Sealion!

Many people claim that Stalin would attack Hitler, if Hitler didn't attack Stalin yet, but:

1. Is this based on evidence, or is it merely an assumption? Surely the Soviets could have gains from attacking Germany at some point, but what other targets were out there for them?

2. Would a Soviet attack against Germany fair good? The Soviets lacked the experience, were still recovering from the purges and did not have Land Lease.
So the Red Army might succeed in the beginning, but it is a fact that it took the Germans 6 months to get the Wehrmacht to the outskirts of Moscow, while the Soviets needed 2 years (after Stalingrad) to get to the outskirts of Berlin. The Germans were quite good on defence, even when facing superior numbers. Perhaps an invasion by Stalin would be all that Germany needed to envelop and annihilate large portions of the Red Army, allowing them then to launch a counterattack. Whether or not Stalin would be able to get Land Lease is a total different question. However US public opinion would show more sympathy to an attacked Soviet Union than to a Soviet Union being the aggressor.


A possible side-effect of a failed Sealion with big losses for the Germans may have been a reshapement of the entire German strategy. Hitler may actually discover, that Britain is the true foe that needs to be beaten and Stalin may be more of a friend to him than he thought. He would still need big masses of troops to secure his eastern borders, but he may decide to focus on Britain. Going to N. Africa with more troops, taking out Malta may be very good options for him at this point.
If those campaigns were successfull German troops may be in the Middle East by 1942 and then who knows what happens next? Perhaps Stalin decides to grab himself a piece and invades Iran/Iraq himself?
 
1. Is this based on evidence, or is it merely an assumption? Surely the Soviets could have gains from attacking Germany at some point, but what other targets were out there for them?

It's mainly based on assumptions, Stalin never openly considered attacking Germany but as we know the Red Army would have been a lot stronger in 1942 and 1943 it's very likely Stalin would have attacked eventually.

2. Would a Soviet attack against Germany fair good? The Soviets lacked the experience, were still recovering from the purges and did not have Land Lease.
So the Red Army might succeed in the beginning, but it is a fact that it took the Germans 6 months to get the Wehrmacht to the outskirts of Moscow, while the Soviets needed 2 years (after Stalingrad) to get to the outskirts of Berlin. The Germans were quite good on defence, even when facing superior numbers. Perhaps an invasion by Stalin would be all that Germany needed to envelop and annihilate large portions of the Red Army, allowing them then to launch a counterattack. Whether or not Stalin would be able to get Land Lease is a total different question. However US public opinion would show more sympathy to an attacked Soviet Union than to a Soviet Union being the aggressor.

Lend Lease wouldn't be that much of an issue if the Soviets stil had all the industry and agriculture they lost during Barbarossa. The Soviets would likely succeed in the end, not only would they be stronger than in 1942/43 but they would also be a hell of a lot closer to Germany.

A possible side-effect of a failed Sealion with big losses for the Germans may have been a reshapement of the entire German strategy. Hitler may actually discover, that Britain is the true foe that needs to be beaten and Stalin may be more of a friend to him than he thought. He would still need big masses of troops to secure his eastern borders, but he may decide to focus on Britain. Going to N. Africa with more troops, taking out Malta may be very good options for him at this point.
If those campaigns were successfull German troops may be in the Middle East by 1942 and then who knows what happens next? Perhaps Stalin decides to grab himself a piece and invades Iran/Iraq himself?

It's unlikely the Germans could have taken Malta, especially after a Crete-like Sealion and if Malta did not fall then it's unlikely Africa or the Middle East would either. However even if they did it's unlikely Stalin would intentionally declare war on Britain. It's more likely he'd launch a pre-emptive strike against Germany or possibly invade Manchuria.
 
Well with no Mercury the Allies could have bombed Ploesti a lot earlier and caused real problems for the Axis in the eastern Med, some operation to knock out the island would eventually have to be taken or similar amounts of aircraft to the Malta operation would be needed to bomb the island into surrendering.



If anything the British will send more forces to the Med and other fronts. It is now obvious in everyones mind the absurdity of a German invasion especially a second one with the majoirty of the barges destroyed and their "fleet" even weaker.


Bombing from Crete doesn't work because the entire island is under direct observation of the luftwaffe... the germans didn't take crete because of their parachute operation (which was a disaster) they took crete because they threw hundreds of aircraft from the greek mainland at the island which prevented reinforcement and resupply (and they also sunk quite a few valuable royal navy ships trying to defend the island).


@grimm, The germans wouldn't suffer unbelievable losses in JU-52s because they would drop the paras before dawn (they did learn that lesson from holland)... the divisions might get cut off and destroyed but most of the aircraft would survive to fight another day (night fighting was in its infancy in 1940)... their main aircraft losses would be in tactical bombers trying to support the landings and suppress the royal navy and fighters assigned to escort work (500 seems like a reasonable number in a disaster sealion scenario (ie invasion fails within a week)... i don't recall any particular week were the british shot down more than that number of luftwaffe aircraft (including weeks after eagle day where they made maximum effort)

The pilot training issue would be the big issue... one might assume that after a failed dunkirk and failed sealion that Goring could be disgraced/fired?... if someone like Kesselring or Milch was put in charge they would be capable of seeing that issue and addressing it by opening up more training schools and rotating successful pilots off the line to serve as instructors

@calbear... the germans were able to recover from shocks even disaster shocks, look at stalingrad; 22 divisions forced to surrender and everyone knew they had lost the initiative and yet a couple weeks later under competent leadership (Hauser and Manstein) they were able to smash three soviet tank corps, recapture kharkov, and rescue army group A... morale is very fleeting
 
Top