Effect of a Nazi Victory on the US/Britain?

The Germans couldn't win the War. Even minus the US, Britain would stubbornly hold out and the Soviets would eventually grind the Germans out of their country.
The closest thing to a "success" would be a Cold Piece: All sides get so exhausted that they just quit fighting (for the time being).

If Churchill opened up fronts in the "soft underbelly" of Fortress Europa - Italy and the Balkans - the British might be exhausted into a stalemate.
If the US stays out of the war, that's a lot of men for the eastern front. At its peak, 1.9 million Germans were on the Western Front during WWII (and 8 million throughout the war). In the east it peaked at 3.9 million.


The question is, at that point - both in time and geographically - does an eastern front stalemate occur? Quisling OTL urged Hitler to set the line at the Dnieper IIRC. Dnieper plus Baltics?

If Hitler can commit fully to the eastern front, Japan might see an opportunity to squeeze Stalin from the other end. The Russo-Japanese war was very much in living memory for the Japanese leadership, and they might see that as a wiser course of action than antagonizing the United States of F*** Yeah.
 
" bombing auschwitz" wasn't really an effective option. We're talking about a period when the only reliable way to hit a particular target with a bomb via high altitude level bombing was to have a couple hundred aircraft bomb in formation at the same time. And even then actual effect varied. Bombing railroad tracks was often a waste and even if damage was caused repairs could be quickly done. I believe the camps in Poland were also out of range of the allied bombers based in Britain. They could try shuttle bombing and using Soviet bases but OTL that was pretty much a disaster.

I can understand the strategic issues, but there were army planes flying over Auschwitz.

The issue as that there was a troubling pattern of the US government trying so hard NOT to help Jews. The quotas against Jewish migrants were restrictive, but even then, the State Department did everything it could to refuse even the number of Jews who could've been welcomed with visas.

Cordell Hull, someone I otherwise admire, advised the state Department against helping Jews.

Further elaborating on this (and the prior bit I quoted which raised the idea that there'd be no Castro), I think that Batista's management of Cuba would mean that there'd still probably be a revolution. OTL when Fidel first took charge it wasn't clear that he was Communist, and indeed his views weren't that solidified at the time. His brother Raul was the committed Communist.

So if the Soviets aren't in so hot a position, the Nazis dominate Europe, and Mussolini is still running things in Rome. I think it's plausible that his ideology would be more influenced by Fascism than Communism here. Heck, adopting the title of Lider OTL was sort of fashy (Hitler being Fuhrer, Mussolini being Duce, all three terms/titles basically meaning Leader). If he is not Mussolini-Fascist, than Francoesque Synidcalism might be the name of the game.

That is an odd idea. But my guess is the US Government would be even less sympathetic toward Castro if he openly called himself fascist. Getting rid of him would be something that all Americans would be in agreement with, once the image of fascist death camps is ingrained in the American psyche.
 

Marc

Donor
Just a couple of quotes for those who believe that the British and Americans were mostly unaware of the mass exterminations:

Information regarding mass murder of Jews began to reach the free world soon after these actions began in the Soviet Union in late June 1941, and the volume of such reports increased with time. The early sources of information include German police reports intercepted by British intelligence; local eyewitnesses and escaped Jews reporting to the underground, Soviet, or neutral sources; and Hungarian soldiers on home leave, whose observations were reported by neutral sources. During 1942, reports of a Nazi plan to murder all the Jews – including details on methods, numbers, and locations – reached Allied and neutral leaders from many sources, such as the underground Jewish Socialist Bund party in the Warsaw Ghetto in May; Gerhard Riegner's cable from Switzerland in August; the eyewitness account of Polish underground courier Jan Karski in November; and the eyewitness accounts of 69 Polish Jews who reached Palestine in a civilian prisoner exchange between Germany and Britain in November.

In late December 1942, after the US, UK and others issued a public declaration about the Jewish slaughter, UK Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden told the British parliament: “The German authorities, not content with denying to persons of Jewish race in all the territories over which their barbarous rule extends, the most elementary human rights, are now carrying into effect Hitler’s oft-repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people.”

They knew, they really did. Now the nasty ethical issue in historical reality is how reluctant they were in dealing with it as part of grand tactics - the "bombing of Auschwitz" debate, etc.
But evil doesn't hide under a bush, in fact, evil revels in being public. There is a old folk saying - Bulgarian perhaps: "The Devil is never shy."
 
