No Sealion. Hitler ignores Britain completely.

After the fall of France, Germany turns its attention and focus to Barbarossa. Not one bomb is dropped on Britain. No naval blockade. Nothing.

Would the resources saved by Germany be enough to tip the scales in the East?

Would Britain continue the fight or would they try to focus on maintaining the empire instead?

I think Britain would continue to fight and Churchill would look for any excuse to continue the struggle. However, if the Germans aren't dropping bombs on English soil, it would be difficult for the Brits to continue supporting Churchill when they could always find some Chamberlain type to carry out some new diplomacy. However, the British would still want to avenge Dunkirk, and, because much of the empire is still in tack, the British would continue to act the part of a superpower, even though their military is struggling.

Your thoughts please.

Does anyone have precise numbers of German resources spent on the futile efforts of Operation Sealion. Those would be welcome.

 

I think this wouldve had a mojor effect. Something similar has been discussed here:
http://www.ww2forums.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000085
welcome to the forum!

 

If they threw everything they had at Russia-yes, possibly the resources saved wouldv'e been too much for Russia to withstand, because in all honesty, Germany did use alot of its munitions of England...

 

Without the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe would have been even more effective in Russia. A lot of well trained German aircrew were lost over Britain.

But the RAF would also have saved a lot of pilots and planes, and would be more effective in North Africa, and maybe the Far East as well.

 

Yes, in BoB I guess the Germans lost some 1000 planes (?) and probably as many crews whose experience would have been worth its weight in gold during the operation Barbarossa. I don´t think Germany gained anything positive on BoB, only losses.

The political side is hard to discuss. I mean at one point Hitler wanted peace with England so not bombing England might have been reality if you stretch the situation but having Churchill as PM...I don´t think England would have stayed neutral and one day Hitler would have gotten enough and off go the bombers to England!

For Sealion I think the best moment would have been the next two weeks after Dunkirk, but I think the victory in France came too quickly even to the Germans and they were stunned by it.

 

This is entirely truth! If "Seelöwe" would have been launched immediately after Dunkirk then it would have suceeded, because aerial superiority could have been achieved very easily and the weather was more suitable in early June. However, this was not possible at all because there were not any plans. Hitler and the OKH thought that the Army could not even have crossed the Meuse. Let's not say taking Paris and winning the war...

 

I don't see how good weather would have made Sealion any more likely of success. Even given perfect weather, Germany still had no real landing craft, no naval superiority, air supremacy could still be enforced by RAF stations in the Midlands/South West and North of England and regardless of the state of the British Army at the time resistance would be extremely stiff.

 

Correct... that was the inherent problem with Sealion. ALL of the factors mentioned would have had to be PERFECT in Germany's favor for Sealion to even be possible. And even if the germans had gotten perfect conditions, Sealion was still a gamble.
Good weather? This would only have made it easier for the RAF to fly sorties againt the invading germans...

Even the germans, who (justifiably, after Poland and France) were feeling invincible at the time, decided that Sealion was not possible.

I think they were clearly right on this one!

 

That´s my quote ( unfortunately ) but I do think at that moment the British army was totally beaten morally, and all of heavy weaponry left in France. They were not prepared to face a landing, but then again thr Germans had no plan to continue after that marvellous victory.

Later on I think the Royal Navy would have had a nice time sinking those German " landing ships " while RAF kept the Luftwaffe further. NOT GOOD!

 

There was another big problem with this apart from the ones mentioned.
If Hitler after Dunkirk had asked his staff to see the plans for invading Britain, this is the look he would have got

There were No Plans at all , the German military had never even considered the possibility of invading Britain, let alone drawn up plans.

 

Another point against attacking Britain in the weeks just after Dunkirk, is the fact that Dunkirk ended on the 4th June, but the French didn`t capitulate until the 22nd June, after a great deal of heavy fighting between the two dates.
Mind you, if the Germans had launched an invasion after Dunkirk, the Royal Navy wouldn't have sunk many landing ships, because the Germans didn't have any

 

Just some facts during the battle of France:

"During the defence of France nearly 2 million French soldiers were taken prisoner. An estimated 390,000 soldiers were killed defending France whereas around 35,000 German soldiers had lost their lives during the invasion."

Quite a victory....Minimal German losses!

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfrenchA.htm

After Dunkirk...

"The Germans turned swiftly to overwhelm France with 140 divisions against 65 French divisions. Guderian's tanks exploited a breakthrough on the left and surged forwards, surrounding a whole French army. The German general, Kleist, made a panzer drive in the centre. The Maginot Line was pierced in two places. The French, army, no longer an efficient fighting force, made a disorderly retreat and the Germans overran much of France. The French government fled from Paris in confusion and on 22 June the French Marshal Pétain signed a humiliating armistice with the Germans. The Germans occupied northern France and the south was to be ruled independently by a puppet government, based at Vichy and led by Pétain. Meanwhile Italy had declared war on France and Britain, and had attacked France in the south."

140 German divisions against 65 French divisions.

I think they could use some to attack England now...

