Thread 18108612

Would it have worked?

>>18108612 (OP)
no hence why they never bothered trying it

>>18108612 (OP)
No, but truth be told it was no more retarded than Barbarossa, so he might as well have tried it.
Thing is if he did launch Sea Lion and Uncle Joe attacks from the East people would spend the next 80 years saying "Could Barbarossa have worked?"

>Gamble on war with an island
>That has a better navy than you
>Island literally gifts you 90% of its army
>let them go

>>18108642
>let them go
they pretty much tried everything they realistically could to stop the evacuations, it just didn't work out

>>18108623
>>18108631
Ok ok but let's just say the luftwaffe won the battle of Britain instead of the RAF

Could it have worked?

>>18108631
>No, but truth be told it was no more retarded than Barbarossa
Why? It was almost certain that the US would intervene on Britain's behalf. Whereas nobody would give a shit about the USSR being defeated.

>>18108666
its a case of it had a slightly higher chance but still very unlikely, controlling the skys was essentially a very basic first step, and them winning was already unlikely since Britain had air bases further up the island they simply could not reach

>>18108642
Realistically, they never could've taken them prisoner. Germany could barely feed itself. If they just executed thousands of soldiers, the entirety of the British war effort would've shifted into panicked anger and they probably would've carried out Operation Vegetarian.

>>18108666
I think the issue is less getting them across the Channel so much as it's keeping them supplied. During the height of the war they were going through hundreds of millions of bullets per DAY. Not to mention food, fuel, just all the shit that an army in the millions would go through whilst in active duty.

The true hero of WWII is the French for surrendering so fast. This filled the Germans with a sense of arrogance and inevitability of their final victory, which led to them dropping the ball when it came to grand strategy for the rest of the war.
France sacrificed its reputation and dignity to save the world.

>>18108725
you can see the different mentalities at work, WWI vet Hitler thought it was Germany against France with Britain on the side. The allies were a global entity who could surrender France without losing their capital.

>>18108666
If you're just gonna change the factors you might as well just say "could Germany win the war if they just won the war??"
The Luftwaffe lost, hence they were incapable of winning, hence Sealion couldn't have worked because not even the pre-phase of the plan worked.
These questions are basically like asking
> could I possibly defeat GSP in an MMA fight if I won against him????

>>18108612 (OP)
No.

Even in the unlikely scenario they managed to land German troops on British soil the Brits would just blockade the English channel with their superior navy then starve the German forces stuck there

Plus Britain was just not worth it

>>18108666
No. You don't supply an invading army across a channel from the air and with the Royal navy dominating the surface Germany had no means to resupply them via sea. D-Day required like 6,000 surface ships, even if you assume an invasion force a tenth the size that's still 600 ships, far more than Germany could gather for an invasion.

>>18108642
>>18108652
>>18108679
Hitler should've massed every possible air asset and held them hostage in one big crater. Focus on keeping ships away and trade them for a temporary peace. In fact, he could've done this with the Smolensk pocket if he wanted a normal empire, or he could've traded the lives of Jews for peace if Britain were willing to play ball over a mere six million jews, which I doubt. The fact is both sides were implacably set on war, they wanted to test themselves in battle. Stalin wouldn't have minded a little peace though.

>>18108666
They still need ships which they dont have, so no

>>18108920
they seriously couldn't find 1000 ships between Alexandria and Trondheim?

>>18108642
They couldn't catch them, supply lines were to thin to push. They had no choice but to sit and wait.

>>18108924
I mean sure they could of used a bunch of fishing boats, but if your going to land thousands of men on a fucking reinforced and heavily defended beach like that, they will be massacred. It would of been normandy but waaaaaay worse. They needed proper warships.

>>18108906
>Hitler should've massed every possible air asset and held them hostage in one big crater.
Yeah well goring was an idiot. So even if they did that the fatty would of problem fucked it up.

>>18108612 (OP)
I never understood how do people imagine actually moving things across the channel. The RAF isn't completely defeated and realistically it wouldn't have been, the royal navy has more than enough lighter ships to sink all German transports before they reach their shores and their Nelson class BBs with proper escorts could block any attempts at sending the few heavier kriegsmarine ships into the channel even assuming a counterfactual where Bismarck is ready for early autumn 1940(Bismarck had worse guns and armour than both of these but was faster, however there's no use of being faster there, you have to win a naval battle and there are other heavy ships in the royal navy than just these two). Even if the Germans manage to land some troops and equipment, they would have massive supply disadvantage as over time their transport capability would decrease, if they get stalled like the allies were stalled in Normandy initially they're toast.

>>18108933
If I were Hitler I would requisition the three biggest ships of every merchant and war fleet in Greece, Italy, France, Denmark and so forth. I would capture luxury liners from neutral countries and release their passengers courteously, it's no different than britain sinking neutral and allied fleets.

>>18108949
Ok so the problem here would be the time required to bring all of them over to pick up the troops, every single day that beach is getting more and more reinforced. Now lets talk about italy and greece, guess what their ships need to pass to reach the uk? Gibraltar. Guess what would happen during that passage, the brits would of bombed them to hell, and there goes those ships.