Last edited:
If Hitler can commit fully to the eastern front, Japan might see an opportunity to squeeze Stalin from the other end. The Russo-Japanese war was very much in living memory for the Japanese leadership, and they might see that as a wiser course of action than antagonizing the United States of F*** Yeah.

There isn't enough oil in Siberia to sustain the Japanese War Machine. They have to have Dutch oil, which means no occupation of Indochina. And which also predates the invasion of the USSR. So, really, the Japanese don't really have much of a choice.

German will be seen as a land power without the resources for a big navy.

They would merely have every dockyard from Brest to St Peterburg under their control. Germany in WW1 could produce enough of a navy to threaten the UK. With control of so many highly productive yards, they will attempt to rebuild the navy once a casefire occurs.

Now, it may not have been a very good navy (Plan Z was not a good fleet composition), but Hitler was determined to have his navy to take the fight to Albion. And that would be a threat to the UK and the US. Once the war ended, the Germans would get their surface fleet sooner or later (though the costs would be massive).
 
There isn't enough oil in Siberia to sustain the Japanese War Machine. They have to have Dutch oil, which means no occupation of Indochina. And which also predates the invasion of the USSR. So, really, the Japanese don't really have much of a choice.



They would merely have every dockyard from Brest to St Peterburg under their control. Germany in WW1 could produce enough of a navy to threaten the UK. With control of so many highly productive yards, they will attempt to rebuild the navy once a casefire occurs.

Now, it may not have been a very good navy (Plan Z was not a good fleet composition), but Hitler was determined to have his navy to take the fight to Albion. And that would be a threat to the UK and the US. Once the war ended, the Germans would get their surface fleet sooner or later (though the costs would be massive).

Having the yards isn't the same thing as being able to use them effectively.

And the US and UK have a massive head start and will increase their own construction to outmatch any post war German production. By the time the Germans can really start full scale production of the sort of surface fleet your suggesting the US will have built all 32 Essex Class and probably all six planned Midways.
 
Having the yards isn't the same thing as being able to use them effectively.

And the US and UK have a massive head start and will increase their own construction to outmatch any post war German production. By the time the Germans can really start full scale production of the sort of surface fleet your suggesting the US will have built all 32 Essex Class and probably all six planned Midways.

Of course it won't - I would not argue at all just how pitiful the German Navy would be in comparison to the British and American Navies. I've done the counting before.

And as I said in the post, Plan Z was a horrible composition, regardless of size.

I'm just pointing out that there will be a German fleet being built, and that there will be a threat to the West. And while the Germans may not have the capability to use the yards, the Allies will have to treat them as a capable threat that could use them. Politically, the fact that the Germans couldn't efficienly run the yards wouldn't be the question, just the mere fact that they would be possessed.
 
If Hitler can commit fully to the eastern front, Japan might see an opportunity to squeeze Stalin from the other end. The Russo-Japanese war was very much in living memory for the Japanese leadership, and they might see that as a wiser course of action than antagonizing the United States of F*** Yeah.

I'm pretty sure Stalin even during the worst of the German invasion kept a million men in the east. He didn't want the Japanese to try anything.

The Soviets had an advantage numerically and in terms of armor and heavy artillery during the Japanese-Soviet border conflicts.
When the Soviets moved into Manchuria, they had about 5x as many tanks and artillery pieces as the Japanese and twice as many men.


Across SE Asia I think the Japanese had 700,000 men. That basically makes them even with the Soviets in the far east who had 1.58m during Manchuria if you stick them all up north. If you account for the Manchurians and Inner Mongolians, Japan probably has a slight edge in the number of men. That helps, but it only goes so far when you're so heavily outgunned as the Japanese were against the Soviets.

But it'd be another headache for Stalin and would contribute to the general idea of "the Soviets get exhausted by war and thus are forced to settle". However, the issue isn't the Soviets - it's Hitler being a genocidal lunatic who will refuse to quit while he's ahead.
 
The first second and third supposition do not add up to the fourth. You don’t get a quisling in power just by asking for it, you have to force it into being. The Nazis have no way of forcing anything on the British politically.

I understand it is verbooten to consider anyway in which the Nazi might fail to lose the war. While I agree that it is highly unlikely that the Nazi could avoid defeat in the war in May/June 1940 they had their best chance to avoid it ( or more likely prolong it) by knocking Britain out of the war. It is entirely possible that by playing their superior 1940 hand slightly better they might have done that. By stopping the rescue of the BEF and French from Dunkirk ( which they really should have done despite the heroic defence put up by the troops on the perimeter ) the world would look entirely different.

