Social implications on Britain with a botched Sealion

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
...

No. Just no. Not support for Australia. Unless Churchill chokes to death on his morning Cheerios. Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill had very close personal ties with every corner of the English-Speaking Peoples. EXCEPT the Land Down Under. He could always be counted on to find an excuse for diverting British or Commonwealth forces AWAY from Australia to pretty much anywhere else in the world. Whether it be the UK, North Africa, Crete, Greece, Sicily, Italy, West Africa, Madagascar, SW Africa, SE Africa, the U-Boat War, the North Sea, the Near East, India, Burma, Malaya, Hong Kong, Western Europe, the Aleutians, or Singapore!

He was furious over John Curtin's speech stating that he considered America as the nation to which Australia "`...must look to, free of its traditional ties to Great Britain". Churchill was furious, but also didn't really have an answer for the Curtin Government, as he was unwilling to send so much as an MTB boat to Oz, "That land of convicts and Irishmen!"

This is why I suggested support to 'the far East' - more stuff to Malaya & Singapore in mid-1941 seems quite plausible, forestalling that December 1941 statement by Curtin.
 
The idea that the Germans could get enough troops and equipment ashore to "surround" London is no more plausible than any successful Sea Lion (conquest of Britain) scenario. The German canal barges would be sunk by Britain's large numbers of destroyers and its innumerable smaller fighting craft. The Germans themselves did not have sufficient naval power to protect the barges.
 
Even if the Germans couldn’t surround London, how would such an attempt at Sealion influence voting patterns in later General Elections? Anyone care to guess if Atlee would still win?

I think a post war economic revival in Britain Germany style would only create changes in ATL if it butterflies away the post-war settlement. (No collective bargaining in unions thus limiting trade union power, abandoning of Keynesian economics etc)
 
Even if the Germans couldn’t surround London, how would such an attempt at Sealion influence voting patterns in later General Elections? Anyone care to guess if Atlee would still win?

I think a post war economic revival in Britain Germany style would only create changes in ATL if it butterflies away the post-war settlement. (No collective bargaining in unions thus limiting trade union power, abandoning of Keynesian economics etc)

At the end of the war, Britain was broke. For it to start a German style recovery it would need to receive massive aid under the Marshall Plan.

I fail to see how denying or weakening the collective bargaining power in the UK is pertinent, since the trade union movement came roaring back in Germany after the war along with the Social Democratic party; today the trade union movement in Germany is probably stronger than that in the UK.

I also fail to see the relevance of Keynesian economics, which addresses using government spending in peacetime to keep the economy strong or help it recover from a collapse. Having to massively and quickly build up one's economy against a stronger enemy and utilize ruinous foreign loans to do so, is not Keynesianism; rather it is total mobilization for total war, which is based on very different principles and has very different goals than Keynes set forth.

Still, would it have been better to have a non-Labor Party government managing Britain in the years immediately following the war? A strong case can be made for that, and Churchill could have led such a revival. If only he could have restrained himself from meddling in India....
 
Last edited:
germans have no means of getting ANY troops or supplies to the isles , even if we say the initial invasion force lands.So a war of attrition is out of question, likley the british police and a few of the home guard will round up these german lads and they will be on their way to Canadian vacation by the time autumn sets in

If you want to say a war of attrition starts then germans will need a lot more soldiers and supplies and clearly since they are not coming across the channel, how about a mutiny in the british army? and the majority of it turns "Nazi" , imprison the royal family and Mr churchill.Openly challenges the RN by taking over its bases and turns to a homegrown "Nazi" leadership which is favored by Hitler and those who were concerned with decline of british colonial power.
Thats the ONLY way we can have a war of attrition on the british isles.
Yes and man will never have a bomb that can destroy an entire city. Yet it happened.
 
Yes and man will never have a bomb that can destroy an entire city. Yet it happened.

What a useless non-sequitur of an answer.

In any case, the loss at Sealion would indeed likely be followed by Barbarossa, as a massive land war was much more in their comfort zone as it was and the obvious weakness in German naval power that a failed Sealion would expose only reinforces this..

The problem for the Germans is that economic impact on the loss in Rhine River barges is going to put a serious crimp in their logistical build-up for Barbarossa, which as it was were inadequate for the task. Barbarossa is probably going to stumble to a halt further west, having killed fewer Russians and cost them less industrial damage, which means the Red Army's rebound is faster and bigger. As someone pointed out earlier, this also means that Crete never gets invaded.
 
Last edited:
What a useless non-sequitur of an answer.

In any case, the loss at Sealion would indeed likely be followed by Barbarossa, as a massive land war was much more in their comfort zone as it was and the obvious weakness in German naval power that a failed Sealion would expose only reinforces this..

