I have to write up a report, and answer this question,
“What if Hitler defeated Britain in the Battle of Britain and succeeded in conquering Britain?”
Now lets just forget the fact that even if hitler did gain air supremacy he may not have been able to conquer britain (due to Britains large navy), but instead suppose Hitler was succesful in carrying out Operation Sealion fairly early in the war-1940 (after the Battle of Britain). What would the outcome be?, and how would that change the tide of the war?
My opinion:
In summary,
[ul]
The Commonwealth would stop most operations (unless attacked) This includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa…
Germany would only be fighting on one front (Russain campaign)
Germany would have the largest navy in the world after the capture of the Royal Navy
The United States would propably not delcare war on Germany and not have anything to do with the war in Europe.
The Soviet Union would be captured and under German control.
If you add everything up, Germany would have won the war in Europe and taken much of Africa…
[/ul]
Naturally I would have to back this up with facts, so it would be a great help if some of you could help me there. Im having a bit of a hard time finding the exact stats i need.
what I need:
[ul]
Strength of the Royal Navy during the war
Strength of the Canadian Navy during the war (I heard they had a pretty big navy)
Stregnth of the British armed forces in general
Strength of the Commonwealth forces in general
Distribution of German forces (what percentage is where, North Africa, Europe, Russia…)
Stregnth of the German Navy
Any massive contributions Britain provided for the war effort (intelligence maybe? S.O.E.?)
[/ul]
It would be much apreciated and of a great help if anybody can find any of the above mentioned things. Or anything that you think may help in supporting my arguement.
And also if you find my reasoning to be seriously off the mark please be feel to tell me so…
In 1939 Britain had a small professional army. This was backed up by a poorly trained and ill-equipped Territorial Army.
On the outbreak of the Second World War, the British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, agreed to send a British Expeditionary Army to France. Under the command of General John Gort, the force included four regular infantry divisions and 50 light tanks.
The British government introduced conscription and by May 1940, British Army strength was brought up to 50 divisions. Of these, 13 divisions were in France fighting against the German Western Offensive. After the evacuations from Dunkirk were complete, the British Army had 1,650,000 men.
The British Army only had 100 tanks left after Dunkirk and Vauxhall Motors were under instructions to produce the tanks as quickly as possible. As a result, the early Churchill tank suffered considerable mechanical problems. It performed badly at the Dieppe Raid but was more successful in North Africa. The armament was also inadequate and in March 1942 it was produced with a 6-pounder gun. The following year this was replaced with a 75mm gun.
The first Valentine tanks were delivered in May 1940 and the following year they were sent to take part in the Desert War. During the war there were eleven versions of the tank. For example, the tank’s armament changed from a 6-pounder in 1938 to 75mm in 1944. However, the size of the turret remained a problem and the crew constantly complained about a lack of room.
The Royal Navy, still the largest in the world in September 1939, included:
15 Battleships & battlecruisers, of which only two were post-World War 1. Five ‘King George V’ class battleships were building.
7 Aircraft carriers. One was new and five of the planned six fleet carriers were under construction. There were no escort carriers.
66 Cruisers, mainly post-World War 1 with some older ships converted for AA duties. Including cruiser-minelayers, 23 new ones had been laid down.
184 Destroyers of all types. Over half were modern, with 15 of the old ‘V’ and ‘W’ classes modified as escorts. Under construction or on order were 32 fleet destroyers and 20 escort types of the ‘Hunt’ class.
60 Submarines, mainly modern with nine building.
45 escort and patrol vessels with nine building, and the first 56 ‘Flower’ class corvettes on order to add to the converted ‘V’ and ‘W’s’ and ‘Hunts’. However, there were few fast, long-endurance convoy escorts.
Its hard to even ponder a German invasion attempt without having won air supremacy. The Germans lost mainly due to bad intell which resulted in attacking the wrong or insignificant targets. So lets say they got to the point where the RAF was almost combat ineffective. Now you have to cross the channel. Germany did have the supplies and a plan for attack…sure you can find the details. What I would take a look at is how effective were German Bombers against the RN. I feel confident in saying that there is no way the German Navy could have secured a crossing for the invaders. So that leaves it to air power. Now we know Air power can do it but alot of commanders didnt give it that much concern. Early in the war at least. The idea of the Germans winning air supremacy is possible but could they have kept the RAF at bay and still have enough power to focus on the RN??? Dont for get you need to keep the crossing open too…you cant invade to far without a stream of supplies.
