What would have happened if Germany won the battle of the Atlantic and starved Britain?

To calculate this, you must start with what changed and when. My theory is that sometime around 1935, there was a big argument in Hitler's office between Uboat admiral Donitz and chief Admiral Raeder (a big battleship guy). In history, Raeder won. I posit that he lost when Donitz said "You will never build enough big ships to fight the British. They have a dozen and will build one or two for every battleship you build. We might as well stop with the two battlecruisers we have, maybe do a fourth Deutschland, but instead use the money and steel to build 200 Uboats.

It takes 50 months to build a battelship, so that is two Uboats a month starting when Bismarck was laid down increasing to four a month starting when Tirpitz would have been laid down. In Sept 1939 this would mean 120 additional Uboats added to the 58 which Germany actually had. That would have given Britain fits when it would hurt the most, the first year of the war. Its not the 300 that Donitz said would guarantee victory, but it's a horrendous mess for the Brits. By the time of the Battle of Britain, another 48 Uboats would have joined the Kriegsmarine.

As an extension of that decision, Germany might well have built a dozen more Q-ship raiders and had them ready to head for sea when Hitler decided to attack Poland. You might even posit an extra dozen Condor bombers for long range patrols. Some of the Q-ship raiders might stay quiet for long times so they could be used to resupply Uboats. When actual warships head for the ocean on 20 August, you could arrange for two or three spots in the ocean where six uboats would be waiting for any German surface warship that needed to brush off a pursuing British warship.

The result might well have pushed Britain to near starvation about the time of the Battle of Britain and force Churchill to resign, at which point Lord Halifax would take over as PM and end the war. Not surrender, just end it.

Thoughts?

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 07:45 am: Edit

One immediate question comes to mind regarding the viability of this alternative history. Even though canceling Bismarck and Tirpitz would have freed up a lot of steel and other resources, would Germany have the slipway capacity to build that many extra U-boats in the mid-to-late 1930s?
SVC: Yes, they would have.

Another issue is using Q-ships to refuel and rearm submarines. Because of its excellent code-breaking programs, the UK did a very good job tracking down and sinking such ships as actually were in service for U-boat support during WW2. Therefore, adding more such ships doesn't provide the advantage that might seem to be there at first glance. Note that the German commerce-raiding Q-ships did much better for the simple reason that they were almost completely radio silent. Even German high command usually didn't know where they were.
SVC: I'm sure something could be arranged at least for the first voyage or two, but the Brits would try to hunt down such things and Uboat commanders were (by orders of Donitz) too blood chatty for their own good.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 07:54 am: Edit

Germany had the capability to build five or six uboats a month, easily.

The uboat support ships could have gone to prearranged spots and stayed silent, and while no doubt code breaking would eventually have an effect, but remember that did not happen right away. Turing could not read uboat messages until mid-41, nearly a year after the Battle of Britain. By my scenario, Britain could not last that long.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 09:11 am: Edit

Starting point (for me anyway) is if one side can change what they are 'doing', can the other side make changes too?
SVC: Good point, and presumably such changes as would naturally flow from the point on inflection would have to be accounted for.

If the Germans don't build Heavy Ships - could the British and French built more Light Cruisers and Destroyers (using XX tonnes for 1 Battleship = 4 Light Cruisers and 16 Destroyers) etc
So yes, Donitz has more Subs - but the Atlantic has more Escorts - so no real change overall.
SVC: Ummm... not at all certain. Britain was short on military spending, was very short of escorts (and would have starved but for the 50 it got from the US), had a tradition of building battleships first and anything else only when they had to, and were convinced that uboats would not be a threat against convoys with a couple of ASDIC-equipped escorts.

Second aspect is if the Germans only had X Heavy Ships - would they have been able to do the Invasion of Norway etc?
(Based on what they lost with what they had, it's probably fair to say, probably not??)
SVC: does not follow. Bismarck and Tirpitz were not available during Norway and the war would be over by October 1940 so the lack of battleships in the alternate timeline would not be felt.

