If Germany only focused on defeating Britain instead of betraying Russia, would Germany have conquered Britain?

redcoat · Oct 2, 2018

GogLais said:
Regarding the navy - Germany didn’t need one that could match Britain battleship for battleship did it? It needed a combination of air and naval forces, especially submarines, that could seal off the invasion zone for long enough.

You can’t seal off anything with a ww2 submarine, all they are capable of is firing a couple of torpedoes at a warship as it rushes past, they might cause a couple of casualties but they wouldn’t even slow the majority of them down let again stop them.

Don’t ask me what long enough is.

Once the British got a sizeable naval force amongst the invasion fleet the disruption it would cause would be more than enough to wreak the invasion.

I realise it would be done as a last resort but I imagine that sending the Royal Navy’s main fleet into the tight confines of the southern end of the North Sea and the Channel would keep the admirals awake at night.

The task had been given to the lighter British forces, they would have overwhelmed any German escorts in minutes.

GogLais · Oct 2, 2018

redcoat said:
You can’t seal off anything with a ww2 submarine, all they are capable of is firing a couple of torpedoes at a warship as it rushes past, they might cause a couple of casualties but they wouldn’t even slow them down let again stop them.

Once the British got a sizeable naval force amongst the invasion fleet the disruption it would cause would be more than enough to wreak the invasion.
The task had been given to the lighter British forces, they would have overwhelmed any German escorts in minutes.

I guess Churchill 's comment that I referred to was wrong then. I wonder why he said it.

Arminius · Oct 2, 2018

GogLais said:
I guess Churchill 's comment that I referred to was wrong then. I wonder why he said it.

perhaps he was engaging in hyperbole, not something he was unknown for. Or perhaps his overall grasp of the balance of forces wasn't what it might have been, over-estimating Nazi strengths.

Frank81 · Oct 2, 2018

Lord Fairfax said:
The problem is, there is no such sole entity as "UK" that goes to war.
Beware dodgy statistics!
Comparing the UKs GDP to Greater Germany is wrong, perhaps we should compare the UKs GDP to that of East Prussia?

Between the end of the US war of independence and WWII there is no major war that involves the UK (only) in each case it is the British Empire.

So let's have a comparison of the actual GDP.
Here's a good reference, in 1990 dollars.
Gross Domestic Product 1938

UK- 284.2 billion
British Dominions- 114 billion
British colonies- 284.5 billion.

Total = 683 billion
To this you could add Dutch colonies, Belgian colonies and Free French territory - about 120 billion.

Allied total = about 800 billion.

Compare to:
Germany - 351 billion
Italy - 140 billion
Depending how you add it up the % from all the occupied territories is about 250- 300 billion, so the Axis grand total (without Japan) is in the range of 750-790 billion, slightly to somewhat less than the British & Allied total

Unless of course they are smaller or equal to Allied GDP, in which case their increase naval expenditures will be matched

Considering the statistics you provide, in 1941 before the invasion of the USSR the Axis controled 994 billion in GDP terms, to 687 of UK and all its empire. Both empires had troubles converting this into reality:

-Occupied Europe, excepting Germany itself, didn't perform that well after occupation
-In order to help the UK in the fighting, the Empire had to be fully linked to Britain, and it was not. Also most of the industrial outuput should be in UK itself (I speculate here). Colonies and dominions could contribute in raw materials, funds and manpower (Canada and Australia, something? on true manufacturing activity)

Nazi Europe had a clear edge here.

redcoat · Oct 2, 2018

GogLais said:
I guess Churchill 's comment that I referred to was wrong then. I wonder why he said it.

Actually he wasn’t wrong, immediately after Dunkirk would have been the best time to invade Britain, but with our knowledge of Germany’s actual capabilities we know the German’s were totally incapable of it.
Maybe the comment was just to reassure the king that any danger of invasion had now passed.

Lord Fairfax · Oct 2, 2018

Frank81 said:
Considering the statistics you provide, in 1941 before the invasion of the USSR the Axis controled 994 billion in GDP terms, to 687 of UK and all its empire. Both empires had troubles converting this into reality:

-Occupied Europe, excepting Germany itself, didn't perform that well after occupation
-In order to help the UK in the fighting, the Empire had to be fully linked to Britain, and it was not. Also most of the industrial outuput should be in UK itself (I speculate here). Colonies and dominions could contribute in raw materials, funds and manpower (Canada and Australia, something? on true manufacturing activity)

Nazi Europe had a clear edge here.

How do you get 994 "Axis controlled"?

For all of German occupied Europe (except France & Poland) I get 563 billion.
Let's add 40 for Poland (Soviets get the rest) and about 70 for occupied France. (Vichy gets the rest)
Sources list about 140 for France in 1941, the decrease likeley due to war damage & disruption.
Add in 140 for Italy, and the total jumps to 813.
However, this assumes that Germany can extract 100% GDP from occupied Denmark, Norway, Belgium, etc which in actuality wasn't the case.
Germany gets nothing for French & Dutch colonies.

On the other hand, Britain & Allies control all of Belgian & Dutch colonies, plus about 40% of French colonies, so you need to add about 120 billion to the British & Allied total.

Hence, my estimation that both sides are about equal. (Before Barbarossa of course)

retexan599 · Oct 2, 2018

I have always wondered why HItler, the 'great gambler' didn't throw everything he had (surface ships, submarines, E-boats, Stukas, etc.) into and across the channel immediately after Dunkirk. Certainly by the French surrender on June 25th. With his gung-ho field commanders like Rommel and Guderian, it would have been a valiant effort even with a small number of armor. As to counting on Goering to gain eventual air superiority over the RAF, Goering certainly did not prevent the Dunkirk evacuation as he had bragged he would, so why count on him to rout the RAF? Possibly if he had not lost half his destroyers in Norway, he might have risked it?

redcoat · Oct 2, 2018

retexan599 said:
I have always wondered why HItler, the 'great gambler' didn't throw everything he had (surface ships, submarines, E-boats, Stukas, etc.) into and across the channel immediately after Dunkirk. Certainly by the French surrender on June 25th. With his gung-ho field commanders like Rommel and Guderian, it would have been a valiant effort even with a small number of armor. As to counting on Goering to gain eventual air superiority over the RAF, Goering certainly did not prevent the Dunkirk evacuation as he had bragged he would, so why count on him to rout the RAF? Possibly if he had not lost half his destroyers in Norway, he might have risked it?

The army commanders were gung-ho, until they realised how little of and how slowly the navy would be able to transport their forces across the channel,.
When they did finally find out the chief planner threw his hands in the air and exclaimed " we might as well force our troops through a sausage making machine".

Vitulum Aureum · Oct 2, 2018

Yes, they most certainly could have. And less to do with Russia than to do with their advanced weapons research initiative. Had they been flying Me-262's during the Battle of Britain, we would likely be speaking de Deutch. They had some other interesting ideas...which America was all to happy to entertain once we caught old Hans Kammler. Thus was born NASA and DARPA.

Had Hitler simply spread around some gold bullion within the various Soviet factions in order to stoke a truly hot fire beneath Stalin's paranoid actions....he may very well been able to buy, a victory in Russia. The English would have respected that without doubt...and if not for MI5 and their hitmen, would likely have suffered a similar fate. Everybody has a price.

rvsakhadeo · Oct 3, 2018

Dir said:
Germany's attack on Russia was no more stupid than Germany's main goal - to seize the British Isles after that to take fat British colonies. And for this as Hitler realized in 1940 they would have to remove the accomplice of Germany, who began to sharpen the knife behind the Germany"s back. To neutrlalize Russia

During the first year of the WWII Russia showed that its thirst for foreign territories is much stronger than the Germany one. As an example, the Germans captured only half of France and did not take over the very rich southern half of it. They easily gave the Russians half of Poland - despite the fact that Galicia and Volhynia had beautiful lands, and there it was possible for the Germany to grow grain and also to pump oil from in the Carpathians.

Germany can be attributed very bad things, and much of this will turn out to be true. But the fact that the Germans were much less greedy to foreign lands than the Russians - this is unambiguous.

Moreover - the Russians made part of their Soviet Union all the territories that they managed to capture until 1941. Absolutely everything. Tell you how modestly behaved against this background the Third Reich? As far as I know, he absorbed only Bohemia and Austria. And the Crimea was going to make part of the Reich because the Germans-Goths lived there for more than 10 centuries - until the 15th century, and the Germans considered Crimea to be the old German land

Moreover, after the war the Russians left as a part of the USSR all the lands that they captured in 1939-1940 - and made their part even Southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands - although these islands have never been Russian before.

It remains to add that Soviet Russia was initially extremely aggressive and expansive. In just three years, from 1918 to 1920 it captured virtually all the national non-Russian territories of the former Russian Empire. And for that purpose, as I already said, 200 former Tzarist generals and more than 30 thousand former Tzarist officers jointed Red Army at that time and made it much stronger than it was at early stage. And in 1939 the Russians continued this process, annexing half of Poland (though the Germans did not give Warsaw - as a part of the former Russian empire - to the Russians), and Bessarabia and attempting to seize the whole Finland that was Russian before 1917

But here already their appetite went beyond the boundaries of the former Russian Empire - and they annexed Galicia and Bukovina which were never Russian

You think, after these easy successes, Russia did not want to continue the victorious raid deep into Europe? She tried to do it in 1919 - but a major uprising of Grigoriev in Ukraine prevented her. And the next attempt was badly spoiled to the Russians by Poles in 1920

And of course - if the Germans were stuck with the huge landing in Britain and bare their butt - Ivan would immediately take this opportunity. It was enough to cut off the Germans from the Romanian oil - and the oil balance for Germany for a few months of fighting with the Russians would have come to naught. And the Germans will loose the war with them.

Therefore, Hitler dumbfounded when he saw the Russians captured Bukovina in the summer of 1940 and came much closer to the Romanian oil fields in Ploiesti

Hitler did not want war with Russia, because he understood that on the whole the game was not worth the candle. But for the Germans Russia in 1940 looked like a traitor, ready to thrust a knife into their back at any moment. German planes constantly flew over the western territories of the Russia and perfectly saw at what pace the Russians are increasing their forces there.

And then there was an ordinary story. Two bandits lost trust in each other and grappled in a deadly fight. Who hit first - it does not matter much. The Germans were a little ahead of the Russians and got a great start in 1941-1942. But Russia prepared for war much more thoroughly and was ready to fight until the last Russian. For there was no escape for Stalin and Co. from Russia

And I think the new plans for the conquest of Europe appeared in the Kremlin after the world crisis of 1929. There they saw that the West had significantly weakened, and the Communist parties in its countries had the opportunity to revitalize - and that way Russia has got a chance to stimulate the fifth column in them them. And only a year later - in 1930 - Moscow adopted a program of forced militarization of the country and "industrialization" of Russia as its important component.

The next decade was the decade of Russia's active preparations for a big war. And she was the absolute world champion in this matter

Get rid of illusions about Russia. I lived in it for a long time, grew up in its garrisons and know it much better than you. Now this is the # 1 danger for the whole world. She is now completely crazy and she arms as quickly as in the 1930s

And the Russians really want to get revenge for the heavy defeat of Russia in the Cold War in 1991

You can ride a tiger but you can't get off, that's the saying. Hitler misjudged the strength of the Soviet Union Army, due to its inept display in the war with Finland. He also thought the Communist rule was ripe for collapse. The door did not collapse even though kicked in vigorously. The Russian people, long-suffering under various tyrants, most recently under Stalin, were still patriotic and brave fighters.

rvsakhadeo · Oct 3, 2018

redcoat said:
The army commanders were gung-ho, until they realised how little of and how slowly the navy would be able to transport their forces across the channel,.
When they did finally find out the chief planner threw his hands in the air and exclaimed " we might as well force our troops through a sausage making machine".

