Split Thread WWII & Appeasement

[erwinl]

To the best of my recollection, the entire strength in ships of destroyer or larger classes available to the Kriegsmarine in June 1940 comprised one heavy cruiser, two light cruisers and four destroyers; everything else was either damaged and under repair, refitting or sitting on the bottom of Narvik Fjord. Henry, your source lists 71 destroyers, 11 cruisers, 5 battleships and an aircraft carrier in home waters, all within less than a day's steaming of the invasion area - the German invasion fleet would have taken at least 24 hours to cross the channel, the strings of towed barges were so slow - which is enough to outnumber quite comfortably every German warship put together throughout WW2, even if they'd all been in commission at the same time. It's a little difficult to reconcile the numbers in your source with its assertions, but it's clear that at the very least the Navy could have had dozens of destroyers in amongst the barges.

Dave

This ^

Whenever I see Henry talking about the German navy, I only think 'What navy? There was none!'

And even the u-boats could not have done a lot.
According to this source (Appendix A, Table 7, page 54 (which I suspect should have been called table 10, by the way)), there were only 29 u-boats active during june 1940. Which actually was the lowest number till that point in the war (and going lower from that point on, before finally rising again in march 1941). If we look at Table 11, page 57, we see that of the 210 u-boats active on december 1942, only 63 (30%) were actually on their station. The rest were in transit (22%) or at their base (48%).
So. From the 29 u-boats active in june 1940 we can expect about 9 to be actually present for operations.

Not a good basis for planning the greatest amphibian assault up to that moment, I think.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I agree that the senior officers in the German Navy were not as keen on an invasion of Britain as the German army and air force. I have never researched where the German battleship Bismarck was at the time, but it was a ship that was not to be underestimated. Also Admiral Canaris of the Abwehr it looks like now was one of ours, and he had the ear of Hitler at the time. It has also been said in the past that Corporal Hitler was more of an Army man than a Navy man.

All I know is that General Alan Brooke was expecting an invasion any time in September 1940, unlike many of the subsequent scholars writing about the matter in hindsight.

I agree with what this internet poster has said about the matter, even if he is not a scholar with modern data:

It would have been a piece of cake. Without the RAF the British navy could not have stopped the Germans you need air superiority, the British navy would have been sitting ducks.

Do people who disagree think that the Normandy landings would have gone ahead if the allies had not had air superiority. I think not.

Spartan · 9 years ago

 

[Craig B]

I agree with what this internet poster has said about the matter, even if he is not a scholar with modern data:

Why do you agree with the opinions of people who are not scholars and have no modern information, instead of accepting the informed (and contrary) opinions of those who are informed scholars?

That seems perverse.

 

[jimbob]

I agree that the senior officers in the German Navy were not as keen on an invasion of Britain as the German army and air force. I have never researched where the German battleship Bismarck was at the time, but it was a ship that was not to be underestimated. Also Admiral Canaris of the Abwehr it looks like now was one of ours, and he had the ear of Hitler at the time. It has also been said in the past that Corporal Hitler was more of an Army man than a Navy man.

All I know is that General Alan Brooke was expecting an invasion any time in September 1940, unlike many of the subsequent scholars writing about the matter in hindsight.

I agree with what this internet poster has said about the matter, even if he is not a scholar with modern data:

Until August 1940, the Bismark hadn't been launched. She wasn't ready for service until the end of the year.

 

[Border Reiver]

I agree that the senior officers in the German Navy were not as keen on an invasion of Britain as the German army and air force.

The Navy men likely appreciated that they were not going to be able to pull it off. Nothing like near certain failure to cause a loss of enthusiasm.

I have never researched where the German battleship Bismarck was at the time, but it was a ship that was not to be underestimated.

She was in port, having only been commissioned on August 24, 1940. One ship wasn't going to swing the tide against the RN.

Also Admiral Canaris of the Abwehr it looks like now was one of ours, and he had the ear of Hitler at the time. It has also been said in the past that Corporal Hitler was more of an Army man than a Navy man.

Every German leader since Arminius has been an Army man.

All I know is that General Alan Brooke was expecting an invasion any time in September 1940, unlike many of the subsequent scholars writing about the matter in hindsight.