What would keep Britain from withdrawing their Navy to a safe point waiting for the invasion and the trapping the Germans? This plan would work well if you were confident in you land forces.
So
How effective were RN ships against aircraft and vice versa? If the answer is not great then I dont see how the Germans could ever stay on the island! And if they did what where the Germans facing? The best time to launch the invasion would have been right after the retreat at Dunkirk. Of course the German were not prepared. Also remember that it seems to appear thru history that bombing the crap out of people usually seems to strengthen their resolve.
Ok … so by some miracle … I dont see at the moment. The Germans invade and force the Brits to surrender. Also dont forget about Ireland…what would they do in the event of a British surrender? Hard to say. What would the rest of the commonwealth do? If Britain did fall I think the Soviet would be watching their boarders alot closer knowing that the Germans could throw the bulk of their forces that way.
I think its safe to say that if Japan bombed Pearl Harbor that Germany still would have honored its pact and declared war on the US. German invasion of the US…no way. Or Japan for that matter.
Actually at this point your just in the realm of “what if” anymore so you can pretty much say whatever. With all the possiblities is hard to juggle what would have happened. So whatever you come up with minus aliens landing and fighting the Nazis … cant really be disputed. :roll:
[/li]
If you read my post I find this assertion to be false! Of course “what ifs” are problematic. Yet remember the US never actually declared war on Germany. Germany declared war on the US in response to Japans actions and their alliance. I think you would find the US would still attempt to take on Japan but focus alot more on building up the Navy to keep Axis powers out of N. and S. America. Anyhoo…JMO
Immediately after the defeat of France, Adolf Hitler ordered his generals to organize the invasion of Britain. The invasion plan was given the code name Sealion. The objective was to land 160,000 German soldiers along a forty-mile coastal stretch of south-east England. Within a few weeks the Germans had assembled a large armada of vessels, including 2,000 barges in German, Belgian and French harbours.
However, Hitler’s generals were very worried about the damage that the Royal Air Force could inflict on the German Army during the invasion. Hitler therefore agreed to their request that the invasion should be postponed until the British airforce had been destroyed.
By the start of what became known as the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe had 2,800 aircraft stationed in France, Belgium, Holland and Norway. This force outnumbered the RAF by four to one. However, the British had the advantage of being closer to their airfields. German fighters could only stay over England for about half an hour before flying back to their home bases. The RAF also had the benefits of an effective early warning radar system and the intelligence information provided by Ultra.
The German pilots had more combat experience than the British and probably had the best fighter plane in the Messerschmitt Bf109. They also had the impressive Messerschmitt 110 and Junkers Stuka. The commander of Fighter Command, Hugh Dowding, relied on the Hawker Hurricane and the Supermarine Spitfire that had performed well during the Western Offensive.
On the 12th August, 1940, the German airforce began its mass bomber attacks on British radar stations, aircraft factories and fighter airfields. During these raids radar stations and airfields were badly damaged and twenty-two RAF planes were destroyed. This attack was followed by daily raids on Britain.
As a result of the effective range of the Luftwaffe, the battle was mainly fought over southern England. This area was protected by Fighter Command No. 11 under Keith Park and Fighter Command No. 12 led by Trafford Leigh-Mallory. They also but received support from the squadrons based in the eastern counties.
Oh no! He mentioned a successful marine mammal. Burn him!
Seriously, nobody has ever managed to come up with a scenario where Sealion would have been a success. The most plausible suggestion I’ve seen (and a highly unlikely one at that) is of a coup by Lord Halifax and RAB Butler in June 1940 bringing about an armistice on German terms. If the British decide to make a fight of it, they literally cannot lose.