I remember a passage in the novel ' The Winds of War ' by Herman Wouk, where the German General Armin Von Roon, tells captain Henry that the invasion on a limited front with all the landing craft being piloted through a narrow corridor defended by U-Boats and mine belts might succeed!

Dir · Oct 3, 2018

redcoat said:
The Russian people, long-suffering under various tyrants, most recently under Stalin, were still patriotic and brave fighters.

- It seems that it took a lot of time for the Russians to ponder their own patriotism. And thus the 3 million of Russian soldiers and officers surrendered to the Germans in the first 6 months of the war with Germany. And in total it 5.5. million of them surrendered within 5 years of war, according to German data

Usually such a number of surrendered military happens to the country with its complete surrender. Comrade Stalin had great doubts about the patriotism of Russian soldiers and officers. Therefore, he issued executions order #227 of July 28, 1942 Not one step back !

redcoat · Oct 3, 2018

rvsakhadeo said:
I remember a passage in the novel ' The Winds of War ' by Herman Wouk, where the German General Armin Von Roon, tells captain Henry that the invasion on a limited front with all the landing craft being piloted through a narrow corridor defended by U-Boats and mine belts might succeed!

While defensive minefields are useful (though even with these the German’s had nowhere nearly enough of them) the idea that WW2 submarines were capable of defending an area is unfounded, as I have already pointed out all a submarine is capable of is firing the odd torpedo at any warship as they pass by the subs location, and with the RN opting to use fast agile light craft to counter the invasion force their success rate in even this would have been very low.

ps: it should also be pointed out that the British had hundreds of minesweepers operational during this period and were capable of sweeping mines almost as fast as the German’s laid them, and that the British had their own defensive mine fields that the German’s would need to clear.
One of the requirements of the German naval plan was that the Luftwaffe needed to achieve complete air supremacy over the channel for two weeks to allow time for the navy to clear British minefields and lay their own defensive minefields without interference from either the RN and RAF, of course, this never occurred and the navy did not start this requirement before the operation was cancelled.

rvsakhadeo · Oct 3, 2018

Dir said:
- It seems that it took a lot of time for the Russians to ponder their own patriotism. And thus the 3 million of Russian soldiers and officers surrendered to the Germans in the first 6 months of the war with Germany. And in total it 5.5. million of them surrendered within 5 years of war, according to German data

Usually such a number of surrendered military happens to the country with its complete surrender. Comrade Stalin had great doubts about the patriotism of Russian soldiers and officers. Therefore, he issued executions order #227 of July 28, 1942 Not one step back !

Well, I posted that message which you have credited to redcoat! Never mind that. A large number of surrenders does not always mean that the surrendering soldiers were not brave or patriotic. The Soviet Union Army was caught totally unprepared when the Germans attacked them. Stalin had his own blind faith in the idea that Germans will not attack the Soviet Union, so much so that in the first few hours of 22nd June 1941 he believed that the attack was the work of some German Generals who had acted on their own without Hitler's knowledge. He also issued strict instructions not to enter areas under the control of the Wehrmacht in retaliation, including the instruction not to violate the airspace under German control. This being the view of the Vozhd, who is going to start taking initiative? The Soviet Army was unprepared and was shocked by the German attack and this was the prime reason why there were large-scale surrenders. Yet another big reason was Stalin's insistence of not withdrawing to save the forces likely to be caught in pincers. Minsk, Kiev were examples of battles where huge numbers of the Red Army were unable to escape the pincers, due to Stalin's insistence to fight on.

Bish · Oct 3, 2018

aggienation said:
Key point, part of the Wehrmacht was a branch of service called the Kriegsmarine, which was their Navy. What purpose was it if the Wehrmacht was only designed to invade Russia? No answer, because the Wehrmacht wasn't designed to invade Russia.

The Reichswehr in the Interwar years, the best and most professional military existing (though small) expanded outwards in a responsible and well planned manner (since the German general staff had been planning on doing just that since 1919) into the Wehrmacht after Hitler took over and pumped more money into the military and breaking from the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty. And they continued on with doctrinal concepts for war they'd already been promoting, as well as lesson's learned from the Spanish Civil War. The

The Wehrmacht wasn't designed for one purpose, to invade Russia, it was designed to fight and win wars the German way, "Kurz und Vives," Short and Lively. Against anyone and everyone, but specifically their own neighbors first.

Of course Germany had a navy, it had existed before Hitler came to power. But its quite clear that the navy was in no position to take on the British. Hitlers Z Plan was intended to be complete by the mid 40's not because Hitler was planning to go to war with Britain but because he knew Britian would not allow Germany or any otehr single country to dominate Europe. The Werhmact was designed to fight land wars and i still believe there was one intended target from day 1. Russia.

And the navy would still be of use as tehre is a body of water to the north of Germany called the Baltic which Russia had access to. So even the navy had a role to play.

aggienation · Oct 3, 2018

Bish said:
Of course Germany had a navy, it had existed before Hitler came to power. But its quite clear that the navy was in no position to take on the British. Hitlers Z Plan was intended to be complete by the mid 40's not because Hitler was planning to go to war with Britain but because he knew Britian would not allow Germany or any otehr single country to dominate Europe. The Werhmact was designed to fight land wars and i still believe there was one intended target from day 1. Russia.

And the navy would still be of use as tehre is a body of water to the north of Germany called the Baltic which Russia had access to. So even the navy had a role to play.

The Kriegsmarine was one of the fasting growing branches of service once Hitler took over, which is why so many of its officers were ardent Nazis. Besides the Luftwaffe, they were the most solidly loyal. They were not designed to fight Russia, they were designed to fight wars that Germany might get into. Same as the Luftwaffe, same as the Heer. In fact, the army that invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 was quite different in not only makeup but also doctrine from the army that had invade Poland two years before.

You used hyerbole to make a point that Hitler wanted to invade the USSR. I get it, we all get it, but there is no reason to defend it as if its truth. The Wehrmacht was definitely not designed for invading the Soviet Union, it was not organized for that purpose, not even ready for that purpose when they did finally invade in '41. It was just Germany's armed forces, designed and altered constantly on German principles of war, largely influenced by the theories of individuals like von Seeckt regarding the Heer, with other branches workin to create their own fiefdoms based on how they saw themselves contributing to future war, with major alterations based on lessons learned from the Spanish Civil War, coupled with some new concepts learned on their own, and some learned from other nations like the British and even the Red Army itself. And that only explains Poland, which was a cluster**** of an operation, not even really blitzkrieg in the sense of rapid mechanized attacks. France taught them more lessons, and most of the decisive operational methods used were definitely not crafted for the Soviet Union, but were just good ideas by some smart individuals that Hitler listened to over the objections of the general staff.

Edratman · Oct 3, 2018

rvsakhadeo said:
I remember a passage in the novel ' The Winds of War ' by Herman Wouk, where the German General Armin Von Roon, tells captain Henry that the invasion on a limited front with all the landing craft being piloted through a narrow corridor defended by U-Boats and mine belts might succeed!

The HMS Duke of York mounted 10 BL 14-inch (356 mm) Mk VII guns, with a maximum range of 24,070 yards, or more than 13.5 miles. Even halving that distance to allow the smaller guns of lesser ships to get within their range, defines a minefield that would have required years of planning and preparation to achieve. Nazi Germany did not even consider a cross channel invasion until the fall of France.

HMS Duke of York (17) - Wikipedia

Bish · Oct 3, 2018

aggienation said:
The Kriegsmarine was one of the fasting growing branches of service once Hitler took over, which is why so many of its officers were ardent Nazis. Besides the Luftwaffe, they were the most solidly loyal. They were not designed to fight Russia, they were designed to fight wars that Germany might get into. Same as the Luftwaffe, same as the Heer. In fact, the army that invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 was quite different in not only makeup but also doctrine from the army that had invade Poland two years before.

You used hyerbole to make a point that Hitler wanted to invade the USSR. I get it, we all get it, but there is no reason to defend it as if its truth. The Wehrmacht was definitely not designed for invading the Soviet Union, it was not organized for that purpose, not even ready for that purpose when they did finally invade in '41. It was just Germany's armed forces, designed and altered constantly on German principles of war, largely influenced by the theories of individuals like von Seeckt regarding the Heer, with other branches workin to create their own fiefdoms based on how they saw themselves contributing to future war, with major alterations based on lessons learned from the Spanish Civil War, coupled with some new concepts learned on their own, and some learned from other nations like the British and even the Red Army itself. And that only explains Poland, which was a cluster**** of an operation, not even really blitzkrieg in the sense of rapid mechanized attacks. France taught them more lessons, and most of the decisive operational methods used were definitely not crafted for the Soviet Union, but were just good ideas by some smart individuals that Hitler listened to over the objections of the general staff.

Well, i still have tyo disagree. There is also no reason to defend your point as if it were truth. It opinion in both cases.

Of course the German army was different in 1941 than it was in 1939. They had 18 months of experiance to learn from. And of clourse the Werhmact was designed to fight wars it might get into, hence why Hitler was building the navy to take on the RN. But Russia was not a war Hitler might get into, it was the war he was advancing towards and always intended.

We will have to agree to disagree.

aggienation · Oct 3, 2018

Bish said:
Well, i still have tyo disagree. There is also no reason to defend your point as if it were truth. It opinion in both cases.

Of course the German army was different in 1941 than it was in 1939. They had 18 months of experiance to learn from. And of clourse the Werhmact was designed to fight wars it might get into, hence why Hitler was building the navy to take on the RN. But Russia was not a war Hitler might get into, it was the war he was advancing towards and always intended.

We will have to agree to disagree.

But that's the thing. This isn't opinion, its the subject of probably hundreds of books. Individuals tracked down basically every change made to the German military since 1919, why, when, who proposed it, for what purpose etc. Its not opinion, anymore than claiming Orville Wright to nuke Japan.

Nothing the Germans built was for fighting the Soviets. German ambition wasn't even the Soviets, it was the East as a whole, basically everything from Poland to the Urals, was part of a German mythos of "Manifest Destiny" since the late 19th century, when Hitler was a little itty bitty baby. But Russia wasn't the basis of the German army in WW1, nor was it in WW2. It was one of many lands they intended to conquer for the greater Reich.

Read this book, I guarantee you'll change your tune: The Roots of the Blitzkrieg, Hans von Seeckt and the German Military Reform

redcoat · Oct 3, 2018

Bish said:
And of clourse the Werhmact was designed to fight wars it might get into, hence why Hitler was building the navy to take on the RN.

Until September 1938 Hitler was avoiding building a navy designed to take on the RN, he was aware that British hostility to Germany before WW1 was to a large part based on Germany building a navy capable of threatening their control of the North Sea, and as he was hopeful the British would look the other way over his Empire building in Eastern Europe, he took care to build a balanced fleet capable of controlling the Baltic but not threaten the British.
It was only after Munich when he realised that the British were probably not going to look the other way for further German aggression that he authorised an increase in U-boat production to threaten Britain's economic life lines.

Search

Search

If Germany only focused on defeating Britain instead of betraying Russia, would Germany have conquered Britain?

redcoat

GogLais

Arminius

Frank81

redcoat

Lord Fairfax

retexan599

redcoat

Vitulum Aureum

rvsakhadeo

rvsakhadeo

Dir

redcoat

rvsakhadeo

Bish

aggienation

Edratman

Bish

aggienation

redcoat

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions