Sea Lion 1941

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
srgt rock
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:17 pm
Location: Central New York State, USA

Re: Sea Lion 1941

Post by srgt rock »

IF Britain chose to fight on, can they keep India in line or do the rebel forces there contact the Germans. Do the Australian and New Zealand governments continue to support an European conflict after the losses they would have endured in the Med and North Africa? Do the French continue to stay neutral or do they now join the Axis forces? After all, the British didn't exactly treat them very well after they surrendered.

What level of merchant shipping losses would the British suffer with additional Italian Naval units in the Atlantic. With Luftwaffe aircraft flying further out into the Atlantic from Spanish and Northwest African airfields.

The United States was not ready to go to war in 1941. Roosevelt would have an even harder sell in Congress to take a war like stance if the Axis powers had been as successful as has been proposed here.

Throughout its history, England has had the sense to know when to stop fighting and rebuild their forces. They can always find reason to restart the war after some time to recover but only as long as they don't lose too much. I say Britain talks peace.
srgt rock
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:17 pm
Location: Central New York State, USA

Re: Sea Lion 1941

Post by srgt rock »

I had an additional thought on this subject last night. What if the British work out a peace plan with Hitler and then just supply the Soviets with equipment and let them suffer the losses?
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Sea Lion 1941

Post by RF »

This would largely depend on what sort of ''peace deal'' is on offer and more importantly who is in charge in Britain to negotiate/accept it.

It might be possible if the deal left Britain unoccupied and with the RN intact. An astute leadership in Germany would not allow that. Hitler doesn't quite come into that category so the situation really does become hypothetical with almost any outcome possible. However I can't see the British being allowed to supply the Soviets with weapons as suggested in the last post above!!

With respect to the British Dominions, they almost certainly would become completely independent. India would in all probability fall under Japanese control, and herein lies the rub - for Britains Far East colonies/Dominions Japan is the immediate enemy rather than the more distant Germany. Japan is allied to Germany and both constitute a threat to the United States.

The USA is admittedly unlikely to go to war, but it is even more unlikely to do nothing. Especially if the Kriegsmarine takes control of both the British and French fleets. British Dominions may well ally themselves with the USA.

Eventually there will, I think, be a war between the USA and the Axis, most likely started by Japan. In that scenario I would expect that what remains of British forces and British territories will back the Americans. I would also expect that Russia, whether still under communism or otherwise, would become allied to the USA. i would then expect the USA to win that war by application of the atomic bomb, probably against Japan first and then later in Europe against Germany.

So a 1941 Sea Lion or a British capitulation may not alter things in the very long run.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Sea Lion 1941

Post by alecsandros »

RF wrote:
So a 1941 Sea Lion or a British capitulation may not alter things in the very long run.
But Russia has good chances of being nicely beaten, because it would not receive supplies from Britain in the vital months of late-1941 and all-year 1942.
At least the area up to the Urals could have entered udner GErman occupation, and the mountain chain forming a massive barrier agaisnt any attempts to re-capture Russian soil or to expand nazi occupation.
Significant underground resources would be available to the 3rd Reich, not to mention man power... This could accelerate the "wonder weapons" production, with unforeseable results...
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Sea Lion 1941

Post by RF »

I'm far from convinced that Germany could occupy the whole of Russia up to the Urals successfully. The area is simply too big for available German manpower and given the system of nazi government and methods of ruling I think over time the German economy simply couldn't function under the strain on a long term basis. Something would have to give.

In the economic very long term Nazi Germany was no more economically sustainable than Apartheid South Africa. It offers a form of capitalism most closely equated to marxist concepts and analysis of ''capitalism in crisis.''

If Russia is beaten - does that really mean the end of all fighting inside and on the boundaries of German control? I doubt it.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Sea Lion 1941

Post by alecsandros »

RF wrote: The area is simply too big for available German manpower and given the system of nazi government and methods of ruling I think over time the German economy simply couldn't function under the strain on a long term basis. Something would have to give.

In the economic very long term Nazi Germany was no more economically sustainable than Apartheid South Africa. It offers a form of capitalism most closely equated to marxist concepts and analysis of ''capitalism in crisis.''

If Russia is beaten - does that really mean the end of all fighting inside and on the boundaries of German control? I doubt it.
I agree - it's very difficult to believe the 3rd Reich's economy could function on the medium term (more than 10-15 years). They were innovative (innovative thieves that is), but all those innovation couldn't cover the sh*t up for ever.

On the other hand, URSS didn't have a to smart economic approach, though they survived 50 years after WW2... Against all the odds... So, who knows ?

