Operation Sealion (What If Successful)

[Sharwood]

As several people, disenfrancised best of all, have already explained, Sealion was impossible. It simply could not be done. Germany couldn't land the troops she wanted, and even if by some miracle she did, they weren't getting far. There have actually been war games since which have confirmed this. But that's not what the OP was asking.

If the sky fell, Elvis crashed a UFO into the Loch Ness Monster while hell froze over in the background, and London actually fell, Britain still would have fought on. Any German force entering London would be up to its neck in blood, and unlike many Frenchman, there were quite a few Brits who had been trained to defend against an invasion. The fall of London would not result in the fall of Britain.

As for the Empire, while there are quite a few groups that may have used the fall of the UK to sieze their opportunities for independence, the fact remains that a large portion of the British Empire was loyal, particularly the aforementioned Australia and Canada. Whil the fall of Britain would have been a shattereing blow, as long as the Royal Navy controlled the seas and the Empire stayed relatively intact - and remember, even at the height of the war the British still had a sizeable number of troops stationed around the Empire - Britain could be re-taken, even without a two-front war or American help, although it would be a long, hard battle. I've actually made a similar argument about France in a recent thread.

Yes, the Soviets could hold their own. They'd be hard-pressed for a while, and would probably have lost more territory to begin with, but Russia was likely to beat Germany just by sheer force of numbers provided she didn't make a myriad of completely idiotic strategic errors.

Yep, America would likely have invaded Britain before France. In fact, invading France was a stupid idea anyway, and Churchill tried to talk roosevelt out of it. Italy and the Balkans were the regions to attack. The US is definitely the wildcard in all of this, and as several people have said, any inkling of a successful German invasion of the UK was likkely to bring them into the war anyway.

 

[r_rolo1]

i think that if germany would had made it ,things would have been pretty diferent.... everyone knows that Stalin ambitioned to make a full scale war vs the "capitalists" in Europe ( read : conquer most of eastern europe and maybe a little of Germany ). Even if Germany could had made a good front in UK, a good deal of troops would have to be there and not facing the russians..... I think that stalin would had attacked. Now if he would be sucessful and the implications of that move are out of my scope....

 

[Disenfrancised]

I dont think so. the Germans had already attacked plenty of neutral countries, without the Americans doing anything at all. why would we be the exception? and what could they do in any practical terms?

The difference? Americans have heard of Ireland plus the invasion of neutral countries occurred when there was Britain and France to fight back, invading another neutral country after Britain and France falls just shows the Nazi's are after world domination and won't stop on their own. And the Americans could gear up their industrial machine and produce a hell of a fleet (adding in the left overs of the RN) - and unlike France the British Isles could be isolated using Air and sea power alone, after which is just a matter of time to liberate.

unlike many Frenchman, there were quite a few Brits who had been trained to defend against an invasion

Heh, the French had been prepared to fight, they were outflanked, lacked coordination and political will to carry on. In Britain were the battle field is essentially linear N-S its impossible to outflank the defender, there were prepared fall back command centres in the north, and there was political will to at least try to fight the invasion.

 

[Sharwood]

I was referring to regular citizens. Many Britons were trained specifically for partisan activities after the Battle of France, whereas the French never expected to need such precautions.

 

[RedRalph]

The difference? Americans have heard of Ireland plus the invasion of neutral countries occurred when there was Britain and France to fight back, invading another neutral country after Britain and France falls just shows the Nazi's are after world domination and won't stop on their own. And the Americans could gear up their industrial machine and produce a hell of a fleet (adding in the left overs of the RN) - and unlike France the British Isles could be isolated using Air and sea power alone, after which is just a matter of time to liberate.

I really dont think this is a likely scenario. the Fall of France didnt make the US join in. The fall of the Low countries didnt. the Fall of Norway & Denmark didnt. the invasion of almost all of Eastern Europe didnt. whe it seemed the UK was about to fall (take away hindsight: It lookede very likely that the UK would fall at one stage, people like Lord Halifax were making plans for what to do in the event), the Us still didnt get involved. there is just no way, no how that Ireland would have been the tipping point. Not a chance. you say they could have build up a bigger fleet and used it, well, no they couldnt, they needed that for the fight with Japan. If it had come down to coming to terms with a German dominated europe or else losing total control of the Pacific, the yanks would have fought Japan and come to an uneasy peace with Nazi Europe. they would have had no choice.

 

[Sharwood]

Perhaps for a time, but America would have eventually turned towards Europe. You're right about Ireland not being the tipping point though. If a successful invasion of Britain didn't result in US entry into the war, I don't see the fall of Ireland doing so.

Remember, the closest the US came to entering the war was after June 10, 1940, when Mussolini invaded France. The general public and the government were outraged at this opportunistic betrayal, but they still didn't enter the war, despite Reynaud's and Churchill's best efforts to convince them to do so. It's very difficult to see them coming to Ireland's rescue, and not France's.

 

[RedRalph]

Perhaps for a time, but America would have eventually turned towards Europe. You're right about Ireland not being the tipping point though. If a successful invasion of Britain didn't result in US entry into the war, I don't see the fall of Ireland doing so.

I really think the US would just have come to terms with the Nazis if the brits were out of the game. I think after a war against Japan there would be little appetite in the Us for a new, far more difficult war against all Europe. If the USSR hadnt been defeated then the US would probably be quite happy to leave the Nazis there to act as bulwark. well, not happy, but pragamtism would come ahead of idealism. Reamember, a Nazi Germany that had not had (presumeably) several years to consolidate their gains, recruit from Europe (which they did IRL) etc would have been far stronger than the one thats evnetually lost IRL. also bear in mind if england had fallen Japan would likely have taken India into its sphere of influence; in this case the German could have very easily taken most of the middle east.

all things considered, I think the US would have just come to terms with the Germans. Not for ever, but for a long time.

 

[Disenfrancised]

*Shrug* perhaps you're right re:Ireland, though such an invasion would very much increase the chances of a nice public destruction of American civilian ships.

Not a chance. you say they could have build up a bigger fleet and used it, well, no they couldnt, they needed that for the fight with Japan.

They had the ships needed to beat Japan on order from 1939, really America could have beaten Japan (with the exception of invading the home islands) with one hand behind their back - they just bigged up the struggle during and afterwards to make it seem more palatable and glorious. And after all only 1/3rd of the US's wartime production went to the Pacific war. Plus the Japanese take all of India? they had trouble enough holding and suppling the half of China they controlled.

Besides which an attack on Britain wouldn't have been easy or fast, and every month the Red Army grows stronger.

Finally Nazi Europe had a calorie deficient running to 5 million people a year, without war on the soviet breadbasket or the money or friends to buy grain a long term 'Fortress Europe' might not be a particularly economically viable position, but thats getting a bit off topic.

 

[RedRalph]

*Finally Nazi Europe had a calorie deficient running to 5 million people a year, without war on the soviet breadbasket or the money or friends to buy grain a long term 'Fortress Europe' might not be a particularly economically viable position, but thats getting a bit off topic.

this is grim, simplistic, but unfortunately true: If the Nazis had control of all europe for many more years than they did there would be plenty of food to go around, because all of Poland, most of Western Russia etc would have been left to starve to death. e nough people would have been kept alive to serve a purpose, but anytuing considered "excess" (and I would imagine huge numbers would have fallen into this category) Would have been gassed or starved.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

1. In the Normandy landings, the allies had total air supremacy (roughly 12,000 planes vs 300). For Sealion, even attaining air parity was chancy.

2. The British had a freaking huge fleet. They could land many more troops than the Germans ever could, and could ferry across subsequent waves faster. For the Germans even to compete, they would have had to attack Spain, take out Gibraltar, and let the Italian fleet out to bolster their numbers. (That probably would have pushed off any invasion till '42)

Fixed. Sorry couldn't let that go.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

Fixed. Sorry couldn't let that go.

Um, what exactly did you fix? You really ought to look up naval production figures during world war 2.......... Because there's a reason at the end of the war America had a far more powerful fleet than the British Commonwealth...........

 

[MarkC1]

So were the Netherlands and many other countries...

you're not getting it......The allies would have to invade and occupy Ireland from around Iceland.... The nazis in England would only have to cross a small channel to support the Friendly Irish government.... There's no way it could've happened

 

[MarkC1]

Fixed. Sorry couldn't let that go.

Pretty sure he meant America..... by 1944 America had a larger navy than every other country on Earth combined..

 

[Disenfrancised]

you're not getting it......The allies would have to invade and occupy Ireland from around Iceland.... The nazis in England would only have to cross a small channel to support the Friendly Irish government.... There's no way it could've happened

Greater Industrial power of the allies >> more ships and planes >> control of the Irish sea >> Nazi's in Ireland cut off >> Allies mount invasion (and with control of the seas and a friendly population they can attack from every side of the island).

 

[MarkC1]

and a friendly population

wrong..

I really dont know why you brits keep thinking the Irish were friendly.. In fact they leaned toward the Axis powers throughout the war because they hated England so much.

Also, the Axis in 1940-41 were much stronger than the "Allies" which was just England at the time. It wasn't until the invasion of Russia and the german army's committment to the eastern front that it became possible to invade axis territory. But would the invasion have even happened if England lost the war ?

Its pure speculation

 

[Sharwood]

Actually, the majority of the Irish were definitely anti-Axis during the war, albeit not pro-British. With the exception of the IRA, that is.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

FYI, Canada in the '40s were at least as loyal to the Crown as the people in Britain, so my guess is that the British government and forces would make a run for Canada and run the Empire from there.

As stated before, the colonies that mattered were pretty much for the war and didn't mind British rule--in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand the vast majority of the population were very pro-British, even if did support independence. The same can be said for white South Africans (Jan Smuts was Cambridge-educated and had been the darling of the British Empire Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference when he pointed out that the League of Nations could help the Empire). Most members of the Indian National Congress (Gandhi and Nehru excepted--remember the [wiki]Quit India Movement[/wiki]?) figured that supporting the British would convince them to give independence postwar (which they did).

So long story short: the British Empire would be sort of business as usual. The US would likely get involved a year earlier to deal with the conquest. If Ireland refused to join in or allow itself to be used as a staging ground, the most likely course of the war would have been Middle Eastern: the British, with the Americans, would deploy their assets to Egypt, taking the North African route through Italy into Europe, possibly augmenting that with a Balkan route. Both would be difficult.

A Turkish route is possible but unlikely.

A French route is also imaginable, moving from Egypt through Libya to take Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. Tunisia would lead to Sardinia, Sardinia to Corsica, and Corsica to a landing on the Riviera. It would then be a straight push through France, followed by a reverse-Normandy (made easier than Sealion by American troops and materiel) to take Britain. All the while, USSR is responsible for keeping the Germans busy in the East.

 

[MilesGregarius]

I was referring to regular citizens. Many Britons were trained specifically for partisan activities after the Battle of France, whereas the French never expected to need such precautions.

Years back I read a booklet by a Soviet historian (for what Soviet historiography is worth) supposedly based on captured Nazi documents held in Soviet archives. According to said documents, the Germans expected the British and the Irish populations to be so stubbornly belligerent towards any occupation that the Germans drew up plans to depopulate the whole of the British Isles (Ireland included). However, as they saw Brits and Irishmen as good Aryans, they did not intend to exterminate them. Apparently the plan was to relocate the whole of the British and Irish populations as military colonists to former Soviet territories newly expugned of Slavic and Bolshevick untermensch and repopulate the British Isles with loyal German citizens. And you thought Sealion would have been a logistical nightmare...

 

[Sharwood]

Years back I read a booklet by a Soviet historian (for what Soviet historiography is worth) supposedly based on captured Nazi documents held in Soviet archives. According to said documents, the Germans expected the British and the Irish populations to be so stubbornly belligerent towards any occupation that the Germans drew up plans to depopulate the whole of the British Isles (Ireland included). However, as they saw Brits and Irishmen as good Aryans, they did not intend to exterminate them. Apparently the plan was to relocate the whole of the British and Irish populations as military colonists to former Soviet territories newly expugned of Slavic and Bolshevick untermensch and repopulate the British Isles with loyal German citizens. And you thought Sealion would have been a logistical nightmare...

Sounds like Soviet propaganda. so far as I know, the only depopulation of the British Isles was of a small amount of individuals, either those of direct military importance to Germany, as well as members of the intelligentsia show could provide problems later. These were listed in what became known as the Black Book.

As for the occupation of the Soviet Union's European territories - the only territories that really mattered to Hitler from an ideological POV - where to be occupied by Volga Germans and other ethic Germans, particularly the Germans living in Tyrol.

 

[Disenfrancised]

wrong..

I really dont know why you brits keep thinking the Irish were friendly.. In fact they leaned toward the Axis powers throughout the war because they hated England so much.

Also, the Axis in 1940-41 were much stronger than the "Allies" which was just England at the time. It wasn't until the invasion of Russia and the german army's committment to the eastern front that it became possible to invade axis territory. But would the invasion have even happened if England lost the war ?

Its pure speculation

And I don't really know why some americans believe that every Irishman and Englishman would, upon meeting, attack each other in an orgy of hateful bloodlust.

The radical IRA were pro-Axis, but the government 'said agreeable things' to both parties, but was certainly more friendly with the British, and their neutrality was moderately useful to the Allies (and certainly favoured them regarding downed pilots and the like). If Britain fell, ireland would be next (more an occupation than invasion probably), simply as the Nazis would want to secure all possible points of invasion.

And finally there were more Irish citizens serving in the British army 1939-45 than there were in the entire Irish army.