This has been a very interesting discussion.
Politically, Hitler didn't want to conquor England. He wanted vassal status. Why? Because he wanted England, as a vassal, to control all of its colonial outpost for Germany. He didn't like colonies, but if he had conquered England, India would have immediately gone independent, so he would only have to conquor it again. He saw the English as racial cousins. And no doubt saw their international supremacy as a function of their germanic genes. He only occupied parts of France, and left Vichy France with the job of running France's colonies. Blah, blah, blah.
In order to get a concession from England that he wanted he had to make good on threats of invasion.
Invasion meant achieving air superiority over the channel. And Sea supperiority over a very narrow part of the Channel.
The first question is, or was, can they achieve air superiority. The answer was yes, they could have, and they almost did, until they started bombing London. Did they achieve air superiority? No, and all credit goes to the brave souls who faught and died, for the sake of liberal democracy.
Once having achieved air superiority, could the Germans have achieved superiority over a narrow band across the Strait of Calais? Well, they certainly had plans to. They would have laid a vast and dense field of mines across both sides of their narrow band. That dense field might have been wider than the band they ran across the channel. They would have used their air superiority and directed it at RN ships. The likely hood of RN ships surviving and all out concentrated assault is not good. It handn't been done yet, but it would not have been good. With air superiority, the Germans could have used Stuka's dive bombers, and dive bombers sent the Japanese navy to the bottom at Midway.
I think the arguement that the Germans could gain 'sea superiority' that they needed to force an invasion is definitely plausible but far from certain.
Again, I think Hitler, having won the 'air' battle of Britain, might have moved to negotiate a peace on their terms. Britain out of the war, but more in vassal status, as apposed to out right occupation.
Churchill would have not conceated this, figuring that action should be forced, before making a concession.
We'll never know if the Germans could have established sea superiority sufficient to cross the channel. But its important to point out, that it only had to be a very narrow band of water. They didn't need total sea superiority to pull off an invasion, just a small concentrated area. In a sense, the German's would need to have 'Sea Superiority' in the exact area where the British had 'air superiority' in the retreat from Dunkirk.
The Germans would have had to pull it off by the end of 1940. I think by January 1941 Britain had sufficient munitions and industrial strength to confront a German invasion - on top of a vastly upgraded RAF. By January 1941, an invasion would have been ten times harder and more costly to achieve. But June 1940, the British were cought with their pants down. Even during the Battle of Britain, the Army's strength was improving and becoming better organized. By September, it was vastly better than it was in June. By October and November, better still.
Had the Germans made any head way into Britain, Churchill might have then settled, with all the intention to keep his part of the bargain that Hitler exercised at Munich in 1938. He would have acquiest to Hitler's demands, short of out right occupation. Then Churchill would have turned around and betrayed Hitler to the Americans. What I mean by this, is he would have secretly negotiated with Roosevelt and allowed for American Troops to land secretly in Britain and before you know it, back out of any agreement with Hitler.
All of this is not counting the affects of the weather and the seasons.
In regard to sending tank divisions to Egypt. This is interesting. There is a book out there on "How Hitler Could have won WWII". In it, the author proposes, that Hitler could have won by attacking at Dunkirk. Then invading, failing there Hitler should have taken Malta instead of Crete, or both, because the supply lines to North Africa are controled by Malta. Having taken Malta Hitler should have used the level of force he had used in Russia to take Egypt, and move into the middle east to gain control of the oil fields.
Had he succeeded in this, he would also, by the way have controled Palestine, and, no doubt decimated the Jews who had already begun to settle their, racking up points with the Arabs. He then would have been in a position to Invade Russia from both the west and the south. Britain, meanwhile would have been forced out of the Mediterreanian sea by the fall of Malta, and would have to get its oil from the U.S./Venezuela.
Had the Hitler had succeeded against Britain in 1940, he could have then roled up the Middle East fairly easily. He could have then sent all of his forces, including Italians and other allies, against Russia, without reservations. If he had invaded the following year, he could have started in May, as he did in France.
He would have had trouble in this though. The Russian's would have deployed the T-44 tank (I forget the name/number, but I think that is it) in mass by then. Of course, Hitler's intellegence might have known of it by then. It is reported that Hitler has said that had he knew of this tank in advance he might have thought twice about invading Russia.
Another point, in terms of production, Germany never came close to matching Russia's out put in Tanks. We have to believe that part of the reason was because his infrastructure was under constant bombardment from England. Had he beaten England, his productivity would have been up. And he could have enlisted manufacturers from France, Italy, England, and possibly even Spain, to augment Germany's production. The failure to match Russia's out put in Tanks, and other weapons meant that he could never succeed in swallowing Russia, in whole or in part.