His unrealistic expectations notwithstanding, intelligence assessments from the time and assessments of the actual German capabilities show this fear to have been out of proportion to the actual threat.

I agree with what this internet poster has said about the matter, even if he is not a scholar with modern data:

The Kriegsmarine lacked the ability to land and resupply an invasion force. Air superiority would not have helped there - the RN would have devastated the invasion ships, and the landing force would have run out of ammunition and fuel before they got more then a day from their landing areas.

That guys not only not using modern data, he's ignoring the data that was released 40 years before he wrote his armchair assessment.

 

[ddt]

Whenever I see Henry talking about the German navy, I only think 'What navy? There was none!'

No no no! There was a German navy, at the bottom of the sea at Scapa Flow. That's why they built all those U-boats!

OK, ok, I'll get my coat.

 

[ddt]

Every German leader since Arminius has been an Army man.

Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring disagrees.

 

[Craig B]

Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring disagrees.

The Deutsche Luftstreitkräfte^WP

(German: [ˈdɔʏtʃə ˈlʊftˌʃtʁaɪtkʁɛftə], German Air Force)—known before October 1916 as the Fliegertruppen des deutschen Kaiserreiches (Imperial German Flying Corps)[1] or simply Die Fliegertruppe—was the World War I (1914–18) air arm of the German Army, of which it remained an integral part​

 

[erwinl]

I agree that the senior officers in the German Navy were not as keen on an invasion of Britain as the German army and air force. I have never researched where the German battleship Bismarck was at the time, but it was a ship that was not to be underestimated. Also Admiral Canaris of the Abwehr it looks like now was one of ours, and he had the ear of Hitler at the time. It has also been said in the past that Corporal Hitler was more of an Army man than a Navy man.

All I know is that General Alan Brooke was expecting an invasion any time in September 1940, unlike many of the subsequent scholars writing about the matter in hindsight.

I agree with what this internet poster has said about the matter, even if he is not a scholar with modern data:

HighlightedWe know. Oh boy do we know.
But what are you going to do about it?

 

[Tolls]

"
Do people who disagree think that the Normandy landings would have gone ahead if the allies had not had air superiority. I think not.
"

But "Spartan" seemed quite happy with the idea of the Normandy landings going ahead in a situation where the German navy had "71 destroyers, 11 cruisers, 5 battleships and an aircraft carrier" (from Dave Rogers' post) and the allies had, say, a bunch of subs and barges to screen the convoy.

You see, the thing with the Normandy landings (and others in '43/'44), the allies didn't just have air superiority (total on D-Day), but also a massive naval superiority (total for most, if not all, invasions).

You just need to look at Crete. The airborne part was the only bit that "successful", with air superiority, however the naval landing (which was half the troops transported) was a complete washout.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have never researched where the German battleship Bismarck was at the time, but it was a ship that was not to be underestimated.

I was waiting for someone to prove their complete ignorance by suggesting that a ship that wasn't in commission until 1941 could be used to support Operation Sealion. Bismarck was in the Baltic from late September, where her crew were trying to figure out how to steer her. It's unlikely she could have got from there to the Channel without being intercepted by the five RN battleships that were stationed at Scapa Flow specifically for that purpose, and we know what just two battleships could do to her.

I agree with what this internet poster has said about the matter, even if he is not a scholar with modern data:

Do you for some bizarre reason think that ignorance is an advantage in trying to form sensible conclusions?

Dave

 

[Border Reiver]

Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring disagrees.

Göring was head of state?

I should have been more specific, my bad.

 

[erwinl]

Göring was head of state?

I should have been more specific, my bad.

Well. There is also Karl Donitz. But that was only for 23 days.

 

[ddt]

The Deutsche Luftstreitkräfte^WP

(German: [ˈdɔʏtʃə ˈlʊftˌʃtʁaɪtkʁɛftə], German Air Force)—known before October 1916 as the Fliegertruppen des deutschen Kaiserreiches (Imperial German Flying Corps)[1] or simply Die Fliegertruppe—was the World War I (1914–18) air arm of the German Army, of which it remained an integral part​

But the German air force was a separate part of the armed forces when Göring led their heroic supply of the encircled 6th Army at Stalingrad.

Göring was head of state?

I should have been more specific, my bad.

You said "leader", that's a bit malleable. He was Hitler's deputy until his testament showed he was not his successor.