Not really. They required the destruction of the RAF to give the Luftwaffe a chance at protecting the invasion from the RN (the Kriegsmarine having been largely sunk during the Norwegian campaign). Given the German performance over Crete a year later, when unopposed German bombers did a relatively minor level of damage to a large RN force operating far from their home bases, they are highly unlikely to be a major threat.
At this point in the war Ultra decrypts were rather limited and of no tactical use - aircraft simply move too fast.
The Me 110 (allegedly a fighter) required escort by the Bf109s to survive over the UK, while the Stukas were rapidly withdrawn as obselete once the battle started.
Wrong. The squadrons based in East Anglia themselves formed 12 group under Leigh-Mallory. Virtually all of the fighting in the battle (and all of the fighting over the south-east) was conducted by 11 group. 12 group were requested on occasion to provide air cover for 11 group airfields, but the combined egos of Leigh-Mallory and Bader resulted in them trying to form up “big wings” which always arrived after the airfields had been bombed.
Frankly, the only way for Sealion to be a success is massive intervention by Alien Space Bats.
However, I suspect your report is more about examining the consequences of the UK dropping out of the war. There are any number of alternate history works dealing with this, but the one I find most plausible ends up with Germany being destroyed from the air in a single day by nuclear armed B-36 bombers from the US (in summer 1947). Certainly the US will get nuclear weapons before everyone else (as in reality), and they are unlikely to remain at peace with Germany for very long after a successful Sealion.
Chamberlain, was pushing for Halifax as his replacement, as opposed to Churchill, it would be interesting to have seen what would have come about if he had had his way and Halifax had become Prime Minister - no it wouldn’t …what am I saying?
Speaking of Aliens …there is a what if book out there (cant remember the name) where aliens do come to take over the world during WW2 and all the countries stop fighting each other to fight the aliens…I did not complete this book coz the aliens didnt seem realistic enough comparded with the ones ive meet. :mrgreen:
I/m agree with pdf.
the Sealion was a pure bleff. Germany had no real means to land in England.
All what Hitler wanted by the bombing compain the only to terrorise the Britain and to show who is the “new master of Europe”.
And honestly speaking he has reached its goal in the 1941.
Although the Luftwaffe lost more aircrafts but the RAF was absolutely incapable to make the simular action to the Germany( untill the 1943 with help of USA).
Personaly i think the Hitler should be very close to the defeat of Britain in 1942 when u-boats of Deniz had reached the rate of sinked british tonnage till the 700 000 tonns per month - this was a critical limit after that the Britain was incapable to lead the war.
But… god has created the America , that happily helped to restore the British sea transport.
The first issue to deal with is what is meant by ‘conquered’?
Negotiated peace with Britain?
Control of parts of the British Isles?
Total military defeat?
British surrender?
The most likely was 1 and or 2, still resulting in 1 and 2. There is no reason to believe that Britain’s peace terms would be any worse than France’s. So I’ll proceed on the assumption that some form of Vichy type government continues in partially occupied Britain.
The Commonwealth would stop most operations (unless attacked) This includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa…
Probably. Although it might be that substantial British forces are transferred to the Commonwealth, or to the colonies, notably Malaya, Burma and India. This also has profound implications for the looming with Japan, especially if the forces to be employed in North Africa and the Mediterranean go there.
Germany would only be fighting on one front (Russain campaign)
Agreed.
Germany would have the largest navy in the world after the capture of the Royal Navy
It doesn’t follow that Germany gets it, any more than it got the French navy. So, like France, Britain may retain its navy to use in its colonies and, if it has any brains, makes sure that that’s where they are and stay upon peace being agreed. This also has profound implications for the looming war with Japan.
Or the ships which would fall into German hands might have been scuttled. Or gone to Commonwealth countries and become part of their navies exempt from any peace with Britain, or even gone to America.
The United States would propably not delcare war on Germany and not have anything to do with the war in Europe.
Almost certainly.
The US was happily trading with, and had corporations operating in, Germany during and after the Battle of Britain. Political and economic reality dictates that the US continues to do so on the terms most favourable to the US.
American strategic assessments well before the war decided that America’s interests lay in supporting Britain in any war with Germany. However, once Britain folded, America would have had to adapt to the new circumstances to its best advantage.
The Soviet Union would be captured and under German control.