While I agree the Nazi cannot FORCE anything on Britain ( even after Dunkirk) they can, with Churchill removed following one failure too many and replaced by a less bellicose person, offer terms that to all intents and purposes removes Britain from the war. At best we are forced into a position of neutrality. At worst they are able to ensure we are forced into a position of subservience, non aggression and perhaps even unwilling support. They don't have to invade to make this possible. They just have to make it look like they are able to invade when they choose and leave us in a position whereby agreeing terms looks like the best option to save us from that supposed invasion.

It doesn't matter what the strategic position actually was ( RAF/RN etc) or what we know today. In 1940 in looked like we were about to be invaded. Many assumed that even with the remnants of a beaten army we would be rolled over like everyone else.

They absolutely haven't won the war via these actions but more importantly they haven't lost.

Still doesn’t stop the ticking time bomb of the garbage Nazi economy. There is no “their own time” when it comes to Nazi aggression. They were on the clock and they knew it.

Absolutely. However, the clock was made to run faster by Britain being able to persuade the Americans to offer industrial, manufacturing, agricultural and moral support. That kept us in the war. With Britain knocked out the clock runs slower. CLEARLY they still faces the same problems but the time available to overcome those problems is elongated without a belligerent Britain increasingly supported by the industrial might of the USA causing you headaches.

The “aircraft carrier/garrison*/store house” will still be there.

Indeed - However, it might ( just might) be under the control of someone less willing to accommodate American support. How, without Britain, are the USA to launch a liberation of Europe?

The Americans have all the time in the world - it’s the Nazis who don’t.

Indeed - but how do they physically influence events in Europe without a base in the UK to launch from? Do you suggest they simply sit tight and wait for the Nazi empire to fall?
 

Deleted member 94680

I understand it is verbooten to consider anyway in which the Nazi might fail to lose the war. While I agree that it is highly unlikely that the Nazi could avoid defeat in the war in May/June 1940 they had their best chance to avoid it ( or more likely prolong it) by knocking Britain out of the war. It is entirely possible that by playing their superior 1940 hand slightly better they might have done that. By stopping the rescue of the BEF and French from Dunkirk ( which they really should have done despite the heroic defence put up by the troops on the perimeter ) the world would look entirely different.

Of course it’s not verboten to consider a Nazi victory, this is an alternate history website after all. What I was objecting to is the same old trite nonsense about the BEF being destroyed meaning Britain “had no army”. This is patently false.


While I agree the Nazi cannot FORCE anything on Britain ( even after Dunkirk) they can, with Churchill removed following one failure too many and replaced by a less bellicose person, offer terms that to all intents and purposes removes Britain from the war. At best we are forced into a position of neutrality. At worst they are able to ensure we are forced into a position of subservience, non aggression and perhaps even unwilling support. They don't have to invade to make this possible. They just have to make it look like they are able to invade when they choose and leave us in a position whereby agreeing terms looks like the best option to save us from that supposed invasion.

You agree that the Nazis cannot force anything on Britain then propose things the Nazis can force on Britain. Interesting. Just who would this magical quisling be? There is no one sufficiently subservient with a chance of gaining power. Halifax floated the idea (famously, to ad nauseam repeats here) but lost the argument in the Cabinet crisis of 1940. The key point there (that many seem to miss) is the argument wasn’t simply Churchill versus Halifax one-on-one and if Winston is removed post Dunkirk disaster then Halifax will carry the day. Churchill won the argument because the majority of the cabinet including the Labour and Liberal leaders supported him. Thanks to repeated discussions on the subject, I have truly come to appreciate Clement Attlee’s role in ensuring the War effort continued. Attlee was dedicated to the War effort and carried Labour behind him. In an era of Coalition Government, this makes a pacifist, pro-Nazi quisling organically appearing practically ASB.

It doesn't matter what the strategic position actually was ( RAF/RN etc) or what we know today. In 1940 in looked like we were about to be invaded. Many assumed that even with the remnants of a beaten army we would be rolled over like everyone else.

It looked like we might be invaded possibly if the Nazis defeated the Air Force (which they hadn’t) sunk the Royal Navy (which they hadn’t - many believed couldn’t) and gained a sufficiently large and secure beachhead. Those in power knew this. The threat of invasion was just that - a threat. A threat that the government of the day was willing to meet.

Absolutely. However, the clock was made to run faster by Britain being able to persuade the Americans to offer industrial, manufacturing, agricultural and moral support.

A made to run faster is still ticking if you leave it alone.

