Operation Sealion (What If Successful)

[RedRalph]

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.

absolutely wrong man. any German pilots, etc who crash landed in Ireland were interned for the duration of the war, while Brit ones were surreptitiously sent up to Belfast. the Germans bombed Ballybough in Dublin early in the war, claimed it was accidental but its always been suspected it was a warning to us not to throw our lot in with the brits. after that whatever small pro-German sentiment there was in the govt melted away. Doubtless the population at large hated the brits, but we would no more have been controlled form Berlin than we would have from London. Bear in mind after 800 years of being Brit vassalls, WW2 started only 17 years after we won independence. we wouldnt have given it up easily.

also, there were undoubtedly pro-German elements in the IRA at that time, but it was 110% purely an "enemy of my enemy" thing. they had no idelogical connection with the Nazis. Pure pragmatism (completely unacceptable in my opinion BTW)

 

[Agent Cooper]

The thought that the German Army could conquer the southern part of England (or the whole of it) without plenty of fully equipped panzerdivisions + intact supply lines is laughable. They would have beed decimated.

Even if the scenario that the Germans somehow managed to land enough panzerdivisions in England to control it and securing the English Channel was possible, imagine the nightmare to follow trying to control the English population. Even without a regular army, there must have been millions of English civilians with weapons willing to put up a fight. The Germans would have to station at least a half million troops there permanently, just to keep everything from falling apart. And where do you go from England of strategic importance to the Germans? Nowhere.

Add to that the millions of colonial troops the British Government had at their disposal. Imagine them assembling in Africa and chewing their way up against Europa via Italy, with the Germans busy invading Russia (and getting decimated in the proces).

 

[RedRalph]

Cooper, why do you think the english would have put up much more of a fight than the French, Dutch, Polish etc?

and dont kid yourself, if Britain proper had fallen, there is no way India, Egypt etc would have ruched to their defence, they would have taken the opportunity to declare independence. australia and NZ would probably have stuck with them, but thats about it.

 

[Sharwood]

The English would have put up more of a fight because many of them had actually been trained in basic resistance tactics since the fall of France. Also, England had been successfully invaded from the sea since 1066, and their very attitude towards foreign invaders - namely, they'd been terrified of them since the Spanish Armada - would have worked in their favour.

Also, you aren't taking into account the fact that there were a tonne of british troops stationed in India, Egypt, etc. They were more than capable of maintaining order, except in the case of popular uprisings, which weren't likely. As in Ireland, many people were certainly a lot more favourably inclined towards Britain than Germany. The only nation with a comparable chance of fighting after a successful invasion was Switzerland.

 

[RedRalph]

the Indians???? they couldnt wait to get rid of the Brits, and they didnt wait long once they had the chance... the Brits were quite scared that if the Japanese reached India that the locals would side with them and with good reason. In Indidas case Germany has nothignt o do with it, but in the early part of the war Japan was admired across much of Asia and welcomed as liberators form Europeans rule.

 

[Sharwood]

There were literally millions of Indian volunteers in the British military during WWII. Muslims were especially favourable to the British, as they feared Hindu domination of an independent India more than they feared British rule.

 

[RedRalph]

There were literally millions of Indian volunteers in the British military during WWII. Muslims were especially favourable to the British, as they feared Hindu domination of an independent India more than they feared British rule.

Yeah but would they have volunteered to defend a Britain which was already occupied by Germany? Died for a lost cause when they were only willing to fight for the Brits in the first place because they knew it would be a means to obtain independence? I doubt it. Think about it. the houses of Parliament have a swastika flying over it. the Japanese, percieved as liberators of southern Asian nations from European rule are approaching Indian borders. In this scenario, I find it impossible to believe many Indians would have fought to keep British rule over their country instead of siding with Japan.

 

[Sharwood]

I have no doubt there would be a rebellion in India. I do not believe it would have succeeded. And I think the Muslims would have almost to a man sided with the British. It's pretty much a moot point anyway, since this is a very hypothetical debate about a very hypothetical question, but even if India successfully threw off the British, and welcomed the Japanese with open arms, I doubt it would be long before the Indians were fighting off the Japanese and welcoming back British troops to assist them.

 

[Agent Cooper]

Cooper, why do you think the english would have put up much more of a fight than the French, Dutch, Polish etc?

and dont kid yourself, if Britain proper had fallen, there is no way India, Egypt etc would have ruched to their defence, they would have taken the opportunity to declare independence. australia and NZ would probably have stuck with them, but thats about it.

As mentioned, very rarely the British mainland has been succesfully invaded - the Normans and Romans spring to mind. Just knowing the British mentality, they would never accept German rule and Berlin would have many, many logistic difficulties maintaing control over the British. I'm not dismissing the restistance movements of other nations, but the British are just something special.

I would reverse your argument and suggest that the British Government would grant full independence to the Commenwealth nations fighting on Allied side in Europe. India, Egypt etc. would know very well what would happen to them if Nazi-Germany prevailed. Something much, much worse than anything the British could ever think of.

Then there's the US and Canada to consider - would they just sit by and watch Adolf Hitler gain control over the UK? I seriously doubt it.

 

[FriendlyFire]

They only had enough transport for 7 divisions with some limited LCT for halftracks and light tanks. Even assuming the Fallsumjagers were willing to accept extremely heavy loses jumping in the German position would have been extremely untenable short of serious stupidity and incompetence on the British side.

 

[RedRalph]

Then there's the US and Canada to consider - would they just sit by and watch Adolf Hitler gain control over the UK? I seriously doubt it.

Why? they sat by and let him take France, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Yugoslavia, western USSR etc. At no stage during the battle of Britain was there an indication that the americans would intervene should Germany win. If they had wanted to deter Germany then they could just have publicly stated that they wouldnt accept German control over the UK. there is no reason whatsoever to think the Americans would have drawn the line at the UK when they didnt draw it with the nazis at all until Hitler declared war on them.

I think you are retroactively applying the special relationship that they have now to the 1940's. Yes, they were good friends in those days but no where near as close as they are now.

 

[dosed150]

Yeah but would they have volunteered to defend a Britain which was already occupied by Germany? Died for a lost cause when they were only willing to fight for the Brits in the first place because they knew it would be a means to obtain independence? I doubt it. Think about it. the houses of Parliament have a swastika flying over it. the Japanese, percieved as liberators of southern Asian nations from European rule are approaching Indian borders. In this scenario, I find it impossible to believe many Indians would have fought to keep British rule over their country instead of siding with Japan.

after what happened in china how likely do you really think most indians would be to welcome japan, they may not have been the biggest fans of the british but i dont think the indians were stupid.

french colonial forces fought with degaulle after france fell, and the dutch fought on from their colonies as well so why wouldnt british colonial forces fight on after britain fell

even if german forces had landed in britain victory would have been far from assured, where they landed they were a long way from most of britains important industrial and military infrastructure and resistance would have been heavy

 

[RedRalph]

after what happened in china how likely do you really think most indians would be to welcome japan, they may not have been the biggest fans of the british but i dont think the indians were stupid.

french colonial forces fought with degaulle after france fell, and the dutch fought on from their colonies as well so why wouldnt british colonial forces fight on after britain fell

even if german forces had landed in britain victory would have been far from assured, where they landed they were a long way from most of britains important industrial and military infrastructure and resistance would have been heavy

do you know how Japanese troops were recieved in most of Asia in 41/42? Look it up.

and why do you think British resistance would have been any better than French, considering Britian had a much smaller army? sure, the Briti countryside lended itself to tanks warfare less than the Bocage, but there is no reason to think the Brits would have tried harder to resist than the French did. Supply lines would have been Germany's main problem, not British resolve.

 

[Sharwood]

True enough. One of my professors told me just yesterday that he once interviewed one of the Japanese governors of Indonesia, and when asked what his greatest achievement was, he proudly stated: "We made Indonesia independent. We freed it from the Europeans." The man was apparently very close friends with Sukarno until the day he died.

The positive feelings in Asia went both ways. The Japanese Army was savage and brutal, and effectively alienated all the good feelings that the natives had towards them, but many Japanese genuinely believed that they were coming as liberators, and many Asian people greeted them as such. But bear in mind, the Indian intelligentsia were on average better educated than those in other Asian nations. Not to mention that the Indians, particularly the Hindus, saw themselves as seperate from Asia.

 

[RedRalph]

Yes, thats true, much like the Germans in the Baltics, and some part of Ukraine, they pissed away initial goodwill with brutality. Eventually Stalin was right "When people have to choose between two tyrants, eventually they will pick the one that speaks their own language."

 

[Dachs]

Yes, thats true, much like the Germans in the Baltics, and some part of Ukraine, they pissed away initial goodwill with brutality. Eventually Stalin was right "When people have to choose between two tyrants, eventually they will pick the one that speaks their own language."

Not just those people too. I can't remember any other conflict in history where Russians turned against their own government. Vlasov could have been such an asset...and then, joy of joys, the destruction of Communism... Stupid Hitler.

 

[RedRalph]

Not just those people too. I can't remember any other conflict in history where Russians turned against their own government. Vlasov could have been such an asset...and then, joy of joys, the destruction of Communism... Stupid Hitler.

the Russians were very lucky Stalin won the war. for all his faults, he didnt consdier Slavs subhuman and never tried to eradicate them as a race. they were much, much better off under Stalin than they would have been under Hitler.

 

[Dachs]

the Russians were very lucky Stalin won the war. for all his faults, he didnt consdier Slavs subhuman and never tried to eradicate them as a race. they were much, much better off under Stalin than they would have been under Hitler.

True. But the lesser of two great evils is still a great evil.

 

[RedRalph]

True. But the lesser of two great evils is still a great evil.

For that matter, despite the fact not all of them think so, the Poles, Czechs etc were lucky too. I have no doubt Stalin controlled Poland was no day at the beach, but if hitler had won in all likelyhood there would have been no Poles at all by 1960.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Whether or not India, Egypt, and company would have actually wanted to assist Britain is irrelevant, since British governors and Residents had wide latitude and were well-provided with resources. They could keep these countries under the British yoke quite easily until the central government-in-exile got set up in Ottawa. You could run the British Empire from pretty much anywhere, and Canada would be even safer than Britain.