British Defeat

[Jim D Burns]

One interesting thing to ponder on is how would the Royal navy have been used to blockade Britain had the home island been taken? Would the Germans have been allowed to come and go as they please to spare British citizens from starvation, or would a total blockade of all German shipping been instituted?

Germany may have been able to ferry enough supplies in via air to feed a garrison army, but no way could they have fed the civilian population without major shipping arrivals on a regular basis. Which would have of course allowed them to fortify the island, so I'm curious what would have been the allied policy. Also, did Germany even have the number of ships needed to pull off keeping the people fed?

I think most games completely overlook the difficulties in conquering and keeping Britain under German control in the face of total allied dominance on the sea. Britain had a hard enough time when dealing with a sub threat, imagine what would have happened had Germany ruled the waves above the waterline as well.

Jim

[stuart3]

Germany may have been able to ferry enough supplies in via air to feed a garrison army, but no way could they have fed the civilian population without major shipping arrivals on a regular basis.

Germany's policy with other conquered nations was to force them to supply Germany with food although it left the occupied countries unable to feed their own populations properly. There is no reason to think that they would have reversed that policy for an occupied Britain.

[Hexagon]

I dont see why is bad defeat British in game... in the end in WWII they were saved by a lucky combo of factors...

1-the terrain, be an island help them to selfdefense VS continental powers more based in land than in sea and why not say it, luck, need cross a sea has more random factors than cross a river for example.

2-the first great Hitler strategic mistake... not destroy BEF in France for me was the main motive to mantein British in war, you cant rise in a pair of months 270.000 well trained soldiers, British were not soviets to send cannon fodder to the front to win time.

3-Hitler allways think that Germany future was in east, not west... revenge for Versalles was important but revenge cant help expand Germany to be again a great empire... the tome window for revenge was short because in late 40 Rusia was the objetive, UK was secondary, who expect in 1940 after defeat France and leave UK armies soft in 3-4 years have the island as the biggest military base in world???

I allways think that with no Dunkirk UK sure falls in 1940 at least islands that in the end was the important part for Germany... is not the same jump Atlantic to land in a friendly island that do it fighting to win terrain to start placing your force near Europe.

PD: apart this the impact of lose islands to north Africa area... middle east etc etc.

[stuart3]

What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain?

Historically it came down to personalities and power. In France, Reynaud wanted to fight on, and then to carry on the fight from France's colonies, but he had lost power to Petain who had Reynaud arrested when he tried to leave France for the African colonies.

In Britain, Warspite has made the case for Churchill's determination to fight on regardless, but what would have been Churchill's chances of retaining the Premiership if his policies had led to invasion and occupation? Not much, I don't think. Chamberlain had been much more influential, but had been sidelined for very much less. Probably Halifax would have taken charge, and what would have happened after that is pure conjecture, but Halifax didn't have Churchill's determination to fight on at any cost.

[Hartmann]

ORIGINAL: Mantis

I don't think that a "full surrender" ala France was even possible. Suppose the UK is completely under Axis control and Churchill orders complete unconditional surrender. Do the Canadians simply mothball the soon-to-be 3rd largest navy in the world, stop producing war materiel* and paint themselves Axis grey on the map when there isn't a wermacht soldier within a thousand miles of our borders?

No, we align ourselves with big brother to the south and, taking a page from Mother England, we keep calm and carry on. The same would hold true for Australia/New Zealand forces.

* The UK had entered the war with 80,000 military vehicles of all types; however, 75,000 of these British vehicles were left behind in the evacuation at Dunkirk in 1940. We made good the losses - Canadian industry produced more than 800,000 military transport vehicles, 50,000 tanks, 40,000 field, naval, and anti-aircraft guns, and 1,700,000 small arms.

The UK might have surrendered, but the empire would fight on.

This is what makes the most sense to me. If the British isles would have been occupied, whoever authorities still in charge there would of course have "officially" surrendered - but Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India would not have followed suit.

The only thing we could reasonably debate is whether any UK "government in exile" would still have been acknowledged by the rest of the Commonwealth countries as actually being in charge of any coordinated efforts.

[Capitaine]

People are mostly missing the point. This is not a question of what happened historically. Historically, London was never seized and the entire island never subjugated. In the game it is. My reference in my inquiry is the time-honored game Avalon Hill's "Third Reich", where every country was subject to surrender except for the U.S., for obvious reasons. In 3R, if any major's capital was taken, it would go into surrender protocol. Russia had a different surrender mechanism based I think on several key cities occupied and a certain level of army losses.

There is certainly a reasonable level of theorycrafting that one can indulge in to explore what would've happened to other Allied countries had they been overrun by Germany -- and those countries "want to believe" they'd have gone on fighting. Understandable. But in a game "like this", as I've said, I feel there needs to be a discrete conquest protocol as in 3R simply for game purposes. Otherwise I sense that the Allied "cause" in the game is mostly informed by modern political sensibilities.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: AmbrosioSpinola




I hope nobody is making jokes here about the French always surrendering and so on, that's an old cliché and very disrespectful... [:-][:D]

Hey.I'm a big fan of Napoleon

warspite1

Didn't he surrender too [:D]

Twice [:D]

[Mik29]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

One interesting thing to ponder on is how would the Royal navy have been used to blockade Britain had the home island been taken? Would the Germans have been allowed to come and go as they please to spare British citizens from starvation, or would a total blockade of all German shipping been instituted?

Germany may have been able to ferry enough supplies in via air to feed a garrison army, but no way could they have fed the civilian population without major shipping arrivals on a regular basis. Which would have of course allowed them to fortify the island, so I'm curious what would have been the allied policy. Also, did Germany even have the number of ships needed to pull off keeping the people fed?

I think most games completely overlook the difficulties in conquering and keeping Britain under German control in the face of total allied dominance on the sea. Britain had a hard enough time when dealing with a sub threat, imagine what would have happened had Germany ruled the waves above the waterline as well.

Jim

I think that a conquered Britain would imply a total destruction of the Royal Navy in the first place.
One can hardly imagine that the RN would stand and stare if a german assault was ordered across the Channel. It would have been a fight to death, so if your question is how the german would deal with a conquered island and a british domination of the seas, the answer is simple. They conquered because the RN is dead.

[gravyhair]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior?

France was socially and spiritually exhausted after the horror of the Great War. From the perspective of 2016, it's hard to grasp how pervasively French thinking was dominated by shock and revulsion and a "let's avoid that mess at any cost" disposition. I am generalizing, of course, but I'm not alone and there is ample evidence. As one reference among many, consider - https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Third-R ... 0306805626

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

People are mostly missing the point. This is not a question of what happened historically.

warspite1

Well that depends on two things:

a) Play balance.
b) What sort of game you want to play.

I think even in a game like this or World In Flames - where actions maybe taken outside of the historic - there is still the need for some degree of historically accuracy or its no longer a WWII game. The considered opinion - not universal, but the accepted view no doubt - is that the UK would fight on.

I don't see the issue - and I certainly don't see that modern sensibilities have anything to do with it.

[Hotschi]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

People are mostly missing the point. This is not a question of what happened historically.... Otherwise I sense that the Allied "cause" in the game is mostly informed by modern political sensibilities.

I don't know what you want to read as an answer. In your opening post you ask about the "rationale for not allowing Britain to be defeated in this game". In your second post, you come up with some complete nonsense about a "dubious assertion that Brits are superior".

Now, you compared this game with Avalon Hill's board game "The Third Reich" - but even this game has different surrender conditions for the different major Allied powers. Seems you don't mind it in that particular game. And you bring up "modern sensibilities", whatever that should be.

What do you want as an answer? You ask about the "rationale"; people start to answer bringing up some possible "rationales". Then you complain that "people are missing the point".

Well, long story short, just what is your point????

[Moltke71]

The way to close this guy down is an AAR where Britain surrenders.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Bismarck

The way to close this guy down is an AAR where Britain surrenders.

warspite1

Well I'm playing the Allies so that is probably going to be achieved [:D]

[Moltke71]

I have faith in you, Warspite. [;)]

[Toby42]

You always have someone that's not happy how a game is played. I've think that if you don't like it,make your own? Me, I pretty much accept the concept the designers are trying to get across. When it's all said and done it's just a game to enjoy and have fun with. Which this iteration of the series does very well!

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Hotschi

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

People are mostly missing the point. This is not a question of what happened historically.... Otherwise I sense that the Allied "cause" in the game is mostly informed by modern political sensibilities.

I don't know what you want to read as an answer. In your opening post you ask about the "rationale for not allowing Britain to be defeated in this game". In your second post, you come up with some complete nonsense about a "dubious assertion that Brits are superior".

Now, you compared this game with Avalon Hill's board game "The Third Reich" - but even this game has different surrender conditions for the different major Allied powers. Seems you don't mind it in that particular game. And you bring up "modern sensibilities", whatever that should be.

What do you want as an answer? You ask about the "rationale"; people start to answer bringing up some possible "rationales". Then you complain that "people are missing the point".

Well, long story short, just what is your point????

Why are you being so snarky?

My OP was a bit of a rhetorical question, if you didn't notice. I solicited "good answers" to the question. I don't find any "answer" compelling so far, and prefer a more discrete surrender mechanic. Nothing has been offered save for "Britain would fight on!!" Yeah, right. RN destroyed, all England under the jackboot. Who's going to fight on with Panzers rolling down the street. I think that's quaint and not a little fanciful.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

ORIGINAL: Hotschi

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

People are mostly missing the point. This is not a question of what happened historically.... Otherwise I sense that the Allied "cause" in the game is mostly informed by modern political sensibilities.

I don't know what you want to read as an answer. In your opening post you ask about the "rationale for not allowing Britain to be defeated in this game". In your second post, you come up with some complete nonsense about a "dubious assertion that Brits are superior".

Now, you compared this game with Avalon Hill's board game "The Third Reich" - but even this game has different surrender conditions for the different major Allied powers. Seems you don't mind it in that particular game. And you bring up "modern sensibilities", whatever that should be.

What do you want as an answer? You ask about the "rationale"; people start to answer bringing up some possible "rationales". Then you complain that "people are missing the point".

Well, long story short, just what is your point????

Why are you being so snarky?

My OP was a bit of a rhetorical question, if you didn't notice. I solicited "good answers" to the question. I don't find any "answer" compelling so far, and prefer a more discrete surrender mechanic. Nothing has been offered save for "Britain would fight on!!" Yeah, right. RN destroyed, all England under the jackboot. Who's going to fight on with Panzers rolling down the street. I think that's quaint and not a little fanciful.

warspite1

But there is an option - as explained - to fight on from one of the Dominions - most likely Canada. Why are you so insistent they wouldn't? The Poles did, the Free French did, Norwegians, Greeks, Czechs, Dutch, Belgians - but not the British eh?

Nothing has been offered? You might not agree with what has been offered, but I think some pretty compelling points have been made that would suggest continuation would be more likely than not. If you think otherwise then fine that's up to you, but I would suggest you are in a minority of one here.

[Qwixt]

ORIGINAL: Von Hindenburg

You mean like Poland and France in real life?

Whether you found it compelling or not, I thought this answer pretty much ended the thread.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

ORIGINAL: Von Hindenburg

You mean like Poland and France in real life?

Whether you found it compelling or not, I thought this answer pretty much ended the thread.

warspite1

I don't think it ended it. The point was made correctly by von Hindenburg. However, both the Poles and the Free French (and the other countries overrun by the Germans) had a country to go to to set up a Government in Exile. Where Capitane's question has merit is to enquire where would the UK Government go. i.e. assuming it wanted to fight on, could it actually do so?

Numerous posts have confirmed that the answer is a very definite yes, and they have confirmed which countries could act as the host and why they would seek to do so.

[dhucul2011]

Yes, the UK will fight on but they will quit if NM falls to zero.

Hunt down their navy, defeat any liberation of the UK, sweep them out of Africa and the Middle East, take Gibraltar and Malta and maybe even land in Canada and they will be close.