Indeed - but how do they physically influence events in Europe without a base in the UK to launch from? Do you suggest they simply sit tight and wait for the Nazi empire to fall?

Whilst unlikely, this is a course of action that would result in success. Without the resources of Soviet Europe, the Nazi empire was doomed to collapse.
 
National Socialism (and fascism in general) becomes more widely accepted in US politics. Imagine someone like George Lincoln Rockwell becoming more widely accepted by the masses of people who in ths timeline, most likely never saw the horrors of the Holocaust.

Remind me when the Communist Party of the USA held a rally at Madison Square Garden. Dozens of Americans supported fascism and Naitonal Socialism. There were even special camps set up to educate American children in National Socialist ideology such as Camp Siegfried in New York, Camp Hindenberg in Wisconsin, Camp Nordland in New Jersey and Deutschhorst Country Club in Pennsylvania. 40,00 people alone attended festivities at Camp Siegfried.

This is utter nonsense, polls showed that the overwhelming majority of Americans were anti-Nazi. The people that you mentioned were irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.
Also, the Holocaust would eventually be found out because of spies.
 
Of course it’s not verboten to consider a Nazi victory, this is an alternate history website after all. What I was objecting to is the same old trite nonsense about the BEF being destroyed meaning Britain “had no army”. This is patently false.

We weren't defenseless but losing vast numbers of soldiers ( many experienced soldiers) along with their arms and equipment would be a big blow. It would make an already worried populace twitchy and make changes to the Government more likely especially if they thought the Wermacht were ready to roll in and crush us like everyone else.

You agree that the Nazis cannot force anything on Britain then propose things the Nazis can force on Britain. Interesting. Just who would this magical quisling be? There is no one sufficiently subservient with a chance of gaining power. Halifax floated the idea (famously, to ad nauseam repeats here) but lost the argument in the Cabinet crisis of 1940. The key point there (that many seem to miss) is the argument wasn’t simply Churchill versus Halifax one-on-one and if Winston is removed post Dunkirk disaster then Halifax will carry the day. Churchill won the argument because the majority of the cabinet including the Labour and Liberal leaders supported him. Thanks to repeated discussions on the subject, I have truly come to appreciate Clement Attlee’s role in ensuring the War effort continued. Attlee was dedicated to the War effort and carried Labour behind him. In an era of Coalition Government, this makes a pacifist, pro-Nazi quisling organically appearing practically ASB.

They don't have to force. Churchill (Gallipoli, having lost in Norway and in France, having lost the army and wrecked the navy trying to rescue the army ) MIGHT be removed by his colleagues reflecting the dreaded "will of the people". If Churchill goes so do many of his cabinet to be replaced by softer men. Can you not see how that might occur, Atlee or no Atlee? The cabinet supported Churchill because he hadn't lost and we could fight on. Would they support him with most of the BEF in the bag and what looked like reasonable terms on the table? How would he deal with a hostile house? What if they turned on him like Chamberlain? Would he survive that? I am not sure.

In that event I think Halifax would have been pushed forward, reluctantly, as PM. I think he would have settled not because he was a bad man or coward but because he wanted to try and preserve our way of life and minimise death and destruction. Personally I think that would be the wrong move but i can see how, at the time , it might have looked attractive. The message of we have defeated your army, we are ready to invade but we want to give you an honorable way out and avoid death and destruction to civilians and property. All you have to do is agree our very reasonable terms and this can all go away. You can keep your empire ( minus a few places we want for strategic purposes) and you can keep your own institutions in exchange for a promise of neutrality and a non combative status. I can see how that might land. Cant you?

BTW I agree entirely Attlee was a quiet colossus in that war tome government and possibly our greatest ever PM

It looked like we might be invaded possibly if the Nazis defeated the Air Force (which they hadn’t) sunk the Royal Navy (which they hadn’t - many believed couldn’t) and gained a sufficiently large and secure beachhead. Those in power knew this. The threat of invasion was just that - a threat. A threat that the government of the day was willing to meet.

I spoke to my grandparents and great grandparent about this before they died. They said at the time the fear of an invasion was real and they honestly felt it could come at any moment. All I am asking is that we imagine how the populace and parliamentarians would feel with the BEF captured or destroyed and the Nazi European conquest tour in full swing. You can rightly point to the RN or RAF as a bulwark against that invasion but how did it feel at the time? The Wehrmacht were invincible. They would cross the channel easily and then crush us like they crushed everyone else.

Whilst unlikely, this is a course of action that would result in success. Without the resources of Soviet Europe, the Nazi empire was doomed to collapse.