The problem for the Germans is that economic impact on the loss in Rhine River barges is going to put a serious crimp in their logistical build-up for Barbarossa, which as it was were inadequate for the task. Barbarossa is probably going to stumble to a halt further west, having killed fewer Russians and cost them less industrial damage, which means the Red Army's rebound is faster and bigger. As someone pointed out earlier, this also means that Crete never gets invaded.
No it's just that you were totally ruling out that happening with the sea lion and you can never say never which I was trying to point out to you
 
No it's just that you were totally ruling out that happening with the sea lion and you can never say never which I was trying to point out to you

Sure I can say never. I just did it now. Saying that countries which invested huge resources into the construction of an atomic bomb does not prove that a poorly planned amphibious assault with inadequate (and often inappropriate) resources, poor coordination, and shoe-string preparation launched against a determined and tenacious enemy which has the advantage of naval supremacy on it's side could succeed.
 
Many/most of the Ju-52 transports that carried the paratroopers and their supplies are gone, with significant knock on effects later.

AIUI, Germany halted Ju-52 manufacturing pre-WWII, so they were stuck with whatever they had right up to VE-Day. That's why the Ju-52s used in the night paradrop in the Battle of the Bulge were so ineffective. Beyond the greenness of the flight crews, these (minimum!) six year old aircraft were literally falling apart in the air. Six years is a VERY long time for an air transport in military service in wartime.

The impact of the losses on the beaches depends on the composition of the assault force. If the Germans ‘front loaded’ with armoured units, intending to achieve a rapid breakout and take London by a Blitzkrieg assault, the effect of the defeat on future operations will be magnified.

The Germans had no specialized landing craft for infantry. Forget LSTs for tanks. AFAIK the latter hadn't even been invented yet!

Someone in the German High Command is going to take the fall for the failure, who depends on whether the Heer or the Kriegsmarine is better at making excuses.

The Kriegsmarine. Hitler knew nothing of naval warfare, and the Kriegsmarine was little better on the subject of amphibious operations. Raeder had no standing to speak of with the Nazis, Hitler considered himself a soldier, and the Luftwaffe had Goering to protect them.

Those in the USA opposing supporting Britain because of its willingness to capitulate are going to be weakened and the sense that Britain can actually win may make it easier for Roosevelt to sell the notion that the USA should supply the British with weapons and supplies while staying out of the actual fighting.

It may help with US mobilization too. At one point, the US House voted to keep the Draft and keep those already drafted passed their service time. BY ONE VOTE.

The loss of the paratroopers and an increased aversion to amphibious operations means Crete won’t fall, Malta is much more secure and possibly the Germans are much more reluctant to get involved in the Middle East in general, something like the Afrika Korps depending on a supply line that can be interdicted by the Royal Navy is going to look like a much bigger gamble than OTL.

IDK. Hitler might decide to limit himself to defending Tripolitania. Much easier logistically to support and defend, and vastly more difficult for the British to contest. It might be years (from 1940) before the British (and Americans) have a long enough and secure enough supply lines (with sufficient air support to protect said supply lines) to go for Tripoli. Then French North West Africa. Though by then Torch will have taken over (Tunesia is a bitch going on a south-north axis).

If the Germans do hesitate to help Italy out then Libya may fall, with consequences for Mussolini and the stability of fascist Italy, this coming on top of seeing the British beat back the Germans.

Hitler won't abandon Benny the Moose. OTL shows that. TTL may force him to pull in his claws a bit though.

With the threat of invasion removed the British can free up resources for other areas, more escort ships for the Atlantic convoys, more/better equipment for the Far East.

More likely more/better equipment for the Med. Oz may have not even been on Churchill's list, but the Far East was certainly at the bottom of it.

This is why I suggested support to 'the far East' - more stuff to Malaya & Singapore in mid-1941 seems quite plausible, forestalling that December 1941 statement by Curtin.

The Med first. India second. Singapore/Malaya third. The DEI fourth. Burma fifth. OZ never.

The idea that the Germans could get enough troops and equipment ashore to "surround" London is no more plausible than any successful Sea Lion (conquest of Britain) scenario. The German canal barges would be sunk by Britain's large numbers of destroyers and its innumerable smaller fighting craft. The Germans themselves did not have sufficient naval power to protect the barges.

Especially after the pasting they took at Norway. All of their biggest units were either still under construction or in the repair shop, and wouldn't be available for Sealion.

Even if the Germans couldn’t surround London, how would such an attempt at Sealion influence voting patterns in later General Elections? Anyone care to guess if Atlee would still win?

I think a post war economic revival in Britain Germany style would only create changes in ATL if it butterflies away the post-war settlement. (No collective bargaining in unions thus limiting trade union power, abandoning of Keynesian economics etc)

After VE-Day, Churchill really didn't seem to have anything to offer the British People. His plans for what to do with the Royal Navy postwar were ludicrous. The plans might have been good for post-WWI, but not post-WWII.

Still, would it have been better to have a non-Labor Party government managing Britain in the years immediately following the war? A strong case can be made for that, and Churchill could have led such a revival. If only he could have restrained himself from meddling in India....

It may seem that way at a distance of 73 years, but not at all to a British voter in 1945. The Conservative Party, even part of a National Government, had dominated British politics for well over a decade. The people were fed up.

There would be SO MANY mass graves of germans

In Davy Jones' Locker...:eek:
 
Last edited:
What If the German air force and navy managed to concentrate itself and create a small window air superiority in the south east, enough for a mass invasion of paratroopers to land in Kent and create a small beachhead. The barges sail under cover of the German Navy. It all goes wrong at sea as the Royal Navy close in, but some barges of troops and equipment get through due to heroic actions by the troops. Most are sunk. At best a few hundred Germans make it to shore, but are soon pinned down on the beaches where most surrender. Only in a few places are the paratroopers and landing forces able to make any inroads, and after only 24 hours its clear the air superiority is gone, and the Navy sunk. The remaining invaders surrender.

In subsequent years those few hundred troops become a cast of thousands with major Epic movies, and TV series, including the infamous BBC SS-GB Alt History where the German invasion succeeded.
 

destiple

Banned
a more militantsounding Kraftwork are formed in Kent England by kids fathered by german soldiers with band members calling themselves Fuhrer, reichsmarshall, strumbanfuhrer etc , their electronic music is insanely popular totally overshadow the beatles in the 60s.They inspire a whole generation of british youth to take up not the guitar but the synthesizer in the 60s and british press alarmingly warn of a "german invasion".Their leader singer publicly refuse to enlist in the army to fight against communists in Malaysia ( in ATL it has become UK's vietnam dragging on for > 15 yr) publicly declaring "no commi every called me a Kraut"
Anti-german sentiment runs high in Britain, hate attacks and police beatings of half germans dominate media.So much so MLK pays a visit to Britain where he campaigns in support of them and is made an honorary sturmbannführer with kraftwork.A huge concert in support of german british featuring a variety of rock bands and artists captures world wide attention in 1969 ( as in the ATL there is no moon landing , von braun has perished as a rating aboard T-boat and never makes it to NASA).

I will stop ( please don't ban me I love this forum)
 
Last edited:
What If the German air force and navy managed to concentrate itself and create a small window air superiority in the south east, enough for a mass invasion of paratroopers to land in Kent and create a small beachhead. The barges sail under cover of the German Navy. It all goes wrong at sea as the Royal Navy close in, but some barges of troops and equipment get through due to heroic actions by the troops. Most are sunk. At best a few hundred Germans make it to shore, but are soon pinned down on the beaches where most surrender. Only in a few places are the paratroopers and landing forces able to make any inroads, and after only 24 hours its clear the air superiority is gone, and the Navy sunk. The remaining invaders surrender.

In subsequent years those few hundred troops become a cast of thousands with major Epic movies, and TV series, including the infamous BBC SS-GB Alt History where the German invasion succeeded.
What German Navy? At the time of the planned operation, the Kriegsmarine consisted of a total of ten destroyers and one cruiser. That's what is known in technical terms as a speedbump.
 
Yeah London in 1939 had a population of almost 9m (it's only just got back to this high point) IIRC the Germans never had to besiege a city that big even when they didn't need to worry about wet feet getting there. Also besieging anything without artillery or at least armour is a tough ask!

So yep I agree with most here, I think the end results of a German army being destroyed in southern England would be a more bullish and confident Britain, one possible specific knock on effect would be possibly an even more extensive bombing campaign on German cites than there already was.



British smugness towards the French would be an order of magnitude greater given that we would have beaten the Germans in a fight on our own territory.

Oh my god we'd have to break into the national reserves of smugness (currently located in the green belt) :)

Yes and man will never have a bomb that can destroy an entire city. Yet it happened.

OK Let's work that metaphor,

1). Man didn't just suddenly find the ability to destroy entire cities under a rock while on a walk one day. The manhattan project took six years and $2bn ($22bn in '2016 USD) even once stated in earnest. This was rather considerably longer and more money than the Germans devoted to preparing Sealion (and of course there is the point than even if they did devote such huge resources to it, that itself would have knock on effects).


2). The leap forward in capability, this one is a bit tough to map but unless you can somehow increase the effectiveness / deadliness of the basic German solider, (or LW fighter or KM destroyer, rhine barge) by a similar ratio of increase in destructive power seen between a tallboy (12,000lbs ) and Fat man (10,400lbs).



