Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

I just think it's amazing complacency and want of judgment, a bit like sports journalists and pundits telling everybody that England women are going to win the women's tournament, or Scotland is going to win the world cup as has happened in the past. The German Colonel Oster who was one of ours, warned the French, if not the British, that Hitler was going to go round the Maginot Line and attack through the Ardennes but he was not believed. His criticism and information was rejected and ignored by Gamelin.
 
General Alan Brooke was told in his diaries that he discovered that the Home Fleet in the event of an invasion, had little intention of coming further south than the Wash.

Either the RN were lying to him, or you have misinterpreted what he said.

You do know where Portsmouth is on a map?
And Plymouth?

They both had lots of ships stationed there through August and September 1940 (well, and the rest of the war).

In other words, a fair chunk of the RN would have already been in or close to the invasion area on any D-Day for Sealion.
 
On the other hand assuming the Soviets massed their troops and supplies at the border in the same way the Germans did in June 41 they had a lot less ground to cover to reach Berlin than the Germans did to reach Moscow.

I suspect though Stalin would have been content to watch Germany and Britain batter away at one another for a while longer while the Soviet forces carried on their modernisation.

I was thinking more about the threat to the UK. The Soviets were never a military threat to the UK until nuclear weapons.
 
On the other hand assuming the Soviets massed their troops and supplies at the border in the same way the Germans did in June 41 they had a lot less ground to cover to reach Berlin than the Germans did to reach Moscow.
Google tells me:
Brest-Litovsk - Moscow: 1,056 km (995 km for crows)
Brest-Litovsk - Berlin: 780 km (697 km for crows)

Given how close Barbarossa came to Moscow, an equally successful Soviet offensive would have taken Berlin.

I suspect though Stalin would have been content to watch Germany and Britain batter away at one another for a while longer while the Soviet forces carried on their modernisation.
Yes.
 
Either the RN were lying to him, or you have misinterpreted what he said.

You do know where Portsmouth is on a map?
And Plymouth?

They both had lots of ships stationed there through August and September 1940 (well, and the rest of the war).

In other words, a fair chunk of the RN would have already been in or close to the invasion area on any D-Day for Sealion.

I don't think the British Navy had the military clout to prevent a German invasion, as most 'scholars' seem to think now, unless the Luftwaffe and the Stuka dive bombers were kept at bay by Fighter Command of the RAF. They would have been sitting ducks. Fighter Command came close to defeat. August 31 1940 was a particularly bad day.

General Alan Brooke explained more about all this in his diaries:

The naval defence in the Channel and southern waters did not appear to be able to offer the required interference with German landing operations. On the other hand, the Admiralty and naval commanders were inclined to criticise freely Army dispositions. Had I listened to these criticisms I should have had to employ practically the whole of my forces solely for the defence of naval bases by concentrating men on the beaches in their vicinity.
 
I don't think the British Navy had the military clout to prevent a German invasion, as most 'scholars' seem to think now, unless the Luftwaffe and the Stuka dive bombers were kept at bay by Fighter Command of the RAF. They would have been sitting ducks. Fighter Command came close to defeat. August 31 1940 was a particularly bad day.
According to wiki:
Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, believed the invasion could not succeed and doubted whether the German air force would be able to win control of the skies
If even Göring is pessimistic about the plans, they're abysmal.
 
I don't think the British Navy had the military clout to prevent a German invasion, as most 'scholars' seem to think now, unless the Luftwaffe and the Stuka dive bombers were kept at bay by Fighter Command of the RAF. They would have been sitting ducks. Fighter Command came close to defeat. August 31 1940 was a particularly bad day.

General Alan Brooke explained more about all this in his diaries:

Can you explain how these bombers would defend the barges during the night part of the crossing, given how they failed in supporting the invasion of Crete (which did succeed due to the parachute attack).

You might as well rely on the Bismark, even though it hadn't been commissioned by then.
 
Either the RN were lying to him, or you have misinterpreted what he said.

And it's the latter option yet again. 'Home Fleet' was the designation of the battleship force based at Scapa Flow. it also included supporting elements based in Scotland and the North of England. The Destroyers at Portsmouth and Plymouth were assigned to Portsmouth Command and Western Approaches respectively. Took all of 5 minutes to Google that, which give you an idea of how little research Henri is doing.

I was thinking more about the threat to the UK. The Soviets were never a military threat to the UK until nuclear weapons.

True they would have had no more amphibious assault capability than the Germans did.
 
Last edited:
I'd also like to point out that the RAF was never really close to defeat. At the point where Germany thought they had them and switched to London, believing that they had the RAF down to the last hundred operational planes, the RAF actually had more planes than ever before.

Before the Battle Of Britain, Germany estimated that England can produce no more than 180-300 fighter planes per month. It was a gross underestimation. By October 1940, Britain had actually produced some 2000 new Spitfires and Hurricanes, or more than double their losses. The number of operational RAF fighters was actually going UP and fast.

By contrast, Germany produced about half as many new planes in that period, and the difference between new planes and losses was much smaller. I.e., the Luftwaffe was growing its number of planes a LOT slower than the RAF was growing theirs.

Additionally, Germany was losing its experienced pilots faster. Just because a German pilot bailing out over England was out of the fight, while a British one could be back in another plane right away.

But let's also look at what supporting an invasion would have actually meant.

Germany would have needed to:
- have enough sea-worthy transports in the first place, which they didn't
- have the Luftwaffe protect not just the troop transports, but also the ferrying over a stream of supplies for them
- AT THE SAME TIME, the Luftwaffe was supposed to act as flying artillery for the invading troops, because they didn't have enough transport capacity for a lot of tanks and artillery for those initial troops too
- have naval shipyard capacity to replace the transports they'd be losing fast. Which if you look at their naval production otherwise, it was nowhere near enough for that kind of massive effort

... all while the RAF was growing its numbers superiority very fast.

Additionally, there's this myth of the German elite troops, being awesome against huge odds. Actually, they weren't. They really only did well when they had overwhelming numbers concentrated in one point, against defenders that could be thus overwhelmed. Also the whole Bewegungskrieg concept (literally "movement war"; the Germans didn't actually use the term Blitzkrieg) needed space for maneuver. An invading army in Britain would at no point have either.

And encircling the Brits after an invasion would have been a problem too.

But let's look deeper at how the whole Bewegungskrieg worked. Once you actieved that concentrated punch you'd break through and try one of the following:
- encircle some of the troops you bypassed
- keep going and cause chaos, while they chase you; only Rommel really managed to pull this stunt
- occupy some position and let them attack you, until the rest of the army links with you

Mostly the latter was the big evolution, so to speak. But that doesn't work when you also have to keep a supply corridor to the shore. If you just punch through and move on (which wouldn't be easy in the first place with not enough tanks ferried over), the Brits close the beachhead and now YOU are the one encircled.

I'm not saying an invasion would generally be impossible, but Sealion? Even if Germany found a thousand seaworthy transports somewhere, it just wouldn't work. Just too many problems, really.
 
Last edited:
I'd also like to point out that the RAF was never really close to defeat. At the point where Germany thought they had them and switched to London, believing that they had the RAF down to the last hundred operational planes, the RAF actually had more planes than ever before.

Before the Battle Of Britain, Germany estimated that England can produce no more than 180-300 fighter planes per month. It was a gross underestimation. By October 1940, Britain had actually produced some 2000 new Spitfires and Hurricanes, or more than double their losses. The number of operational RAF fighters was actually going UP and fast.

By contrast, Germany produced about half as many new planes in that period, and the difference between new planes and losses was much smaller. I.e., the Luftwaffe was growing its number of planes a LOT slower than the RAF was growing theirs.

Additionally, Germany was losing its experienced pilots faster. Just because a German pilot bailing out over England was out of the fight, while a British one could be back in another plane right away.

But let's also look at what supporting an invasion would have actually meant.

Germany would have needed to:
- have enough sea-worthy transports in the first place, which they didn't
- have the Luftwaffe protect not just the troop transports, but also the ferrying over a stream of supplies for them
- AT THE SAME TIME, the Luftwaffe was supposed to act as flying artillery for the invading troops, because they didn't have enough transport capacity for a lot of tanks and artillery for those initial troops too
- have naval shipyard capacity to replace the transports they'd be losing fast. Which if you look at their naval production otherwise, it was nowhere near enough for that kind of massive effort

... all while the RAF was growing its numbers superiority very fast.

Additionally, there's this myth of the German elite troops, being awesome against huge odds. Actually, they weren't. They really only did well when they had overwhelming numbers concentrated in one point, against defenders that could be thus overwhelmed. Also the whole Bewegungskrieg concept (literally "movement war"; the Germans didn't actually use the term Blitzkrieg) needed space for maneuver. An invading army in Britain would at no point have either.

And encircling the Brits after an invasion would have been a problem too.

But let's look deeper at how the whole Bewegungskrieg worked. Once you actieved that concentrated punch you'd break through and try one of the following:
- encircle some of the troops you bypassed
- keep going and cause chaos, while they chase you; only Rommel really managed to pull this stunt
- occupy some position and let them attack you, until the rest of the army links with you

Mostly the latter was the big evolution, so to speak. But that doesn't work when you also have to keep a supply corridor to the shore. If you just punch through and move on (which wouldn't be easy in the first place with not enough tanks ferried over), the Brits close the beachhead and now YOU are the one encircled.