Probably, apart perhaps from eastern Siberia which could be under Japanese control and a central part which neither Japan nor Germany wanted.
The likelihood depends upon the terms of the peace with Britain.
Assuming that the peace terms prevent Britain fighting the Italians in North Africa and Greece, thus drawing Germany into both theatres and Greece delaying Barbarossa, Germany will be able to execute Barbarossa much better.
If Britain is allowed to operate independently in its colonies then the USSR is safer, because Japan still has to invade Burma and Malaya so that it might come to the same conclusion as it actually did in 1941 and abandon any thought of invading Siberia because of the need to employ forces in the southward advance. If British forces in S.E. Asia are then substantially larger than they actually were, especially air and naval forces, Japan has a much bigger problem in invading British colonies and may not even attempt it.
If Britain is not allowed to operate independently in its colonies, then it may accept Japanese occupation of Malaya and Burma, as Vichy France did with Indo-China. The Japanese then do not need to invade those countries. Britain will not be in a position to impose oil and other embargoes on Japan which led to the Pacific War. America, having reached an accord with the Germans, may be unwilling to pursue the China issue and impose embargoes etc on Japan. America may prefer to come to some arrangement with Japan. Japan has avoided war with Britain in British colonies and has forces actually used for those campaigns available for other purposes, most likely the Netherlands East Indies which produces a third of the world’s oil and can meet Japan’s needs, with or without Burma, and especially if Japan is not engaged in a primarily naval and air war for the next four years. Maybe Japan decides to avoid attacking the US and just takes British and Dutch colonies. Whether America feels threatened enough by Japan’s actions and encirclement of the Philippines to go to war with Japan depends upon what is negotiated between them. Maybe Japan prefers to get the Dutch and British colonies; avoid war with America; and move into Siberia. If so, the USSR is now in deep trouble.
The USSR now gets the opportunity to find out just how well it can fight without British and American Allies, including their naval and air attacks on Germany and Lend Lease support for the next four years while occupying German forces elsewhere. The USSR almost certainly loses on both fronts and ceases to be an important power, regardless of what territory Japan and Germany allow it to hold between the Germans and Japanese. The strongly anti-communist Axis powers will ensure the eradication of communist control of the remnants of the USSR.
If you add everything up, Germany would have won the war in Europe and taken much of Africa…
And a lot else flows from this which would produce a very different world now, such as
Japan contains or defeats the Nationalists and Communists in China. With the defeat of the USSR and the containment or defeat of Mao, post-war communist states in eastern Europe and Asia don’t exist; international communism is defeated before it got out of the blocks, which suits influential pre-war opinion in the US, and there will be no Cold War.
Israel never comes into being, while oil rich Arab states would provide oil to the Axis powers as colonies and have no political or economic significance in their own right. The Middle East would remain an under-developed backwater in many respects.
European colonial powers, either directly or supplanted by Axis ones, continue as before, so the tumultuous post-war overthrow of colonialism in Asia and Africa doesn’t occur. Asia and Africa remain vastly more underdeveloped than now, and with less control of their own affairs.
No U.N. The Axis powers do whatever they feel like on most of the planet. Until, inevitably, they start fighting among themselves.
America doesn’t get the WWII boost and never becomes a super-power, but merely a major power along with Germany and Japan.
Sooner or later the Axis powers probably apply the economic screws to America, to pay back old grievances, and because they can. America either kow-tows to them or embarks on a war which, without the other Allied forces involved in WWII apart, perhaps, from British Commonwealth forces (but don’t bet on it), it has a good chance of losing. Unless by whenever that happens America alone has developed sufficient nuclear weapons and delivery systems to pretty much wipe out Germany and Japan within their national borders and other substantial concentrations elsewhere.
I do not think the Britain could really surrendered without the seriuos battle.
i.e the 1 and 2 is excepted
About 3 and 4 - i think all depends of when?
In in the spring of 1941 befor the Barbarossa and joing the USA into the war - this was a one case.
Certainly the bombing compain was not not enought to defeat Britain.
Let’s imagine the Garman had enough the transport ships and air sureriority for the realising the Sealion.
