What if Hitler's eye was fixed on Britain in the summer of 1940?

Hitler did conquer nearly all of Europe though...

 

Well German achieve air supremacy, one question:

How many submarines had the Royal Navy at 1940's? What countermeasures would have the Nazis launched to neutralize this threat?

 

I'm curious as to what Ireland would to if Britain had been invaded or conquered.

 

Hi Mark, I think if Hitler's focus remained firm like you stated in the beginning of the thread. He would learn pretty quickly that he would need a better fighter aircraft. But, to take what the Lufwaffe had in stock at the time their aircraft were damaging the airfields, radar installations and industries of Britain. If this was maintained it would eventually begin to have an impact. But this success was only achieved before the Czech's and the Poles were allowed to fight. This will alway's be debated. I believe he might of been able to get a foothold on Great Britain but at a high price in ships, supplies and troops. I can't locate it in one of my books on Sea Lion but I think the RAF didn't want it's pilot's fighting in the channel for fear of losing pilot's. If this is true than the Royal navy could of been dealt with by the Luftwaffe. This is why I believe a foothold could of been possible. And who know's with an airfield in their hands along Dover and the radar installations destroyed what could of been achieved. I have a feeling it would of been hell on Earth for the German invaders!! Good thread Mark. To Anderan, Ireland would of fought like an enraged hornets nest.

 

The problem is that it was having an impact. The LW was being degraded faster than the RAF. Also if they want to go ahead with Sea Lion they are on a very tight schedule. If Sea Lion can't be launced by mid October at the latest it's going to have to wait months.

This was likely at the hight of the BOB. At that time there was plenty for them to do over Britain at less risk. An invasion changes things a bit. The bit about the LW being able to deal with the RN is also very questionable.

 

Its a common assumption, but in fact its one of the greatest myths of WW2.

Here's a post by the poster Hop on the subject from the Armchair General forum. It explains it far better than I ever could.
WW2 Aircraft - Page 6 - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History

 

Around 60 in total though some were in the Mediterranean.
The major threat to these submarines would have been the defensive minefields planned by the German's as the anti-submarine capabilities of the German navy was poorer than the RN's

 

Especially after the losses during the Norway invasion.

 

Actually the part about Britain not wanting it's pilots fighting over the channel had nothing to do with the BOB. In July the LW was attacking British shipping in the channel in an attempt to draw the RAF over the channel and defeat them in the air. To reduce losses pilots were stopped from fighting over the channel in order to preserve them in case of invasion.
If Sealion had taken place the RN would have definately had a strong fighter cover operating from bases along the East coast unless the LW could destroy the RAF first.

 

Had Herr Hitler had not listened to his ReichMarshall and destroyed the BEF at Dunkirk, England would have been left open and practically undefended thus allowing for Airborn Assaults to pave the way for a larger invasion. I still belive the Royal Navy would have made resupply almost impossible, however with a successfull campaign by the Luftwaffe to destroy the RAF (not an impossible task) they could have been used to attempt to stave off the RN. Since we're suspending reality this was the most likely scenario had the BEF been overrun and captured along with it's equipment.

Buzz

 

I believe you are overstating/overestimating the blow the loss of the BEF would have been to Great Britain. It would surely have been an embarrassment, and a morale buster, but the loss of the BEF’s approximately 300,000 men wouldn’t have crippled them completely.

Let’s not ignore the other allied troops which escaped from the continent, i.e. 30,000 departed from Cherbourg, 32,000 from Brest, and 190,000 French and Poles from the Bayonne area with smaller evacuations from St. Malo (21,000). I’ve never seen the numbers from Le Havre, St-Valery-en-Caus and/or Marseille but some debarked from those ports as well. If I'm not mistaken, there was already (pre-Dunkirk), a fully equipped Canadian Division in Britain waiting to be deployed and more Canadian volunteers on the way.

But by February of 1941 it was reported that with perhaps 500,000 men in Africa and elsewhere abroad, Great Britain had 2,000,000 regulars at home with another half a million under training as second line. Of 1,700,000 Home Guards, over half were already first-class supporting troops.

In June of 1940 the Home Guard were just a bunch of game wardens, armed with hunting guns and museum pieces. But by early February of 1941 they were better equipped than World War I soldiers, and were organized, throughout Britain, on efficient military lines.

Behind the first defenses, the whole country was so tightly mobilized that even young boys were already organized into experienced fire-fighting groups. The British were also far from "tankless" after the evacuation, since they had 688 total tanks still on British soil, 407 light tanks, 141 medium tanks, and 140 infantry tanks.

See:

British Equipment losses at Dunkirk and the situation post Dunkirk

And let’s not forget that in mid-1940, (before Lend-Lease), the American government began removing their own M1917 rifles from surplus stores and returning them to service status for the expanding US Army to subliment the 1903 Springfields in use.