Time line

June 3 Dunkirk falls
5 German advance in mid-France
9 Dieppe, Rouen and Compiègne fall and the Germans advance toward Dijon.
10 Mussolini declares war to France.
14 Paris is announced as an open city as the Germans march in.
17 The French ask about the conditions of a armistice. Pétain asks the army to stop fighting.
20 The Germans try to confiscate French ships.
22 The armistice is signed in Rethondes.

17th The French ask about the conditions of a armistice.

So the battle was over by then at least, Paris open city by 14th...


By June 3 the RAF squadrons supporting Operation Dynamo had carried out 171 reconnaissance, 651 bombing, and 2,739 fighter sorties and had suffered 177 aircraft destroyed or seriously damaged including 107 fighters and 87 pilots. This meant that Fighter Command first-line fighter strength was down to 331 Spitfires and Hurricanes, with only 36 fighters in reserve by June 4th. (!!!! )
Left behind on the beaches of Dunkirk were some 2,472 guns, 84,427 vehicles of all kinds and 657,000 tons of ammunition.

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/partridge/1209/id17.htm

Moreover, the fights over France, Belgium, Holland, and the English Channel claimed almost 300 experienced fighter pilots, who obviously could not be easily replaced. Losses of aircraft were also substantial and reached as much as one-third of all the fighter planes of the Royal Air Forces (RAF).

http://2ndww.tripod.com/England/sealion.htm

At that moment RAF was at its weakest.

Personally I think looking at what the Germans had they never had the equipment to cross over to England! The troops would have ended as fish food.
The whole Seelöwe was just wishful thinking...That´s how I see it now. And I did change my mind after some excellent views on this in Forum´s "Seelöwe" discussions...

 

heh... well said!
I think Kai and redcoat are right on the money. Discussing wether Sealion would have succeeded or failed is moot; the problems and complications inherent in the operation even disuaded Hitler from pursuing it.
You can look at any ONE of the factors and get an idea of the problems the germans would have faced. Landing craft- the germans simply did not have many at all, nowhere near enough to attempt Sealion. And if we say that the germans could have produced them, fine. But first off, this production would have taken significant amounts of time- time the germans did not have in regards to Sealion (more time would have meant more British fortifications and defences). And even if the germans had gone on an accelerated boat-production program- production in other areas would have consequently suffered. Tons of landing craft- but no escort vessels (all materials used on LCs), and who knows what other dificencies (sp!).
I also find amusing the (apparently widely held ) idea that the British would not have been able to put up any serious resistance. People often point to the British loss of heavy equipment at Dunkirk- who cares??? For one thing, look at Stalingrad- heavy equipment did not make the difference there. Urban fighting almost always favors the defender, and I'm sure the British would have figured this out! And even if we do suppose that germany came up with enough landing craft, the germans still would have been mainly equipped with light weapons as well.
Not to mention that the British would have been defending their homes and homeland. Look at the fanatic resistance put up by the germans as the russians rolled into Berlin. I'd imagine we would have seen much the same fanatical resistance from the British.

 

Consensus that Sealion wasn't able in 1940. Later is was used as a hoax to keep 'em Brits guessing while building up for "Barbarossa".

Now, for the initial question of "Barbarossa" June 1940 iso June 1941 without BoB:

First, I think the timline is too tough to call. June/July 40 would have been the last possible period to start an invasion against the USSR (what weak soever she would be at this time) to not running into winter 40/41. Hitler's question to Brauchitsch/Halder in late June 40 to invade the USSR in 1940 was dismissed.

Seconndly, it is obvious, that the Wehrmacht of June 1941 was stronger compared to that of July 1940 both in quality and quantity.

Army Divisions: 143 (May 1940) // 206 (May 1941)
Men in Wehrmacht service: 5,764,408 (June 1940) // 7.309,000 (June 41)

Luftwaffe men in Service: 1,104,000 (June 40) // 1,545,000 (June 41)

Luftwaffe aircraft: 5,416 (June 29, 40) // 6,852 (June 1, 41)

Aircraft losses (all losses) July 1940 to May 1941: 5,891 a/c
a/c additions during that time period (new or repaired, be CAREFUL: no. includes complete inspections): 9,563 a/c

German a/c produced during June 1940-Dec 1941: 5,400 a/c
German aircraft production plan 1st half 1941: 4,689 a7c

German tanks und StuG: 3,872 (May 1, 40) // 5,816 (June 1, 1941)

Arty-ammonition (in Mio. rounds): 57,1 (May 1, 1940) // 90,5 (June 1, 1941)

Heavy AAA-arty: 3,011 (May 1, 1940) // 4,409 (June 1, 1941)

Armament production 1940/41 (in 1944 $B)
Germany 1940: 6,0
Germany 1941: 6,0
USSR 1940: 5,0
USSR 1941: 8,5

Now the question whether the "weak" (in absolute numbers and in quality) Wehrmacht of July 1940 was nevertheless comparably "stronger" than the Wehrmacht of summer 1941 (because of the lower mobilization grade of the Red Army) is still a subject of speculation. I don't have to much hard facts on Soviet war prepardeness of Summer 1940 compared to those of Summer 1941 to speculate on this.

Cheers,