Anyway, an attack on Europe couldn't be launched by conventional means if Britain remains at peace with GErmany. And with North Africa slowly enveloped by nazi and fascist forces... I wonder what direction a potential attack coming from the USA could have ? (including strategic bombing)
srgt rock
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:17 pm
Location: Central New York State, USA

Re: Sea Lion 1941

Post by srgt rock »

IMHO I CAN see Hitler giving the British some VERY REASONABLE terms. He never wanted to fight them in the first place. To back up my opinion, why did the Germans give the French such reasonable terms? (Raeder wanted some of the French fleet units surrendered to Germany and a naval base in the Med for starters)

As for Japan starting a war with the USA, would the oil embargo of 1941 been put into place? The British could well have shifted her naval forces to the far east in order to make them seem like too tough a nut for Japan to tackle. Under those conditions, the IJA may well have held sway and Japan could have just waited to stab the Soviets in the back after Hitler attacked them.

The German-Soviet war of 1942 following peace with the British would have been even more extensive than the 1941 attack. The Germans could have struck from the Middle East with maybe Turkey joining in the fight. The Arctic front would have seen a large German naval force backing up the land attack. A German victory is not out of the question.

On the issue of the ability of Germany to hold the captured territory, I could easily see on going partisan/civil wars. The 50 year cold war would have been between the fascist and democracy. I too think the German economy would falter in the long term.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Sea Lion 1941

Post by RF »

alecsandros wrote: I agree - it's very difficult to believe the 3rd Reich's economy could function on the medium term (more than 10-15 years). They were innovative (innovative thieves that is), but all those innovation couldn't cover the sh*t up for ever.
The biggest long term problem I think was the decline in the quality of education under Minister Bernhard Rust. The gradual decline in technical knowledge, innovation and motivation combined with the huge logistical problems would be the undoing, not even Speer could overcome.
On the other hand, URSS didn't have a to smart economic approach, though they survived 50 years after WW2... Against all the odds... So, who knows ?

The Soviets had an economic ideology, ruthless central planning and the Five Year Plans. In the short term they work. In the long term the legacy is inertia, bureaucracy and lack of motivation.
Anyway, an attack on Europe couldn't be launched by conventional means if Britain remains at peace with GErmany. And with North Africa slowly enveloped by nazi and fascist forces... I wonder what direction a potential attack coming from the USA could have ? (including strategic bombing)
This has been looked at in other threads. There I have suggested a two pronged US assualt - directed at French North Africa and also the areas of Britain most directly exposed to the open Atlantic - Cornwall and the Wester Isles of Scotland, in co-operation with ex-patriate British forces and underground resistance movements in an occuppied Britain.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Sea Lion 1941

Post by RF »

srgt rock wrote:IMHO I CAN see Hitler giving the British some VERY REASONABLE terms. He never wanted to fight them in the first place. To back up my opinion, why did the Germans give the French such reasonable terms? (Raeder wanted some of the French fleet units surrendered to Germany and a naval base in the Med for starters)
The armistice signed with France in the railway carriage at Compienge, together with the Italian armistice two days later was exactly that, an armistice and not a final peace treaty.
Had the war ended, expect a final peace treaty in which France would have been practically obliterated. That was made very clear by the evidence stated by General Walther Warlimont, who quoted Hitler as saying he ''would turn France into a grovelling dog.''
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Sea Lion 1941

Post by alecsandros »

RF wrote:
The biggest long term problem I think was the decline in the quality of education under Minister Bernhard Rust. The gradual decline in technical knowledge, innovation and motivation combined with the huge logistical problems would be the undoing, not even Speer could overcome.
I would think also about hyperinflation, which would reduce the well-being of an already poored people.
This has been looked at in other threads. There I have suggested a two pronged US assualt - directed at French North Africa and also the areas of Britain most directly exposed to the open Atlantic - Cornwall and the Wester Isles of Scotland, in co-operation with ex-patriate British forces and underground resistance movements in an occuppied Britain.
It would be a very interesting scenario... But do you think the US would take the risk of such landings ?
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Sea Lion 1941

Post by RF »

If the bulk of the German forces are some two thousand miles to the East, and there is no large German surface fleet, then the US could land small forces in Cornwall and various Scottish islands to acheive a foothold in Britain. In scotland various islands like Tiree offer airfields and a base to smuggle forces on to the mainland. In Cornwall the objective would be to capture ports like Falmouth, Penzance, Newlyn, St Ives and then possibly Plymouth.

Landings in Morocco and Algeria would require the existence of the Free French and for the French forces there to join the Free French.

