What if - the battle of britain.

[unmerged(138740)]

Its a lot of IFs but I dont like the no-argument statements that Germany would be 100% doomed.
Attack on UK from Ireland? Remember that Ulster and Belfast would be back in Irish hands so its rather Ireland as Axis.
Spain - it would turn Axis fast after defeat of UK. Maybe even Turkey would join and if ME gets conquered then its 100% sure. NA would be an Axis victory UK would not hold it without support from its mainland. US attacking in NA? Theres no way to achieve Victory. Imagine joint fleets of Italy, Spain, Turkey in the Medi. And no Gibraltar so how would they go there? Marocco... assault on Europe and whole war through Marocco - no efen way. US would not risk a war with the whole Europe alone. Supplying any invasion on such range is impossible. Its like Nazis landing in US. The war is lost and Axis win. SU without Allied supplies? German industry without Strategic Bombing? SU would fall - maybe there would be no peace and commies would defend on Wolga or Ural line holding Siberia as its mainland but without chance of regaining teritorries.

The only problem is how to manage that?
Dunkirk turning different with no evacuation leaves UK without experienced troops. Diferent focus on bombing during BoB could turn in a way better situation for Luftwaffe. No city bombing but total concentration on RAF - plausible.
The biggest problem is how to send Wehrmacht through the Channel? Paras would be usefull but cant win alone. All subs and ships would have to secure the sea and all merchant marine be used for transport but that would be a challenge. The whole operation would end in a loss of Kriegsmarine.
This all is plausible but hard to achieve.

EDIT:
SU attack on Germany during Sealion? nope
The Winter War and German advances in France would prevent that for some time so no SU attack during the operation. I assume that it would take place in summer/autumn 1940. Stalin wasnt prepare to war at that time and he knew it. And remember that UK had no army so whole Wehrmacht wasnt needed.
I know that there will be voices that UK would not fall so easy, fighting on beaches, cities... Thats a myth. Look at the rest of the conquered countries in the world. There would be a resistance but lets not go to far with that.
The problem for Hitler would be to land there and hold beaches. If the first phase would be successfull then the rest is just a matter of time (short).

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Given the situation as it existed in summer 1940 I believe Germany could not hope to successfully invade the UK. We have to assume the UK came to terms with Germany in late '40 - early '41 - as Alan Clark among others claimed was actually quite likely, the British government correctly realising that proceeding with the war would emasculate the British economy and in effect make the country over to the USA.

In such a situation, Germany would have withdrawn from most of western Europe, probably retaining basing rights as well as the areas lost after WW1. De Gaulle would be a footnote in history. I don't believe Hitler would have gone to the wall over Germany's old African colonies. Perhaps the British could be made to agree to neutralisation of Egypt and Palestine and the making over of Gibraltar to Spain and Malta / Cyprus to Italy - as even Churchill considered doing. Then the Germans would have their free hand in the East and a tier of cowed 'partners' in western Europe. Everything would then hang on the outcome of the war with Russia.

I don't believe the USA would have entered the war against Germany in these circumstances.

 

[Alex_brunius]

SU attack on Germany during Sealion? nope
The Winter War and German advances in France would prevent that for some time so no SU attack during the operation. I assume that it would take place in summer/autumn 1940.

Then you are talking about an invasion shipping german horses on river barges. An invasion without a single German Panzer and with no chance of success.

For any Axis Invasion of UK to be sucessful they need either 2 years of preparation and building Landing ships (historical up to 1940) or A Industrial focus from 1936 that makes Poland and France much harder to win.

 

[unmerged(138740)]

Then you are talking about an invasion shipping german horses on river barges. An invasion without a single German Panzer and with no chance of sucess.

For any Axis Invasion of UK to be sucessful they need either 2 years of preparation and building Landing ships (historical up to 1940) or A Industrial focus from 1936 that makes Poland and France much harder to win.

Oh the UK panzer divisions - I forgot!
Seriously - Norway? Wehrmacht wouldnt have to send a lot of vehicles at a time. 1-2 Para by air and 2 by sea was possible even for them (see Weserubung) hard but plausible and possible. And thats within 1 day. Its a short distance. How much do you think its beccessary to beat unprepared unequiped unexperienced UK mega-army of that time? 20-25 Divisions through 2-3 months?

EDIT:
Tante Ju already showed its possibility to transfer Mountain troops to Crete

 

[Ayreon]

I agree with Earl Uhtred. A Nazi victory in the battle of Britain would probably have meant a peace treaty and no invasion.

