Hitler and the Conquest of Britain, Ireland and America

I am a bit skeptical of some of your claims regarding the non-viability of Operation Sealion. The Battle of Britain, which of course was not a battle but more like a camaign, played out like this from the Nazi point of view. Hitler had ordered the Luftwaffe to basically destroy the RAF, and this was occurring at a rapid pace. But after a few bombing raids on Berlin by the RAF, Hitler got it in his head to switch from focusing on the RAF to bombing cities. This is the MAIN reason there even was an air force left in Britain. This was just one of Hitler's many mistakes.

The first major mistake, in my opinion, was the halt order given by Hitler in France, when the tanks spearheading the Blitzkrieg could have forced the utter destruction of the British Expeditionary Force, before they retreated via Dunkirk. This order to halt and wait for the rest of the units to play catch up is the main reason the British and some of the French forces remained relatively intact.

Anyway, had Hitler stuck to his goal of destroying the RAF, this would have given the Luftwaffe air supremity in the theater, and thus Sealion would have been more viable. Of course, without air superiority, the operation would have been doomed to failure. Someone actually stated that the British naval forces could have prevented a German sea invasion, but they fail to realize that U-boats would have been concentrated in the invasion corridor, and would have wreaked havoc on these naval forces. Couple that with air supremity, and couple that with the invasion via air, which was certainly part of the plan, and it is not so certain that Germany couldn't have invaded England.

Hitler issued Fuhrer Directive #16, which was the call to invade England. His strategic goals were as follows: Destroy the RAF to the point that they could not hinder a German invasion. Mines were to be laid to prevent British ships from even entering the invasion corridor, of course only after the Germans had cleared mines that would have posed a problem to their plans. This could have been done had the RAF not been a threat by the way. Heavy artillery was to block the coastal zones between France and England, again for the purpose of firing on any British ships attempting to prevent a German invasion. And last, Hitler wanted to tie down the British fleet anywhere they could, away from Britain.

Now there were problems to be sure. This directive did not contain any orders for establishing a headquarters that would allow the German army, navy, and air force to coordinate such actions. It would have been EXTREMELY difficult to structure and pull off such an operation, especially considering there was opposition to the plan by senior commanders, but in my mind it definitely COULD have been accomplished. It would have taken the shifting of Nazi resources, but as I pointed out in another post in this thread, had Hitler not been set on invading Russia, which is where most of his materiel and manpower would be tied up, there would have been plenty of resources for Sealion. But preparations were already being made for Operation Barbarossa at that time I believe, although I cannot accurately recall the details.

It should also be noted that Mussolinni was going to contribute forces to the invasion of England. It was said he offered TEN divisions of infantry, and 30 squadrons of aircraft, which would have been a big help to the Luftwaffe to be sure. It should also be noted that there is opposition to my line of thinking. Donitz, an admiral of the German navy, stated that Germany did not have air or naval superiority, and that both would be needed for Sealion to succeed. He went so far as to state that Germany was not even in a position to establish such superiority. I still believe however that had Hitler not ordered the Luftwaffe to start a bombing campaign on London, and instead had focused on the RAF, air superiority could have been established, which would have led to a chance to establish superiority in other areas. The RAF could have retreated North, but I don't think they would have been a viable fighting force for at least another year had Hitler actually tried to destroy the RAF. I mean part of the reason the targetting was switched was because of the weakness of the RAF, although that was not the only reason.

It is true, however, that Germany lacked naval superiority, at least in terms of surface ships. But as I already stated, U-boats were deadly foes, and had they been concentrated in large numbers, and focused on sinking fighting ships, instead of merchant ships, something could have come from that. Being an amateur military historian, and understanding military tactics and strategy to a significant degree, I must concede one important fact. Generally, in such a situation as Germany was in at the time, and given the conditions surrounding the entire battle, it was not likely that air superiority could have directly translated into full protection from British naval superiority. Planes can only fly in decent weather, and some seasonal bad weather was just around the corner in Britain. It is also true that Britain had failed to truly concentrate what naval power they had, but they would have done this if an invasion was undetaken by Nazi Germany. So there were plusses on both sides.

I mean it is difficult for someone like me to attempt to establish a position that even high-ranking Nazi commanders said was impossible. But I must point out that I am stating that Sealion COULD have succeeded IF AND ONLY IF certain implementations were undertaken, there was a transfer of available resources of various types, and the various groups worked together and communicated effectively. It definitely would have taken a concerted action, and had it been done properly, it would have been one of the most brilliant military campaigns of all time, in my opinion. Had the Germans been able to capture the French fleet before it was destroyed by the British, which was a very interesting portion of the war, the balance of power would have probably been on Germany's side. And I failed to mention that the Luftwaffe did not have a great track record of destroying naval vessels, and they had plenty of practice in the Norwegian Campaign. This would have to have been one of those areas concentrated on if an invasion were to succeed.

The thing that would have changed history the most was if Germany could have destroyed the BEF in France. This COULD have been done, and then an invasion would have not been as necessary at the time, or may have even been a bit easier, but probably not. But then again, air superiority would have allowed for aerial troop drops, as opposed to amphibious landings. Germany would have to have focused on building planes to suit these needs though, as I am not sure they had enough for a full scale invasion via the air. But such would only have been possible with air superiority. To sum things up though, there are many variables to this situation. Little things here and there could have translated into huge differences. And although I can understand and even sort of want to agree with those who state Sealion would have failed regardless, I still hold out that had certain things been done, the operation could have succeeded.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


Sealion is a very, very, interesting subject. The biggest problem is that there was no agreement at all between the major German military leaders about how to go about it. Halder wanted to land the troops on a wide arc between Portsmouth and Ramsgate. Raeder said that that was impossible, because the German Navy had been gutted by the Norway campaign, and said that the landings would have to be between Dover and Eastbourne. Halder said that he might as well have put the soldiers into a sausage machine.
Then there's the air superiority issue. Even if the Luftwaffe had concentrated their efforts on 11 Group's airfields in the SouthEast of England and made them non-operational, Dowding planned to withdraw them into the Midlands (into 12 Group) and then redeploy once the invasion started. And let's not forget that the Luftwaffe would have three missions during the invasion - to suppress the RAF, to fight off the Royal Navy and to act as the artillery of the Heer as they tried to get ashore. Sorry, but that would have pulled them all over the place.
The naval issue is key. The German Navy was fantastically weak in the Summer of 1940. Getting the U-Boats into the Channel would have been hard. Sweeping the British minefields would have also been hard. Escorting the troop transports (if Rhine barges can be called that) would have also been hard.
Here's a good page with a list of discussions about the various problems with Sealion - here.
One final point. Overlord was four years in the planning and was a success with absolute air and naval superiority. Sealion could not have relied on either of those factors and was thrown together literally at the last minute.

reply to post by redshoes


Thanks for that insight. At a time when relations between the UK and Ireland are pretty cordial it's easy to forget the history and troubles of the past between the mainland UK and the Emerald Isle.

Also I'd like to thank everyone else (with one 'deleted' exception) who have taken what was meant to be a 'tongue in cheek' thread in a slightly different but no less fascinating direction.

JiggyPotamus
I am a bit skeptical of some of your claims regarding the non-viability of Operation Sealion. The Battle of Britain, which of course was not a battle but more like a camaign, played out like this from the Nazi point of view. Hitler had ordered the Luftwaffe to basically destroy the RAF, and this was occurring at a rapid pace.

No it wasn't - the RAF was never in any danger of actuall ybeing destroyed - they always had at least 600 fighters in reserve (ie not allocated to squadrons), their production was twice that of German fighters, and they had almost 50% more pilots for their planes than the Germans had for theirs.

. Someone actually stated that the British naval forces could have prevented a German sea invasion, but they fail to realize that U-boats would have been concentrated in the invasion corridor, and would have wreaked havoc on these naval forces.

No they wouldn't.

Germany only had about 2 dozen U-boats available - the British had 60 submarines in home waters. What;'s more to get that number of U-boats the Germans had to use all their TRAINING submarines and small coastal ones

The U-boats would have had to target fast moving light naval forces - destroyers and cruisers - and done it at NIGHT - because the British could sortie from ports, attack the anchored Germans and return all at night time.

The british submarines could have targeted slow moving transports, day and night, many of which would have been ANCHORED off the English coast.

The only massacre that was going to happen was of German soldiers.

I recommend you get hold of Invasion! Operation Sealion 1940. Evans, Martin Marix (2004). Pearson Education. I did a paper on the relative forces available back in the 1980's, and then 15 years later this guy came up with pretty much exactly the same reasoning I had.

how do you know they didn't actually win?

spartacus699
how do you know they didn't actually win?

Well, the fact that by the end of the war Germany was a sea of smashed rubble is something of a giveaway.

reply to post by scotsdavy1


Simon Wiesenthal ???

HelenConway
reply to post by scotsdavy1

 

Simon Wiesenthal ???

No, this guy:

Aribert Ferdinand Heim

spartacus699
how do you know they didn't actually win?

Because i'm not actually fluent in german.