Sorry to be clearer "man will never have a bomb that can destroy an entire city" in the context of sea lion is like saying "man will never be able to cross the channel and invade Britain".


Only of course it's within the wit of man to cross the channel and invade Britain (we did it in the other direction a few years later after all). But we're not dismissing Sealion because it's inherently impossible for man to invade Britain from the continent (again it's been done before), we're dismissing it because it was functionally impossible for the German's to do it with the resources they devoted to it, or even feasibly had available to them.
 
Last edited:
What If the German air force and navy managed to concentrate itself and create a small window air superiority in the south east, enough for a mass invasion of paratroopers to land in Kent and create a small beachhead. .

For a mass invasion by Paratroopers you need a mass of Paratroopers and enough transport to drop them, in 1940 the Germans had neither. This leaves aside the fact that paratroopers are rather brittle unless very quickly supported. If you look at what happened in the Crete landing (which itself is a good example of how many the Germans could muster in one go at 15k*, and was done with Axis air superiority). Similarly if you look at earlier German paratrooper action (Holland and Norway) you see high casualty rates. The problem is with building and deploying large paratrooper forces is that they take time to train, they take resources and a favourable situation to deploy with, and even then their loses are high and hard to recoup quickly unless you are very careful.

*as a point of comparison Market garden used about 40k, the D-day landings saw about 25k (I'm struggling to find unified D-Day numbers, that's the Brits in Op Tonga, + the Americans overall, so I'm probably being unfair to the Canadians and others!)



The barges sail under cover of the German Navy. It all goes wrong at sea as the Royal Navy close in, but some barges of troops and equipment get through due to heroic actions by the troops. Most are sunk. At best a few hundred Germans make it to shore, but are soon pinned down on the beaches where most surrender. Only in a few places are the paratroopers and landing forces able to make any inroads, and after only 24 hours its clear the air superiority is gone, and the Navy sunk. The remaining invaders surrender.

In subsequent years those few hundred troops become a cast of thousands with major Epic movies, and TV series, including the infamous BBC SS-GB Alt History where the German invasion succeeded.


I think your end result is pretty much what would happen. A couple of points though

1). it wouldn't be a loss of few hundred as those where just the ones that made it ashore, you've got all their mates in the channel as well, (as well as the paratroopers).

2). I think you're come up with as positive result for the Germans as is likely to happen (I don't actually think the LW could achieve Air superiority even in a small area as they would covering two forces at once here)
 
Last edited:
I wonder what would the effect be if there was an English Oradour sur Glane.
Anyhow, if there is another EU coming from all this (not unlikely), the UK would be even more reluctant to join
 
I'd imagine repelling an invasion would only swell British pride and strengthen their resolve to continue the war since such a victory would, in the early years where Allied victories were a very rare thing, be the first indication that, no, the Nazi military is not unstoppable.

As for the implications on other theaters during the war, I'd say the most crucial element affected would be the German landing forces, which consist of:
  • the sixth army
  • the ninth army
  • the sixteenth army
The Sixth army (the original one, not the reformed 1943-45 one) ended up destroyed at Stalingrad, the Ninth army basically fought during the entire Eastern front (including crucial roles in Operation Mars and Kursk), and the Sixteenth army sieged Leningrad before ultimately being destroyed in the Courland pocket

So assuming that each of these land forces were annihilated during an attempted Sea Lion, Operation Barbarossa would probably have to be delayed in order to scrounge up additional forces (if it even gets underway again, but given that Hitler explicitly stated his intentions of conquering the USSR, it's probable that it would've occurred one way or another), allowing the Soviets time to recover from Stalin's purges and rebuild their defenses, making Barbarossa that much harder when it does come, and probably facilitating a Soviet steamroll earlier than OTL.

Either way, a botched Seal Lion shortens the war by, IMO, a non-insignificant margin.

The Third Reich really didn't have much of a surface navy worth mentioning, so I'm not going to bother expanding on that, but I do think any losses they do take with regards to the Luftwaffe would come to bite them eventually when Allied strategic bomber raids begin in earnest.

After the war, however, I'm not too sure that a botched Sea Lion would change the reality that WW2 had left the British empire pretty weak and effectively broke. As much as Sea Lion would be a failure, I'm not too sure about the idea that it would cause absolutely zero damage. Any damage it does do only weakens Britain further (mind you, not as much as it would weaken Nazi Germany) and makes decolonization even more of a sure thing. No amount of patriotic sentiment is going to change this reality, and I do think this reality, especially if Eden still attempts his Suez Canal takeover, will still lead Britain's relative loss of power and activity on the world stage.
 
Top