Well over 100,000 M1917 rifles (and 30-06 ammo) were shipped directly to Britain in late June, for use by the Home Guard; this more than made up for the 90,000 rifles abandoned in Dunkirk. These were the American made rifles left over from WW1. After WWI, both the P-14 and the M1917 were relegated to substitute standard or reserve status, with significant quantities of P-14s being sent to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Nearly 700,000 P-14 rifles in 30-06 and over a million M1917 rifles were put in storage in America.

Those which were sent to Britain for use by the British Home Guard were prominently marked with a red (or blue, seen both colors mentioned) paint stripe around the buttstock to avoid confusion with the earlier P-14 that used the British .303 round. The Pattern 1914 (P-14) Enfield and M1917 Enfield rifles are sometimes (incorrectly) assumed to be part of the Lee-Enfield family on account of either their caliber (.303), service history, or designer name (RSAF Enfield). P14 and M1917 rifles are Mauser 98 derivatives and not based on the Lee action, and are therefore not part of the Lee-Enfield family of rifles.

 

To add to the preceding post there was also a fully formed Canadian division in Britain and significant Australian and New Zeeland contingents as well.
The June shipment included almost 1,000 75mm artillery pieces and a fair amount of ammo for the same.
On to other issues with the post.

It wasn't his ReichMarshal that halted the Heer. It was their generals. The units in front of Dunkirk were rather worn down at that point. It's far from clear that they would have had an easy time reducing the Dunkirk pocket especially given fire support from the RN. Later events were to show that tanks didn't fair well vs destroyers. Even if they had some of the troops could have been evacuated so they wouldn't have bagged the entire BEF. That's if they win. If they loose the British may actually be able to rescue more troops and some equipment.

This and the preceding post rather paint a different picture. Then there's the question of just how many transport sorties are required for said air assaults and how many transports survive them.

Actually yes it was because if things got to bad for the RAF they could pull back beyond the range of German fighters until needed to prevent/destroy the invasion.

Judging by events around Crete and Norway this would have been a rather futile exercise particularly for whatever fraction of the LW was left after tangling with the RAF.

No and no.
We don't suspend reality in what if's we investigate or hypothesise what might have happened if something changed (commonly called a Point of Departure - or POD). The rest should flow logically from that point. So no suspension of reality.
Furthermore what you hypothesise as the most likely doesn't appear to me to be. IE your arguments are less than convincing at this point.

 

IWD, I enjoyed your post and don't completly disagree with you, but as a trained historian any "what if" scenario is a complete suspension of reality, that's why most historians think of "what if" scenarios as a moot point and a waste of time. However, I do like to entertain a good "what if" (I said most, not all) for just that...entertainment.

As for your analysis....Yes Goering did convince Hitler to let him "subdue" the BEF and this was one of the prime factors that allowed them to escape. If I may quote from General Halder's diary from May of 1940: "24th May, 1940: The left-wing, which consists of armoured and motorized forces and has no enemy in front of it, will be stopped dead in its tracks upon direct order from the Führer. The finishing off of the encircled enemy army is to be left to the Luftwaffe."

This is the main reason the ground forces were halted, and turned out to be one of Hitlers biggest mistakes of the war, since bad weather grounded the Luftwaffe by May 30th. The BEF was in full retreat with it's back against the sea and were flanked by von Bock and von Rundstedt's army groups. Von Rundstedts' panzers were within striking range Dunkirk when Hitler halted them. Von Rundstedt wanted to attack immediatly with infantry and use Kleist's armor to prevent any type of retreat. I has been argued that the German army was halted for rest and refitting, but this is generally dismissed. Most historians worth their PhD's believe that if Hitler had not halted his ground forces and let von Rundstadt and Guiderian continue their attack, there would have been no "miracle at Dunkirk".

As to the RAF's possible destruction by the Luftwaffe: By the numbers, by late August of '40 RAF's losses were beginning to exceed their production numbers and pilot losses were reaching critical levels. It is generally agreed that had Hitler not changed tactics and stuck with attcking the RAF instead of his campaign against the British cities, the RAF could have been in serious trouble. British radar was becoming ineffective against LW attacs, but German losses were at a critical stage as well. Like I said, the defeat of the RAF was not a completely impossible task, but I do agree with you, it was very improbable. You are correct on another point, the RAF woud have relocated to northern bases and Scotland, thus possibly leaving southern England wide open.

Most historians do agree that if the BEF had been destroyed along with it's equipment, England would have had a difficult time repelling any type of invasion, which ultimately would have had to have been accomplished with airborn troops at the beginning. It is agreed that the German Army and Navy did not have adequate or substantial landing capabilities. Could this have been accomplished? Well that's the whole point of "what if's". I do beleive that it could have been possible for the Germans to have secured a foothold in southern Britain and with a little luck and the ball bouncing in their favor could have threatened London. I still believe that the Royal Navy would have been the difference in the survival of England and that the German Navy, with it's limited capabilities would have had an impossible task keeping them out of the Channel.