Amusing idea, but never the slightest possibility of it happening.....The Wehrmacht & Kreigsmarine were not equipped to mount a cross channel invasion. The actual plans for the operation can be found online.....They are (compared to Allied plans for Overlord or even the British plans for Dieppe, which was a debacle) utterly laughable.

The Germans had exactly no, none, zip, bugger all, SFA landing craft, they planned on using Rhine Barges which are designed for a river (The Rhine) not the English Channel. Their experiments with these vessel (conducted under ideal conditions) indicated they could expect a 25% loss rate from barges foundering in waves, before the Royal Navy fired a shot.

Anyhow.....I'm probably only rehashing what's already been said. Operation Sea Lion was a no go.....Hitler was never serious anyway, he firmly expected a separate peace with Britain, so much so that he sent Rudolph Hess on his fateful flight.

I can provide fairly comprehensive links to real documents and articles on wargaming this event (the military way).....But it will take some time and I suspect many of these links will have been posted already.

I enjoyed the OP very much and yet the actual history of WW2 is amazingly interesting also.

The way things are playing out in Europe and Israel today, you have to wonder what really WOULD have happened had there been a response to Hitlers calls for the League of Nations to stop the persecution (and in cases, murder) of Germans in Poland in during the 1930's


Quite likely there never would have been a Wannsee convention of 1942, and hence no "final solution".

Just as America's actions and support of Israel creates new hatred for the US on a daily basis, Chamberlain and Churchill's refusal to work out a reasonable solution for all parties I think simply fueled the growing tensions.

Churchill could have avoided war and that's a fact.

WarminIndy


But then why are we feeling sorry that a few German soldiers had their testicles crushed when they had participated in much worse? In the light of history, I don't feel sorry for them. That might sound cruel, but what was more cruel, obtaining evidence in this manner or what they did in the first place to women and children, not to mention the elderly?

EVIDENCE??? It's proven fact that via torture YOU or anyone else would quite happily tell me Jesus was your uncle and you DO in fact own the illegal unicorn I have been interrogating you about!

This is why water boarding was invented, it's not really painful, but does make you think you're gonna die.

WarminIndy

But the question of whether or not all of Germany was guilty, those Germans who protested were executed or sent to camps. Those who didn't protest were afraid to or believed the propaganda. But all of Germany knew what was happening to the Jews, the Gypsies, the Poles and the various other people. They knew, it's as simple as that. One could say they were never in the Nazi Party, but if they took part in any of the violence in any capacity toward the Jews, then they should have felt guilty. That's how I look at it.

Are you aware that the "death camps" were not in modern Germany at all, and in fact it was POLISH territory from 1919-1939 that teh Germans occupied upon which the "extermination camps" were built?

So in fact most Germans actually would not have heard or seen anything about such things.

If you really believe such nonsense then you must equally hold ALL Americans responsible for the THOUSANDS of innocent killed by US drone strikes.

Can't have your cake and eat it too I'm afraid.

mirageman

crazyewok
By the way in this alternative future does justen bieber end up in a gas chamber?

How dare you. He recently joined Gary Neville, in a joint statement earlier this week, proclaiming their full support for "Movember" even if it would be some decades away before they could both expect to actually take part in the event.

Brilliant!

8675309jenny
I enjoyed the OP very much and yet the actual history of WW2 is amazingly interesting also.

The way things are playing out in Europe and Israel today, you have to wonder what really WOULD have happened had there been a response to Hitlers calls for the League of Nations to stop the persecution (and in cases, murder) of Germans in Poland in during the 1930's


Quite likely there never would have been a Wannsee convention of 1942, and hence no "final solution".

Just as America's actions and support of Israel creates new hatred for the US on a daily basis, Chamberlain and Churchill's refusal to work out a reasonable solution for all parties I think simply fueled the growing tensions.

Churchill could have avoided war and that's a fact.

edit on 3-11-2013 by 8675309jenny because: spelling

???? Churchill wasn't Prime Minister at the start of World War II. Come to that he wasn't even in Government.

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by GeeBee

 

The He-100/113 story is certainly interesting - but as is pointed out in the linked article, Heinkel was well regarded and the political aspects of the plane not being produced as you suggest may come from him and be sour grapes.

the Me-109 was not actually selected against the He-100 - it competed against the He-112- to which it was obviously superior - the He-100 came along later, at a time when the 109 was actually still a world beater, and there was no strong need to immediately replace it at all.

German engine production was quite low - at the height of the BoB the Germans were only producing about 220-230 109's and 110's per month (vs 450 Spitfires & Hurricanes), and taking engines away from them was not a realistic option.

The 100/113 sits in a category of aircraft that were technologically superior, but not produced due to expediency/politics/economics/short-sightedness/any combination of these - others include the TSR-2, Avro Arrow, XB-70 Valkyrie, Miles M-52, SR-53, etc. - I'm sure ppl can think of others.

How did the He-100 directly cause the surrender of France??

edit on 31-10-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

The HE-100 first flew in 1938.It took the world speed record from Howard Hughes H-1 on March 30th 1939 with a speed of 463mph/746kph.

I don't have any of my books on the aircraft to hand- still packed in a box after our house move- but as I recall a high ranking French minister was being given a tour of the Heinkel factory. He was placed in a Feisler Storch and given a slow fly-by of the factory. This was a set-up, and an HE-100 did a very close pass at top speed. This shocked the minister, who then obviously asked about this incredible machine. He was told that it was in full production at two factories with a third coming on stream very soon. The minister then returned home and stated to the government that France would fall in a matter of weeks against the might of the Luftwaffe.

I may have got a few details incorrect, but that is the general gist of it. Taken from memory from the book

Heinkel He 100 Record Breaker: Military Aircraft in Detail by Erwin Hood

AngryCymraeg

8675309jenny
I enjoyed the OP very much and yet the actual history of WW2 is amazingly interesting also.

The way things are playing out in Europe and Israel today, you have to wonder what really WOULD have happened had there been a response to Hitlers calls for the League of Nations to stop the persecution (and in cases, murder) of Germans in Poland in during the 1930's


Quite likely there never would have been a Wannsee convention of 1942, and hence no "final solution".

Just as America's actions and support of Israel creates new hatred for the US on a daily basis, Chamberlain and Churchill's refusal to work out a reasonable solution for all parties I think simply fueled the growing tensions.

Churchill could have avoided war and that's a fact.

edit on 3-11-2013 by 8675309jenny because: spelling

???? Churchill wasn't Prime Minister at the start of World War II. Come to that he wasn't even in Government.

Sry, deleted Churchill, to write Chamberlain but typed churchill again lol d'oh

8675309jenny

AngryCymraeg

8675309jenny
I enjoyed the OP very much and yet the actual history of WW2 is amazingly interesting also.

The way things are playing out in Europe and Israel today, you have to wonder what really WOULD have happened had there been a response to Hitlers calls for the League of Nations to stop the persecution (and in cases, murder) of Germans in Poland in during the 1930's


Quite likely there never would have been a Wannsee convention of 1942, and hence no "final solution".

Just as America's actions and support of Israel creates new hatred for the US on a daily basis, Chamberlain and Churchill's refusal to work out a reasonable solution for all parties I think simply fueled the growing tensions.

Churchill could have avoided war and that's a fact.

edit on 3-11-2013 by 8675309jenny because: spelling

???? Churchill wasn't Prime Minister at the start of World War II. Come to that he wasn't even in Government.

Sry, deleted Churchill, to write Chamberlain but typed churchill again lol d'oh

No worries, we all do it at some point!

GeeBee

I don't have any of my books on the aircraft to hand- still packed in a box after our house move- but as I recall a high ranking French minister was being given a tour of the Heinkel factory. He was placed in a Feisler Storch and given a slow fly-by of the factory. This was a set-up, and an HE-100 did a very close pass at top speed. This shocked the minister, who then obviously asked about this incredible machine. He was told that it was in full production at two factories with a third coming on stream very soon. The minister then returned home and stated to the government that France would fall in a matter of weeks against the might of the Luftwaffe.

I may have got a few details incorrect, but that is the general gist of it. Taken from memory from the book

Heinkel He 100 Record Breaker: Military Aircraft in Detail by Erwin Hood

so it helped with the general defeatist attitude in France - that makes a bit more sense than it caused the fall!

That book is not in the Wiki bibliography - you might like to find it & add the snippet

I'll try and dig the book out- I've been meaning to build a 1/5 scale model of the plane and the books would help with the scale details.

He.100 was too expensive and complex for mass production, plus by the time Heinkel had ironed out the kinks, the FW.190 was on the way.....I'm gonna be building mine in 1/72, 'God's Own Scale'!

The story about the French minister being 'surprised' by the He.100 is quite true, but it's not unique.....The Luftwaffe were showing US journalists their might, taking them from one airfield filled with He.111s & Do.17s after another.....What the journalists didn't realise was all the He.111s & Do.17s would be going to the next airfield too, where their unit badges and ID stencils would be overpainted making them appear to be from another squadron.

In early summer 1940 on the Channel front, in terms of single-engine fighters, the Luftwaffe was actually slightly outnumbered by the RAF.

edit on 6-11-2013 by squarehead666 because: s&p/content