effects of failed sealion

Now, it's fairly obvious in hindsight that sealion was doomed to failure with any reasonable post 1936 or so POD

But what if Hitler with his famed 'insight' had ordered the operation to go ahead after the Luftwaffe had managed to force Fighter Command to withdraw north. The short term consequences are reasonably well known, at least amongst those who are interested in such things: kriegsmarine maintenance budgets being trimmed etc

But what are the medium to long term effects of such a defeat for Germany? What are the effects for Britain of what may be a costly victory, but a victory none the less. What are the effects on other combatants and on those who in OTL became combatants? What are the effects on neutrals?

I pose this as I've seen few discussions on the effects of Germany attempting Sealion and failing and in many ways I find this question more interesting than "WI Sealion was successful?"

A good proportion of elite troops would be either drowned, killed on the beaches or taken prisoner.

The Kriegsmarine would be destroyed as an effective force, and have to focus on coastal defence and submarine warfare henceforth

The Luftwaffe presumably ends up over-stretched with massive casualties, again including its best pilots

There would most certainly be no Barbarossa, in fact the whole skew of foreign relations in the East would be massively upset. German standing and face will have taken a massive nose-dive, whilst they DO remain in control of W and N Europe

Manoevrings in the Balkans would be different, I can't remember the detail etc right now but they would be substantially changed.

N Africa - well Britain's fightback is presumably aborted, there's no NEED for the Afrika Korps, which is just as well since there's not really men around to spare

I could see 1941 being full of crises in the Balkans and the USSR and Italy playing stronger hands than OTL - which in Stalin's case is going to give him a dominant position in Rumania, most probably

If Yugoslavia blows up, it may suck Germany into an extended civil war there.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

The German economy takes a massive hit as a very large part of the river-fleet is destroyed.

Grey Wolf said:

A good proportion of elite troops would be either drowned, killed on the beaches or taken prisoner.

The Kriegsmarine would be destroyed as an effective force, and have to focus on coastal defence and submarine warfare henceforth

The Luftwaffe presumably ends up over-stretched with massive casualties, again including its best pilots

There would most certainly be no Barbarossa, in fact the whole skew of foreign relations in the East would be massively upset. German standing and face will have taken a massive nose-dive, whilst they DO remain in control of W and N Europe

Manoevrings in the Balkans would be different, I can't remember the detail etc right now but they would be substantially changed.

N Africa - well Britain's fightback is presumably aborted, there's no NEED for the Afrika Korps, which is just as well since there's not really men around to spare

I could see 1941 being full of crises in the Balkans and the USSR and Italy playing stronger hands than OTL - which in Stalin's case is going to give him a dominant position in Rumania, most probably

If Yugoslavia blows up, it may suck Germany into an extended civil war there.

Click to expand...

Agreed that the Kriegsmarine takes severe hits – on the units involved. Please remember that Raeder did _not_ believe in Seelöwe (one wonders why, heh) and would _not_ place his most important body part on the anvil and under the sledgehammer just because somebody like Goering told him: it's safe.

Agreed that the Luftwaffe is downsized, and this even if they do better in the months before the sea mammal (see the Better Show they put up in my ATL).

Agreed that the elite units are destroyed, but this is not terribly important save for future tasks where they are absolutely necessary (read Crete). The Heer was going to risk only a tiny fraction of its force before the loony attempt would be called off, so the bulk is still there. The main regrets apart from the Fallschirmjäger are the Brandeburger, the mountain troopers, and a Panzerdivision's worth of tanks.

Disagreed that there would be no Barbarossa. That would be the case with a sane leader, preferably one who wasn't in this whole business of invading everywhere else for the sole purpose of invading the USSR at last.

Disagreed that there wouldn't be manpower to spare. Sure the Germans have taken losses that they did not take in OTL, but if there is the will, they can spare a couple of divisions to send in Africa. Agreed, however, that they are unlikely to have that will. In any case, if you are right about no Barbarossa, then you are wrong here and viceversa.

Disagreed that Italy has a stronger hand, therefore. The Germans don't send help in Africa, or they send a token, and they act belatedly and reluctantly in the Balkans, and they are unable to take Crete. All of this makes for a fair likelihood of Italy been wiped out from North Africa by spring, 1941. Italy _can_ survive without Libya, but in this ATL they are taking an even longer series of defeats than in OTL, and rather soon the British will be able to harass their homeland directly (even more than in OTL). Neither factor is going to bolster their will to fight.

The practical effects of a failed sealion on germany - lost river barges etc have been talked about before

I guess I'm more interested in the other effects. The practical affects on the UK's ability to continue to wage war, eg would defeating sealion actually be a pyrrhic victory? and the larger geopolitical effects eg: would a failed sealion make it more or less likely that the US would enter the war earlier/later/at all, would Stalin take the opportunity to attempt to stab Hitler in the back etc

kellineil said:

I guess I'm more interested in the other effects. The practical affects on the UK's ability to continue to wage war, eg would defeating sealion actually be a pyrrhic victory?

Click to expand...

I don't see why. They're going to bag a huge morale boost and not to pay a high price for it.

and the larger geopolitical effects eg: would a failed sealion make it more or less likely that the US would enter the war earlier/later/at all,

Click to expand...

If it only depended from the Britain/Germany contest, the fact that Britain doesn't seem so much in danger might slow down a bit the aid, which in turn would make US/German naval confrontations be delayed, and overall this would mean a later US entry in the war.
But we can rely on the Japanese to stick to their timetable, can't we?

would Stalin take the opportunity to attempt to stab Hitler in the back etc

Click to expand...

No. But he would slow down the supplies, now that Germany has taken a blow, and once the spring of 1941 comes, he won't believe the Germans are still focused on Britain. Both these factors make Barbarossa quite harder.

http://www.geocities.com/drammos/sealion1.html

Very long.....

Try reading C.S Forrester's short story "If Hitler had invaded Englnd" in Gold from Crete. The war is shortened and Germany is defeated. However although an invasion would probably have failed given lack of air superiority and Britain having the most powerful navy in the world, a considerable number of smaller ships including destroyers would have been lost in the process which may have given the U boats the upper hand in the Battle of the Atlantic straving Britian into submission or more probably a negotiated settlement that gave Germany a free hand in Europe

Up until say 1941 Hitler kept making big gambles and winning. I suspect that the traditonal military felt that actions in 1940 especially were very risky but in OTL they came off.

Hitler would have been told not to take the risk of invading Britain. If he ignored that advice and got a bloody nose his capacity to do the super gamble, Barbarossa might be reduced.