Even if the british troops were relatively weak in the islands the Germans nevertheless needs a big part of its 220 division to occupate the britain ( i think no less then 80-100 division should be sended to the Britain).
Thus this was a best moment for the attacking the Germans by the Red Army through the Poland.
I/m sure the comrade Stalin must clearly understand if the Britain were dwfeated the next turn for the USSR. So the best moment to attack the Britain is the when the Germany captured the Islands.
In this way the sitution could be much less tragical for the Red Army i/m sure the casualites should be ever less then it was in 1941.
Another case if the Britain capitulatded in the 1942 under Germans u-boat terror.
But in this case the USA was already widelly involved into the war, so i do not think the fate of the war really could changed
The US was happily trading with, and had corporations operating in, Germany during and after the Battle of Britain. Political and economic reality dictates that the US continues to do so on the terms most favourable to the US.
American strategic assessments well before the war decided that America’s interests lay in supporting Britain in any war with Germany. However, once Britain folded, America would have had to adapt to the new circumstances to its best advantage.
i/m strongly doubt the USA leaders were so stupid to let the Japanes capture the whole asia and Pacific islands - in this way the Japanes could easy to cut off the oxygen for the America.
independently of the interests of some americans companies the strategy of USA should be to stop the Japanes. So i think the americans should make everything for defence of the Australia, New Zeland and ets. ( even if the Malay and India was in the Japane hands).
So the strong Soviet-USSR alliance was inevitable…
BTW in the any case if the Britain was surrendered the whole of lend-lise should come to the USSR. So the Red Army get the additional supporting.
Certainly if the Britain was lost the about 50 division from the Normandy could be moved to the Eastern front finally ( additionaly to the 150 divisions that ere already there).
But ONLY after that the Britain should finally captured.
Assuming that the peace terms prevent Britain fighting the Italians in North Africa and Greece, thus drawing Germany into both theatres and Greece delaying Barbarossa, Germany will be able to execute Barbarossa much better.
I/m really do not think the Britains ere so cowards to surrendered the Garmany without the stragle. So if even iif the Nazy had landed to the islands they was still vilnerable for the attack of red army.
If Britain is allowed to operate independently in its colonies then the USSR is safer, because Japan still has to invade Burma and Malaya so that it might come to the same conclusion as it actually did in 1941 and abandon any thought of invading Siberia because of the need to employ forces in the southward advance. If British forces in S.E. Asia are then substantially larger than they actually were, especially air and naval forces, Japan has a much bigger problem in invading British colonies and may not even attempt it.
If Britain is not allowed to operate independently in its colonies, then it may accept Japanese occupation of Malaya and Burma, as Vichy France did with Indo-China. The Japanese then do not need to invade those countries. Britain will not be in a position to impose oil and other embargoes on Japan which led to the Pacific War. America, having reached an accord with the Germans, may be unwilling to pursue the China issue and impose embargoes etc on Japan. America may prefer to come to some arrangement with Japan. Japan has avoided war with Britain in British colonies and has forces actually used for those campaigns available for other purposes, most likely the Netherlands East Indies which produces a third of the world’s oil and can meet Japan’s needs, with or without Burma, and especially if Japan is not engaged in a primarily naval and air war for the next four years. Maybe Japan decides to avoid attacking the US and just takes British and Dutch colonies. Whether America feels threatened enough by Japan’s actions and encirclement of the Philippines to go to war with Japan depends upon what is negotiated between them. Maybe Japan prefers to get the Dutch and British colonies; avoid war with America; and move into Siberia. If so, the USSR is now in deep trouble.
The USSR now gets the opportunity to find out just how well it can fight without British and American Allies, including their naval and air attacks on Germany and Lend Lease support for the next four years while occupying German forces elsewhere. The USSR almost certainly loses on both fronts and ceases to be an important power, regardless of what territory Japan and Germany allow it to hold between the Germans and Japanese. The strongly anti-communist Axis powers will ensure the eradication of communist control of the remnants of the USSR.
well i could agree.
But as i said i/m strongly doubt the americans were so naive to let the Japanes to do what they want.