 

[Craig B]

But the German air force was a separate part of the armed forces when Göring led their heroic supply of the encircled 6th Army at Stalingrad.

Göring didn't do much "leading". He had other priorities.

However, the argument with Zeitzler did not take place on the 24th, before the airlift began. It could not have. After Göring visited Hitler at the Berghof on the 22d, he departed for Paris in “Asia,” his luxurious command train. He spent the next four days—when he should have been organizing the airlift—visiting Parisian art dealers and galleries. 39 Von Richthofen was appalled. “I urge Jeschonnek and Zeitzler to report my views to the Führer,” he wrote in his diary on the 25th, “and to harness the Reichsmarschall, but he's in Paris!”​

 

[ddt]

Göring didn't do much "leading". He had other priorities.

However, the argument with Zeitzler did not take place on the 24th, before the airlift began. It could not have. After Göring visited Hitler at the Berghof on the 22d, he departed for Paris in “Asia,” his luxurious command train. He spent the next four days—when he should have been organizing the airlift—visiting Parisian art dealers and galleries. 39 Von Richthofen was appalled. “I urge Jeschonnek and Zeitzler to report my views to the Führer,” he wrote in his diary on the 25th, “and to harness the Reichsmarschall, but he's in Paris!”​

But then, he was an even more accomplished art connaisseur than aviator, witness his procurement of Vermeer's "Christ with the Adulteress".

 

[jimbob]

HighlightedWe know. Oh boy do we know.
But what are you going to do about it?

Maybe the uncommissioned Bismark stopped Chamberlain from reporting on German planning that started after his death?

"
Do people who disagree think that the Normandy landings would have gone ahead if the allies had not had air superiority. I think not.
"

But "Spartan" seemed quite happy with the idea of the Normandy landings going ahead in a situation where the German navy had "71 destroyers, 11 cruisers, 5 battleships and an aircraft carrier" (from Dave Rogers' post) and the allies had, say, a bunch of subs and barges to screen the convoy.

You see, the thing with the Normandy landings (and others in '43/'44), the allies didn't just have air superiority (total on D-Day), but also a massive naval superiority (total for most, if not all, invasions).

You just need to look at Crete. The airborne part was the only bit that "successful", with air superiority, however the naval landing (which was half the troops transported) was a complete washout.

Indeed. Air supremacy (not just superiority) was vital to D-Day - the allies flew 14,674 sorties, whilst the Luftwaffe managed 319. However Naval supremacy was also vital.


Putting it in it's most blatant, the argument put forward by "spartan" is equivalent to saying that because the Allies needed air superiority to invade, it means that somehow a lack of ships would have been unimportant.

That is only *slightly* unfair to their argument.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I just think that scholars are underestimating the German Navy. Without air superiority the British Navy was a sitting duck, as was proved when the Japanese sank a British ship in the Pacific with the loss of a thousand sailors, and the Bismarck sank another British battleship with another loss of a thousand sailors. That's why many scholars now say battleships are obsolete.

Chamberlain, and even Churchill, did inflict damage on the German Navy during the Norway campaign which might have affected the later German invasion of Britain. From a Wikipedia about the matter:

In April 1940, the German Navy was heavily involved in the invasion of Norway, where it suffered significant losses, which included the heavy cruiser Blücher sunk by artillery and torpedoes from Norwegian shore batteries at the Oscarsborg Fortress in Oslofjord. Ten destroyers were lost in the Battles of Narvik (half of German destroyer strength at the time), and two light cruisers, the Königsberg which was bombed and sunk by Royal Navy aircraft in Bergen, and the Karlsruhe which was sunk off the coast of Kristiansand by a British submarine. The Kriegsmarine did in return sink some British warships during this campaign, including the aircraft carrier HMS*Glorious.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Churchill was quoted once as saying the one thing that gave him the jitters during the war was the German Naval U boat menace. That is relevant to any invasion of Britain. From that source about the U boats quoted above:

(l)* Blockade against England.* In August, 1940, a blockade was declared against England, which gave U-Boats complete and unrestricted liberty of action against all targets, with the exception of Irish ships.

 

[Craig B]

... many scholars now say battleships are obsolete.

They do say that. They say that trireme^WPs are obsolete too.