All of this is speculation.
In the end, the British people, who won the Battle of Britain, gauranteed that Hitler could not invade England. They won that battle on their own, with incredible grit and determination. Churchill was right, if they had lost the World would have descended into a new dark age. But they didn't.
The importance of the Battle of Britain is that it meant that Hitler couldn't succeed in the west or the east, and saved Democracy in Europe. The battle of Normandy, in 1944, combined with the Battle of Britain gauranteed Democracy in Western Europe. The democractic coalition in Europe, North America and the Pacific (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Taiwan [the later two only belatedly democratic]) combined to save democracy in the cold war. So the battle of Britain is one of the highest stakes. Without it there would have been no d-day. Had the British lost, Democracy would be confined to North America.
Truly this is a most heroic of battles. The consequences of which were huge. And we all live better today, even with Neocons and Bush undermining constitutional democracy and the international system today, we live better today for the sake of those few brave men, backed by a steely nation and the corragious leader.
Today Democracy is on the March. Not in the middle east of course, but in the expansion of the EU, and the growth of democracy in East and South East Asia. One wonders what Churchill would have to say to the likes of Bush, who had a chance to lead a global effort to a new golden age, but instead decided to cash in on very narrow and selfish political victories.
reply
share
DD-931
18 years ago
tmkane-2, you make some good points. Unfortunately, you are far off the mark on a few others. When you brought the Battle of Midway into the mix, you made the major mistake of comparing Stuka dive bombers, designed for land battles and whose pilots had little training in bombing ships at sea, with Dauntless SBD dive bombers, designed for sea battles and whose pilots trained almost exclusively in bombing ships at sea. There is no way Luftwaffe Stuka pilots could have done what U.S. Navy SBD pilots did, any more than the SBDs could have equalled the Stuka successes during the Blitzkriegs. And by the way, what those Navy pilots did off Midway was no routine accomplishment, either. That was some damned amazing flying and pinpoint bombing they pulled off!.
You talk about laying mines in the English channel as though it were as easy as laying out fishing lines on a small lake. The Germans would have had a hard time at it, and with the rough weather might well have ended up with an English Channel so mineladen that it would be impassable for the British AND the Germans (not such a good thing for, say, U-Boats). Mines don't just stay put exactly where you want them to in deep water. If you don't believe me, consider this: Why didn't the Germans mine the English Channel when they knew D-Day was coming?
And the rough weather in the Channel brings up another point I've already made: by October 1940, the chances of the Germans simply floating barges across the Channel in calm seas was rapidly becoming pretty poor. And by the time the weather got better it would have been months past January 1941. As you yourself stated, the British would have replenished themselves enough to be "ten times harder" to conquer by that point.
But honestly, we do agree on more than we disagree. And as an American, I have to say I seem to feel more strongly than some British that there is no equivocation about the fact that the British won the Battle of Britain. If, as you say, Hitler wanted the British to sue for peace, then bombing London would very much be a logical part of fighting that battle. And if some people say the mistake of bombing London was in toughening British resolve, well, it seems to me British resolve was pretty much already there after Dunkirk.
And I know you simply misspoke when you included Japan in the Democratic Coalition.
reply
share
tmkane-2
18 years ago
Well, I don't think I misspoke in bringing in the Battle of Midway as a comparison. One thing to consider is both are presumed to take place under air superiority. The Midway attack was successful because just prior to the dive bomber attack, the Japanese aircraft carriers were attacked by American torpedo bombers. Torpedo Bombers attack at just above sea level. This drew the Japanese fighter cover down to sea level. The Japanese fighters did their job, none of the torpedo attacks succeeded, and all of the attacking planes were shot out of the sky (as I recall) - only one or two of the crews survived, being picked up out of the water. But drawing the fighters down to sea level cleared the way open for the dive bombers just when the Japanese were refitting their own bombers with bombs, neatly stacked up on their decks, as I recall. The dive bombers succeeded at Midway because the torpedo bombers came first and lead the way. In essence falling on their swords to make way for the dive bombers.
It may very well take more skill to hit a moving target with a dive bomber, as you suggest - but a dive bomber doesn't have to have a direct hit to be succesfful, a RN ship dodging bombs is to busy to make their way past submarines and mines to disrupt the invasion corrider that the Germans planned to set up across the channel. Dodging bombs alone would neutralize much of the effectiveness of the RN in a channel battle, and persistence would have eventually scored some hits. Remember this is taking place under air superiority. Stukas would be free to bomb, miss, go back get more, and then comback and bomb. Germany had hundreds of them, and really thousands of other bombers. The RN would certainly be busy dodging bombs and shore batteries, for that matter, (the straits at Calais are only 22 miles, a 15 inch shell can be flung more than something like 40 miles [I seem to remember 70 miles]). And perhaps, this is the approach the Germans would have and could have taken. There plan called for crossing at the straits, meaning the entire force could have been covered by large shore based guns, of which would only need air superiority to protect. Of course the British could have done the same thing, dragging 15 inch guns from their ship yards in the north, but still you need air superiority for such a thing. But imagine that - to shorelines with 15 inch guns shelling each other across the channel. Meanwhile the Luftwaffe's job would have been to keep the RN ships from effectively operating within range of the invasion corridor's path across the strait of Calais. They don't have to sink ships to do that, but they undoubtedly would have sunk quite a few by one of severl means, all talked about already.
In regard to Japan, perhaps you misunderstood what I meant. Since 1945, Japan has been part of the Democratic alliance - not only relying on protection under America's nuclear umbrella, but actually paying a big part of the tab for the cost of stationing troops in Japan. It could be argued that the Korean war was fought for the purpose of Janan's security. Traditionally, the Korean peninsula hangs like a dagger or a gun to the head between China and Japan. Who ever controls the peninsula presumably holds the gun at the head of the other. This is one reason why it is still a divided nation today (the solution of course is for a wouldbe united Korea to become a diplomatic Switzerland of the far east). So the Korean war kept communist forces north of the 38th paralel protecting Japan. The cold war was won by a coalition of democratic nations arranged around the U.S. in a hub and spoke fashion. In Europe it was dominated by NATO, in the Far East something less cohesive. The result was an anti-communist coalition that ran from the Pacific Rim, through North America into Central Europe and included the most economically richest nations in the world, as much as 75% of the worlds GNP. That huge hub and spoke alliance would not have been so large if D-day had not succeeded, D-day brought western Europe into the Democratic alliance, and D-day would not have occurred if Britain had lost the Battle of Britain. (Though perhaps Churchill could have pulled off some diplomatic treachery as I suggested before).
Finally, if you look at my notes, I subtract the weather from my discussion. Indeed, if one includes the weather, it may have meant that an invasion may never have been possible ever by the Germans. The retreat from Dunkirk was done under an umbrella of immensely calm waters. Soldiers saying it was a calm as a mill pound. Extraordinary luck, I'd say. The weather stayed pretty good through most of the summer of 1940, but as the torn up mulberry harbors in the summer of 1994 in Normandy suggest, the weather is often rough in the channel. You can't really prognosticate the 'would of, should of,and could of's, of a Germany invation with the weather. I just don't think Hitler wanted to take the chance of losing much of his army to the English channel because of the weather, meaning he might never have tried to cross even if the Germans had achieved air superiority by mid-September 1940. That is another reason why Churchill had held out.
Another question is how much the British would have invested its royal navy if the Germans had won air superiority. It seems probable that they may have made a similar calculation to not expose their strength, much as they did concerning sending fighters to France once collapse appeared inevitable. Their would have been a mass evacuation to Canada of strategic assets, including, undoubtedly the Royal Family or some members, and the cabinet, in a gamble to throw in the lot with the Americans, and hope that such an alliance would bring a future invasion from the US/Canada into an occupied Britain. Pure speculation here, but why subject Battleships to a type of war they are ill suited for? Even if it meant invasion of England. As a rule of thumb, the combined population of dominions was nearly equivalent to that of the home country in the British commonwealth. Again, all wild speculation.
And admittedly, I did not include the difficulty of laying mines, again, I factored out the weather, and with it, the difficulty of laying mines. It simply is something I lack knowledge about. In theory they could have done it, in actuality, it was much trickier, though if done in Sept of 1940 the weather was quite good, and it can be done by airplanes as well as ships again, you need good weather, which was available, and air superiority, which was not available. But beyond that, I don't know a great deal about laying mines.
By the way, the bombing of cities did nothing to undermine moral on both sides, as I understand it. I have a friend whose father's family went back to Germany to visit their Grandmother in the Dusseldorf area, in the summer of 1939. Half the family left before the war started, the other half, including my friends dad, got trapped their for the entire war. His father never attended a 4th of July fireworks displays because it reminded him too much of the Germans firing AA at American bombers.
I am glad the way things turned out. I am glad that the British won the battle the way they did. They showed the world that the way to respond to terror, and they faced real terror, it wasn't to summon ones fear, as our current leaders are prone to do, but to summon their nation's courage. If only... Anyway, the whole world is better for the way that battle turned out, and the movie, while it is a corny story line, is a beautiful display of airships and courage of the men who fought that battle.
reply
share
Comsat Angel
18 years ago
Just to egg the pudding a little, I read about the Luftwaffe's dismal performance in attempting to dive-bomb the aircraft carrier Illustrious, docked at harbour in Malta in January 1941. This is a static target, in daylight, already damaged - and the Luftwaffe managed to only damage it slightly, at the cost of losing at least 10 bombers in consequence.
Also, RN ships churning up and down the Channel, avoiding bombs, would create wakes sufficient to sink German invasion barges, without having to fire a shot. As you mention, bad weather would kill the prospect of a successful invasion stone dead or cause a successful landing to wither and die.
Nobody seems to have mentioned the Home Guard yet. Shades of Dad's Army, but there would have been (guesstimate here) 150,000 of them in the south east by late summer 1940. Not very well-armed but full of vim, and knowing the local areas very well.
One additional thing - I believe that the invasion would have taken place at night. The chaos and confusion this would cause can only be guessed at!
reply
share
DD-931
18 years ago
I'm sorry, but the ignorance you've professed about mining also extends to the Battle of Midway, 15 inch guns (70 MILES! A real whopper there.), and your understanding of the capabilities of Stukas (particularly regarding their pilots). Again, any knowledgeable pilot or Naval expert will tell you comparing Dauntless SBDs to Stukas is like comparing Sidewinder missiles to Harpoon missiles. They each had specific missions that their pilots were trained for, and Stuka pilots weren't trained to sink ships any more than SBD pilots were trained to give close air support for Blitzkriegs. Also, you make my point when you mention the Japanese carriers sitting with their decks covered with bomb-laden planes when the SBDs attacked. British battleships are armoured in precisely the place where the Japanese carriers were vulnerable...the top decks. And to anticipate a possible diversionary argument, it was Japanese torpedo planes that sunk the PRINCE OF WALES and the REPULSE, not dive bombers. Also you talk about "subtracting the weather" from the discussion as though it were a minor factor in an invasion. Are you kidding? I'd like to ask the planners of D-Day if they thought it was a minor factor.
And I ask you, if 15 inch guns could reach across the English Channel, why didn't the English and Germans actually put such guns on their sides of the Pas de Calais and go at it? You don't need air superiority to bring such guns into position in the dead of night. For that matter, since 15 inch guns actually can fire about 20-30 miles (dependant on the quality of the gun), why couldn't the RN battleships simply stand off 20 miles from your fanciful "corridor" and lob shells in on the flimsy barges being towed across? If you think a dive bomber bomb doesn't have to hit a ship to cause havoc*, imagine 15-inch shells falling in among wooden barges crammed with helpless German soldiers (who are probably already sea-sick).
*Also ridiculous. A warship crew is trained to fire their guns while undergoing evasive maneuvering. Or do you actually think they were only trained to engage enemy warships while traveling in a straight line?
You know, during the war Roosevelt asked Churchill about the possibility of his retreating to Canada or other Commonwealth nations should the Germans invade England. Roosevelt even brought up the possibility of the British scuttling their fleet to prevent them from being commandeered by the Germans. Churchill could have hedged his bets; I mean, this was secret communications between two friends, and Churchill could have given his real intentions to FDR while still publicly proclaiming "We will fight them on the beaches." But no. Churchill made it plain that the RN would be used to stop a German invasion, no matter what the cost. If he said it to FDR, it was his real intention. So yes, the RN was prepared to accept high losses to stop the Germans army from crossing the channel. And by every informed standard I've looked at, they would have paid a heavy price...but they would have succeeded.
But I will agree I misunderstood what you were saying about Japan and the Democratic alliance.
reply
share
jane-184
18 years ago
Greetings, Actually, The British did install 15" Guns just to the rear of Dover. They were called "Winnie" and "Pooh". These were installed to reply to the huge Railway mounted guns used by the German Army to bombard the channel convoys and to bombard Dover. Only trouble is that when Winnie & Pooh fired, it was hitting French territory with the risk of hurting French civilians and also encouraged the Germans to shoot more shells at Dover. There still is part of the defence structure of these 2 British big guns still extant in the fields near to Dover. It was shown in part of a BBC Television program about wartime defences with Mr Cruikshank narrating.
reply
share