Two more items to consider, those 300+ thousand of the BEF that were saved formed the bulk of the forces that turned the tide in North Africa, Commonwealth forces notwithstanding. Without that core of British troops in the desert, Rommel may very well have reached the Suez. But that is for another "what if".
Also, if the BEF had been destroyed, what would it have done to the British moral and resolve. It has been suggested that moral could have dropped so low that Churchill's govt. could have been replaced with a govt. more favorable to Germany. (Not a thory I suscribe to.)

For those of you who enjoy reading "Alternative History" I'd like to recommend perhaps the best book of the lot...."The Invasion of Japan: The Alternative of the Bomb" by Dr. J. Ray Skates, U of Southern MS. Dr. Skates was a good friend and colleague of one of my major professors and well respected in the WWII Historian community. This is a great read. I would also recommend "Hitler Slept Late". Not as good as Skates' book, but still an entertaining read.

Buzz

 

My personal thoughts about the "what if" being asked: if the BEF had been overrun I still don't believe that Seelion would have taken place, the RAF would have prevailed over England and the west would have remained pretty much status quo until the Allied invasion. As to North Africa, given the limited amount of supplies being sent to Rommel, it is more than likely that the British and Commonwealth troops (even without the numbers from the BEF) would have stopped and turned the Afrika Corps and North Africa would have played out almost like it actually did. Of course you can play with all the variables and come out with plenty of different outcomes, but this is how I think it would have played out.

Buzz

 

No, and I don't think so. A what if need not be a "complete suspension of reality. In most of them for instance gravity still works. Indeed in a good one a case is simply made for one little thing differing. Hardly a "complete suspension of reality". As for most I'd have to see some data to prove it. Certainly I've read enough histories where the importance of single events is emphasised and that is in essence a what if. Furthermore in trying to figure out what would happen if a single event is changed a lot of research needs to be done which results in basically shineing a light on the subject from another direction which can result in significant new and better understandings of what did happen.

But consider that on the 23

from: Axis History Forum • View topic - Hitler's Decisions
it's also discussed in more detail at: Axis History Forum • View topic - The real reason Hitler never destroyed the BEF at dunkirk?
Oh and just when was this discussion between Hitler and Goering suppose to have taken place?

I've seen that argued before but not convincingly especially given the halt on the 23. A look at the availability rate of the German armor at that point in time might also be rather illuminating.

But that only looks at one side of the coin. Look at what was happening to German numbers as well. The LW started the BOB with a significant edge in single seat fighters. They lost it rather promptly and never really improved the situation. Sure the RAF was hurting in late August but so was the LW and the RAF was building planes and training pilots faster than the LW was.

Generally among what group?

Much the opposite from what I've read. What leads you to believe this?

What made it impossible was the RAF could have and indeed planned to pull back 11 group from the south of England if things got too bad. This would be a dereat but it wouldn't be the complete defeat that the LW needed to open the way for Sea Lion or even enough for them to win the battle of Britain.

Not even that far back. Only 11 group would have been pulled back and only to the Midlands from what I recal.

Who are these "most historians" you keep refering to? Even if the RAF was destroyed especially with the losses the LW would have taken they would have had little chance in stoping the RN from savaging the amphibious portion of any invasion attempt (much like Crete) and any airborne assault would simply die on the vine indeed look at the forces in Britain at the time. In fact look at what forces Britian was sending to Africa during this period.

Little luck doesn't begin to describe it.

Have you looked at what assets the KM had at this time?

It depends very much on what you mean by "destroyed" and how much it costs the Germans. Certainly the British would have gotten some of them out and furthermore an attack into what was highly defenceable terrain backed up by the guns of the RN would have been costly to the Germans.

 

1)Hitler's eye was fixed on Britain in the summer of 1940;where else would his eye been fixed ?
2)I have seen no proof that the Germans were on the point of capturing Dunkirk (only allegations).
3)Not the whole BEF was at Dunkirk:"only" some 200000
4)There is no proof that Britain would give up if Dunkirk + these 200000 were lost;maybe,maybe not :we only can speculate .

 

About the 300000(sic) men that were saved at Dunkirk,that formed the core of the men that downsided the situation in North Africa :I had the assumption that it was not so (especially in the winter of 1940-1941):Wavell'svictories were due to the troops present in the Middle-East and reinforcements from the Commonwealth .
That Rommel would be able to reach the canal:in his dreams,and,if he did,well,it was not that important ,as has been demonstrated brilliantly,on this forum by Brndirt