>>18108949
>>18108960
Suppose i should also mention Malta, which was bombed for over an entire year and they couldnt knock it out. Any ship that was in the med sea, was never getting out of it.

>>18108969
wrong island. did they even try to capture gibraltar? I imagine Franco wouldn't have liked the idea
>>18108960
Ships sail it's what they do, not like Germany was conducting much international commerce they were needed for. The british would be frantically devoting resources and that's good. Things are moving in a good direction. Choosing the form of an invasion or the invasion beach is also a complex subject, the british navy is the biggest issue as usual. Imagine if they developed the ASM for sealion instead of a regular V1

>>18108876
>you might as well just say "could Germany win the war if they just won the war??"
You say this as if alt-hists where Germany just wins the war and what the aftermath would be like aren't a common thing

>>18108983
>did they even try to capture gibraltar
they had hundreds of ideas but yeah franco did not like any of them.
>The british would be frantically devoting resources and that's good.
They had multiple sea bases and enough ships to divert, and gibraltar literally was right on the exit.

>>18108666
>Ok ok but let's just say the luftwaffe won the battle of Britain instead of the RAF
>Could it have worked?

The Germans never planned to invade the UK and so when the time came, they had nothing ready for it.

>>18108666
>say the luftwaffe won the battle of Britain
>>18108904
>Royal navy dominating the surface

If the Germans invade, the Brits have no choice but to zerg rush into the confines of the English Channel to try and stop them but if the Germans control the skies, the Royal Navy will be destroyed.

>>18109016
Gibraltar would be taken in this scenario, it's not really Franco's call. Nice guy Hitler really never got serious about invading Britain to that degree, he had an image to maintain. The more I think about it though, the move would be to have Speer set up a massive shipbuilding yard. Worked by prisoners and concentration camp inmates, supplied with master technicians and naval architects from France and Italy. That would in turn trigger a bombing obsession for the British, a single focal point for the german air defenses, and maybe someday it would get some ships built. Probably easier to purpose-build some iron tubs than take gibraltar and mess around with requisitions.

>>18109026
>the Royal Navy will be destroyed.
Not really, the germans had the worst torpedo's of everyone in the war, their best ones came from italy, and those were artisan made and couldnt be mass produced. And the luftwaffle really didnt have much experience in it either. I cant really think of any actual warships the luftwaffle sank outside what you posted and her destroyers. And mind you those were the italian torpedo's.

>>18109037
It would not have been taken, Franco would not have allowed the german army into spain. Spain was entirely dependent on american food. If they let the germans in, him and his people were going to starve. If what you even said was remotely true, Hitler would have actually invaded.
>Worked by prisoners and concentration camp inmates, supplied with master technicians and naval architects from France and Italy
Those ships would of taken YEARS to build... God could you imagine the fortifications that could be built in that time? And Need i remind you, Germany was entirely dependant on imports for most war material? Where the fuck they getting the supply to manage that?

>>18109044
Hitler would've conducted a special operation on Gibraltar without Franco's permission, probably a naval landing on the mainland. Franco wasn't going to declare war on Germany over it either.
The more fortifications built the better, they're a waste. An iron invasion fleet wouldn't take much time or exotic resources with a proper assembly line, the biggest item would be the fuel.

>>18109050
>Hitler would've conducted a special operation on Gibraltar without Franco's permission,
Again hitler did not even do this in reality. What kind of magic would of made hitler do it now? Franco would of been forced to war with germany if they did that. Not declaring war my ass, as i told you, they were dependent on american food. They aren't going to sit there and starve.
>probably a naval landing on the mainland
....With what ships. You think that heavily defended sea base is just gonna sit there? There was a large military force, it would of taken months of bombing before it was remotely ready for a proper invasion. Or you suggesting they stupidly throw their completely untrained in maritime warfare military force at a fortified enemy?
>. An iron invasion fleet wouldn't take much time or exotic resources with a proper assembly line, the biggest item would be the fuel.
When i said war material we aren't talking exotics, Germany had jack shit in most of them. You cant hand waive this away. One of the major reasons he invaded the USSR was to fix this. And unless hes gonna go at the USSR even earlier, he has no where to go to fix the import problem.

>>18109050
Also i do want to bring something up. Bombing doesnt really work. Especially at a time when bunker busters dont exist. You can move bases and factories underground. The luftwaffle doing a large bombing campaign doesnt really soften them up. We saw this in Malta.

The Crete shoreline is as long as the English one.
The Brits there had numerical superiority on the ground and total dominance over the sea and still couldn't stop the drops or the subsequent landings.

So Sealion wasn't as impossible as you might think.

>>18109344
...The numbers they had in crete would not remotely be similiar to what they would have on fucking britain, nor the defenses. What a fucking dumb post.

>>18109344
>Crete
cretes failure was majorly because laylock was a complete an utter dumbass. And well 2 being they didnt even have enough radio's so half the island wasnt even aware it was under attacks till it was too late.

>>18108612 (OP)
In 1941 or 42, not in 1940 based on the numbers. Based on quality it may have. The British did not acquit themselves well.

>>18109026
>the Germans control the skies, the Royal Navy will be destroyed.
Based on what?

>>18108612 (OP)
It would have to be a suicide mission consisting of Germans landing in empty beaches by hundreds of u-boats and the entire Fallschirmjäger parachuting men into England. The Luftwaffe annd Kriegsmarine would have to distract the Brits elsewhere. However, most if not all of the U-Boats and planes would be destroyed in an attempt like this, it would be sending Germans into a meat grinder. The goal would be for the soldiers that landed to cause as much as damage as possible, but every single one of these men would have to be ok with the fact that their chances of surviving or not being captured are very slim.

>>18109512
The entirety of the war in the pacific.
Planes beat ships, as long as they have a base close by.

>>18108902
The British fleet could not remain in the channel for more than hit and run attacks, otherwise it would be sunk by aircraft. Repelling a landing would not be straightforward.
If the Germans landed then what would follow would be the most spectacular air and sea campaign ever fought, making the battle of Britain look like a skirmish.

>>18108612 (OP)
Sandhurst performed war games to see how operation sealion panned out, as in actual war games with professionals not dungeons and dragons, inviting ex-German officers to command the Germans who were motivated to share their ideas by their alliance with Britain in the cold war. Even with everything slanted in Hitler's favor the result was a total defeat of the landing troops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)

Although the Germans might be able to rush troops across the channel, once it was known where they were landing the British army would respond while supply ships would be constantly harassed by British destroyers thus German efforts would grind to a halt.

>>18109344
Crete was captured because one battalion of the German paratrooper managed to secure a single hill overlooking an airfield. All the other paratroopers failed their objectives and were slaughtered or taken POW.
The hill was mostly captured because of allied confusion.

To conquer England, you need to capture entire cities. Paratroopers cannot capture a city. They were at best tasked to capture a single bridge within a city, which they often failed to do, because paratroopers in ww2 were an overglorified meme. Even on Overlord their actual strategic worth can be heavily debated. Also, paratroopers can survive at most for roughly a week before they must be relieved, otherwise they are forced to surrender.

Like another anon said, the problem isn't to actually get the wehrmacht across (even tho it was physically impossible because no boats), the real problem is how to maintain them. How to maintain the entire overseas campaign. A division requires several tons of supplies per day to be able to move. There must always be an uninterrupted chain of logistics.
If the Germans had attempted sealion, it's more likely that Britain would have allowed them to land as much men and material as possible before moving in and close the channel, thus creating the largest encirclement in human history.

>>18109026
>the Brits have no choice but to zerg rush into the confines of the English Channel to try and stop them
Actually no. The British would likely have done the opposite: stand down and let the Gernans ferry as much men and material as possible, because it's just going to increase the disaster later. The larger force; the more supplies needed to even maneuver.

>but if the Germans control the skies, the Royal Navy will be destroyed.
Except luftwaffe had a terrible record of Air-to-Ship combat which was shown when the luftwaffe failed to prevent the Dunkirk evacuation, the Crete evacuation, and the Narvik invasion.

Also, all it takes is one day of bad weather, and the weather over the channel was more bad than good. A major reason Battle for Britain failed and the Blitz was called off was because of the weather.
The royal navy isn't grounded by bad weather. The airforce always is.

Also, all it takes is nightfall. A single Royal Navy taskforce of destroyers could steam into the channel and wreck anything that floats and every supplydump on the beach.

Not that any of this matters because luftwaffe was never going to defeat RAF because the RAF produced more aircrafts than Luftwaffe, trained more pilots than luftwaffe, shot down more planes than luftwaffe, recovered more pilots than luftwaffe, had greater access to aluminum and oil and high-octane level avgas than luftwaffe. The list goes on.

Sealion is the biggest meme of ww2. You'd think wehraboos would give it up when even Hitler knew it was a meme.

>>18108612 (OP)
This entire thing depended heavily on air superiority, and with them mostly fighting over British skies it was a doomed plan from the start

A destroyed bf109 can be rebuilt in a factory, but a captured pilot is lost forever. Battle of Britain was just that

I still find it funny though, that this fucking island off the coast of Europe has been a thorn on every major European power's side

Napoleon
>Got cucked by Admiral Nelson on Trafalgar

Hitler
>Got cucked by the RAF and RADAR

One foiled by sea, the other by air, actually fucking insane

Politically, it would have been best if the Germans had landed.
Militarily, it was near impossible to pull off

>>18108612 (OP)
If he didn't invade the USSR sure, but he would've been invaded by the USSR and been fucked by a 2-front war

>>18108906
>The fact is both sides were implacably set on war
Completely untrue. After the first World War Britian did everything it could to give peace a chance until Hitler finally crossed the final red line at Danzig which forced the British hand.

>>18109776
The British were also masters of diplomacy, they always got someone else to fight for them.
During the Seven Years War most of the fighting was done by Prussia yet Brirain claimed most of the spoils from that shared victory.
During the Napoleonic wars, Wellington army was majority allied soldiers (Dutch, Germans, Portuguese etc).
During ww2, the 8th army under Montgomery was only 50% British while the other half were Commonwealth/Colonial/allies (Czech, Dutch, Poles, Greeks).

Britain has also been masters of propaganda because they successfully sell every conflict as "poor little Britain" vs the world, when in reality it was the other way around given the vastness of the empire. It's how most normies learn ww2 that Britain "stood alone" against all odds etc.

While we're on this topic...

How would you compare these two beautiful machines

>>18109814
Bit of an unfair comparison in context to the battle itself since the overwhelming majority of British aircrafts were Hurricanes.

>>18109823
This 200%

Fuck you>>18109814 the hawker hurricane was the backbone of the RAF and had more kills than spitfire squadrons

>>18109364
Oh yeah, The Home Defense was going to repulse the landings, they were training with brooms after all.
Learn a little before posting.

>>18109990
Doesn't matter if the home army was one man.
Germany has no way to cross the channel and launch an amphibious operation.
Germany has no way to control the channel from the Royal Navy.
Germany has no way to launch sealion in 1940.

>>18109563
The pacific war illustrates the exact opposite. Ships that are properly supported as part of a fleet were difficult to engage and sink even with air superiority and most battleships sunk by aircraft were largely or entirely isolated or were still in port unable to maneuver and unprepared for an air attack. The Germans would not have been able to reasonably destroy or cripple the Royal Navy with just their air force in a reasonable timeframe.

Even then they simply do not have enough available ships to actually supply their forces nor a harbour unless they capture a major city almost immediately, and England will not just give up major port cities to German paratroopers or marines quickly.

This isn't Hearts of Iron, you're proposing a reverse D-Day while lacking almost everything the actual D-Day had.

>>18109366
The battle of Crete was over and the Allies in full retreat before Laycock even set foot on the island...

>>18109990
You reckon LDV was the only military force in the UK?

>>18110051
Why the fuck do people keep bringing in Crete to this discussion?

Crete was a tiny island defended by a skeleton force.
The battle was decided because one paratrooper battalion captured a hill due to allied negligence.
The rest of the German paratroopers failed their objectives and were killed/captured.

>>18109026
>t if the Germans control the skies, the Royal Navy will be destroyed.
Germans never came close to gaining even air superiority but even if they could gain air supremacy over the Channel, they still don't have any experience or demonstrated success at hitting moving naval vessels and the RN can just attack at night.

>>18110083
Because they're autistic and see "German paratroopers invaded an island and won therefore German paratroopers can ALWAYS win if they invaded an island" binary thinking.

>>18108666
Why stop there? Why not just say "What if the Germans had modern jet fighters that they received from a time machine?"

>>18110095
Not just nightfall but simply one day of bad weather, and the channel was extremely prone to bad weather. A navy is never grounded by bad weather. An airforce always is. One day of bad weather and the barges and the entire beachhead will be exposed.

Plus if sealion was going to be launched in 1940, they need to hurry up plan, prepare, train, mobilize, execute & complete this overseas campaign in less than a few months because after November it wasn't possible to fly over the channel because of the winter weather. It was the main reason why the Blitz was called off.

If Sealion isn't launched in 1940, then it's going to be far more difficult to overwhelm a prepared Britain. It's actually insane to imagine this reversed Overlord to be planned, prepared, trained, mobilized, executed & completed under such a small time frame, especially with makeshift barges to travel on open ocean, to load and unload military equiptment, to logistically function on a beachhead. How are you even supposed to move things on and off from them on a beach? How are tanks supposed to get off. Thousands of tons of supplies and barrels. How are they not going to capsize on route. How are civilian vessels going to sustain themselves being fired upon.

So many questions, so few answers.

>>18110122
in addition, Germany was chronically incapable of forecasting the weather because they didn't have reliable meteorological information from the Americas, which Britain did from both Canada and the US

>>18108612 (OP)
No way it could have worked, even with air superiority. I think Britain did a war game in the 70's to see if Sealion could have succeded and the conclusion was a huge failure for the germans

>>18109990
......they had the entire force from dunkirk, are you being fucking serious here?

>>18110051
oops, yeah im mixing him up with freyberg

Hear me out... What if... They built a bridge

>>18108924
>Let's load up a tank onto this fishing trawler, digga
Yeah what could go wrong lmao

>>18108949
>Seize enormous ocean passenger liner
>Have nowhere to actually dock it and disembark its cargo because it turns out you can't just ram a ship that size onto any beach and unload it
I think many of you dweebs are also forgetting that Containers (as in the big boxes you see on ships nowadays) weren't actually extensive yet back then, unloading ships was a slow and mighty inefficient process which required absurd man-hours to complete

>>18109812
I smell seething in your post
>Czech, Dutch, Poles, Greeks
Yeah, I sure wonder why

>>18110731
How am I seething?

>>18108612 (OP)
Maybe but likely not.
>>18108642
He let them go as a gesture of good will.

>>18110903
>let them go as a gesture of good will
>so long as you ignore the multiple air raids and assults from any nearby troops he could muster

>>18108612 (OP)
Germany should have spent money on a different sort of wonder weapon. One which would allow the army to cross the channel without relying on the navy or airforce

>>18110918
They could've used this to dig under Moscow.

>>18110910
Just bantz

>>18110938
fair enough

>>18110731
Pic is you
>wah wah

>>18111162
I'm pro-British actually

>>18111171
This isn't about being pro or anti retard.
It's an arguable fact that Britain were experts at diplomacy because in virtually every conflict they managed to find a continental power that could soak up the heaviest fighting.

This is in stark contrast to German diplomacy who had a tendency to find the worst allies in most conflicts.

Stop being an insufferable faggot just because someone doesn't cheer for your "team". It's a history discussion, not a "us vs them".

You also asked why did Greeks, Dutch, Czechs, Poles fight in the 8th army in ww2. Like are you seriously this fucking stupid I have to spell it out for you? Germany attacked them so naturally they joined Britain's cause.

>>18108612 (OP)
This fucking island denied Napoleon by sea, and Hitler by air

Is this the power of being an island nation?

>>18111220
You are dense
>You also asked why did Greeks, Dutch, Czechs, Poles fight in the 8th army in ww2
That was a rhetorical question, mate

>>18108642
That is a myth, the Germans fought hard to stop the dunkirk evacuation but failed.

>>18111230
Eh once upon a time, ICBMs with MIRVs exist now sooooooo being an island kinda irrelevant

>>18111251
Navy is still the ultimate form of power projection. The navy is the Ace of spades then as it is now. That's what worries USA the most about China. So far China isn't as much of a threat, but once they build a blue-water navy they will be, because then they can start asserting themselves globally.

>>18111234
I dont even think you yourself had a point besides seething that someone provided nuance to ww2 which you instantly interpretated as picking a side because to you history is all about picking a side, which is pathetic.

>>18111293
>they successfully sell every conflict as "poor little Britain" vs the world, when in reality it was the other way around
Such nuance

>>18111306
Are you saying Britain did not have a global empire behind her?
I can name countless of documentaries where in 1940, after the fall of France, it's framed as "Britain standing alone", and the conflict is viewed only from continental Europe to make it seem like Britain is up against horrible odds when that wasn't the case.
The British also hyped up every victory with grandiose speeches about how "a few overcame the impossible" rather than simply saying it was due to overwhelming material advantages.
Again, because attributing the victory over England to a few brave men sold as a much better story.
It's not even close to how the nazies framed every victory with their ubermenschen narrative, but it should still be pointed out.

You really have a child's mind of ww2 because you can't comprehend that even the allies were capable of propaganda. It's pathetic, and it undermines any serious and nuanced discussion on ww2. As if this is supposed to be some sort of contest with teams.

Again, pic is you.

>>18111306
Also I noticed how you're only able to reply with one-liners because you cant really say anything of substance. It's basically just shitposting. Good work "team Britain".

>>18111402
Now post this about WWI

>>18111437
Britain didn't "stand alone" against a continental power like in 1805 and 1940.
You really can't see the point I was making earlier?
But sure, even in ww1 the odds are heavily stacked against the central powers after they failed to achieve a quick victory in the opening offensives of the war, again, because the Entente controls a third of the planet, which includes the British empire.
It's just that ww2 post-war propaganda is far more prevailing than ww1. It's heavily romanticized in Britain's favor in terms of the actual situation the Axis faced even with the surrender of France.

Again, all I hear from you is
>Wah Wah

>>18111535
I quote again
>they successfully sell every conflict as "poor little Britain" vs the world
>every conflict
Which is apparently not true. It was said because someone clearly seethes about Britain

>>18111284
China is blockade by SEA and Japan which are all allies and friends of the US but idk if Washington will really come to their rescue

Realistically.. do you even need more than these two?

>>18111546
How am I "seething over Britain"?
See these posts?
>>18109576
>>18109589
>>18110122
I wrote them.
Does it look like seething to you?
You're overreacting because I said one thing negative which is Arguably true.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said "every" conflict, because that goes back to the Spanish succession war, but at least every modern conflict where Britain "stood alone", and it was those conflicts I wanted to highlight, especially ww2, which is heavily propagandacized as portraying Britain as the underdog in most narrations of ww2 among the general public.

>>18111598
>me me me
Ok, you're totally not seething

>>18111576
Yes. An aircraft carrier requires an entire fleet to support it, because it needs auxiliary protection and a source of supplies.

>>18111611
What's wrong with you anyway?

>>18111576
Yes you do

But these two are pretty much 90% of the power of a navy

>>18111576
Yes you do

But these two are pretty much 90% of the power of a navy

>>18111284
Britain doesnt have a navy anymore and navy isnt the ultimate form of power projection. It is air power and ballistics.
The US worries about China because they are beyond the strategic range of US air power.
The Navy today, ultimately, exists to protect the Aircraft carriers because they are the pivot for air power.

>>18108612 (OP)

Fuck no.

Even just assuming out the gate that the Royal Navy and the RAF were were completely useless and discounting the fact that the Germans had

>a fraction of the naval armada that was assembled for D-Day
>no purpose-built landing craft (the plan was to use converted barges, most of which couldn't get across the channel under their own power)
>virtually no practical experience in large scale expeditionary warfare (the only time they did it on any appreciable scale was Norway in 1940)

there remains the simple fact that invading the United Kingdom would have almost certainly provoked a premature American entry into the war. There was a general consensus at the time that even if Americans didn't want to fight, that they could not afford to lose the UK. Hence why the Roosevelt Administration was so willing to push its luck with Lend-Lease and later the occupation of Iceland.

>>18112233
cope. There is no reason to believe the Germans, having defeated the British army in France near effortlessly, couldnt defeat the British army in Britain even if we assume considerable effort is needed.
>NO THE HECKIN NAZIS CNA NEVER HAVE A PATH TO VICTORY
stop coming to these threads.

>>18112034
>The US worries about China because they are beyond the strategic range of US air power.
Kadena Air Base is 400 miles from China and is home to 20,000 active servicemembers
China couldn't even begin to fathom having a major active air base even a thousand miles from US soil let alone 400

>>18108612 (OP)
Absolutely.

>>18112243
>"considerable effort"
NTA but I would really like to know what "considerable effort" means in your scenario that would more or less negate opposition to a German landing by the Royal Navy and RAF.

inb4 you invoke muh Battle of Crete for the 100th time.

>>18112243
>There is no reason to believe the Germans, having defeated the British army in France near effortlessly

They beat the British because the French massively dropped the fucking ball thinking that the Maginot Line was all they needed to invest in. The British Expeditionary Force was small (300,000 out of the 3 million Allied troops in the West in 1940) and unable to do much to prevent the Wehrmacht from sweeping through France once the French Army was routed.

>defeat the British army in Britain even if we assume considerable effort is needed.

They couldn't get ashore in Britain in the first place you fucking retard. At you would have gotten from attempting Sealion was just Dunkirk in reverse.

>stop coming to these threads.

Nazi Germany was an economically unstable basket case that was going to fall apart as soon as the conquests stopped.

Cope
Seethe
Dial the Number 8

>>18108612 (OP)

>Withouth American intervention?

Totally It was a matter of time until Germany crossed La Manche, British supply lines would have been oblitarated by the Japanese withouth American intervention in the Pacific. And withouth american resources-men it was going to be an quick war of atrition. Now, the second USA got inside the war, it was over.

The Royal Navy has a terrible track record of taking losses and continuing the fight.

>WW1
>tasked to take the straits
>take a few losses to mines
>give up, leave it for the army to take over "it's their problem now"
>WW2
>Crete
>take a few losses to planes
>high tail it out of there and let the island fall
>East Asia
>take a few losses to Japs
>run like the wind "It's the Americans problem now"

In conclusion, they would probably give up on the channel too after Germany sunk a few of their ships and the Home Guard would be left to defend the beaches with their brooms.

>>18114898
I don't think its reasonable to use the performance of fleets in distant theaters where withdrawal/defeat was no immediate threat to the homeland.

>>18112034
>The US worries about China because they are beyond the strategic range of US air power.
Are you retarded, Japan, Korea? Aircraft carriers?

>>18114898
>WW2
>Crete
>take a few losses to planes
>high tail it out of there and let the island fall
better to fight another day, and they did. Throwing away lives is how you end up like germany after barbarossa..

>>18108904
The British Army after Dunkirk was vastly inferior to the Wehrmacht even in its depleted 1944 state so revise that number way down. Still beyond Germany's capabilities ofc

>>18108612 (OP)
>German land on the south east coast
>Royal navy blocks the English channel
>Germans are stuck on a hostile island with no chance of resupply or reenforments
Sealion was always doomed to fail, that's why Hitler wanted to bomb Britain into submission

>>18110903
>He let them go as a gesture of good will
Neo-nazi cope

>>18116665
>>Royal navy blocks the English channel
The British navy is the most overhyped organization in all of human history. They were getting BTFO by undermanned Japanese air squadrons. In fact, if the Germans did not move against the USSR but rather maintained its focus on Britain, the British navy would have snapped readily.
>Hitler wanted to bomb Britain into submission
Except that's not what they even did. They led retaliation raids early on, but obviously since they moved east they clearly did not want to pulverize the British completely, else they would have done it. England, Wales, and Scotland combined are smaller than most American states with its population concentrated in only four cities, with one city holding over 8 million people. Realistically, all Germany would have to do is encircle London and it would be game. Liberating Wales and Scotland and Ireland are just bonuses.

>>18116690
>Japan and the English Channel are the same thing

>>18116690
>just encircle London bro

>>18108642
The nazis, unfortunately, ran out of fuel before they could get to dunkirk and really had no way of effectively killing the bongolians there

>>18116699
You're right: the Japanese case is even crazier because they had to fight the British navy hundreds of miles from their home territory while Germany only needs to fight near its own lands. Japan had to set up shop in areas where the British had already established themselves for decades, in some cases for nearly two centuries.
>>18116703
Encircling London would be magnitudes easier than encircling Stalingrad, Leningrad, and attempting the Moscow approaches- obviously. You said that sarcastically but you sound stupid doing so.

>>18116715
You just made that up. Fuel was not in the consideration. Rundstedt in fact argued that they should make the attack but others like Guderian insisted that because the low countries are marshy that tanks would not be able to maintain speed and trucks might get stuck off-roading. It was a geographic consideration based on case studies prepared by the German military in the interwar period. Also, there was no "Hitler VS his general staff" argument about this either, Guderian and the staff was arguing against Rundstedt.

It's obvious why you keep lying about all of these things though.

>>18109793
I was talking about 1940 at the time of dunkirk

>>18110680
Germany had the capability to rig up a boarding ramp for a big ship, yes indeed. They could build their own if practicable but why bother. In fact the allies worked hard to deny potential landing craft to Hitler but it also wasn't a point of emphasis for the nazis. They preferred to look good in front of neutrals.

>>18116725
>As it turned out, the Germans halted their advance in order to resupply their fast-moving armoured divisions
eat shit, faggot
https://www.worldhistory.org/Dunkirk_Evacuation/

>>18116717
>Encircling London is easy

>>18116725
>It was a geographic consideration based on case studies prepared by the German military
that's a cute way of saying WWI vets were scared of flanders fields. Strategically it only makes sense if you're still trying to curry favor with the british, which isn't a serious position unfortunately. This was one of very few opportunities to capture or destroy a british army.

>>18116786
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/254024.Panzer_Leader
Here ya go champ.

>>18116674
He's right. Hitler was all about that kind of thing, it doesn't make him a genuine good guy but nazism is incredibly sentimental. It's all vibes and aesthetics.

>>18116788
It would take three armies in Essex, and two armies Cornwall side. That's a fraction of what they expended against the USSR.

>>18116822
>goodreads
no thanks, fag

>>18116674
>>18116834
Just listen to this clip of his speech about keeping women in the kitchen. You've never heard so much pathos and visceral feeling in a political speech, his normal way of talking was like someone else having a major freakout. Nobody at the time had any question, nor has it ever been questioned since that they were witnessing an historic pinnacle of populist oratory. That doesn't make him a good guy, more like a cautionary tale, but it is what it is.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x308jq6

>>18116850
Read it you moron.

>>18116871
not gunna, fagolio

>>18116840
>two armies Cornwall side

>>18116877
Why are neo-rabs so anti-intellectual?

>>18116920
when did I say I was arab? I just don't like bongs

>>18116941
Neo-rabbinical

>>18116725
Bullshit. Yes the swampy area was a factor for not assaulting Dunkirk earlier, but the main reason for the halt-order (written by the generals, Hitler merely approved it) was because they had outrunned their supply line and their flanks were exposed.

>>18114898
>Crete
They were literally tasked to evacuate the Crete garrison you moron. The navy was commended for doing so successfully while luftwaffe was scorned for failure to prevent it, just like Dunkirk and Narvik.

>>18116690
>See that Navy over there that rules the world? Yeah they're actually just a paper tiger

>>18108612 (OP)
Nope. Not even close OP

>>18117556
Actually. They got their shit pushed in repeatedly and even Churchill said the sub threat nearly choked them out. Now imagine if tens of thousands of German aircraft were freed up from fighting in the east and allowed to pulverize a tiny channel. Brits would have been BTFO pretty hard. And for that matter, Napoleon could have done the same thing too.

>>18119406
>we could have totally overwhelmed you with planes
>just ignore that time we tried and failed
>or the fact British aircraft production outpaced our own

>>18116690
>if the Germans did not move against the USSR but rather maintained its focus on Britain
ah yes, the famous nazi fleet that was used aganist USSR instead of focusing on Britain......

>>18119412
>>just ignore that time we tried and failed
They did not though. In fact, Halder goes to Rommel in 1940 and tells him he's wasting his time trying to win there and that his supplies would get yoinked, which of course got set aside for the USSR.
>British had lotsa bombas too doh
The naval bomber always gets through, chudcel.
>the famous nazi fleet
The very same that the former lord of admiralty admitted only needed a slight nudge to obliterate the British navy, yes that one.

>>18119417
>he thought I was refering to the North African campaign and not the battle of Britain, where Germany tried using air power to get something only to go nowhere
also its funny you tried using North Africa as proof they could totally win, despite the fact Halder telling Rommel to stop being retarded pretty much shows they pivoted to the Soviets because they were going nowhere in forcing Britain to surrender

>>18119419
>he thought I was refering to the North African campaign
No, I'm expanding the topic so you know what the strategic field looks like because you clearly do not.
>despite the fact Halder telling Rommel to stop being retarded
You just hear and read what you want to, don't you? That's the opposite of how that conversation went. Rommel said he could win and Halder seems to have agreed, but it's not in the cards and put him down for it. He was about as passive-aggressive as you are.

What I don't get is that you're the type that hates Britons for being WASPy, but now you're defending Britain even though you already know what I'm saying is probably true, just because you hate Germans more than Britons. But why? Why hate post like this?

>>18119424
>and Halder seems to agree
Rommel was outright told to not go on the offensive from the very start since Libya simply did not have the ability to sustain the needed forces for a long term offensive, which proved to be right

>>18119428
>Rommel was outright told to not go on the offensive from the very start
By who? Where did you read that? He was wildly successful and he has since been praised by both Axis and Allied leaders in their appraisals. You're obviously just taking something incredible that the Germans did, with so little to work with, and trying to downplay it for propaganda purposes. What they did was incredible and the British should have made short work of them but failed. Now, Italians on the other hand...

>>18116690
>They were getting BTFO by undermanned Japanese air squadrons
The Royal Navy in Europe was stronger than in Asia
>if the Germans did not move against the USSR but rather maintained its focus on Britain, the British navy would have snapped readily.
How? German U-boats were unable to defeat the Royal navy
>They led retaliation raids early on
The Blitz was terror bombing, not "retaliation raids," dumb /pol/tard
>they clearly did not want to pulverize the British completely, else they would have done it.
They weren't able to. Germany bombed every major city in the UK yet they weren't able to force Britain into surrender
>all Germany would have to do is encircle London and it would be game
How lol?
>Liberating Wales and Scotland and Ireland are just bonuses.
Liberating them from themselves?

>>18116834
No proof Hitler chose to let the BEF escape at Dunkirk

>>18119619
No physical evidence you mean. He was such an intelligent rational guy, with such an accurate view of the world it is hard to imagine him making a bad strategic decision.

>>18112246
What does this have to do with the United States having Z E R O 100,000 active personnel bases within 400 miles of China?
>>18115035
See above.

You guys are fucking idiots, do you even watch the NATO talks on YouTube? The DoD boomers do not upload these as propaganda, these are actual talks and the people working in the DoD and for Chiefs of staff will tell you they have to watch these videos for information.
The US' primary concern as of their 2024 conference was turning SEA into a revolving door of aerial supply chains and airfields.
The US is currently concerned about China overwhelming existing US airbases and thus making it impossible to project airpower into the Chinese mainland.
It doesnt matter if they have a 20,000 man airbase within 400 miles of China, that would be instantly barraged by missiles and its capabilities degraded.
US Carriers are the only air projection hardpoints the US has near China, all the others can be overwhelmed by the PLARF.


This is a rather concerning trend with the shitlibs and anti-nazis, they have zero strategic knowledge and I think they literally just rationalize what they feel is correct rather than actually doing original research.

Hitler did nothing wrong btw.

>>18119710
Taiwan

>>18119672
It's just a dumb meme made up by historians, he literally never expressed any such thought.
If he wanted Britain to surrender then having the BEF as POW's to negotiate with would've been more effective.

>>18119728
Taiwan is within conventional artillery range, it would be a monumental strategic mistake to put any kind of high maintenance aircraft on Taiwan. This is straight from the DoD boomers themselves.

>>18119742
They had contact along the front and the British were completely surrounded against the Sea.

>>18119754
Good thing we have drones now. Taiwan is a perfect platform for hybrid warfare (using civilians as human shield) but that won't be necessary. Why even involve Americans? Simply activate the Japan neet army and their gundam.

They didn't have the ships or the air cover to conduct an operation like that. They knew all of this, which is why they never made the effort to prepare for it.

I think Dönitz was right: Britain relied on food imports, so the best course of action would have been to pivot to the production of medium-sized submarines and small, fast surface raiders. Think of it like a siege - they had no rams or trebuchets, but they did technically have the time and means to surround the castle and wait until its inhabitants came to the negotiating table to avoid starvation.

>>18119786
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>18119826
I agree with Kissinger about military men. Completely independent of context it would be difficult to project airpower over China, yes. In reality, if a major war were in the offing where such a thing would be required, the situation would have changed drastically and new preparations would be happening across all the anticommunist vassal states. That is their reason for existing!

>>18108679
They took millions of russians POW. (Well, they died of starvation but still)

>>18116690
>The British navy is the most overhyped organization in all of human history. They were getting BTFO by undermanned Japanese air squadrons.
The undermanned Japanese air squadron that sank the Force Z was comprised of 85 two-engine medium bombers.

>>18119795
Britain was food autonomous in WW2. They didn't have luxury foods like citrus fruits but they could supply themselves with staples and veggies, just fine.

>>18120231
That would have been exceedingly difficult for Britain, though. As it stands, most of Britain's fruit and wheat came from abroad. People would still be eating enough calories, perhaps, but they'd still be suffering from widespread malnutrition during winter and spring. As someone who suffered from malnutrition for a few months (medical reasons), I can say it makes you dazed and fatigued far beyond what's normal, which is bad for a labor-intensive industrial economy on war footing.

Another consideration is fuel. Britain imported practically all of its oil from abroad during World War II. With a full blockade, at a certain point their navy - or the parts of it that were stationed at home, anyway - would have become unable to break through the German blockade. A shortage of foreign fuel would also have affected the RAF's ability to respond reliably to German threats in the air, in the same way it did the Luftwaffe's operations in 1944-1945. In essence, in case of a full naval blockade the British would sit on their island with a fleet and air force under severe rationing and a population exhausted to the point of fainting from malnutrition, particularly during winter.

All of these things combined would have led to capitulation within a year or two, even if the Americans did their best to help. All the victory gardens, potlucks and quaint recipes by themselves, taken without massive cargo ships full of foreign food and fuel, wouldn't have saved the Britain with 38 million inhabitants that existed in 1940 from getting to know why pre-industrial, pre-colonial Britain had a population that never reached above 5-6 million.