This is what objective analysis is all about. Its not about criticising one culture's historical research efforts, its about discussing history and trying to determine or understand what actually happened.

Discussing the limitations or benefits of one society's research efforts is another topic altogether, but you, EB, cannot help but comment on it every time you post. This inserts a political aspect into your posts, and draws you, me, and the community away from what we are really trying to objectively talk about here.

And, by the way, my source on the lack of oil for the Italian navy comes from Gerhard Weinberg's "World at Arms", a western source that is widely published in the West.

[Zeres]

(Dgaad & EB) You guys really go at it...And to tell the truth I think it time to settle the score.... Agree to some house rules and duke it out on the battlefield. PBEM Strategic Command. EB can play his beloved commies. Dgaad can let loose the german Juggernaut. And you can send us daily reports on how the war goes. The rest of us? We'll just take bets and watch the fireworks! ( You guys are obviously ready to got to the mat, let's see some action!)

[JerseyJohn]

re -- dgaad & oil + EB & staging areas

I haven't seen any game yet that treats oil as something that must be put in ships/vehicles before they can run. It's always just treated as a quantitative commodity. Agreed that it should be more vital, then everyone's strategy would have to be altered. Also, Hitler's obsession with southern Russia and the Caucausus over his general's concern for taking Moscow would make more sense.

A true look at oil would also have a more realistic effect on naval tactics. As you state, one of the reasons for Italy's naval inactivity was it's lack of fuel -- also spare parts and all forms of supplies in general! At one point an Italian battleship left port, lost a screw and was out of action indefinately.

Regarding oil, I read somewhere that Germany went through the war -- after attacking Russia --using something like half the oil per year consumed by peacetime England!

The Blue Water Navy continues to be interesting. I understand what you're saying about keels having already been laid in France and Italy -- were they from pre-war projects? If so they must have been designed for ships carrying 14" and 15" guns. What I'm wondering about is when such a fleet -- including trained crews -- would have been operational and whether or not some way would have been found to get past Goering and train large numbers of aviators.

My guess would have been that, by war's end, Georing would have lost much of his influence over the military. After Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain and Stalingrad he delegated most of the real decision making to Milch and others. Also, Hitler doesn't seem to have sought his advice very often after 1943.

EB discussed the topic of an Axis invasion of the U.S. and how it would use a staging area. I think the northern posts we've been mentioning, Azores-Iceland & Greenland, while they would have been great for winning the Battle of the Atlantic, could not have served as a staging area. For one thing it would difficult to develop adequate facilities at those sites, and for another they would be too disrupted by sever weather and probably useless during the winter.

A victorious, post war Reich would probably do best to turn south and, as in classic RISK, seek a West Africa to Brazil connection. Historically Brazil tied in with the U.S. but I think they'd have just as easily swung in the opposite direction under different circumstances. Additionally, there's Argentina and various other South American nations that would certainly have gone pro-Reich.

Economically, a swing of exports from South America to a unified Europe would have filled in the list of raw materials not found on the continent -- rubber, etc..

The question now becomes how close, geographically, could they realistically have come to the U. S. borders without provoking an immediate war. I think we're all agreed they wouldn't have been allowed to occupy Canada; on the assumption they could have done it in the first place we figure the United States would finally have mobilized and driven Germany out -- with such a long and probably indefensible supply line troops stationed there would have been in the same position as the Italian army in Ethiopia or Germany's own African garrisons during WW I -- doomed to surrender.

All of which leaves somewhere south. The Carribean? Mexico? So the route would finally be West Africa - Brazil - Carribean and from there it's hard to say.

If all this setting the stage were being done during a period of peace, presumably being used to finish and man the Blue Water Navy, what would the United States have been doing? Surely, after defeating Japan and watching Germany conquer all of Europe thru the Urals, Scandanavia and at least the northern two thirds of Africa, the United States would not have gone back into an isolation mode!

[ October 19, 2002, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Resurrecting this Forum, along with the North Atlantic forum because the Western Hemisphere is tied in and really they are two parts of the same issue.

I think there's a lot of great info here, especially by dgaad regarding Hitler's post war plans for a Blue Ocean Navy and his obvious intention to extend Germany's dominions on a global scale. But the operative word here is Post War!