Before Hitler turned mad the war goals were autarky through the annexion of farmland in eastern europe and to prevent the SU from posing any risk to Germany. The Nazis didn't want to conquer and control the whole world.

All this "If X happened/didn't happen, we would speak German today! How would you like that???" is just propaganda BS.

 

[String]

Aren't there several giant threads in the history section about this? I've seen threads numbering in hundreds of pages in other forums about this topic...

 

[Alex_brunius]

Tante Ju already showed its possibility to transfer Mountain troops to Crete

Yes I agree, to transport and supply 2 or more divisions by air however they still need to wait until 1943 when they have been able to research and build hundreds (if not thousands) of Me323s.

Me323s would enable Germans to bring some support like medium artillery and AT or Motorised with them. Unthinkable without it.


Or are you trying to say that Germany would defeat UK with 3 understrenght divisions? (Yes they will be understrength after a channelcrossing on barges). The expeditionary force of UK was 15+ divisions. And it wouldn't be hard for them to mount similar numbers at home (even after a failed Dunkirque).

 

[33Vortex]

Had Germany succeeded with Seelöwe, they would have had a good chance of winning the war. Not just because of the geographical conquest of the British home isles, but because they would have had a chance of seizing the british banks.

At the end of the day, it's not the guns who get the last laugh it's the banks. He who has, or can seize, control of the banks will win. If you want to see the real instigators of WW2, look to the banks and their owners.

 

[unmerged(146208)]

Like it was wisely suggested, Hitler's only real choice IRL was to leave Britain alone. Any kind of attempt to take the fight further into an attempt to conquer or subjugate Britiain is involved with loss of too much time and resources and would have drawn the inevitable Soviet invasion. Hitler could have hoped for a separate peace with GB, but anything above that seems to be completely fictional.

 

[ADragonsFang]

Tell me if i am wrong but isnt the phrase "Battle of Britain" just given to the fight the RAF had everyday till Hitler said stop?? IF so and Germany won the BofB then they still have to invade and well they dnt have a navy!! Well might as well not if you compared it to the british and american navies. Dominating the skies isnt everything and well even if the british couldn't control the skies we still have flak to protect our industries and docklands.
If your question is "What if Britain fell to Nazi occupation" then well it would be alot harder but not impossible for any D-Day invasions. This what if is subject to when. i mean if USA got involved before britain fell then germany is still screwed. The manhatten project was started in responce to germany even though the bombs were dropped on Japan, so USA would have a surrender or get nuked policy with germany as the allies only believe in unconditional surrender. So presuming nothing can make USA surrender they were then and still are today the most powerful nation on the planet and had no problems of sustaining its self as well as the trading valuable war materials to its allies. Manpower was no hinderense to america either they had enough troops for both DDay and the planned invasion of mainland japan which was predicted to be the deadliest invasion of the war. So its safe to say germany would still loose, the USSR was in no losing position because of extended german supplies lines german offensives continued to fail all across the eastern front and with the soviets housing the biggest army in the world what could germany do?? They failed because they were too successful too quickly, there huge size was the weakness because they couldnt defend it and still attack russia with the force needed.

i probably made a few bad assumtions but i think generally what i said was correct, please tell me otherwise.

EDIT: in the time it took me to write this 9 more ppl replied

 

[binTravkin]

Kuciwalker, you got it horribly wrong there. Plausibility of successful
Sealion is approx. in the same league as successful Invasion of France.
That it did not happen historically doesn't mean statistical plausibility is somehow grossly against it.

 

[Herr Oberst]

One thing is almost certain: without adequate air support, the British Navy wouldn't have been able to succesfully prevent any German landings - a lesson they learned later from the Japanese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse

 

[Eugéne Lorraine]

The Germans didn't HAVE any boats.

Thats not correct.

In Germany were before the war many river boats and of course a large trading fleet. Many of these boats were repared to be landing crafts. Without an Atlantic Wall and with the experience of paradrops Germany had any chance to make a successful landing if... well, the Luftwaffe had to secure the reign of the sky, but bombing cities was not in this kind successful like bombing airfields in the fight against the RAF.

After a fall of Britain, also the Soviet Union would be an easy match.

 

[unmerged(146832)]

You can crush the SU just by using a different occupation policy, Once you liberated Ukraine and others it's over for them.

 

[Federkiel]

What army would have fought the invading Germans in the UK? The mighty army of peasants and beaten former soldiers without equipment? The home "guard" and the disillusioned survivors from the mess in France were a mere shadow of a phantom army. They would have been no match for a well organised and air-supported invader - as they had been no match when they actually had equipment...

