The Soviets would've attacked Germany in a few weeks anyway, if barbarossa didn't happen

Japan was still on good terms with Germany. The Molotov Ribbentrop Pact wasn't really an alliance. If it really were, the Soviets would've ended trade with Britain at minimum, let alone join Germany in a war.

Churchill's hatred of Germany was a large factor in his rejection of Hitler's numerous peace deals, but I never said it was the only aspect. The vast majoyof the British public wasn't stupid and knew the commonwealth couldn't win thus war alone.

The Free Indian army was a big factor, but the mass bankruptcy of Britain after ww2 was also a large factor, another thing gone if opened to German and Japanese support.

>Just how true is this meme? Germans wrecked the soviets hard up until 42.

Not true at all. I would suggest Stumbling Colossus, by Glantz.

It's mostly borne out of the notion that Soviet defensive preparations were shit tier, and focused on a big strong defensive line right at the border, which failed so miserably that you can at least point towards it being an offensive posture.

>Could Germany have remained on good terms with Russia and focused 100% on the commonwealth?

Probably, at least in the short to medium term. I doublt it would be enough to knock the Brits out though.

>I doublt it would be enough to knock the Brits out though.
I don't know about that. Britain had zero hope of toppling the Nazi Party if neither Russia nor the USA joined the war. Eventually they would sue for peace.

>I don't know about that. Britain had zero hope of toppling the Nazi Party if neither Russia nor the USA joined the war. Eventually they would sue for peace.

Similarly, Germany had zero hope of toppling Britain, and Britain has the much larger resources base to draw upon.

Plus, post fall of France, U.S. opinion of Germany gets increasingly negative. U.S. entry into the war, or at least massive bankrolling of British operations, is more likely a question of when, not if.

>If Hitler invaded hell, I would at least make a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.
>Churchill in reference to the German invasion of the USSR.

Yeah, after the war between the allies and Germany started, Churchill was not looking to make any sort of alliance with Hiter whatsoever. He might have accepted peace if Britian was beaten, but he would never have Britain fight alongside Germany. An Anglo-German Alliance after 1939 is terribly unlikely.

>U.S. entry into the war, or at least massive bankrolling of British operations, is more likely a question of when, not if.
The US joined the European war because Germany declared war on the US. Germany wouldn't have done that if they weren't fighting Russia.

not disagreeing with you other points, but
>Moltov-Ribbentrop pact constitutes an "alliance"
t. American

>Similarly, Germany had zero hope of toppling Britain
Completely wrong.

The simple fact that Britain's resources were practically on the other side of the planet meant that Germany would have crushed Britain. The fact that Britain survived WW2 is a miracle even with the Eastern front preoccupying Germany.

>The US joined the European war because Germany declared war on the US. Germany wouldn't have done that if they weren't fighting Russia.

And the U.S. was edging towards war for months leading up to it. Or did you miss the Lend-Lease act and the undeclared naval war that had that ever expanding zone in the Altantic to "guarantee trade"?

Would it have been as early? No. But they were heading there.

>Completely wrong.

No, it's completely right. The Germans had no chance in hell of making a sealion work, and their commerce raiding was largely ineffective. They had no means of projecting meaningful force across the channel.

>The simple fact that Britain's resources were practically on the other side of the planet meant that Germany would have crushed Britain.

Were you born that stupid, or did you work hard to get there? How does the existence of extensive resources in places like Canada and Venezuela give the Germans any sort of advantage at all, when Britain has the means to ship them where they're needed?

He was expecting the Soviet society to collapse if they managed to hit the soviets hard and fast within the first year. While the Germans managed to make amazing gains in the first year, Soviet society was much more robust than Hitler anticipated. The Germans might have more success if they were less harsh on some of the slavic Soviet states like Ukraine and Poland, which had large segments of the population not wanting to live under Soviet rule, but that was lost with Hitler's orders not to follow the Hague Convention on the eastern front. The locals were quickly turned against the Germans and partisans wreaked havoc against their supply lines. This coincided with the Russian change in propaganda strategy towards more nationalistic goals of protecting Mother Russia against fascist invadersl, as well as the relocation of factories east of the Urals and Russia was set up to be able to take massive punches and still keep fighting.

They were planning for a 1943 attack

Wow, that's nice.

What kind of extortions by Molotov is Hitler talking about there?

>The simple fact that Britain's resources were practically on the other side of the planet meant that Germany would have crushed Britain. The fact that Britain survived WW2 is a miracle even with the Eastern front preoccupying Germany.
Not even considering its complete firepower inferiority German fleet didn't even have transport ships in necessary numbers for Sealion.

>No, it's completely right. The Germans had no chance in hell of making a sealion work, and their commerce raiding was largely ineffective. They had no means of projecting meaningful force across the channel.
Sealion was only a bust because Britain was able to keep its airforce alive. That wouldn't have been the case if Germany didn't divert resources to operation Barbarossa.

Germany was flabbergasted by the British ability to intercept their planes with the perfect number of fighters every time, as if they knew the Germans were coming. Germany expected the British air force to be destroyed well before Germany finally gave up. However had they kept pounding the British air force instead of switching to a terror campaign to shock Britain out of the war before beginning Barbarossa, the British airforce would have lost air supremacy over the the channel and the shores of Britain.

>Probably, at least in the short to medium term.
No, Germany was not able to remain on good terms with the Soviets. Payments on the goods they had bought were coming due, and Germany did not have the cash or the goods to pay.

>Sealion was only a bust because Britain was able to keep its airforce alive. That wouldn't have been the case if Germany didn't divert resources to operation Barbarossa.
Battle of Britain ended months before Barbarossa, with the entire Luftwaffe unable to dent British air superiority. So what are you babbling about exactly?

>Germany was flabbergasted by the British ability to intercept their planes with the perfect number of fighters every time,
Go ahead and provide a source for this.
Also the idea that there is a "perfect number of fighters" is so retarded I don't know where to begin to make fun of it.

>Sealion was only a bust because Britain was able to keep its airforce alive.

Not really. Even without an airforce (and we'll return to that subject later), invading a smallish island with 26 or so divisions defending it, who have heavy equipment which will be hard to transport across your converted river barges, when you have no institutional experience in making opposed landings is a recipe for disaster.

And that's before the Royal Navy shows up one night in the channel with half a dozen battleships and 10+ cruisers and shells the hell out of everything.

ANd it's not like you can destroy the RAF, because your me-109s don't have the range to make it far past London and back from your bases in France. So worst comes to worst, the British can always retreat their RAF bases to the Midlands where you can only get to them by sending unescorted bombers. Good luck with that.

>That wouldn't have been the case if Germany didn't divert resources to operation Barbarossa.

You are aware that the "Battle of Britain" was fought in 1940, yes? And that throughout the war, Britain kept ahead of Germany in airplane production?

>Germany was flabbergasted by the British ability to intercept their planes with the perfect number of fighters every time, as if they knew the Germans were coming. Germany expected the British air force to be destroyed well before Germany finally gave up. However had they kept pounding the British air force instead of switching to a terror campaign to shock Britain out of the war before beginning Barbarossa, the British airforce would have lost air supremacy over the the channel and the shores of Britain.

Now that you're done meming, I would suggest you actually read any book on the Battle of Britain. Literally anything written by an accredited historian.

Interesting. I was not aware. Do you have any source material I could read up on?

You have no idea what you're talking about.
This guy knows what's up. >How does the existence of extensive resources in places like Canada and Venezuela give the Germans any sort of advantage at all
Who gives a shit about those places? Germany had the entire occupied Europe's resources to draw on to crush Britain. Including Norway. In other words, Germany had the shit needed right on Britain's doorstep while Britain had to ship everything from across the planet. Germany didn't press Britain hard enough because they went full retard and invaded the Soviet Union before finishing Britain, so Britain survived but it was Germany's fight to lose and not Britain's to win. Complete fricking miracle.

>Who gives a shit about those places?
People who want strategic war materials? You know, stuff that German occupied Europe didn't have.

It's called radar you mong. It didn't exist for the Germans at that time and was a massive advantage for the British. Think fog-of-war for one side while it's clear for the other when it came to airspace.

Also did you know that Europe had a food deficit? Facts are fun.

>It's called radar you mong
Everyone knows that the Brits had RADAR. I want you to provide a source showing that Germans were flabbergasted because Brits sent up "perfect number of fighters" each time. I already know you can't, but I kind of want you see you flail about desperately trying to save face.

>It didn't exist for the Germans at that time
And the retardedness simply won't stop.

>You have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, we do. Go look up the operational range of an ME-109, and then show us how you plan on "destroying the RAF" if they pull up their bases outside of that operational range?

Show us the fleet of landing craft that the Germans had. The Americans and British needed a bit over 4,000 to transport some 5-6 divisions for Overlord. When did Germany build that kind of massive fleet, and how were the Scharnhorst and Gnisenau going to stop the Royal navy from chewing it to bits?

>Who gives a shit about those places?

People who know what the fuck they're talking about. Venezuela alone produced more oil than "all of occupied Europe", and FLASHNOTE: Real life is not like risk. Occupied countries generally resent their occupier, and the amount you can get out of them is way less than your own areas or your trading partners.

> Germany had the shit needed right on Britain's doorstep while Britain had to ship everything from across the planet.

And yet they still produced fewer planes, only marginally more tanks, fewer artillery pieces, and way fewer ships. Funny how that works, isn't it?

>Germany didn't press Britain hard enough because they went full retard and invaded the Soviet Union before finishing Britain, so Britain survived but it was Germany's fight to lose and not Britain's to win.

Which is why they lost the battle of Britain in 1940.

>it's a butthurt nazi-boo thinks muh luftwaffe could have defeated the largest empire in history even though it had unlimited manpower and resources thread

I know the eternal anglo plays up the whole 'poor little underdog Britain' shit, but nigga please

Brits had small manpower pool. Sure they had millions of pooinloos to draw from, but they were useless outside of CBI theater.

>Battle of Britain ended months before Barbarossa
You say that like those months weren't in preparation for Barbarossa.

The 4th Indian alone disproves your nonsensical claim.

>one division out of 3 million Indian volunteers proves that pooinloos were capable of fighting in Europe

Not him, but what the hell crawled up your ass? Everyone knows the Germans didn't appreciate the potential of radar and didn't realize how well it served the British. You probably know this too but are getting caught on some wording that you will probably stretch into a flamewar for the next hour, for god knows what reason.

Sure, more material is always better. What's your point exactly?
The point I'm making is that Germany had on-hand, right on Britain's borders far more resources than Britain could have brought to bear in a time-frame that would have allowed them to resist. Germany didn't bring those resources to bear and still almost starved Britain into submission.
>I want you to provide a source showing that Germans were flabbergasted because Brits sent up "perfect number of fighters" each time
That wasn't my comment so I won't.
I don't see why you're so hung up over that comment either. It's a fact that Battle of Britain was a skin of the teeth affair which would mean often-times a scenario that would look as if Britain sent 'the perfect number of fighters'.
>then show us how you plan on "destroying the RAF" if they pull up their bases outside of that operational range?
By providing dense enough air-cover to allow a crossing of the channel, establishing airfields on English soil and thus extending the operational range.
Remember the point of the Luftwaffe was to secure the channel crossing. Whether that's done by destroying the RAF or pushing it back into the North of the country doesn't matter.
>The Americans and British needed a bit over 4,000 to transport some 5-6 divisions for Overlord
They needed that many ships because they needed to land a lot of men in one go to take a defended beachhead. Germany wasn't going to face a defended beachhead because the plan was for complete Luftwaffe dominance over the area which would permit repeated ferrying of troops onto the English shores, i.e. the smaller number of German troops with dominant air-support would not get over-run while the transports ferried more troops.
>When did Germany build that kind of massive fleet
You don't need a fleet to match Britain's when all you need to do is secure the English channel. Especially, when you have u-boats and, in theory, a dominant Luftwaffe.

Yeah some wording like radar "didn't exist for the Germans." I'm sure he meant it metaphorically, instead of being completely wrong like he's been with all other facts.

>getting caught on some wording that you will probably stretch into a flamewar for the next hour, for god knows what reason.
And for some reason you are whiteknighting a retard on Veeky Forums. It couldn't possibly be because you were the guy who made the original moronic statement now trying to save face.

>You are aware that the "Battle of Britain" was fought in 1940, yes? And that throughout the war, Britain kept ahead of Germany in airplane production?
That's the point. Germany was allocating industry to other things because their long game was to conquer Russia. The whole premise of this tangent is what would have happened if Germany never dedicated itself to conquering Russia. In that case it would have put it's industrial base, which was significantly larger than Britain's, to building outproducing Britain specifically.

>It's a fact that Battle of Britain was a skin of the teeth affair which would mean often-times a scenario that would look as if Britain sent 'the perfect number of fighters'.
There is no such thing as "perfect number of fighters." And the Brits did not have a uniform doctrine for the BoB either. They began with the Big Wing doctrine where a huge group would form up from several aerodromes before going out to meet the enemy, to small, discrete attacks sent up as soon as possible. You betray your complete ignorance of this particular historical event when you continue to depend your made up story about Germans being flabbergasted or something.

>And for some reason you are whiteknighting a retard on Veeky Forums
Calm down. You've been spending too much time on a toxic boards like /v/.

>They needed that many ships because they needed to land a lot of men in one go to take a defended beachhead. Germany wasn't going to face a defended beachhead because the plan was for complete Luftwaffe dominance over the area
You do realize the Allies had air supremacy of the kind the LW couldn't dream of, right? And they still needed 4000 transports including specially built landing crafts.

And Germans planned to send a much larger force stretched out over a much larger area.

>Venezuela alone produced more oil than "all of occupied Europe"
You are missing the point I'm making. The logistics of delivering supplies from countries on the side of the planet is only an advantage in a prolonged/attrition fight. Germany had the resources on hand, to make the fight against Britain into a fast affair where the resources for both countries and what they could supply would not have mattered.
>Which is why they lost the battle of Britain in 1940.
Yes.
You don't understand logistics.
Let me make it simple for you with an analogy.

A nigger breaks into your house with a rifle. You have the advantage because you have lots of guns and bullets.....in your shed but only a hand-gun on you. Chances are the nigger will shoot you dead before you can get to your shed and shoot the nigger. Unless the nigger does something retarded. Like Germany in WW2, in this case.

If you have nothing except ad hominems or otherwise personal comments, then just leave. This is not /soc/, and this is not your facebook. If you don't want to discuss history, go elsewhere.

Part of the reason the USSR survived the German onslaught was because they had geared their entire economy for western invasion. They could put entire factories near the western European border on rail and reassemble them further inland in Siberia. They new it was going to happen, it was only a question of when and how prepared they were.

>They were useless outside of the CBI theater
>Well, this one wasnt'
>It was only one division!

And when I bring up the 5th, 8th, and 10th divisions, all of which served competently in the Mid-East and Europe?

Face it, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about; and the divisions that fought in Europe did well. Most of them stayed in India, sure, but it's not like they didn't need troops there. I'm not even clear what your point is, other than to highlight your ignorance about WW2.

>By providing dense enough air-cover to allow a crossing of the channel, establishing airfields on English soil and thus extending the operational range.

Except that just because they're outside your operational range, doesn't mean the reverse is true for a cross-channel landing. And it's not like you can make that sort of thing happen in a day, nor can you fight the invasion in a day. It took close to 2 months for the D-Day forces to build up enough materiel on site to break out, and the German shipping situation is way worse.

There's more than enough time to move them down after the initial landing and obliterate your supply tether, at which point the forces in Europe become one large POW camp.

>The point I'm making is that Germany had on-hand, right on Britain's borders far more resources than Britain could have brought to bear in a time-frame that would have allowed them to resist.

Yes, they had something like 170 divisions. They only had enough sealift to transport about 1, maybe 2 at a time, and even that involves using substitutions and improvisations instead of real, dedicated landing craft. Without that, they will never invade successfully,

cont

It's very true.

>By providing dense enough air-cover to allow a crossing of the channel, establishing airfields on English soil and thus extending the operational range.
So now they are going to ship the material to build air fields plus fuel, ammo, and spare parts in a couple of days to extend operational range? Got it, champ.

>They needed that many ships because they needed to land a lot of men in one go to take a defended beachhead.

>Germany wasn't going to face a defended beachhead because the plan was for complete Luftwaffe dominance over the area

You. Are. Retarded.

You know who also had complete air dominance? The Western Allies over northern France in 1944. That didn't stop the existence of the Wehmracht units there, and similarly, the Luftwaffe dominance (which didn't actually exist and was extremely unlikely to ever exist) won't stop the rather large British forces in England.

cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/940BIEA.pdf

They were going to face defended beachheads. Rather heavily defended beachheads. And unlike Overlord, they're going to be trying without any heavy equipment.

>You don't need a fleet to match Britain's when all you need to do is secure the English channel.

You need a massive fleet to actually land troops. I don't know why you have so much trouble with this simple concept.

>. Especially, when you have u-boats and,

So you want ot land troops with your u-boats. In the channel where the water is shallow and they can't hide? Or was this a ridiculous attempt to stop the Royal navy's warships, who are faster and better armed than the U-boats, from pushing your shit in? I'm honestly not sure which idea is more retarded.

Britain kept ahead of Germany for the ENTIRE WAR. And they were also dedicated industry to other things at the same time.

>which was significantly larger than Britain's,

Except that's wrong you fucking retard.

>to building outproducing Britain specifically.

Real life doesn't work like your RTS games, you don't just push a button and go

>Less tanks
>More planes.

You build infrastructure, and it's months to years before it sees any output, at which point you're pretty much stuck with what you've got. And let's not forget the human element too; it's not like everyone's cut out to be a fighter pilot.

That analogy is retarded. It's more like:
A nigger tries to break into my house, but can't because the door is locked. I have an arsenal of weapons to hand to snipe at him, and have the police on speed dial.

At no point did the nazis have the materiel to launch a cross channel invasion, and even if they had, Britain would have had ample time to prepare. The Kreigsmarine didn't even have aircraft carriers

Stating you are being toxic is a not an ad hominem.

>You are missing the point I'm making. The logistics of delivering supplies from countries on the side of the planet is only an advantage in a prolonged/attrition fight

Not when you have the shipping capacity to bring in those resources easily and timely.

>Germany had the resources on hand, to make the fight against Britain into a fast affair where the resources for both countries and what they could supply would not have mattered.

No it didn't, because they couldn't transport their army to England.

>Yes.

That was sarcasm you retard. Sealion had been canceled by the time Fuhrer directive 21 was ordered. They lost, not because of resource diversion, but because they couldn't beat the RAF.

Not him, but CV would have been pretty useless (for both sides) in a sealion endeavor, where most of the combat would have been over the channel and much more powerful land based planes would be contesting the skies.

I already told you it wasn't my comment and I thought I made it clear that I wasn't referring to his 'perfect-number-of-fighters' comment literally. Suit yourself though.
>And they still needed 4000 transports
I would argue that 'needed' would be the wrong word to use.
They 'had' whatever number of transports they had because USA industry was gigantic and they weren't fucking around with the landings. They were also landing on multiple beach-heads because Germany has had years to fortify the European shorelines.

Britain didn't have the advantage of years to turn it's beaches into death-traps. Also, Germany didn't need enough transports for multiple, simultaneous beach landings. They needed, really, just one, the best one, that they could keep supplied and expand from as needed.
In other words, Germany and Britain landing requirements were different.

There was little threat of a Soviet attack, but Germany simply needed the Soviet's resources if he was to continue the war against Britain and continue the occupation of France/Poland/the Balkans

>He already had lebensraum

he had living space, but not the resources that underpinned his need for expansion. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact did have a trade agreement laid out where the Soviets would provide enough coal, metals, and most importantly, oil to the Germans.

As the French campaign and the battle of Britain raged, Germany was still consuming about 25% more oil than could be produced in-house, even with the Romanian oil fields, and the deficits being made up in Soviet shipments.

Hitler's nightmare was that Stalin could simply threaten an embargo to twist Germany's arm to fit Soviet ambitions, and that cutoff of oil shipments would spell a quick end to Germany.

So Barbarossa was drawn up to capture Soviet farmland, industrial centers, and oil fields to keep Germany self-sufficient for the war. With the obviousness of this choice being Hitler's decision to sweep and capture Kiev and the Donbass for resources and industry before moving in on Moscow, costing him precious time.

Hitler's gross underestimation of how strong the Red Army was came back to bite him, with his intelligence gathered during the Red Army's performance during the invasion of Poland and the Winter War suggesting that they would not pose a challenge to a better organized Wehrmacht.

But with Germany wasting so much of its oil reserves pushing into Russia, it's a valid argument to say that Germany could've kept on fighting Britain and the Continental resistance forces for much longer, provided that Stalin didn't embargo trade with Germany, which was also a very real possibility.

>EXCEPT THAT IS WRONG YOU FUCKING SHIT RETARD FUCK SHIT
German industry had outpaced England by WW1.

>You build infrastructure, and it's months to years before it sees any output,
That's the point. We are discussing if Germany never planned to invade Russia. Its goal in this scenario is simply defeating France and Britain after the invasion of Poland.

>They needed, really, just one, the best one, that they could keep supplied and expand from as needed.
>In other words, Germany and Britain landing requirements were different.
You are in effect saying that Germany didn't need to try landing on multiple beaches because all they needed was to have one successful landing where LoC won't be interrupted. Are you really unable to see why that is a retard logic? Do you *really* need other people to point out to you why you are fucking stupid?

>German industry had outpaced England by WW1.

And had lost the edge again by WW2. Seriously, look up the production stats. Britain built about 1.3 times as many planes (not counting the fact that British planes, on average, were considerably heavier and more expensive than their German counterparts), almost twice as much artillery, and I don't even know how many times as many ships.

The Germans were outbuilt. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this.

>We are discussing if Germany never planned to invade Russia.

SO let me get this straight, you are not in fact talking about a 1940 or even 1941 invasion of Russia, but some kind of 1943 or even later invasion after Germany has time to build entirely new industries and let them come to fruition, so they can compete on a different footing?

And what makes you think Britain won't be doing the same in that time? Or getting the U.S. even more involved?

I don't see why you think it would have to be 'in a couple of days'. 'Champ'.
>You know who also had complete air dominance? The Western Allies over northern France in 1944.
Who were facing a beach-head that was fortified over the previous years. Britain at the start of the war did not have time to fortify the way Germany did.
>You need a massive fleet to actually land troops. I don't know why you have so much trouble with this simple concept.
I don't deny you need 'some sort of fleet' to land troops. I'm just saying that, if Germany had succeeded in establishing complete air-dominance over the channel, then Germany would not have needed as big a fleet as you think to make a successful landing because a bigger British fleet facing off against a smaller German fleet but with much larger air support would not win.
It's not a perfect analogy sure.
>The Kreigsmarine didn't even have aircraft carriers
lol. Is this a joke? The English channel isn't the Atlantic. The Germans didn't need aircraft carriers.
>Not when you have the shipping capacity to bring in those resources easily and timely.
True, but I would argue that German efforts to impinge on that shipping capacity would have been sufficient to tip the balance in Germany's favor if they had fully committed. You sound like you understand what I'm trying to say so the disagreement at this point would boil down to numbers. Maybe Germany would not have had sufficient resources even if it went full-tilt against Britain and didn't invade the SU. I really, really, really, doubt this, however.
>No it didn't, because they couldn't transport their army to England.
Because they lost the Battle of Britain. I'm not saying that's not true. I was talking about what may have happened if Germany had won the Battle of Britain.
>They lost, not because of resource diversion, but because they couldn't beat the RAF.
They couldn't beat the RAF because..of resource division..shocking.

the analogy is not retarded, it's what essentially happened to Poland and France.

A better analogy makes use of a moat and radar.

I'm well aware that Britain was outproducing Germany in both planes and pilots. But this is a hypothetical scenario where Germany put all of it's effort for years into defeating Britain. In reality Germany gave up its campaign and just wanted to shock Britain out of the war by targeting civilians so it can make way for Operation Barbarossa. Germany never wanted a war with Britain. But if Hitler were a different man and despised the anglos more than the slavs then things would have turned out very differently. An invasion of the Isles would have required a different war machine than Germany used in their attempt to take out the USSR.

And of course let's not forget that Germany had the larger and significantly better trained air force at the beginning of the Battle of Britain. They burned through those trained pilots pretty quickly above the channel and Eastern Europe, but without Eastern Europe...

You make a good argument, but it goes both ways.

>SO let me get this straight, you are not in fact talking about a 1940 or even 1941 invasion of Russia, but some kind of 1943 or even later invasion after Germany has time to build entirely new industries and let them come to fruition, so they can compete on a different footing?
I would imagine if there was never any preparation to invade Russia and Churchill refused to accept peace then it wouldn't be a years long pause in between Operation Sealion and some future operation but a continued escalation of the conflict with Britain rather than gradually allocating resources elsewhere.

>Or getting the U.S. even more involved?
Pretty sure Britain was balls to the wall when it came to trying to drag the US of A into the war. Didn't Churchill visit the White House?

>ctrl+f retard
>1 of 15
Did a historical video game come out recently?

>True, but I would argue that German efforts to impinge on that shipping capacity would have been sufficient to tip the balance in Germany's favor if they had fully committed
Yeah if they had tried to wage a submarine warfare or something they totally would've won the war.

>And of course let's not forget that Germany had the larger and significantly better trained air force at the beginning of the Battle of Britain.
Luftwaffe was not significantly better trained. Why would you think that? Because they lost massive casualties over Poland and France despite facing much smaller forces?

I don't think you understand what a difference complete air dominance would have meant for the German landings. I don't think you understand how small Britain is compared to France.
I don't think you understand that this is a what-if scenario where Britain lost the Battle of Britain.

I'm not saying it would not have been militarily prudent to establish multiple beach-heads. What I am saying is that multiple beach-heads would not have been an absolute necessity because the risks could have been mitigated. I don't know if the Germans would have ever opted for something like that. I'm just trying to say that the German fleet being smaller than the British one would not have meant that operation sea-lion was 'impossible.'

>Who were facing a beach-head that was fortified over the previous years. Britain at the start of the war did not have time to fortify the way Germany did.

But they had close to 28 divisions settled into the island, and you're attacking with 2, tops. They'll roll right over you.

> I'm just saying that, if Germany had succeeded in establishing complete air-dominance over the channel, then Germany would not have needed as big a fleet as you think to make a successful landing because a bigger British fleet facing off against a smaller German fleet but with much larger air support would not win.

Go look up the pathetic showing of the Luftwaffe at Dunkirk. And that's in the day, against ships standing still to load troops, with few other commitments.

Now imagine our Sealion: You've landed your first or even second wave, the British have closed up around the site of landing. Your troops need constant air support because they're heavily outnumbered. You need to stop whatever RAF elements that have fled to the Midlands from coming south and messing you up. You need to interdict the roads and rails to stop even more British troops from piling in on you.

In the middle of this, one night, 5 battleships and a dozen cruisers sail down from Hull and start shooting everything. You're really going to have a couple thousand planes with the torpedoes already loaded in that event, ready to go at night?

1/2

>True, but I would argue that German efforts to impinge on that shipping capacity would have been sufficient to tip the balance in Germany's favor if they had fully committed.

You have no idea what you're talking about, as usual. German submarine efforts historically only forces the British to ship over more refined products instead of bulkier unrefined products, such as shipping iron ingots instead of iron ore and smelting it at home. Even if you do step up efforts, it will take a long time to see effects, and you have a fundamnetal problem insofar as you can't project air power into most of the Atlantic, while the British have bases everywhere.

jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/236/251

>Maybe Germany would not have had sufficient resources even if it went full-tilt against Britain and didn't invade the SU. I really, really, really, doubt this, however.

Not maybe. Never. I'm not sure how many times I can keep repeating this before you get it, but here goes again. The British commonwealth outproduced Germany alone. The longer the war goes, the worse the situation gets. Even if they never go after the Russians, they'll never in turn be able to attack England.

2/3 actually

>Because they lost the Battle of Britain.

Even if they hadn't lost the BoB, it wouldn't have been enough. They don't have enough transport to bring over a large enough force that can defend itself against immediate British counterattacks on land. They can't stop the British from attacking their tenuous supply route. They need the Luftwaffe to do everything at once, from CAS, to interdiction, to stopping the Royal Navy, to stopping even a few bombers from the RAF from fucking up the whole operation. It's a pipe dream.

>They couldn't beat the RAF because..of resource division..shocking.

They built fewer planes in 1940. They built fewer planes in 1941. They built fewer planes throughout the entire war. It's not a question of resource division. It's an issue of just not being strong enough. The Battle of Britain was ceded; Sealion was dropped, BEFORE Germany started making preparations to attack Russia in December of 1940.

>I don't think you understand what a difference complete air dominance would have meant for the German landings.
They were never going to get it, so what is the point of a what-if based on that? Might as well take German victory as your starting point and cut out the middle man.

>I don't think you understand how small Britain is compared to France.
What the hell are you talking about? Why would that be relevant in the slightest?

>I don't think you understand that this is a what-if scenario where Britain lost the Battle of Britain.
So you don't just struggle with historical facts, you can't keep track of what happened in a single thread.

>What I am saying is that multiple beach-heads would not have been an absolute necessity because the risks could have been mitigated.
No, the risks could not have been mitigated. Just stop.

German submarine warfare came close to starving Britain. So, maybe, if they committed more and didn't invade the SU they would have actually succeeded.

>g because a bigger British fleet facing off against a smaller German fleet but with much larger air support would not win.
Brits wouldn't even send their fleet. They would send a handful of destroyers at night and destroy all the transports. It's that simple.

>German submarine warfare came close to starving Britain.
Actually no, Britain never came remotely close to starving of any vital resource.
They did face shortages of things like citrus and chocolate, however.

>I'm well aware that Britain was outproducing Germany in both planes and pilots. But this is a hypothetical scenario where Germany put all of it's effort for years into defeating Britain. In reality Germany gave up its campaign and just wanted to shock Britain out of the war by targeting civilians so it can make way for Operation Barbarossa. Germany never wanted a war with Britain. But if Hitler were a different man and despised the anglos more than the slavs then things would have turned out very differently. An invasion of the Isles would have required a different war machine than Germany used in their attempt to take out the USSR.

And it would have taken years post fall of France, to re-build his war industries to create that force. All the while, Britain is merrily producing along, (again, aggregately more than you), and maybe even dragging the U.S. into the war long before you've retooled everything.

>And of course let's not forget that Germany had the larger and significantly better trained air force at the beginning of the Battle of Britain.

Yes, which is why they suffered 5:2 losses throughout the BoB.

>. They burned through those trained pilots pretty quickly above the channel and Eastern Europe, but without Eastern Europe..

They send their new, not as well trained pilots against the British who have decently trained pilots and roughly equal planes instead of the joke of the VVS and get slaughtered?

1/2

>I would imagine if there was never any preparation to invade Russia and Churchill refused to accept peace then it wouldn't be a years long pause in between Operation Sealion and some future operation but a continued escalation of the conflict with Britain rather than gradually allocating resources elsewhere.

But you want to re-tool military production away from "land stuff" like tanks and artillery and more towards invasion necessary stuff, landing craft, seaplanes, single engined fighters, etc.

That sort of shift probably will take years.

>Pretty sure Britain was balls to the wall when it came to trying to drag the US of A into the war. Didn't Churchill visit the White House?

Yes, and U.S. entry wasn't some sudden out of the blue thing, but a gradual extension of aid. The longer this process goes on, the more of a chance that the U.S. does something which completely invalidates any plans.

Not him, but they were facing pretty severe shortages of softwoods, which were militarily important.

That's about the best I can come up with for the u-boats though.

>it's a wehraboo meets facts episode

>Why would you think that?
Spanish Civil War.

>That sort of shift probably will take years.
All the while Germany is still pounding the RAF instead of civilians. The RAF was on its last legs before the Luftwaffe stopped focusing on taking out the RAF and began focusing on targeting civilians. Without Barbarossa the Blitz wouldn't have happened and the RAF may have been driven from southern British shores.

Not including the entirety of the British Empire, I believe Germany had a larger industrial base. That's the reason everyone turned on them in WW1. Everyone knew that Germany had the potential of becoming a global power and no one wanted that. I don't actually know for sure though if Germany was just a shell of its former self and that Britain was miraculously resurgent, making up for lost time despite Germany having a larger population and being just as well educated. I mean, Germany certainly had the potential of outproducing Britain, but fascism is historically horribly inefficient.

>it's a perfidious albion simultaneously believes the British victories were both harrowing and courageous and that they were nonetheless assured to win episode
Then again bongs lie every episode.

>But they had close to 28 divisions settled into the island, and you're attacking with 2, tops. They'll roll right over you.
Under normal circumstances, yes. It would never actually be 28 vs 2, but the basic idea is correct which is why Germany didn't invade following the failure of the Luftwaffe.
>Go look up the pathetic showing of the Luftwaffe at Dunkirk.
Is this a joke? The British evacuation at Dunkirk was a side-show to the continued invasion of France.
>Not maybe. Never.
I would have accepted your point except you again started banging on about
>The British commonwealth outproduced Germany alone.
I'm not denying that Britain with it's Empire could outproduce Germany. You are thinking with the assumption that Britain would have had the luxury of time to leverage it's Empire for resources if Germany had fully committed to a British invasion.

I'm arguing that Britain would not have had that luxury, the time, to leverage the resources of an empire at a rate sufficient to fend off a fully committed Germany.
>They need the Luftwaffe to do everything at once, from CAS, to interdiction, to stopping the Royal Navy, to stopping even a few bombers from the RAF from fucking up the whole operation. It's a pipe dream.
Fair reasoning. As you say, the whole thing would have hinged completely on the Luftwaffe and for the Luftwaffe to carry out all those duties would have been a tall order. I think the possibility is there for German success, but I can't say exactly how likely it would have been.
>They built fewer planes throughout the entire war.
How big an effect did Germany not committing to a war-time economy right away had, do you think?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6o84NU9Ees

>They were never going to get it, so what is the point of a what-if based on that?
Why does anyone ever talk about 'what-ifs'? Interesting conversation.
>What the hell are you talking about? Why would that be relevant in the slightest?
One of the main advantages of multiple landings in France was that it meant German forces had to keep far enough back to be able to respond in force to wherever the main landing would be.
In Britain, because it's a tiny island, the distances that an army would need to travel are tiny compared to France. This means that any ploy with multiple landings would be disproportionately more trouble for the Germans than for the defending force in the case of Britain. This is, again, about logistics.
>No, the risks could not have been mitigated. Just stop.
You don't know what you're talking about. So, yes, I'll stop.
I somehow doubt the Germans would be careless enough for this to work, but you never know.
If you say so, that is just something I remember from school days. 'Britain' came within 3 days of starvation' or something along those lines. I wouldn't be surprised if that was propaganda for the US radio audience.

Yes, but the British Empire was not Poland or France. It was a superpower of it's time with almost unlimited manpower and resources.

>All the while Germany is still pounding the RAF instead of civilians.

And losing 5 planes for every 2 they destroy like they were doing in 1940? Great trade there.

> The RAF was on its last legs before the Luftwaffe stopped focusing on taking out the RAF and began focusing on targeting civilians.

No it wasn't, since FG 10 and 12 were still around and completely uncommitted.

> Without Barbarossa the Blitz wouldn't have happened and the RAF may have been driven from southern British shores.

No way in hell.

>Not including the entirety of the British Empire,

So they'll just sit around and do nothing?

>Under normal circumstances, yes. It would never actually be 28 vs 2,

No, but achieving 5:1 odds is pretty simple, and very easily doable, whcih means you need enough of an initial landing force to survive that kind of counterattack.

>Is this a joke? The British evacuation at Dunkirk was a side-show to the continued invasion of France.

Learn to read. Yes, it was a side-show, but the Luftwaffe sank a grand total of one destroyer of the evacuation fleet, when these ships were standing still for hours at a time. It is not a good predictor for the Lfutwaffe being able to stop moving targets which are more heavily armoed by far at night.

>I'm not denying that Britain with it's Empire could outproduce Germany. You are thinking with the assumption that Britain would have had the luxury of time to leverage it's Empire for resources if Germany had fully committed to a British invasion.

They were already being leveraged you twit. What the hell do you think was going on in the war? Most of those raw material imports came from somewhere in the Empire.

>I'm arguing that Britain would not have had that luxury, the time, to leverage the resources of an empire at a rate sufficient to fend off a fully committed Germany.

They couldn't even manage a sealion in 1940. And the longer you wait, the longer these greater resources get "leveraged" in.

>Fair reasoning. As you say, the whole thing would have hinged completely on the Luftwaffe and for the Luftwaffe to carry out all those duties would have been a tall order. I think the possibility is there for German success, but I can't say exactly how likely it would have been.

The odds are 0

philmasters.org.uk/SF/Sealion.htm

>How big an effect did Germany not committing to a war-time economy right away had, do you think?

Given that according to guys like Rall, when they did move to more rapid airframe production, they still didn't have the pilots for it, I doubt very much it had a critical effect.

>Yes, it was a side-show, but the Luftwaffe sank a grand total of one destroyer of the evacuation fleet
Using planes that were never intended to sink ships. You're arguing that a saw is a shit saw because it can't hammer nails the way a hammer can.
>They were already being leveraged you twit. What the hell do you think was going on in the war?
In 1940, during Dunkirk? I'm thinking the British were shitting their pants and wishing they could leverage those resources a lot faster.
Right, they didn't manage sealion and the rest is history.
>philmasters.org.uk/SF/Sealion.htm
>The Kriegsmarine proposed landing 10 infantry regiments at Folkestone, because a broad front would be impossible to protect. The Wehrmacht did not like this. The discussion moved on to purely army matters, so Raeder left the meeting. In Raeder's absence, Hitler announced that he favoured a broad front approach.
Hilarious. I don't blame you for being so confident in your '0' assessment.
>Given that according to guys like Rall, when they did move to more rapid airframe production, they still didn't have the pilots for it
Replacing dead pilots. I'm thinking of what the accumulated strength could have been at the start of sealion/battle of britain, not when the critical moment of victory had already slipped through the German's fingers.

>I somehow doubt the Germans would be careless enough for this to work, but you never know.
Being careless has nothing to do with it. The fact is it takes 2+ days for German barges to cross the Channel, and, even if pigs fly in frozen hell and the Luftwaffe has gained air supremacy somehow, they cannot do anything at night. So how would they stop British destroyers then?

>The RAF was on its last legs before the Luftwaffe stopped focusing on taking out the RAF and began focusing on targeting civilians.
RAF was always better off than the Luftwaffe, and would have won the battle of attrition.

>Not including the entirety of the British Empire, I believe Germany had a larger industrial base. That's the reason everyone turned on them in WW1.
Everyone turned on them in WW1 because Germany instigated a world war and then invaded a neutral country.

>>Free Indian Army was the reason India gained independence
>what are the INA trials
>what is the RIN mutiny?
fuck off. Starving peacefully doesn't do jackshit against ruthless governments that engineer famines just to grow better opium.

>starving peacefully doesn't work, so Free Indian Army must have caused Indian Independence
Top logic m8.

So what happened to Germany's industrial base? Germany had surpassed Britain prior to WW1. Are you telling me Britain had higher industrial output across the board and that it was just because of the inefficiency of fascist micromanagement?

Germany was putting its industry and resources into capital improvements. They built things like synthetic oil factory or machine tools or expanded munitions factories, while Brits pumped out munitions knowing the US will jump in soon enough. We know that Germany easily overtook the Brits in 1943 when the investments came online. That's what happened.

>spend all your money on capital improvements
>just in time for strategic bombing to really get into its own

Ahhhhh

>The fact is it takes 2+ days for German barges to cross the Channel
Why do you think so? At it's widest the English Channel is 240km wide. German barges could travel at 15km/h which would mean if the Germans took the longest possible route then it would take 16 hours to cross the channel.
The narrowest point is 33.3 km but that would be the straights of dover which I don't think would be the best place to land.
>Everyone turned on them in WW1 because Germany instigated a world war and then invaded a neutral country.
You're confusing Austria-Hungary with Germany.

>Using planes that were never intended to sink ships. You're arguing that a saw is a shit saw because it can't hammer nails the way a hammer can.

I'm arguing that the Luftwaffe in August or September of 1940 isn't going to do any better. Thus, relying on the Luftwaffe to parry a night attack by the RN is a bad thing to pin your hops on.

>In 1940, during Dunkirk? I'm thinking the British were shitting their pants and wishing they could leverage those resources a lot faster.

In 1940, Britain was producing tens of thousands of planes and hundreds of thousands of artillery pieces. Did they want more, sure. Were they being crushed by superior German industry? hell no.

>Replacing dead pilots. I'm thinking of what the accumulated strength could have been at the start of sealion/battle of britain, not when the critical moment of victory had already slipped through the German's fingers.

But it literally can't be. You can't have the accumulated production and training of your post-retooling available in the summer and autumn of 1940.

I'm not entirely certain. Ineffificency probably has a lot to do with it; if you look at their raw material resource numbers, they're fairly impressive, but the amount of actually finished products always remains low.

You're acting like the British weren't also improving their industrial capital, and also didn't see enormous increases in production throughout the war.

>We know that Germany easily overtook the Brits in 1943 when the investments came online.

You mean, they suddenly stopped building bombers and started building cheaper single-engined fighters, and thus could spit out more of them ,because single-engined fighters is the only thing that dramatically shot up and overtook Britain that they were producing less of before.

>But it literally can't be. You can't have the accumulated production and training of your post-retooling available in the summer and autumn of 1940.
It's almost like it would have been a good idea to post-pone war until one was ready. Would have helped the navy get it's shit together and not rely on river barges too. I wonder if Germany had that time. They might have been banking on no one going to war over Poland and getting more time as a result, but that didn't work out.

Anyway, I think I'm done playing what-ifs. I don't think you're wrong in your skepticism of operation sealion.