Why Operation Sealion would always have failed

[reiver33]

As I’m sure I’ve said before, the fundamental flaw in German grand strategy is that they didn’t have one. The naval construction ‘Z Plan’ was predicated on assurances from Hitler that there would be no European war until late 1944, preferably ‘45, and then only against the French, to recover Alsace-Lorraine. Until then all territory lost under Versailles would be reclaimed by diplomacy (and the threat of military action). The outbreak of war in ‘39 left most of the German hierarchy dumbfounded. From that point on, each German campaign was pretty much just cobbled together, frequently ignoring logistical constraints due to political imperatives - and don’t get me started on Norway!

 

[Toby Frost]

It's almost as if having a raving lunatic in charge of everything results in bad decisions being made!

 

[paranoid marvin]

I remember someone saying Churchill did exactly on hearing the news of America entering the war.
There was a lot of rhetoric and propaganda for the general public [and Hitler was an uncertified loon] but I can't see that he had any significant intention of starting a world wide war. He wanted land [and prestige] in Europe.
The land he was willing to take from countries that couldn't or wouldn't stand up to Germany and had few allies [Czechoslovakia and Austria to start and then Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania].
Poland was supposed to be the same.
France was going to get it because of the Treaty of Versailles.
And he thought every one hated the Soviets.
The prestige would come from ruling from the Atlantic to the Urals.
No doubt with a lot of wishful thinking I think he was certain that after he had annexed France, Britain would quietly sue for peace if it could keep its external empire.
He had been given advice that the British Aristocracy would not support a war with Germany and would [peacefully] overthrow the elected government if the treaty with Poland was enforced. [And possible re-install Edward VIII as king]
He was also pretty sure that Spain would come in to the "limited" war on Germany's side, seize Gibraltar and effective close the Mediterranean Sea and the Suez Canal to the Royal Navy. That would probably have meant the fall of Malta and successful North African campaign for the Axis.
Now any raw material or personnel to or from the East would have to go via the Cape.
It isn't hard to imagine that Germany [and its allies] could have controlled the Med from Greece right the way around to Palestine and Syria. This could have given Turkey real cause to reconsider their fairly strict neutrality. If it does the Axis powers have railways from the oilfields of the middle east in to the centre of Europe.
And maybe a way to attack the Soviets from the south as well as the east much closer to all those lovely oil fields in the Caucuses.
None of this happened so we will never know [unless someone is hiding a dimensional jumping time machine from us]

If Hitler had gotten access to oilfields, and therefore (perhaps just as importantly) denied access to them by the Allies, the war would have been much more difficult. It's a frightening thing to think of just what Rommel may have achieved in Africa given full tanks of fuel in his vehicles.

 

[CupofJoe]

If Hitler had gotten access to oilfields, and therefore (perhaps just as importantly) denied access to them by the Allies, the war would have been much more difficult. It's a frightening thing to think of just what Rommel may have achieved in Africa given full tanks of fuel in his vehicles.

And there was the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran. Supposedly to open a route for American armaments to get to Russia but just happened to put Iran's oil fields in British hands for the duration.

 

[Foxbat]

And talking of possibilities -what if Churchill had declared war on Russia when the soviets invaded Finland in 1939. He did consider sending 30 000 volunteers via Sweden but it was too impractical.

Imagine if the UK was at war with Russia, Japan and Germany but Germany was also at war with Russia and did not declare war on the USA, who were only at war with Japan. What would have happened then?

Mannerheim, Churchill, and the Quandary of Finland in Two World Wars

Fate made Mannerheim and Churchill, natural allies, into enemies. Was there ever such a polite declaration of war between two countries?

winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu

Hurts my head to think about the consequences.

 

[mosaix]

And talking of possibilities -what if Churchill had declared war on Russia when the soviets invaded Finland in 1939. He did consider sending 30 000 volunteers via Sweden but it was too impractical.

Imagine if the UK was at war with Russia, Japan and Germany but Germany was also at war with Russia and did not declare war on the USA, who were only at war with Japan. What would have happened then?

Mannerheim, Churchill, and the Quandary of Finland in Two World Wars

Fate made Mannerheim and Churchill, natural allies, into enemies. Was there ever such a polite declaration of war between two countries?

winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu

Hurts my head to think about the consequences.

Imagine: I have heard (maybe apocryphal) that in the early days of the USA there was a vote to decide whether English or German was to be the official language. English won by a single vote.

 

[Wayne Mack]

Imagine: I have heard (maybe apocryphal) that in the early days of the USA there was a vote to decide whether English or German was to be the official language. English won by a single vote.

Muhlenberg legend - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[paranoid marvin]

And talking of possibilities -what if Churchill had declared war on Russia when the soviets invaded Finland in 1939. He did consider sending 30 000 volunteers via Sweden but it was too impractical.

Imagine if the UK was at war with Russia, Japan and Germany but Germany was also at war with Russia and did not declare war on the USA, who were only at war with Japan. What would have happened then?

Mannerheim, Churchill, and the Quandary of Finland in Two World Wars

Fate made Mannerheim and Churchill, natural allies, into enemies. Was there ever such a polite declaration of war between two countries?

winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu

Hurts my head to think about the consequences.

It's also intriguing why Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland, but not the USSR for doing the same thing.

Perhaps from a practical standpoint that they saw a conflict as unwinnable, and the pact between Hitler and Stalin as tenuous. If Britain had declared way, it would only have solidified the links between the USSR and Germany.

 

[BAYLOR]

It's also intriguing why Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland, but not the USSR for doing the same thing.

Perhaps from a practical standpoint that they saw a conflict as unwinnable, and the pact between Hitler and Stalin as tenuous. If Britain had declared way, it would only have solidified the links between the USSR and Germany.

That would have been a bad development for allies for a number of reasons. Germany with the the oil and resources it needs , no second front to worry about . After defeating France , He'd be able throw everything he has at Britain,. In that scenario, it's possible that The Battle of Britain goes even longer and if so, the RAF would be overwhelmed and be defeated. And then the Luftwaffe goes after the Royal Navy , ships, ports.

Stalin with not having to worry about Hitler would be able turn his attention to the Japanese. If that were to happen Japan might not be able to launch an attack on Pearl Harbor or the Philippines. So, the US wouldn't be able to enter the War to help Britain .

 

[Swank]

It's also intriguing why Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland, but not the USSR for doing the same thing.

Perhaps from a practical standpoint that they saw a conflict as unwinnable, and the pact between Hitler and Stalin as tenuous. If Britain had declared way, it would only have solidified the links between the USSR and Germany.

That's not really what happened. The Allies invaded and took over a number of Axis territories - Korea, Austria, Czech, etc. What the USSR was doing in Poland wasn't distinct from what we were doing in other countries.

 

[CupofJoe]

It's also intriguing why Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland, but not the USSR for doing the same thing.

Perhaps from a practical standpoint that they saw a conflict as unwinnable, and the pact between Hitler and Stalin as tenuous. If Britain had declared way, it would only have solidified the links between the USSR and Germany.

As I understand it. The political rational with the USSR in 1939, was that they were not invading Poland to gain territory but occupying Poland to deny half of it to German. And they did it somewhat later.
Fig Leaves all round to cover up the real politics for why things happened like they did.

That's not really what happened. The Allies invaded and took over a number of Axis territories - Korea, Austria, Czech, etc. What the USSR was doing in Poland wasn't distinct from what we were doing in other countries.

Poland aside, didn't they all happen far later in the war? And I'm not sure Korea was invaded by anybody other than Japan during or before.
It was occupied by America and the Soviet Union after the war.
So was Germany and much of Europe.

 

[Swank]

Poland aside, didn't they all happen far later in the war? And I'm not sure Korea was invaded by anybody other than Japan during or before.
It was occupied by America and the Soviet Union after the war.
So was Germany and much of Europe.

Correct. But aren't we talking about the legality of what happened after the war anyway, when there was no longer strategic value to holding territory? But we certainly invaded Germany during the war and stayed after.

 

[Vladd67]

When did we switch from an occupying power to part of a defensive alliance?

 

[Foxbat]

The Dunkirk Treaty of 1947 (which ultimately led to the creation of NATO) would be my guess. The treaty was signed by Britain and France specifically as an instrument with which to contain the expansion of the Soviets.

History of NATO - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[paranoid marvin]

As I understand it. The political rational with the USSR in 1939, was that they were not invading Poland to gain territory but occupying Poland to deny half of it to German. And they did it somewhat later.
Fig Leaves all round to cover up the real politics for why things happened like they did.

Poland aside, didn't they all happen far later in the war? And I'm not sure Korea was invaded by anybody other than Japan during or before.
It was occupied by America and the Soviet Union after the war.
So was Germany and much of Europe.

After agreeing upon the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact 23/8/1939, Germany declared war and entered Western Poland on 1/9/39. Britain declared war on Germany 2 days later. The Soviet Union then entered Poland from the East 17/9/39.

It's a plausible suggestion that Stalin did this to prevent any further German incursions towards Soviet held territory, and it would be interesting to know what Britain's thoughts were on this move. For sure it would have been a suicidal decision for Britain to declare war on the Soviet Union, and trying to keep them onside whilst the extremely tenuous agreement between Stalin and Hitler dissolved was the wisest course of action.

As for after the war, a lot of territory was shared out (some fairly, some not) amongst the victorious nations for various reasons, not least of which was to ensure that Germany wouldn't attempt to start a new conflict any time soon. One of the major benefits was the gradual dismantling of the British Empire. Britain owed a great debt of gratitude to those nations within the Empire, whose sacrifices were vital to the winning of WWII.

 

[BAYLOR]

The Dunkirk Treaty of 1947 (which ultimately led to the creation of NATO) would be my guess. The treaty was signed by Britain and France specifically as an instrument with which to contain the expansion of the Soviets.

History of NATO - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If the US had not develop the A Bomb, it's inconceivable that Stalin might have decided to push the allies out of Germany and maybe even more.

 

[paranoid marvin]

If the US had not develop the A Bomb, it's inconceivable that Stalin might have decided to push the allies out of Germany and maybe even more.

I think with France liberated and massive (and growing) numbers of Allied troops in Western Europe, such an aim would have been rejected, regardless of the atom bomb.

However if D Day had been unsuccessful, and the Soviet Union had pushed on through Berlin and into German occupied Western Europe (France Belgium, Holland etc) would Stalin have withdrawn his troops after the Germans surrendered?

 

[reiver33]

If D-Day fails, and Avalanche (the invasion of southern France) is cancelled, the Germans would strip the western front of every man that could be spared, cutting down the occupation forces to a minimum. This would slow the Soviet advance, prolonging the war by several months, but a German surrender would take place after Hitler dies in Berlin, regardless. At that point the western occupation troops surrender to whoever will accept it, allowing Allied forces to arrive, bringing with them those governments in exile as required (sorry, Poland). If the Soviets don’t abide by the Yalta accords, as regards areas of occupation, they get the whole of Germany, and probably Austria, and that’s where the iron curtain comes down.

 

[paranoid marvin]

If D-Day fails, and Avalanche (the invasion of southern France) is cancelled, the Germans would strip the western front of every man that could be spared, cutting down the occupation forces to a minimum. This would slow the Soviet advance, prolonging the war by several months, but a German surrender would take place after Hitler dies in Berlin, regardless. At that point the western occupation troops surrender to whoever will accept it, allowing Allied forces to arrive, bringing with them those governments in exile as required (sorry, Poland). If the Soviets don’t abide by the Yalta accords, as regards areas of occupation, they get the whole of Germany, and probably Austria, and that’s where the iron curtain comes down.

This is a plausible alternative. It is also entirely possible that with France, Belgium and Holland still in German control that most command posts (including Hitler's) would move further West, possibly to Paris. And that all of the occupied countries would be used to produce armaments. It was one thing to firebomb/flatten German towns and cities full of largely German people, quite another to flatten Paris, Amsterdam and Bruges, especially as the outcome of the war by June 1944 was 'when' not 'if' Hitler was defeated.

 

[Foxbat]

And just to get things back on topic, here’s an article on the Sandhurst Military Academy in 1974 when they wargamed Operation Sealion.

Operation Sea Lion (wargame) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A quick roundup of the results were that the 90 000 German first wave was quite successful but 65% of follow up forces (or second echelon as they are referred to) and supply was lost to the guns of the Royal Navy, whilst the RAF maintained control of the skies. Explanations on why the RN did not fully deal with the first wave are within the article and basically amount to time taken to assemble a large destroyer force and a reluctance to commit capital ships in the invasion areas where they could be vulnerable to air attack or U Boats. An Iceland invasion was carried out by Germany as a diversion but resulted in no repositioning of British troops.

Moving inland, the German forces captured Folkstone and Newhaven but were halted on the way to Hastings and Newhaven fell to British counter attack. German airborne were pinned by long range artillery and after high casualties, the invasion was deemed a failure. Casualties were estimated as 26000 KIA, 33000 prisoners, 15000 drowned and 15400 returned to France.

No surprises then.