I'm not saying an invasion would generally be impossible, but Sealion? Even if Germany found a thousand seaworthy transports somewhere, it just wouldn't work. Just too many problems, really.


That's all very well, but what about the Bismark? I regard the fact that it hadn't been commissioned to be a minor detail, and I'm sure Napoleon said something about Battleships being queens of the land battle, or was that Washington and aircraft carriers?


Alternatively, you just need to compare the planning for Overlord with Sealion. Sealion was completely amateurish, or alternatively wasn't remotely serious.
 
I'm not really sure which, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were never more serious than a general concept being toyed with. HQs everywhere try to make up plans for every possibility, whether it pans out or not, and often whether they're realistic or not. In fact, often you don't even realize how unrealistic it is until you start writing down the details.

At any rate, that's why you end up with stuff like the UK having plans for a war against the USSR (more than once, at that), the USA having plans at various points for wars against the UK and/or Canada, etc. Some people sit down and think up what it would involve, but most don't really get even much planning.
 
I'm not really sure which, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were never more serious than a general concept being toyed with. HQs everywhere try to make up plans for every possibility, whether it pans out or not, and often whether they're realistic or not. In fact, often you don't even realize how unrealistic it is until you start writing down the details.

At any rate, that's why you end up with stuff like the UK having plans for a war against the USSR (more than once, at that), the USA having plans at various points for wars against the UK and/or Canada, etc. Some people sit down and think up what it would involve, but most don't really get even much planning.

My theory is that the German commanders in their armed forces knew that they would need to neutralise both the RN and the RAF, and also knew that achieving both was unlikely, but that they also knew that saying no to Hitler would have been personally bad, so they instigated some pretty sketchy planning, so that they could report that they were doing something towards Sealion.
 
I guess it's one of the constants of the universe that it's easier to tell your boss "we have a committee working on it" than to tell him "that's a stupid idea," eh?
 
It's an older German tradition, if you look for example at the Schlieffen plan. War is complex, man. So our imaginary troops will come from 90 degrees from reality and catch the enemy completely by surprise ;)
 
But let's address Bismarck. Hell, let's throw in Tirpitz too. And a completed Graf Zeppelin carrier. Why not? If we're going into fun alternate history scenario, let's dive in with glee like the Stuka.

You'll notice that what Bismarck manage to do was basically lead a small number of warships on a chase around the British Isles, trying to avoid a confrontation it couldn't win. When it was forced to actually stand and fight against just TWO battleships (the heavy cruisers only really joined at the end, after the Bismarck had lost its main guns), because that pesky aircraft disabled its rudder, yeah, it got blown to pieces. Even though by the end Rodney was shooting point blank at its thickest armour.

I'm not sure what even two of them could do against the whole home fleet, much less the combined all fleets in Britain. Which really is what would have been out, if Britain had to do an all out effort to keep off an invasion. They wouldn't have gone, "oh, let's keep our ships in port. We can't afford to lose a few."

Also bear in mind that this time they wouldn't just face a few obsolete carrier planes, but just about every bomber the Brits could put in the air from regular airstrips too.

The Bismarck also had several problems. I'm sure the more history versed folks here know them, but in case someone doesn't, here is a very relevant one: its AA guns couldn't depress below a certain angle, making it all but defenseless to torpedo bombing attacks. Which is how and why a few slow interwar carrier planes torpedoed it in the first place.

And even its armour wasn't as impenetrable as some people think. It wasn't the Yamato. Yeah, it was hard to sink, but it hadn't been all THAT hard to put out of action. A single close range 16" salvo from the Rodney blew upthe forward control post and killed most of the senior officers. A few more salvoes blew up its main turrets. And remember, this wasn't plunging attacks against the thinner roofs. The Rodney was closing as fast as it could and shooting at the thickest side armour.

All in all, the Bismarck was actually disabled pretty quickly when forced to stand and fight. Yes, the battle took a lot more time, but mainly because the Brits were determined to sink it already. For most of the shooting gallery that ensued, the ship was as good as no threat to anybody. It certainly wouldn't be in much of a position to support an invasion or anything.

Now some may object that it WAS only because being forced to stand and fight in close quarters, but really, that's also what you could expect if fighting to support an invasion in the Channel. I mean, sure, it probably could retreat to port and avoid being sunk, but that's back to square one: now the Royal Navy can sink those transports with impunity.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom