Hitler decides to finish Britain

Lets try again then,

If you wish to discuss the acutall BoB and whether or not the Germans could have won that battle based on the actual events and not this what if then you can either;

A. Start a new thread and I will very happy to start this discussion there.

or

B. A better option would be to post in the already existing BoB threads, but first read them.

This thread is a what if based on T.A's scenario not on the actual facts which is what you are trying to force, therefore it is irrelevant to this thread.

Is that English enough for you?

 

The point is if he's going to decide to finish Britain. When does he decide and how does he do it? My position is his decision makes little difference if it doesn't occur very early on. In 1940 and probably in 1939 he simply doesn't have and can't have a military suitable for that purpose.

 

Naturally with more the time, the Germans have the ability to be more prepared for the invasion of the British Isle. But since this scenario points leans more to an attack in North Africa, you could argue that the British would therefore send more supplies which means less men and materials in Britian especially the main luftwaffe adversary, the RAF. Less RAF aircraft means less opponents and the higher possibilty to defeat the RAF in the air over Britain. Plus since there is nor war against the Soviets, it means only a one front war, (once North Africa is won). I believe that Rommel could have won the North African campaign with more materials, which would eliminate any British troops there, from the war.

If Hitler goes with this course of action, although it gives the British more time to build their own "atlantic war" the Germans while engaged in Africa would spend more the recourses on transports and Aircraft, though I still don't see how they could hope to counter the RN, perhaps a hugh fleet of Uboats, would that be possible?

So the attack would at least have to be after the North African campaign, that gives the luftwaffe time to build up sufficent numbers for the attack, as well time for Doentiz to attempt a hammer of the convoys inward to Britain and build transports.

 

I don't see the "conquest" of Britain as even a remote possibility for Germany at any time during the war. There would be only one way to assure such an outcome and that is an invasion of Britain from the Continent. Germany never, even at the height of it's military power, had any hope of pulling off such a feat. Even with air superiority, Germany was incapable of landing significant numbers of troops on the island of Britain. It would have required huge numbers of purpose-built landing craft (not river barges) which were simply outside the capacity of German shipyards to build. Moreover, the German Navy, even combined with the Italian navy, was so inferior to the Royal Navy as to make an all out confrontation between the two a guranteed win for the RN. For example, in the winter of 1940-41, the KM had not a single destroyer in commission and only a handful were even operational. The RN had almost 40 destroyers in the Channel alone. Germany had no merchant marine to speak of and adequate logistical support for any kind of viable invasion force was out of the question. Nor could German shipyard capacity build the naval vessels required to challenge the RN and enable an invasion in any kind of reasonable time frame. From the standpoint of transporting, supplying, and protecting the requisite invasion troops, Germany simply did not have, and could not build, sufficient naval vessels to make an invasion a reasonable possibility.


A negotiated peace would be more likely, but still improbable. I do not believe the "Blitz" would have been likely to put enough pressure on Britain to force serious consideration of negotiations, but combined with an increased effort to blockade Britain, there is an outside possibility that Britain might have been persuaded to open talks. The problem that Germany faced was that the US was, from mid-1940 onwards, committed to preventing the defeat of Britain at all costs. This meant that the considerable ship building capacity of the US would be available to maintain Britain's supply lines and the USN would be committed to keeping the western Atlantic clear of both German raiders and U-boats. This would allow the RN to concentrate it's forces nearer Britain and on the convoy routes from the Commonwealth countries. Losing North Africa and the Med would not be fatal to Britain, so long as it could protect the convoys from Canada, India, and the Middle East.

The only real weapon the Germans had with which to seriously threaten Britain was the U-boats and there just weren't enough of them early in the war to get the job done. As for ramping up U-boat production, it might have been possible to marginally increase the numbers, but again the question of shipyard capacity comes up; it's just not enough without the later war mass production techniques which were developed. Furthermore, when large numbers of U-boats did become available, manning them became a serious problem for the KM and necessitated laying up most of the KM surface units to free up experienced seamen.

Bottom line, reducing Britain, either through conquest or through forcing negotiations, was a naval problem and Germany was simply far too weak as a naval power to have much hope of solving the problems posed by the combination of the RN and US support for an independent Britain.

 

Devilsadvocate

There is a period that Britain was vulnerable to invasion and that was 4 to 5 weeks after the rescue of the BEF.

During the Norwegian and French/Low Countries defeats the British alone lost.

45,000 PoW's/Kia/Mia or Wia
65,000 Vehicles (mostly trucks)
150+ Armoured Vehicles
200,000+ weapons of all calibres.
300 aircraft of all types
100+ RN vessels of all kinds.
1,000,000 tonnes of supplies/equipment.

These are only estimates

Britain was more vulnerable than poeple think at the time of the evacuation Britain had 14 established divisions on home soil of which 3 were fully equiped to meet any invader while the other 11 divisions were stripped to the bone of heavy weaponary.

The only saving grace for Britain was the best weapon the Allies ever had during WW2 and that was Fuhrer Adolf Hitler, he vacilated over what to do with Britain, until it became far to late to do anything.

First, Fuhrer Adolf Hitler should have made a concrete decision just after the evacuation to invade Britain, with no abiguity (sic).

Second, Fuhrer Adolf Hitler should have met with his services heads of the OKW, OKH, OKL and OKM and ordered that they must come up with a concise plan of action, with overall planning co-ordinated through the OKW.

Third, once a date had been established for the invasion, hit Britain with everything it had in one blitzkrieg style invasion, meaning while the Luftwaffe confronted the RAF in the air, the Army should have begun it's landings at Dover and come hell or high water send everything the Kriegsmarine had, even an incomplete Bismarck if needed.

Germany should have hit Britain with everything it had in one devestating punch, set in motion a blind panic amongst the civillian population with the ferocity of the attack, clog up the streets with massed refugees, impeding the movement of the army to get to the beachheads, overwhealm the RAF with thousands of aircraft in the air attacking only RAF assets, while the KM blitzes the Channel.

This may have worked, as the rot may set in, Britain ever since 1066 had not faced invasion, Britain considered itself impervious to invasion, now the population are confronted with the mighty Werhmacht on home soil, what psychological effect wold that had, remember the Germans have just defeated a mighty power in France, no doubt Britain would fight but at what cost to civillian life.

v.R

 

The problem is he just doesn't have the time or force to do it. The LW can't really start attacking Britain in strength before July and probably late July. The KM never has the strength to launch a success full invasion. Indeed they would be lucky to get the barges together, surveyed, and worked up to even attempt an invasion before the end of August. By then the window has closed.

What Germany might have been able to do to get a negotiated peace is sweeten the pot by with drawing from Belgium and Holland. That might have gotten the attention of enough of the British government. Or not.

 

I've given a plausable invasion scenario before for the Germans in 1940 but it requires exceptional presence of mind for them to execute it.

The short version is that once the British are trapped at Dunkirk the Germans begin to look at invading England as a follow-on to their now clearly successful French campaign. The plan they hit on is to pull three infantry divisions out of the lines (or from reserves). They then round up enough shipping, of any sort available, to throw three reinforced regiments across the Channel sometime in late June.
Their crossing plan is to go in daylight with the Luftwaffe flying heavy cover and using whatever escort naval vessels that are available. The shipping being used is primarly intended for a one-way trip. The objective is a Channel port and to establish a large enough bridgehead to support an airfield or two also.
If they can cross successfully with this force there is little in Britain at that point to counter the landings. With a port in hand they can force across small convoys under heavy air cover (or at night) and discharge in the relative safety of a port at the other end. With an airfield or two and some ground air drops / lifts are also possible.
While I doubt that the Germans could actually manage to take any appreciable portion of England after even this landing (or any other) they would be ashore and that might be enough of a barganing tool to get a peace settlement.