It is going to take quite a while without any outside influence. No one in Europe is going to stop them.
 

Deleted member 94680

We weren't defenseless but losing vast numbers of soldiers ( many experienced soldiers) along with their arms and equipment would be a big blow. It would make an already worried populace twitchy and make changes to the Government more likely especially if they thought the Wermacht were ready to roll in and crush us like everyone else.

It doesn’t matter what the populace feels, short of a complete collapse of domestic order. The government counts and the government were ready to fight on. The only thing the Wehrmacht were going to “roll in” to was the bottom of the Channel.

They don't have to force. Churchill (Gallipoli, having lost in Norway and in France, having lost the army and wrecked the navy trying to rescue the army ) MIGHT be removed by his colleagues reflecting the dreaded "will of the people". If Churchill goes so do many of his cabinet to be replaced by softer men. Can you not see how that might occur, Atlee or no Atlee? The cabinet supported Churchill because he hadn't lost and we could fight on. Would they support him with most of the BEF in the bag and what looked like reasonable terms on the table? How would he deal with a hostile house? What if they turned on him like Chamberlain? Would he survive that? I am not sure.

What part of no-one in government, near government or likely to enter government being keen on surrender do you refuse to accept? Churchill will only “go” if he loses a vote of no-confidence, which if he continues to sound confident and prepared to resist, is highly unlikely. It will not be a “hostile house” as the House is in favour of resistance. The Norway Debate that cost Chamberlain his Premiership should be a clue. I cannot see how that would occur when Attlee - Leader of the second Party in British politics is in favour of resistance. Can you not see that there is nowhere for this quisling movement to come from? Absent of significant other PoDs, British politics will not collapse at the loss of the BEF, no matter how much you want it to.

In that event I think Halifax would have been pushed forward, reluctantly, as PM. I think he would have settled not because he was a bad man or coward but because he wanted to try and preserve our way of life and minimise death and destruction. Personally I think that would be the wrong move but i can see how, at the time , it might have looked attractive. The message of we have defeated your army, we are ready to invade but we want to give you an honorable way out and avoid death and destruction to civilians and property. All you have to do is agree our very reasonable terms and this can all go away. You can keep your empire ( minus a few places we want for strategic purposes) and you can keep your own institutions in exchange for a promise of neutrality and a non combative status. I can see how that might land. Cant you?

Pushed forward by whom? He played his hand in the Cabinet Crisis and lost. Where does he get his support to overcome Churchill’s support? Churchill was backed by the Labour and Liberal Parties as well as a large portion of the Conservatives which was growing all the time. Who stands for Halifax? Anyway, come the end of the Cabinet Crisis meetings, Halifax seems to have changed his tune.
One such interlude early in June 1940 is for ever graven into my memory. It was just after the fall of France, an event which at the time it happened seemed something unbelievable as to be almost surely unreal, and if not unreal then quite immeasurably catastrophic. Dorothy and I had spent a lovely summer evening walking over the Wolds, and on our way home sat in the sun for half an hour at a point looking across the plain of York. All the landscape of the nearer foreground was familiar—its sights, its sounds, its smells; hardly a field that did not call up some half-forgotten bit of association; the red-roofed village and nearby hamlets, gathered as it were for company round the old greystone church, where men and women like ourselves, now long dead and gone, had once knelt in worship and prayer. Here in Yorkshire was a true fragment of the undying England, like the White Cliffs of Dover, or any other part of our land that Englishmen have loved. Then the question came, is it possible that the Prussian jackboot will force its way into this countryside to tread and trample over it at will? The very thought seemed an insult and an outrage; much as if anyone were to be condemned to watch his mother, wife or daughter being raped.
Halifax, June 1940

Also, because these simplistic and sensible attempt at peace terms are 1) not “reasonable” or “attractive” 2) nothing like the frothing insanity that Hitler and his cronies would suggest I find it hard to believe they would be accepted. The BEF is not the British Army it is part of the British Army. Handing over colonial possessions at Herr Hitler’s whim is the start of a slippery slope and the act of a defeated nation, not one agreeing peace from a position of wanting to call it quits. For your touting of Halifax as a quisling (make no mistake, it would require a quisling to agree to these “terms”) I think you’ve picked the wrong figure. A brief attempt at peace he may have made, but Halifax was by no means in favour of sloughing off pieces of the Empire. What comes first? Malta, Gibraltar and Suez? Then what? South Africa or the former German Colonies? How about Hong Kong for Berlin to hand over to Japan? Maybe something in the Caribbean so the Nazis can get closer to America? Maybe Cyprus while we’re at it so they can bomb southern Russia easier? Once it starts, where does it stop?