Ships could not survive for long under an enemy air umbrella being spanned by modern planes. This is especially true for the terribly outdated collection of British antiqueties and monstrous steel coffins they called the home fleet (look at their dates of construction and their performance when being confronted by more modern weapons at sea and from air...). Air power was what mattered most. BoB was indeed a turning point.

However, actually invading UK wasn't necessary to beat them. Even while having air superiority the British suffered terribly from the Battle of the Atlantic and almost suffocated at times. If being constantly bombed at the same time they would have soon been strangled to death. No British premier minister would have allowed this to happen and prefer a surrender on acceptable terms instead. There was an empire to keep together, which they actually lost when continuing to wage ww2. The era of British world domination was over and the empire was already about to fade away.

Given the situation as it existed in summer 1940 I believe Germany could not hope to successfully invade the UK. We have to assume the UK came to terms with Germany in late '40 - early '41 - as Alan Clark among others claimed was actually quite likely, the British government correctly realising that proceeding with the war would emasculate the British economy and in effect make the country over to the USA.

In such a situation, Germany would have withdrawn from most of western Europe, probably retaining basing rights as well as the areas lost after WW1. De Gaulle would be a footnote in history. I don't believe Hitler would have gone to the wall over Germany's old African colonies. Perhaps the British could be made to agree to neutralisation of Egypt and Palestine and the making over of Gibraltar to Spain and Malta / Cyprus to Italy - as even Churchill considered doing. Then the Germans would have their free hand in the East and a tier of cowed 'partners' in western Europe. Everything would then hang on the outcome of the war with Russia.

I don't believe the USA would have entered the war against Germany in these circumstances.

Very well put, touché!

I absolutely agree. That's what i also believe to be the most probable outcome of the "what if" mentioned by the OP.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Thats not correct.

In Germany were before the war many river boats and of course a large trading fleet. Many of these boats were repared to be landing crafts. Without an Atlantic Wall and with the experience of paradrops Germany had any chance to make a successful landing if...

You must be confused. The allies spent 2 years of buildup and MILLIONS of workers to build shipping to be able to bring 5 divisions across in the initial assault and back it up with enough supplies and reinforcements to capture France after months of hard fighting even if they had total air superiority.

Germany didn't have even 2% of this shipping available for Seelöwe. They would be very lucky to be able to bring over even 3 divisions totally at 1940.

Ships could not survive for long under an enemy air umbrella being spanned by modern planes. This is especially true for the terribly outdated collection of British antiqueties and monstrous steel coffins they called the home fleet (look at their dates of construction and their performance when being confronted by more modern weapons at sea and from air...). Air power was what mattered most.

You need to look at Dunkirk again. The German airpower was able to do what against slow clumsy transport ships you said?

UK could and would put hundreds of warships in the Channel, It would take the Luftwaffe months to destroy them in 1940 at best. Months that 3 understrength, outnumbered and out gunned divisions on the wrong side of the channel don't have.

 

[Gabriel Anthony]

If by winning you men German occupation of Great Britain, I concur that the result would have been a Soviet dominated Europe.

In any event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

 

[unmerged(144012)]

Tell me if i am wrong but isnt the phrase "Battle of Britain" just given to the fight the RAF had everyday till Hitler said stop??

...

i probably made a few bad assumtions but i think generally what i said was correct, please tell me otherwise.

EDIT: in the time it took me to write this 9 more ppl replied

I believe you were correct about most you said. Although I'd like to point out, that IF the germans were able to conquer Britain's main isles

(IMO highly unlikely, even though with proper preparations it would've been possible)

then the Manhattan project would've done no difference when talking about winning Germany, as the U.S would only have been able to reach France or Britain - the Reich was just too far away - and I can't see the germans surrendering due to nukeing Paris.

Which brings me to the question: should a country take national unity hit when nuked on occupied territory? For example if the U.S nuke japanese controlled areas in China, who gets the NU-hit? And further, if you nuke some pesky Pacific island such as Iwo Jima which have basically nothing more but an airport, should that give any penalties what so ever?

 

[koontz]

Well not sure what you mean by ´battle of britain´

Even if Germany would manage to grind the RAF (how now that would have happen)

I dont think Germany would be able to make an landing in the UK cause the lack of ships and the RN would have sacrifice more or less all of the RN.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

If by winning you men German occupation of Great Britain, I concur that the result would have been a Soviet dominated Europe.

In any event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

I don't think the States would have started lobbing nukes at a German-dominated Europe that showed no inclination to continue the war just for the feck of it.