 

Britain may have been vulnerable to invasion immediately after the evacuation of the BEF from the Continent, however, Germany was in little better shape, and did not have the capability to launch a credible invasion force then or later. Even the "mighty Wehrmacht" couldn't swim across the English Channel; it takes naval transport to land armies on hostile shores, and Germany never had such transport capability. The river barges supposedly gathered to launch the invasion of Britain were a joke, and their use would have led to the greatest disaster the German Army had ever experienced even without interference from the RN. Moreover, the KM was so deficient in warships in the summer and Fall of 1940 that it couldn't launch even minor operations let alone a full scale invasion of Britain.

That doesn't even consider the necessity for the German Army to regroup, re-equip, and train for an opposed amphibious landing after the Fall of France. One has to make a distinction between a seaborne "invasion" and an "opposed amphibious assault over a beach". To judge from Norway and the proposed "plans" for Operation Sealion, the Germans were quite inept at the former, and totally clueless as to the latter. With absolutely no experience in large scale amphibious operations, no trained amphibious units, no purpose built amphibious naval vessels, no means to logistically support an amphibious operation, and facing a navy at least ten times more powerful than the KM, it would have been insanity for the Germans to attempt an amphibious invasion of Britain. The most charitable interpretation of Hitler's threat to invade England is that it was a bluff to get Britain to the negotiating table.

It's one thing to advocate coordinated plans, use of an incomplete Bismarck, and a "Blitzkrieg style invasion" (whatever that is), but quite another to assemble and train the necessary troops, build the required transports and warships, and actually get the invasion force to the beach. Germany simply was too deficient in naval power to make an invasion work.

 

Well here's a what if for the What if......In your scenario, What if the rescue at Dunkirk didn't happen.

Potential losses to German forces and recovery to attempt Sea Lion?

Style of invasion could take on Operation Weserübung tactics. Limited air superiority of small zone for FJ truppen to capture airfields to provide fighter cap and tac air support to FJ then shipped troops......Further attacks by uboat to Scapa Flow and Portsmouth area.....would need greater cooperation between Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe as well as Heers.

An interesting image of a recollection by a veteran of the Home Guard who stated that they would gut the German soldier on watch( once occupation had taken place) and leave his intestines hanging nicely on the outside of his uniform for his mates to see(demoralization) It was an insightful piece of video that was telling on how some of the Englishman would respond to occupation. I don't think a peace settlement would be in the cards.

Slon as far as the Russians getting stronger.....IMO I believe it was their series of disasterous defeats that made them stronger(learning from their mistakes), honed to be a better fighting machine through experience, with the manpower to suffer the loss, the ability to produce war material out of the range of destruction by the Germans and regroup for the inevitable defeat of the Wehrmacht. Add the fact that it was such a vast country that would pose a logistics nightmare to any Army.

 

On first reading, it sounds like a feasible plan. However, there is a serious flaw in it; it presupposes that the KM can protect the invasion convoy from the RN. In June, 1940, the KM had only a couple of battle cruisers, three heavy cruisers, and a handful of light cruisers and destroyers. The destroyers that Britain kept in the Channel to counter just such an invasion could easily overwhelm the entire KM by themselves. And the Luftwaffe would not be able to prevent the RN from annihilating the Germany Navy in a very short period of time. Even if that did not occur, capturing a port large enough to logistically support three divisions (or regiments) wouldn't result in a "relatively safe" supply point as the RAF could easily bomb the German supply ships as they were unloading (assuming, of course, the non-existent German Navy managed to convoy them through the RN blockade).

In my opinion, such a plan would result in a large POW camp on British soil, poorly, or not at all, supplied by the Germans. It would not force the British to the negotiating table, rather it would encourage their resolve and give them confidence that Britain was essentially safe from German invasion.

 

I've heard all kinds of stories and theories about German invasions of England. An interesting aspect of the War, certainly, but possible? I generally doubt it.

