Operation Sealion (What If Successful)

[Agent Cooper]

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.

I'm very sure that American and British senior officers already planned their combined military strategies against Germany in 1940/1941, meaning the US declaring war on Germany. I believe that it was in this timeperiod that the decision that Germany/Europe was first priority and Asia/Japan second was formed.

I'm also pretty sure that Roosevelt declared Great Britain as Americas first line of defence. There's surely someone on these boards with better knowledge about US politics during 1940/41 than me, to tell whether I'm just making this up or not.

 

[Dachs]

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.

That doesn't change the fact that neither one of them was a particularly nice person.

The original point though was that if Hitler hadn't considered the Slavs subhuman (or at least to the extent of working with them and not genociding them in return for their service during the war), Russian dissenters against the Soviet regime would have cleared the Wehrmacht's path to Moscow. Penal battalions would have risen up en masse against their KGB guard. So if Hitler wins under those conditions, the Russian people don't lose anyway. But the idiot made it into an ethnic, national war, and guaranteed that the most unpopular Russian regime in history would be able to unite the people against the invader.

 

[Luckymoose]

If only Roosevelt died instead of becoming the dictator he was.

 

[RedRalph]

But the idiot made it into an ethnic, national war, and guaranteed that the most unpopular Russian regime in history would be able to unite the people against the invader.

where did you get that idea? Like it or not, despite being a monster, Stalin was enourmously popular in most of the USSR. Even western journalists reported massive genuine putporings of grief when he died. Gulag prisoners were seen to cry when they heard the news. Frankly, i dont know why people reacted this way, but Stalin was actually extremely popular. Far moreso than, say Brezhnev. Dont let your ideological ideals get in the way of fact: Stalin was massively popular, while also massively feared.

 

[yummeebad]

In fact, the Luftwaffe would have been quite bad against ships. Virtually all of its bombers were level bombers, which drop bombs from high altitude against stationary targets to good effect. Ships, however, can manouver so as to make themselves harder to hit - and level bombers thus become poor choices to use against ships even in the hands of expert pilots (only the Japanese had any real success with them in the war).

Is this really true? A bomb dropped from something like a Dornier Do 17 travelling 15,000 feet above ground level would take thirty (and a half) seconds to impact. I'm iffy on that distance figure, since I couldn't find good information about the normal flying height of a ground bomber during the period, but could a ship really manoeuvre fast enough to escape that trajectory?

 

[Supermath]

where did you get that idea? Like it or not, despite being a monster, Stalin was enourmously popular in most of the USSR. Even western journalists reported massive genuine putporings of grief when he died. Gulag prisoners were seen to cry when they heard the news. Frankly, i dont know why people reacted this way, but Stalin was actually extremely popular. Far moreso than, say Brezhnev. Dont let your ideological ideals get in the way of fact: Stalin was massively popular, while also massively feared.

Right. Because the Soviets certainly didn't try to distance themselves from Stalin after he dies.

 

[Hornblower]

Is this really true? A bomb dropped from something like a Dornier Do 17 travelling 15,000 feet above ground level would take thirty (and a half) seconds to impact. I'm iffy on that distance figure, since I couldn't find good information about the normal flying height of a ground bomber during the period, but could a ship really manoeuvre fast enough to escape that trajectory?

As a qualified Warfare Officer who drives modern warships I can tell you that this is more than achievable. To this day ships still practise manoeuvring to avoid aircraft conducting a "bomb toss". We don't kid ourselves, it is difficult to pull off but it was proven to work in the Falklands against fast jets. It also failed against aircraft in the Falklands with some amazing photos of live bombs embedded between decks. Back in the 1940's ships were no slower and no less manoeuvrable but the aircraft were slower and bomb sight technology certainly was a lot rougher. I would actually fancy my chances as a ship driver in a 4 boiler destroyer circa 1942 against a Jap pilot rather than today in a 1990's Gas Turbine Frigate (FFG) against fighter bomber with iron bombs.

 

[RalofTyr]

I read a book about this, well, years ago. As for the inasion itself, it was more of a gamble, but a gamble in the German's favor. They reached the Dover cliffs, suffered casualties from burning oil. However, the were able to get a bridgehead and break out. There was sporadic fighting, mostly militia. The resistence was tough. There was an incident in which a German driver lost his head to a wire suspended over a road. The Germans responded by going to the nearest English village and locking everyone in the chruch, then setting the church on fire. However, after this happened the German superiors told their SS that this isn't Poland and to not engage in such activities.

After the break out, around London did the fighting get fierce, but superior German tactices won the day. After they took Manchester, did the UK finally admit defeat.

Chruchhill committed suicide.

Operation Barbarosa wouldn't have been such a success. Stalin was totally suprised when the Germans invaded. In his mind, the Germans choosing a two front war was not logically possible. Stalin was preparing, but he expected the Germans to invade in '43/'44, not '41. So, in June of '41, the Soviet Union had all of Europe against them. That may not have been enough.

In truth, if the Germans had won Operation Sealion, today, Great Britian would be a Soviet Satellite state.

 

[RedRalph]

Right. Because the Soviets certainly didn't try to distance themselves from Stalin after he dies.

Yes, Khruschev did, of course I know that. but thats dosent change the fact that he was enormously popular during his lifetime. Dosent change it one little bit.

 

[Sharwood]

I read a book about this, well, years ago. As for the inasion itself, it was more of a gamble, but a gamble in the German's favor. They reached the Dover cliffs, suffered casualties from burning oil. However, the were able to get a bridgehead and break out. There was sporadic fighting, mostly militia. The resistence was tough. There was an incident in which a German driver lost his head to a wire suspended over a road. The Germans responded by going to the nearest English village and locking everyone in the chruch, then setting the church on fire. However, after this happened the German superiors told their SS that this isn't Poland and to not engage in such activities.

After the break out, around London did the fighting get fierce, but superior German tactices won the day. After they took Manchester, did the UK finally admit defeat.

Chruchhill committed suicide.

Operation Barbarosa wouldn't have been such a success. Stalin was totally suprised when the Germans invaded. In his mind, the Germans choosing a two front war was not logically possible. Stalin was preparing, but he expected the Germans to invade in '43/'44, not '41. So, in June of '41, the Soviet Union had all of Europe against them. That may not have been enough.

In truth, if the Germans had won Operation Sealion, today, Great Britian would be a Soviet Satellite state.

That was a horrible book. More historically innacurate than Braveheart, even taking into account its "What If?" nature.

I don't see Churchill committing suicide, except possibly to escape capture. Maybe not even then. He'd broken out of prisons before, although the Nazis were somewhat more efficient than his previous captors.

 

[MarkC1]

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.

So explain why all those nations were independent of England within a decade after ww2

 

[rilnator]

I think the local inhabitants would have put up one hell of a struggle. Equal too, or stronger than The Russia and Yugoslav partisans.

 

[Agent Cooper]

So explain why all those nations were independent of England within a decade after ww2

A world free of colonies was first and foremost Roosevelts vision and Churchill struck some sort of 'deal' with him about the dismantlement of British colonies in the postwar period in exchange for full American support in the war efforts. This vision was also applied to the other European nations still maintaining colonies around the world.

When Roosevelt died the vision diminished somewhat with Truman taking over, but at that time it was only a matter of time - the dice had been thrown.

 

[MarkC1]

A world free of colonies was first and foremost Roosevelts vision and Churchill struck some sort of 'deal' with him about the dismantlement of British colonies in the postwar period in exchange for full American support in the war efforts. This vision was also applied to the other European nations still maintaining colonies around the world.

When Roosevelt died the vision diminished somewhat with Truman taking over, but at that time it was only a matter of time - the dice had been thrown.

do you have any references for this?

 

[Disenfrancised]

So explain why all those nations were independent of England within a decade after ww2

Because Britain dismantled the empire thanks to needing to rebuild their shattered economy at home and American and Soviet Pressure to do so. In a world without pax Americana on the seas and the militant Nazis and Japanese on the prowl there would be huge amounts of British military and economic resources still scattered about the world and the need to hang together for protection would be much greater.

As to references on Roosevelt's and his successors policy to dismantle European empires and open their markets to American business...

It must be remembered that at this time Churchill was the war leader, Father only the President of a state which had indicated its sympathies in a tangible fashion. Thus, Churchill still arrogated the conversational lead, still dominated the after-dinner hours. But the difference was beginning to be felt.

And it was evidenced first, sharply, over Empire.

Father started it.
'Of course,' he remarked, with a sly sort of assurance, 'of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade.'

He paused. The P.M.'s head was lowered; he was watching Father steadily, from under one eyebrow.

'No artificial barriers,' Father pursued. 'As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.' His eye wandered innocently around the room.

Churchill shifted in his armchair. 'The British Empire trade agreements' he began heavily, 'are--'

Father broke in. 'Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It's because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are.'

Churchill's neck reddened and he crouched forward. 'Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Dominions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England's ministers.'

'You see,' said Father slowly, 'it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.

"Mr. President - Churchill
told Roosevelt - I believe you intend to put an end to the British Empire.
All your ideas on the post war world demonstrate it. But, in spite of it
all, we know that you are our only hope. And you know that we know it. You
know that without the United States, the Her Majesty's Empire cannot last."