In any way the Japanes staff very understimated the USA ability to fight. So i think the Perl Harbor was inevitable in any cases - was the britain surrender or not.
I was sticking to the OP’s scenario that Britain is defeated by the end of 1940 by a successful Sealion invasion after Britain loses the Battle of Britain.
Germany probably couldn’t do what was necessary to defeat Britain by arms in the couple of months before the end of 1940, if only because it couldn’t get enough troops, weapons and supplies over and the RN, and remaining RAF, would be hammering invasion fleets and supply fleets. But Germany could do enough to make the British leadership, some of whom were already in favour of negotiating terms with Germany following Dunkirk, negotiate terms. That’s why I picked 1 and 2.
i/m strongly doubt the USA leaders were so stupid to let the Japanes capture the whole asia and Pacific islands - in this way the Japanes could easy to cut off the oxygen for the America.
True.
But if Japan got Malaya and Burma by British permission and took the NEI, and didn’t attack America, they didn’t need to go to the other places they took primarily for their defence. If America was assured that Japan would not attack, it might have done a deal.
Remember that the Pacific war was in part a contest between America and Japan for control of the Pacific and access to China, which had been a long standing contest, but the immediate issue was about Japan getting access to resources and America denying them. If each party had compromised, they could have done a deal. It wouldn’t be any more surprising than the staunchly anti-communist Americans allying themselves with the USSR when it was in their interests. Nations will always make deals with the devil when it suits them and they don‘t have a better choice.
independently of the interests of some americans companies the strategy of USA should be to stop the Japanes. So i think the americans should make everything for defence of the Australia, New Zeland and ets. ( even if the Malay and India was in the Japane hands).
Not in a fit.
America considered abandoning Australia and New Zealand in the real war. In this ‘what if’ war America would have no reason to defend Australia and New Zealand, with which it had no important trade or other relationships. Anyway, in the real war America didn’t defend Australia and New Zealand. It used them as bases for its own purposes and in the process defended them. In this ‘what if’ war, America is better off ditching Australia and New Zealand and freeing itself of long lines of supply to countries it doesn’t need to fight Japan, when it’s not going to fight Japan anyway. It would make a lot more sense to devote the same forces to anywhere else, from the Philippines to Wake Island to Hawaii to California.
So the strong Soviet-USSR alliance was inevitable.
Do you mean Soviet-US alliance?
If so, I wouldn’t bet on it.
What does America get out of supporting the communist USSR to defeat Germany in eastern Europe when strongly capitalist and strongly anti-communist America’s pre-war strategic assessments were all based on America’s interests being connected with the survival of capitalist Britain and western Europe?
America could be a lot better off with Germany bogged down fighting and occupying the USSR, and cutting off the Comintern and communism at its main source, while maintaining trade and peaceful relations with Germany.
BTW in the any case if the Britain was surrendered the whole of lend-lise should come to the USSR. So the Red Army get the additional supporting.
I wouldn’t bet on that, either.
Who runs the convoys to the USSR with Britain out of the war?
Why does America want to do this, if it suits America to let Germany wear itself out in fighting and occupying the USSR?
America is a capitalist economy. Will it have a lend lease arrangement with the USSR when the USSR is likely to be defeated; America won’t get paid; and supporting the USSR will antagonise the Germans that America has decided are now the real power in Europe that America has to deal with for the foreseeable future?
Certainly if the Britain was lost the about 50 division from the Normandy could be moved to the Eastern front finally ( additionaly to the 150 divisions that ere already there).
But ONLY after that the Britain should finally captured.
But if Britain negotiates terms before the end of 1940, Germany doesn’t need to use too much in the way of forces there. Occupation forces don’t need to be first line troops. Nor does Britain need to be completely disarmed. IIRC France kept about 100,000 troops under Vichy as well as its navy.
In any way the Japanes staff very understimated the USA ability to fight. So i think the Perl Harbor was inevitable in any cases - was the britain surrender or not.
That’s why Britain dropping out by the end of 1940 becomes critical. If it can’t support American embargoes on Japan, maybe America won’t impose them and Japan doesn’t get the trigger for war in mid-1941, so Pearl Harbor doesn’t happen.