The RAF and the Royal Navy were too powerful in my opinion. England had ruled the waves since the 18th century and they sure as hell weren't gonna stop now. To invade England, Hitler would've had to defeat the Navy, the air-force, launch an attack against England and defeat the British Army, the home guard etc etc etc...

I don't think he could've done it. Besides, he already wasted all his resources blowing the hell out of London. I don't know about the rest of you, but I believed that blowing up London was not done for any military purpose, is that right?

Therefore, if not done for any military gain, it's a waste of time. Having wasted his time on London, Hitler would then have a fair bit of trouble knocking out all the anti-invasion measures put into place by the British since almost the very first day of the war. I speak, of course, of booby-traps and anti-tank obstructions, firepower, weapons, manpower etc etc, which were lining the south coast of England.

If...and to me this is a big 'if', Hitler had managed to invade England/force it to surrender, I think Australia and other commonwealth countries would have gone to war against Germany and bloody flown/sailed all the way there to give them a good piece of their minds.

To quote a few lines from a speech...

we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

- Winston Churchill. June 4th, 1940.

Also, I think that Roosevelt would have launched a war against Germany ASAP. Churchill and Roosevelt had a very close personal relationship, so I understand, quite apart from their professional relationship.

 

It is said to be a reprisal of an attack from the RAF bombing Berlin, which is a reprisal of an attack (supposed accidently) by the Lufwaffe on london.
Bombing london would have achieved nothing, just as terror bombing had failed before during the inavsion of France and the low countries.

What man power and weapons? Virtually everything heavy enough to stop the German army was lost at dunkirk.

They did. Every Commonwealth nation under the control of Britain was at war with Germany back in 1939. Aussie and Kiwi pilots fought in the BoB with the RAF, as well as Canadians and South Africans just to name a few. You must remember with Australia, that they feared the possible expansion of Japan into the pacific, and by saying that Australian and New Zealand didn't have enough Ships to protect there own countries pet alone move enough to Engalnd to stem the Germans.

[/QUOTE]

I do agree that the USA would not have just let the Germans walk into England, but I do not think they would declare war over it, perhaps send more war materials such as ships and planes, but a declaration of war, I don't know.

 

T.A Gardner

Here are the troops needed and targets

Troops assigned

I Fliegerkorps
7th Flieger Division
22nd Luftlande Division
251st Infantry Division
Gropf Deutschland Infantry Regiment

Targets of initial attack
1st Fallschirmjeager Regiment (RAF Fighter Airfield Hawkinge)
2nd Fallschirmjeager Regiment (RAF Fighter Airfield Lympne)
3rd Fallschirmjeager Regiment (Port of Dover)
Gropf Deutschland Infantry Regimet (Glider borne assault on the Langdon and Citidel Batteries)

Followed up by
22nd Luftlande Division deployed to begin preperations of supply airfields
251st Infantry Division 3 regiment begin to land at Dover, Folkestone and Hythe.

This is in conjunction of the Luftwaffe coming in low and hitting as many leading roads as possible to prevent the Army to deploy withing the German landing zones.

v.R

 

You do know Von Rundstedt that the Germans only have sufficent transport aircraft remaining after their low lands campaign to land about a regiment at a time and that the 7th FJR Division just suffered about 40% casualties in Holland. As for the 22nd Luftlande it is only just beginning conversion and training for that role.

 

In holland there were huge losses of JU-52s. Quite a few by AA fire. So the loss of this type of aircraft would also have to be factored into a Paratroop attack. And this was in just 5 days against a even smaller country. And this with the Germans having air superiority.


"During the 10 may 1940 attack by Germany, which lasted 5 days, 328 German aircraft were shot down, including 220 Ju-52 trimotor transporters, at a loss of 94 Dutch aircraft."

http://www.scramble.nl/nl.htm

 

What!!! They gave it to them, to not give it to them???? I know we all get in a hurry sometimes and that things make sense to those who write them but come on.

Okay, for the record Roosevelt would have been impeached had he declared unprovoked war on Germany. Heavens sake he almost lost the election because of the anti-war sentiment in the US. If the official reports had cited Presidential neglect as a cause of Pearl Harbor he would not have been re-elected. They didn't and the anti-war people let it go to preserve national unity... (side note: Imagine that, unity in the face of the enemy) The US was not going to declare war on Germany for attacking England. Nope.... okay maybe if all of the people in the US got real feisty.

Not a bad plan on paper and most of it deficiencies have already been pointed out. Had this been the plan from day one and the difficulties of Holland and France been for seen, thus providing more and/or better transport systems, this could have worked, bloody and hard but possible.

 

If you're talking about the 1940 election, Roosevelt won by a very comfortable margin, carrying 38 states to Willkie's 10, and taking 449 electoral votes to Willkie's 82. Roosevelt polled 54.7% of the popular vote to Willkie's 44.8%. The war in Europe and the possibility of US participation was an issue, but not the major one. In 1940, Roosevelt went against the political custom (established by George Washington) of serving only two terms as President, and that became the major issue. The 22nd. Amendment was passed in 1947 as a result. Willkie also attacked Roosevelt for his failure to end the Great Depression, and for failing to prepare the US for war, but these issues backfired somewhat as Willkie was a businessman and many American voters still blamed "big business" for the Depression, and Roosevelt could point to the huge military/naval spending bills passed by Congress in the summer of 1940 in response to the Fall of France. The attack on Pearl Harbor played almost no part in the next election in 1944 as there were no "anti-war" people in the US electorate by then.

As for the US declaring war on Germany prior to Pearl Harbor, it was a real possibility, though far from certain. By 1940, isolationism was waning in the US and Roosevelt's arguments for entry into the European war were beginning to affect the American public. The Fall of France in June, 1940 shocked Americans and convinced them that Germany could become a threat to US security if all of Europe fell under it's domination. It was in June of 1940 that the US Congress passed the "Two Ocean Navy Bill", a tacit admission that the US Navy might have to fight the German Navy in the Atlantic, while simultaneously countering the Japanese Navy in the Pacific. The survival of Britain, as the last country in Europe actively opposing the Nazi's, therefore became of crucial interest to the United States. Had there been an all out attack on Britain by Germany in late 1940 or early 1941, it's entirely possible Roosevelt might have persuaded the American public, and Congress, that a declaration of war was required.

 

Either you aren't reading close enough or you are not making the distinction.

Air Superiority is very different from air Supremacy. The former is a much more temporary and transitory situation.

 

That is why in the scenario I outlined Germany limits their U-boats to the Eastern Atlantic early on. It avoids a Ruben James-like incident. Roosevelt and the US have little arguing power if a ship is sunk in a clearly defined war zone. By Hitler tactly allowing Dönitz to push his U-boats into the mid- and then Western Atlantic he was antagonizing the US unnecessarily. In a scenario where the goal is disengagement rather than escallation (which is essentially what I am suggesting) this is a big mistake.

 

There's no doubt that U-Boat activity in the mid- and western Atlantic significantly contributed to Roosevelt's argument that the Nazi regime was a threat to US security, and restricting them to the eastern Atlantic would somewhat reduce the perception of this threat. Such a restriction would also have the effect of concentrating the U-boats in a smaller area thereby increasing the number available to attack convoys approaching Britain.

However, it would also allow the British to concentrate their ASW assets in a smaller area, making them more effective, and would decrease the time period in which convoys would be vulnerable to attack, making it more difficult for the U-Boats to ravage each convoy. It would also allow the British to provide air cover during a larger proportion of the time in which convoys were exposed to attack, further militating against effective submarine attacks on convoys. Under such restrictions, I'm not optimistic that U-Boats would be able to sink or damage enough ships to be a decisive factor in bringing the British to the point of negotiations.