Try googling, but be warned its pretty hard to find objective sites as most are pretty violent in support of one side or the other.

Yeah Roosevelt was quite the idealist anti-imperialist (and Probably the French and British empires would have been dismantled all the sooner if Truman didn't share those ideals) and apparently had grandiose schemes for development of the third world that sound very nice if they had worked...its a pity he completely screwed up regarding reading the Soviets and China though (Churchill being right re:Stalin not being a nice fella).

 

[Agent Cooper]

do you have any references for this?

Google Roosevelt, Churchill and the Atlantic Charter.

Differences with Britian

The fundamental and unbridgeable difference between the United States and the British Empire, is the fact that the United States represents, if imperfectly, the embodiment of the nation-state, and that Great Britain is the modern form of the oligarchical, monarchical and imperialist system of rule.

It was obvious to Churchill and the British establishment, that Roosevelt's American Century vision of the postwar period was antithetical to the very existence of their Empire. It came down to this: the determination of the American President to nurture the existence of a community of republican nation-states in opposition to British insistence on maintaining their oppressive colonial system.

This fundamental conflict was more than evident at their meeting in August 1941 at Argentia, Newfoundland, before America's entry into the war.

Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the American President, Franklin Roosevelt, had heated conversations over the burning issue of Roosevelt's insistence on guaranteeing sovereignty for those nations still controlled by the colonial empires.

Churchill was forced to sign the Atlantic Charter, with its eight articles outlining the principles of freedom and economic development to ensure peace, ``after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny.''

Churchill made clear his reluctance to sign the Charter, when he said to FDR, ``Mr. President, I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the postwar world demonstrates it. But in spite of that, we know that you constitute our only hope. And you know that we know it. You know that we know that without America, the Empire won't stand.''

The Atlantic Charter, signed by Churchill and Roosevelt on August 12 1941, outlined the basic rights of nations to independence, peace, economic development and freedom from tyranny. It was seen by those people around the globe, struggling under the brutal boot of colonialism, as a sign of hope. They were inspired by the outlook of the American President and what he had uniquely put forward in the Charter.

http://observer.gm/africa/gambia/article/2008/2/14/roosevelt-warrior-for-freedom-and-the-gambias-part-in-his-fight

 

[Lockesdonkey]

So explain why all those nations were independent of England within a decade after ww2

India was granted its independence out of a combination of postwar weakness and exasperation. It was also a kind of repayment for Indian assistance in the war.

Egypt had a coup d'etat, plain and simple. People really didn't care one way or another.

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand got independence basically as a reward for wartime loyalty and assistance, though truth be told, all three were independent actors on the international scene by 1939; independence was merely recognition of a fait accompli.

Britain would hold on to these colonies during wartime even if the British Isles were lost because they would be all that's left of the empire; they wouldn't want to give independence (as they did postwar), and the countries couldn't very well rebel.

 

[RalofTyr]

I don't see Churchill committing suicide, except possibly to escape capture. Maybe not even then. He'd broken out of prisons before, although the Nazis were somewhat more efficient than his previous captors.

Right. I see Churchhill devouring the NAZIs and becoming a 100 foot monster.

I think the local inhabitants would have put up one hell of a struggle. Equal too, or stronger than The Russia and Yugoslav partisans.

Agreed, however, the NAZIs were becoming really good at anti-partisan operations. (and war crimes the likes of which your average Englishmen has no idea of).

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

where did you get that idea? Like it or not, despite being a monster, Stalin was enourmously popular in most of the USSR. Even western journalists reported massive genuine putporings of grief when he died. Gulag prisoners were seen to cry when they heard the news. Frankly, i dont know why people reacted this way, but Stalin was actually extremely popular. Far moreso than, say Brezhnev. Dont let your ideological ideals get in the way of fact: Stalin was massively popular, while also massively feared.

He was popular with Russians and a few others. But alot of Ukrainians hated him and them. Some initially viewed the Germans as liberators. And if they had played their cards right, they could have convinced more of that role.

 

[Hornblower]

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand got independence basically as a reward for wartime loyalty and assistance, though truth be told, all three were independent actors on the international scene by 1939; independence was merely recognition of a fait accompli.

Canada Australia and NZ were all independant nations well before WWII. The fact that they were originally British colonies meant that there was a certain element of loyalty but at no time was their political agenda driven by the British War Cabinet.
In fact when Japan entered the war the Australian Prime Minister essentially withdrew all Australian troops from the British theatres of war and redirected them to South East Asia and the Pacific. This was a great break with tradition and irked Churchill no end but I think is a pretty fair example of how the Commonwealth nations were not wedded to Britain.