I spoke to my grandparents and great grandparent about this before they died. They said at the time the fear of an invasion was real and they honestly felt it could come at any moment. All I am asking is that we imagine how the populace and parliamentarians would feel with the BEF captured or destroyed and the Nazi European conquest tour in full swing. You can rightly point to the RN or RAF as a bulwark against that invasion but how did it feel at the time? The Wehrmacht were invincible. They would cross the channel easily and then crush us like they crushed everyone else.

Your grandparents are entirely entitled to their opinions, that’s the wonder of a democracy. All I can say here is my grandfather was in the Home Guard and “keen for the buggers to come” as he had plenty of .303” he was willing to introduce them to and my Great Uncle was desperate to get amongst them on “his” Destroyer. YMMV, but plenty of people around the country were grimly anticipating an invasion, but not afraid of it succeeding. The Battle of Britain was widely recognised as the beginning stages of an “invasion campaign” as it were but there were no widespread public disorder that your allegations would require to be believable. You can handwave the RAF and Royal Navy away all you like and point to the testimony of grandpa MKD as evidence of the beliefs of the British public if you want, but the fact of the matter remains No 10, GHQ, the Admiralty and the Air Council were quite content that the Fleet and Fighter Command would have a role to play.

It is going to take quite a while without any outside influence. No one in Europe is going to stop them.

Blockades and trade embargoes don’t have to come from inside Europe.
 
They don't have to force. Churchill (Gallipoli, having lost in Norway and in France, having lost the army and wrecked the navy trying to rescue the army ) MIGHT be removed by his colleagues reflecting the dreaded "will of the people". If Churchill goes so do many of his cabinet to be replaced by softer men. Can you not see how that might occur, Atlee or no Atlee? The cabinet supported Churchill because he hadn't lost and we could fight on. Would they support him with most of the BEF in the bag and what looked like reasonable terms on the table? How would he deal with a hostile house? What if they turned on him like Chamberlain? Would he survive that? I am not sure.

Even IF the RN had lost EVERY ship in the evacuation, that would have amounted to 1 cruiser, 39 destroyers, and a grab bag of smaller ships. The destroyers will hurt but the RN is still more then capable of smashing the Kriegsmarine flat if they try Sealion.

"Oh no, we lost about 1% of the fleet's current tonnage, better surrender, change our government, and start rounding up the jews for a polish vacation!"

Anyone trying to advocate this course of action is liable to enjoy a vacation of their own. In the Canadian Wilderness.
 
Even IF the RN had lost EVERY ship in the evacuation, that would have amounted to 1 cruiser, 39 destroyers, and a grab bag of smaller ships. The destroyers will hurt but the RN is still more then capable of smashing the Kriegsmarine flat if they try Sealion.

"Oh no, we lost about 1% of the fleet's current tonnage, better surrender, change our government, and start rounding up the jews for a polish vacation!"

Anyone trying to advocate this course of action is liable to enjoy a vacation of their own. In the Canadian Wilderness.

I mean, what was the German fleet available for Sealion? I think it may have been a dozen warships larger than torpedoboat, with the largest being a predreadnaught? I think there were something like 4 cruisers and 6 destroyers or something similar.

Bigger question here is why the Luftwaffe would suddenly be so much more successful than OTL.

They don't have to force. Churchill (Gallipoli, having lost in Norway and in France, having lost the army and wrecked the navy trying to rescue the army

Bit odd to blame him for Norway when he was only PM during half of the invasion. And even so, the German Navy had been crippled during this period of time, with no capital units left aside from a predreadnaught. There is nothing to support an invasion if it got underway. (And I'm stopping there, as there are so many Sealion threads that I could hardly cover)
 
I mean, what was the German fleet available for Sealion? I think it may have been a dozen warships larger than torpedoboat, with the largest being a predreadnaught? I think there were something like 4 cruisers and 6 destroyers or something similar.

Bigger question here is why the Luftwaffe would suddenly be so much more successful than OTL.



Bit odd to blame him for Norway when he was only PM during half of the invasion. And even so, the German Navy had been crippled during this period of time, with no capital units left aside from a predreadnaught. There is nothing to support an invasion if it got underway. (And I'm stopping there, as there are so many Sealion threads that I could hardly cover)

Try three light cruisers as the largest ships available.
 
Top