This is entirely hypothetical of course, but logically is a viable strategy. If the US does get established in Africa and Britain, then any war against the Germans around the Urals and from Siberia assumes a much greater significance, along with the prospects for other occupied country resistance movements. The likilihood of being on the eventual winning side is a key tipping point.

As for risk - well, if the survival of the US is at risk then that is the motivation for the US to act.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Sea Lion 1941

Post by alecsandros »

Both of those alternatives would pose very much problems for the German response, particularly if they would be kept in the dark during the preparations and crossings of the Atlantic.
To respond in Algeria for example, a German force would need weeks to assemble and to be ferried across the Med, regroup and start an offensive.

Stoping an evolution in Scotland would be even more difficult, as any possilbe landings by German craft could be intercepted by the vastly superior USN.

HOwever, it would take many years before either of those bridge-heads would manage to extend in the continent... And the losses may be to high for the US to accept... (especialy as the re-supply problem of the "invaders" woudl require constant ferrying across the Atlantic...)
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Sea Lion 1941

Post by RF »

It wouldn't necessarily take very long for the US to invade mainland Europe if they were politically and geo-politically savvy.

I have already alluded to the use of resistance movements in occupied countries by the US, especially in Britain. For Scotland, Iceland is available as a forward base for US supplies and shipping. The US has close ties with the Irish and French historically as well and these could be put to use, especially the Free French forces in North Africa. The US also has close family ties with Italy, which in WW2 was put to very effective use, not least in getting the full co-operation of the Mafia!

A rapid strike into Morocco and Algeria as per Torch, get the French there on your side, go into Tunisia and on to Tripoli. At first only the Italians are there to oppose you - but Mussolini would be ripe for overthrow and this presnts the opportunity to get Italy onto the US side. On that basis the Americans could use Italian support to create battle fronts with the Germans north of Rome, cutting out the mistakes of 1943, and also providing opportunity to invade southern France, again with Free French support.

In south-west Britain, the US could stage a major amphibious landing in Whitesands Bay (in North Cornwall) and quickly capture ports such as Penzance, Newlyn, Falmouth and Plymouth. Once these ports are secure US armour led by someone like Patton can strike east, towards London, with the help of British ex-patriate and resistance forces.

Essentially for the Germans this creates two fronts in the West - Britain and the Med/Italy.

Two other options are also available to the Americans. Firstly use of the atomic bomb, secondly they could use OSS to arrange for the Fuhrer to meet a sticky end....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Sea Lion 1941

Post by alecsandros »

What would be critical would be the position of Franco. IF he joins the Axis-alliance, after seeing Rusia losing most of it's western part, and all of continental Europe under Hitler and Mussolini, he might be tempted (or "convinced") to join such a powerfull ssytem.
If so, a landing in ALgeria + join with free French would be possibly opposed by Spain + Italy's armed forces in the region. I doubt the opposition would last to long, but they may provide time for a German response. The US + French position would become dire in a very short time after the German regroup the (probable) panzer divisions, under someone like Rommel.. Historically, the first north-african encounters between US and German armor were decisively won by the latter...
Without the Balkan campaign and preparations for Barbarossa, and most importantly, without British control of the Med, Rommel could receive much equipment and troops early on, which would help throw off the US invasion.

On the other hand, I don't see any realistic counter-movement for the ivnasion of Scotland. German navy was to thin, and massed air attacks on western Scotland would be difficult to do because of the range of the available fighters and even some of the bombers. On the other hand, the USAAF could develop strong bases in Scotland, and launch a strategic air campaign over occupied England, leading to another kind of battle of Britain :D
And, if the GErman intelligence doesn't work very well, the USAAF may even launch 1-2 nukes, with B-29s taking off from Scotland... But this would be summer 1945 allready...
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Sea Lion 1941

Post by RF »

I don't think Spain would be that much of an obstacle, for two reasons.

Firstly if Franco does go to war with the US then the Canary Islands, just short of Morroco, are ripe for quick US seizure. Now Franco was governor of the Canary Islands immediately pre-ceding the start of the Spanish Civil War and biographers of Franco believed that he did have some emotional attachments to these islands. So would he risk losing them? Furthermore if southern Spain were included in the ''Torch'' landings as well there is the quick prospect of both Cadiz and then Gibraltar/Algercieras being seized for the US Navy as well.

Secondly, as with the Italians, there are strong hispanic links to Spain in the US. Franco would be better served by staying neutral and helping the Americans, which is what he did in 1945 and in the immediate post war years. He stayed in power post war because of US support.

Its also likely that Salazar may have some influence on Spanish policy, as his regime in Portugal would stand to lose even more by being hostile to the US.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply