Battle of Britain

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
naianoiker
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 13 Apr 2009 12:01

Re:

Post by naianoiker » 13 Apr 2009 16:21

Andy H wrote:The ideal time for the Invasion of Britain was in the July of 1940, when the tides & weather should be on Germany’s side. After the Norwegian campaign the Kriegsmarine would only have the heavy Cruiser Hipper available for combat op’s plus several smaller vessels, not a lot against the RN!
Hello, just noticed this when reading this tread.

Probably something I dont understand right, but had not Germany both battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz available at this time?

Otherwise, I believe Germany would have taken Britain if they wanted. They just had to trow everyyhing in on one huge attack with heavy air support.
That is of course if they had not done the blunder to begin bomb London instead of airfields etc.

If RAF had been taken out so Luftwaffe could operate without airattack, not much could stop them. German planes would have kept much of the Royal Navy away.

Transport I dont think would be big problem. In addition to ships of their own, they could use lots of transportships from occupied countries.

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 14:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: Re:

Post by mescal » 13 Apr 2009 17:05

naianoiker wrote:had not Germany both battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz available at this time?
No, Bismarck was commissioned on 24/08/1940, and was in trials & training in the Baltic until April 1941.
Tirpitz was commissioned 25/02/1941 and was in trials & training until the end of the year.

Gneisenau & Scharnhorst were having their own problems, with the Gneisenau being under repair after being hit by a submarine on 20 June.
Scharnhorst was the most likely to be available in July. However she had been hit by a torperdo during her encounter with HMS Glorious. I'm not sure how long it took to have her repaired.

You can also discard the two remaining panzerschiffe, both were unavailable at that time, the Scheer to a planned 3-months overhaul, and the Lutzow following a torpedo hit received during Weserubung.
naianoiker wrote: If RAF had been taken out so Luftwaffe could operate without airattack, not much could stop them. German planes would have kept much of the Royal Navy away.
Even if they would have been able to do so, it was only during daylight. At night, the RN would have a full control on the Channel .... which spells doom for any German transport.
Remember what happened around Guadalcanal : the US had the air superiority, but by night the Japanese were able to contest the sea over a long period ... and the US Navy had far more resources in this area than the Kriegsmarine had in summer 1940.
naianoiker wrote: Transport I dont think would be big problem. In addition to ships of their own, they could use lots of transportships from occupied countries.
Actually, it was precisely the problem. Germany had nowhere near the transport capabilities to mount a full-scale assault on Great Britain, even taking into account the captured shipping.
The tonnage required for such operations is absolutely HUGE. There is not only the first wave to take into account, but also the follow-up forces and their supplies.
Remember for example that the Allies did not have enough shipping capacity until 1944.
Olivier

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Re:

Post by LWD » 13 Apr 2009 17:23

To add a bit more to Mescal's response.
naianoiker wrote: ...Probably something I dont understand right, but had not Germany both battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz available at this time?

Otherwise, I believe Germany would have taken Britain if they wanted. They just had to trow everyyhing in on one huge attack with heavy air support.
Even if they had all 4 BBs available the KM wouldn't be a match for just Home fleet.
That is of course if they had not done the blunder to begin bomb London instead of airfields etc.
It's not at all clear that this was much of a blunder. The LW was loosing the BOB as earlier posts in this thread demonstrate well before they started hitting London.
If RAF had been taken out so Luftwaffe could operate without airattack, not much could stop them. German planes would have kept much of the Royal Navy away.
The LW couldn't take out the RAF because the RAF wasn't going to allow that to happen. Even the the LW was not particularly effective at taking out warships at sea that had sufficient fuel and AA ammo.
Transport I dont think would be big problem. In addition to ships of their own, they could use lots of transportships from occupied countries.
From memory the Germans only had about 100 transport ships available. They planned to supplement this with over 1500 river barges and it was still marginal at best.

User avatar
naianoiker
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 13 Apr 2009 12:01

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by naianoiker » 13 Apr 2009 20:47

Ok I see. So Hitler did the right thing by letting Britain be then. His generals did not agree, and I have seen experts on Tv saying they think an invasion would work.

I dont know. But Germany couldn't have any other choice to avoid 2 fronts then trying to take Britain. The eastern front was so large it would take much longer time ever possible come to a final victory.
The only chance was to get rid of Britain, and the west front would be secured. What did they have to lose? England had declared war on Germany, it was not the other way. That mean the Germans should be in good faith thinking they just defended thenselves from the bad British, and had the full right to do so .

They must have known Britain would be the perfect base for the allied and US forces later. Was Hitler so stupid he not could see this?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by phylo_roadking » 13 Apr 2009 21:24

But Germany couldn't have any other choice to avoid 2 fronts then trying to take Britain.
As of the Armistice with France - Germany HAD no front with Britain unless it stepped over the Channel by sea or by air...and historically we saw the latter. There was no "common ground where germ,any could directly affect the outcome of the war by force of arms. The beginnings of the U-Boat war wasn't an end in itself, for instance, but the "means" to an end, an attempt to starve the British into submission.

In turn, the British Cabinet feared that no common front with the Axis on land would lead to a lessening in morale on the home front as the war developed with no actual combat...so sent troops to the Middle East starting in August 1940, and ramped up the land war with Italy there...and of course eventually the Afrika Corps.
That mean the Germans should be in good faith thinking they just defended thenselves from the bad British, and had the full right to do so .
Hitler et al didn't actually need that motivation.... 8O
They must have known Britain would be the perfect base for the allied and US forces later
What the Germans DID see was an America that was Neutral, with a sizeable percentage of the population against even helping the British let alone entering the war, an American Ambassador that was publically and privately urging FDR [not to help Britain saying that the British were finished, a Britain that had lost every campaign it was involved in...a Britain where morale seemed to be collapsing under the weight of a number of German psi-war ops (see Peter Fleming's Operation Sealion), had a Foreign Secretary who TWICE attempted to open negotiations with them for peace without the knowledge of Churchill, etc. etc.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by LWD » 13 Apr 2009 21:32

naianoiker wrote:Ok I see. So Hitler did the right thing by letting Britain be then.....
No he did the wrong thing by attacking Poland inspite of the guarantee then he compounded it by attacking the Soviets and eventually made matters even worse by declaring war on the US (although that probably didn't matter much).

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by bf109 emil » 15 Apr 2009 08:54

England had declared war on Germany, it was not the other way. That mean the Germans should be in good faith thinking they just defended thenselves from the bad British, and had the full right to do so
WAS Germany not warned that an attack on Poland would result in Britain and France coming to Poland's aid? Therefore Germany attack on Poland resulted in a war with England thus started by Germany????

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Paul Lakowski » 15 Apr 2009 19:01

Hitler not Germany, when you are speaking of lead up to war. Every thing is about Hitler and his beliefs.

Hitler never wanted war with the UK since deep down he believed the British to be part of his precious Aryan race. He feared war with UK would only break up the Empire which would benifit every one else but Germany. So he forbade all mention and efforts to prepare for war with the UK. War with Russia on the other hand was ALWAYS a forgone conclusion [Racial beliefs] and every one knew this, which is why the pack with Stalin came as complete shock to Europe.

Germany was on track to rebuild is military, industry and resource bace for a european wide war by the mid 1940s, but when Hitler took power he baulked at waiting that long. So in 1936 he shelved the long term plan and substitued his cobbled together plan of politics [deals with Stalin and Italy , while the deal Spain which didnt materialize] coersion [Sudatenland ,lands ,Austria and Czechoslovakia] and failing that limited war [Poland]. He believed that all the European powers were weak and could be defeated sequentially. All he needed was a large army and the rest would fall into place in his grand master plan.

With Munich while the World realised the main threat to peace was no longer Stalin but Hitler, Hitler realised that his biggest threat was now the USA lead by Roosvelt, who he believed to be the international Jewish leader and ergo the utltmate enemy. Since Germany was so far behind and the USA was 'apparently' weak the sooner he moved the better. Thus he risked everything on the invasion of Poland. So Hitler dragged Germany into a war that it was years away from being ready to fight.

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by bf109 emil » 15 Apr 2009 21:48

So Hitler dragged Germany into a war that it was years away from being ready to fight.
Hitler was voted to office by the German people and was scene in a perverse light as a savior of sorts...to say he dragged the German people into a war, would imply he wasn't liked or revered by the German nation which is far from the truth...the people followed him both willing and able and with eagerness

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Paul Lakowski » 16 Apr 2009 04:51

bf109 emil wrote:
So Hitler dragged Germany into a war that it was years away from being ready to fight.
Hitler was voted to office by the German people and was scene in a perverse light as a savior of sorts...to say he dragged the German people into a war, would imply he wasn't liked or revered by the German nation which is far from the truth...the people followed him both willing and able and with eagerness

You are overstating the case. The only reason Hitler got in power in the first place was due to extreme shock of the Great Depression. This put the voters in a position of desperation. Often extreme situations demand extreme measures, and its not that difficult to use a foreign threat [real or percieved] as a lightning rod to focus and control this voter fears. Even with that , Hitler only got 1/3 of the Vote , with the bulk of the population seeing him as 'lunitic fringe', which is what his Nazi party was seen as before the 1932/33 elections when their popular support was single digit. Hitler only got power since he was able to bully the failing Hindenburg into granting him the special power to rule given the extreme situation.

Without those two variables Hitler would not have gotten in power, short of a coupe. His inital government degrees set the pace and in a matter of weeks/months he had imposed a series of measures that outlawed free press and installed racial law and erected the mechanism of the Nazi state.

Germanies economy was already on the road to recovery before Hitler took power. The previous regimes had erected a wealthfare state and credit system to put the people back to work through government works programmes. Hitler was a master of propaganda and reaped the benifits of these actions. When he gambled on Sudatenlands Austria and Czechoslovakia, people started to believe he had some powers, which ofcourse all came to a crashing halt when the French and British declared war. This came as shock to Hitler since he didn't expect such a reaction. But by then he was committed to his anti jewish/communist crusade and was still convinced even through the BoB that the UK would eventually see sence and stand aside to let him get on with the work he believed he was choosen to do.

To Hitler the Battle of Britain and the Sealion invasion were all a part of his so called 'Fright wars', all aimed at terrorising the British people out of the war. Had Churchill not been their to stop him its entirely possible that Halifax could have given Hitler exactly what he wanted , a deal to keep the empire out of war so Hitler could get on with is crusade.

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by bf109 emil » 16 Apr 2009 05:12

Paul Lakowski wrote
Germanies economy was already on the road to recovery before Hitler took power. The previous regimes had erected a wealthfare state and credit system to put the people back to work through government works programmes. Hitler was a master of propaganda and reaped the benifits of these actions.
--because of this
As in the 1930s, Germany has put all its economic might into producing exports that will enhance its power and cement it as the economic engine that drives Europe. Yet, it must be remembered that it was the sidelining of the people in the 1930s that led to the economic frustrations that resulted in the election of Adolf Hitler
It was the previous regimes treatment of workers to gain the road to recovery that resulted in Hitler coming to the forefront! Without this economic collapse or poor treatment of workers to become a prosperious state, there wouldn't be a need for a Deutsch Arbeit Party nor a leader to represent the workers aka Hitler
When in 1930 Heinrich Brüning became chancellor of Germany he told his friends in the unions that his chief aim was to liberate Germany from paying war reparations and foreign debt. He felt that if he diverted all Germany’s efforts into exports it would weaken the ability of America and the Allies to force Germany to pay her ious if she chose not to. The German unions therefore agreed to Brüning reducing wages, raising taxes and diverting all industrial activity into exports so as to bring pressure on the Western powers, not realizing to what extent this would mean misery, unemployment and a diminution of power for the workers. Brüning’s initiative was successful. Millions of people abroad were fooled into believing that Germany herself was really poor, not just her hapless citizens, even though Germany was the greatest exporter in the world, with a mountain of cash in the bank.

Whereas Germany’s economic policy produced hyper-inflation during the 1920s, it produced deflation in the 1930s. Brüning put everything Germany had into producing exports for the Fatherland, even if that meant taking more money from the people. By doing this, he strengthened Germany’s power and international position to the point where Germany was more powerful just 15 years after World War i than it was even at the beginning of the war. Yet this economic system had another effect. The people became bitter and elected Adolf Hitler to lead their nation.
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5243.3532.0.0

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Paul Lakowski » 16 Apr 2009 15:49

I suggest you read "Germany and the Second World War", Vol I, Ed. Diest

And

"Wages of Destruction", Adam Tooze.


Germany main emphasis on exports was to attempt to redress the balance of payments problem and build up foreign currency investment. America was seen as central to Germany case visa vee reperations payments.

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by bf109 emil » 27 Apr 2009 11:13

Paul Lakowski wrote'
Germanies economy was already on the road to recovery before Hitler took power. The previous regimes had erected a wealthfare state and credit system to put the people back to work through government works programmes.
the government programs in a sense never worked as Tooze points out..
from Tooze and wages of destruction
the work-creation programme created little work; after all, actual spending on the autobahns and public works projects was not all that great, and the total demand for construction workers was limited.
it was not until Hitler and re=armament did the German economy pick up Tooze words himself
What got Germany back to work was rearmament, and Tooze argues that much of what is thought of as civilian investment was actually more like disguised military investment, or investment in war-supplying industry.
The main business whom helped build Germany did so from profit from rearmament
It is well worth pointing out here that Tooze is excellent on the corporate world of Nazi Germany, and especially the fast-growing influence and power of the top technical executives of big industry (especially chemicals and aeronautical engineering), who made up something like an independent technocratic lobby in their own right. J.K. Galbraith’s technostructure comes to mind; this may have been the most malevolent and evil manifestation of it ever. Even the big coal and steel men, who generally went along, were frequently horrified by Nazi policy; not so Junkers, BASF, Bosch or IG-Farben, who were not only profiting from arms sales but benefiting from massive state capital investment into the latest technologies in their research divisions.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Paul Lakowski » 28 Apr 2009 19:33

bf109 emil wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote'
Germanies economy was already on the road to recovery before Hitler took power. The previous regimes had erected a wealthfare state and credit system to put the people back to work through government works programmes.
the government programs in a sense never worked as Tooze points out..
from Tooze and wages of destruction
the work-creation programme created little work; after all, actual spending on the autobahns and public works projects was not all that great, and the total demand for construction workers was limited.
it was not until Hitler and re=armament did the German economy pick up Tooze words himself
What got Germany back to work was rearmament, and Tooze argues that much of what is thought of as civilian investment was actually more like disguised military investment, or investment in war-supplying industry.
The main business whom helped build Germany did so from profit from rearmament
It is well worth pointing out here that Tooze is excellent on the corporate world of Nazi Germany, and especially the fast-growing influence and power of the top technical executives of big industry (especially chemicals and aeronautical engineering), who made up something like an independent technocratic lobby in their own right. J.K. Galbraith’s technostructure comes to mind; this may have been the most malevolent and evil manifestation of it ever. Even the big coal and steel men, who generally went along, were frequently horrified by Nazi policy; not so Junkers, BASF, Bosch or IG-Farben, who were not only profiting from arms sales but benefiting from massive state capital investment into the latest technologies in their research divisions.
Its also well worth noting that these programmes were set up before Hitler when millions of people were unemployed. They should have been abandoned the year after Hitler got in power, since by then they had done their work. But the nazi continued them regardless....even though some military remarked that they served no strategic purpose , since the Reichwehr/Wehrmacht & German economy relied almost exlusively on the Rail network and the canal network. Road transport accounted for a mere 5%. It also should be noted that they kept going their 'monuments to nazi vanity' inspite of how much it was sapping the existing economy.

Back when Hitler took power Von Blomberg, faced with the ever growing Hitler demands , reported that the only way to achieve these targets within the time frame expected, was to move away from the corrupt 'cost plus contracting system' that had been enabled by the faultering economy, and instead move to a incentive based 'multi year fixed price system', that would make the companies responsible for cost cutting and waste reduction.

It had been estimated that this could tripple out put without increasing labor industry or resource consumption substatially. But Hitler would have nothing to do with this. He had a special relationship with each service branch and the industries involved that allowed him to control everyone. That power control was far more important to him than any gain due to interservice cooperation to reduce and eliminate duplication of effort and combine research etc.

It also should be noted that the rearmament drive was begun back in 1928 , and that Haljarm Schacht [sp] was responsible for the bulk of these secret funding programmes through his Mefo bills programme, which he established to help rebuild German economy. Once he realised that Hitler was diverting them to fund the armaments industry , he resigned after a brief battle with Hitler.

This reamament drive would have gone on with or without Hitler and achieve pretty much the same force establishment that historically occured through out the 1930s. Except it would have resembled the WW-I force structure. A 80-90 division army with a moderate sized navy and airforce. However by the end of that decade, it would be transitioning from a defensive horse drawn infantry army to a more offensive motorised and ultimately mechanize army capable of launching an offensive war against Poland and France and winning the wider European war under the right circumstances.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Guaporense » 15 May 2010 16:55

As an economist, I know that government make work squemes are a ridiculous way of decreasing unemployment. That's because they are financed with government expenditures, with need to be paid off in some way. If they are paid off with taxes or with debt, demand for labor in the private sector will be reduced. If they are paid off with inflation, prices will increase, reducing real wages in the private sector.

Germany's economy recovered naturally from the great depression and was the first to recover because real wages fell. To make an economy recover you need to make the market work by reducing the constrains in the adjustment of prices. Very flexible prices will adjust the economy to full employment.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Return to “What if”