Third aspect is it might have allowed to possibly Win the Battle of the Atlantic - but it probably would have reduced the chance of 'Beating Britain by invading it'?
i.e. No Sealion at all
SVC: Does not follow, there would have been more chance of an invasion working, but I doubt any invasion would have worked unless ex-King Edward was leading the troops. Not really relevant.

Forth aspect - linked to the third apect - it perhaps could have neuitralised the UK - but if the UK didn't surrender - it would make it far more difficult to 'Win the War in the West'.
SVC: does not follow.

So do you want the UK hamstrung and basically continuing the War as a Minor thorn in the side of Germany - or going for the 50/50 and trying to win?
SVC: huh?

Fifth Aspect - if the UK did appear that it was 'about to lose the War' - would the US have stepped in?
SVC: no, they would have been even less likely to have stepped in. Nobody in USA but FDR wanted to help Britain at all, even fewer Americans wanted to enter the European war.

US could have said 'this US Fleet with tankers will escort a US Food Convoy to Britain'. If attacked it will defend itself - and once it has delivered the food - it will return to the US (using the Oil on it's tankers).
Germans are free to inspect the Convoy to evidence only food is being sent and can monitor the re-fuelling to evidence no oil is transfered to the UK.
SVC: Neither Germany nor the US is going to agree to that.

So - the UK will not starve and so can avoid surrendering.
SVC: Uh, no. Still surrendering.

(As mentioned in the other topic - USS Rueben James - it didn't matter that the US wasn't at War, but the US Navy was prosecuting attacks Subs against Convoy** - so it's not that much of a change to have an Escorted Neutral US Convoy helping out the UK)
SVC: Fantasy idea, doesn't track.

Net effect - UK continues, Russia is invaded, Japan attack the US and we have a normal WW2.
SVC: Uh, no.

Germans can't threaten Atlantic convoys with Heavy Ships* - but the Subs might or might not give a net better outcome.

* - PQ17 being a good example - the German Naval Ships threatened (or was believed to threaten it) and to save 'some' - the Convoy Scattered - so Subs and the Luftwaffer had a field day.
So - end result, no change.
SVC: Uh, no.

** - The small things the US did (Thank you!) had a big effect - for example, if the US Destroyers was told to 'use Active Sonar' but don't attack German Subs - that would have helped, but perhaps was more of a delaying tactic for the Convoy - but to actively attack located Subs, in Neutral Waters is a huge stretch of Neutrality Laws?
What changes happened on the Rules of Engagement for US Destroyers from September 1939 to December 1941?? (Yes, big changes from April 1941...)
SVC: Not terribly relevant to a war that would end with Halifax cutting a peace deal in October 1940.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 10:08 am: Edit

Politics in Germany has been a traditional factor, and can not be ignore here in this scenario.

Canaris would still have been chief of naval Intelligence, still aiding the allies.

Even Chamberlain would have understood the threat of unlimited (from British perspective) U-boat construction.

The UK/Germany Naval treaty established construction rules for Germany in the 1930’s. I forget the exact terms but 35% of the Royal Navy in most ship categories rings a bell. Will have to verify it.

But the point is, in this what if scenario, was the Treaty accept as is? Terms increased? Or decreased?

Such an agreement would of codified the British position.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 10:59 am: Edit

Bismarck and Tirpitz were not available for Norway so no change there. Britain would not have built fewer battleships, as the KGVs were built to replace older ships so no more escorts. So Paul is completely off the beam there. If Germany planned to starve Britain, no US scheme would fly, and the American people were NOT going to stand for it.

Jeff may have a point about reaction to uboat increases but institutional inertia afflicted Britain. Given the British assumption that the cruiser rules would apply, over confidence in Asdic, and utter confidence in convoys, they may well have minimized the uboat threat. Naval strategy is based on construction, and construction plans take two or three years to change, so it’s most likely Britain would not have reacted in time to matter. No on planned for the war to start in 1939. Britain was very likely to say that “since the inevitable war won’t start before 41/42, we can study the situation.”

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 11:19 am: Edit

To expand on Paul's comment about PQ17, the critical mistake the British made was that they mistakenly believed Tirpitz had sortied to intercept. PQ17 had a bunch of light escorts to defend against submarines and aircraft, but which a true battleship would have bulldozed with little difficulty. Scattering the convoy would have been the appropriate response if Tirpitz really had sortied. But as it was, the decision was a disaster and left the now-scattered merchants as easy pickings for the U-boats and Luftwaffe.

Without the threat of the battleships, the British would have had a much easier time defending merchants, both in terms of what assets they built and what operational decisions they made. Paul has already pointed this out, but I do think he missed one thing. He mentions building more light cruisers and destroyers but neglects the small escort carriers. These were actually very important in providing air cover in the middle of the Atlantic; too far east for U.S. land-based air and too far west for British land-based air. If the Britiish had perceived no heavy warship threat (in the Atlantic - there's still Japan and the Mediterranean) and built more escort carriers earlier, they would have had better ASW capability earlier in the war.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 11:28 am: Edit

I'm not convinced Britain would have built the KGVs. It's true as SVC says that they were already planned as replacements for older battleships. But if in 1937 or so the British realized the Germans were building enormous numbers of submarines, they might have decided the replacement was lower priority than beefing up ASW forces, and put replacement battleships off until later (or maybe bult only one or two), and then ultimately deciding to cancel them on favor of heavy fleet aircraft carriers.
SVC: Institutional friction would have delayed this decision a lot. They might possibly have cancelled the last two but the others were too far progressed by the time a decision would be made.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 11:47 am: Edit

How about this as another scenario for consideration?
NOT IN THIS TOPIC! ONE SCENARIO PER TOPIC.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 11:49 am: Edit

STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SCENARIO.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 12:01 pm: Edit

In college, I took an elective class in conversational German.

Found I couldn’t trill an ‘R’ to save my life.

In a world where the German language is predominant, I would be at a serious disadvantage.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 12:05 pm: Edit

Ve Haff Vays To Make You Talk!

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 12:25 pm: Edit

Let’s not change or add scenarios. Keep this topic to one thing. We can do other scenarios later.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 12:52 pm: Edit

SVC, then how about this as an "enhancement" to your preferred
NO, THAT IS A WHOLE NEW THING. KEEP TO A SINGLE POINT OF INFLECTION!

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 01:02 pm: Edit

So, assume this all works, in late 1940, Halifax simply offers a cease fire to Germany, and Germany accepts. (No treaty, no surrender.)

The Soviets are more aware of the German threat (Hitler had never made any secret of the fact that his ultimate goal was more land for germans in the east). But the Germans have international trade and supplies as Britain is no longer blockading them, they don't waste as much time and resources and pilots on the Battle of Britain as they did in our world, and are ready to invade the USSR slightly earlier and in slightly greater force. The US has vastly more trouble sending aid to the USSR, as the Germans still have lots of U-boats, and we don't have Britain helping us.
SVC: Very dubious that the Russians would have perceived a threat before Dec 40. Stalin kept his head in the sand even in our timeline.

We send some help via the far east, but the single railroad line across Siberia is inadequate for the needed supplies, the USSR does worse and that was a close run thing in our timeline.

Japan still suffers the combination of gross overconfidence and myopia that resulted in their attack on the USA, and knowing that the USA is even weaker in this timeline, they attack. Germany declares war, because they are also more confident, and have at least as much reason to declare on the USA in this timeline as in ours.
SVC: I am having a lot of trouble believing that Hitler would declare war on the US when Britain had stopped fighting. Even if he had, I suspect the US would have more or less ignored him.

Having seen subs work for the Germans the US puts more effort into subs and makes the Pacific the main effor, with British support. The USA largely crushes Japan in sometime in 1944, but rather than invading we concentrate on blockade and subs, it worked on Britain, and Japan is even more vulnerable. (We may try an invassion, but if we do it's probably a fiasco, less practice on large scale amphibious invasions.)

Germany and the USA fight minor colonial campaigns, while the USA urges Britain to get back in the fight against Germany, and Germany has trouble with the former Soviet far east which is still fighting back.

In early 1946, long range bombers from whereever the USA can get a base (malta maybe, north africa if that won't work, a carrier as in the Doolittle raid, Britain if they agree) drops an A-bomb on Berlin, then on Dresden, then on Munic, then we call on the German remnant to surrender. If Britain is not already in the fight, they are now.
SVC: Possible scenario for 1950 but I don't see the US busting the bank in 1940 to maybe bomb Germany in 1947.

Who ends up incharge of the former USSR and in China are interesting questions for which I lack the knowledge required to come up with good answers.

Edited to add: Germany is of course deindustrialized and demilitarized with a vengance. The death camps + what they'd do with a free hand in Ukraine and Russia and them ALSO getting blamed for Stalin's death toll make them look even more horrific, and we haven't decisively beaten them in the field so the risk of a generation later the Germans saying "they only beat us because of a superweapon and we have that too now" would simply be unacceptable to all the victorious powers. Germany effectively becomes a disarmed colony of France and Britain.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 01:21 pm: Edit

Doug, If Britain drops out of the war, I doubt FDR could get the US to go to war with Germany. He couldn’t make it happen until Hitler did it for him, and Hitler would have no reason to do so if Britain made peace.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Unless the Japanese, a part of the Axis alliance, did something spectacularly over the top like bomb pearl harbor without formally declaring war first.

Hitler went to bail out Il Duce when the Albania invasion went tits up.

Would Hitler have done the same for the Japanese?

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 01:57 pm: Edit

This thread has several good book outlines. :-)

--Mike

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 02:28 pm: Edit

SVC, I see no reason why Hitler would not declare war on the USA, and so state in my scenario, he had no better reason to declare on the USA in our timeline than in the alternative, and yet he did so in our timeline.

In the alternate timeline, he's more confident AND the USA is providing aid to the Soviet remnant which is still fighting, and almost certainly nearly entirely dependent on US aid.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 04:45 pm: Edit

Doug: In our timeline, Hitler's declaration of war made no sense, so maybe Hitler would do something as stupid when Britain was no longer fighting. I suspect without Britain in the war, Germany would have been spending French gold to buy oil and steel from the US and trucks from, oh, to pick a truck manufacturer at random, Ford.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 04:53 pm: Edit

SVC, in our timeline, it made no sense. In the alternate timeline it actually DOES make sense!

Because he'll be buying Ford trucks the same way Japan (also not at war with the US or any allied state) was buying US oil and steel prior to Dec 7, which is to say, not at all.

The US will almost certainly still be supplying anyone fighting Hitler and will be the ONLY remaining opposed great power, declaring war on us in the alternate scenario is far more reasonable than in our timeline where he was already at war with two other great powers.

Victory disease, overconfidence, and the INEVITABLE continuing US trade embargo and lend lease aid to anyone still fighting will all push for the declaration on the USA.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 04:56 pm: Edit

Doug: I think it's even less likely. Nobody was fighting Hitler in Nov 40 after Halifax cut a deal, and the only way FDR sold support for Stalin was that it helped Britain (which in our scenario is no longer fighting).

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 05:53 pm: Edit

Roughly three times the number of U-boats as they did in real history would have been devastating.

Where I start to lose the ability to project what might happen is in the timeframe where control of the air over the Bay of Biscay becomes contested.

This probably ruins what you're asking about, SVC, but what happened in this scenario with the Battle of Britain? Was the Luftwaffe allowed to keep prosecuting the RAF, as they did at the start of the battle, or did the poster painter demand the attacks on London and other cities?

IMO, that may make a bigger difference than the diversion of steel for the construction of capital warships.

On the other hand, what about the construction of the Graf Zeppelin (I believe was the name of a potential German aircraft carrier)?

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 07:13 pm: Edit

Speaking of Battleships, without Britain in the war, Germany could have had the French and possibly the Italian Battleships....
Without have to build them....
Would they have had to cover Italy's butt in Libya and Egypt, Greece etc....
Would Turkey have joined one side or another....
Without the US in Libya, how much oil would they produce at Ploești without it being bombed.....

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 08:52 pm: Edit

I don't know that one aircraft carrier was going to make any difference anywhere. I would presume that work on it would be suspended, as it was, as useless in the current conflict. I don't know that the Battle of Britain would have changed; I was just using it as a point in time. If Britain was starving during that period, things would have been worse.