Germany did not lose the Battle of Britain

[deadmeat313]

Excellent post, Buzzsaw. That made for fascinating reading.

~S~

[robtek]

I would be interested of the outcome if AH hadn´t made the mistake to change the target from raf to terror-bombing.
As it was so close germany might have gotten air-superiority.

[klem]

Excellent posts Buzzsaw, especially the resume on page 4.

However, I still have doubts that, had the Germans had taken Moscow and Stalingrad, Russia would have collapsed. I believe that Stalin would simply have pulled further and further back, drawing thinner the German supply lines and their ability to cover the territory militarily, until Stalin was able to strike back. I understand that by the time of 'Stalingrad' much of his production had been moved well to the rear and we all know how strongly he eventually came back.

Regarding the "Britain loses the BoB" or "Britain accepts peace terms" angle, I know Russia would probably not have had support from Britain or the US but it seems unlikely that Germany could have overrun the entire country (almost = continent) with Stalin there to drive his people in his inimitable way.

On the original topic itself, I think enough has been said, Germany were defeated in their objective. I would love to have been a fly on the wall at that invasion scenario though

[Viking]

In my opinion the hope and intention of the German offensive was to force the British to a peace agreement, you keep your dominions etc and we do as we please in Europe, and then get on with the plans in the east, the Barbarossa offensive. The invasion planes for Britain were just a hoax.

Viking

Edit: I believe bluff is a better word than hoax.

[brando]

Originally Posted by Viking

In my opinion the hope and intention of the German offensive was to force the British to a peace agreement, you keep your dominions etc and we do as we please in Europe, and then get on with the plans in the east, the Barbarossa offensive. The invasion planes for Britain were just a hoax.

Viking

I certainly agree with that summation, Viking. Even Hitler is noted as having said that he thought there would be "some technical difficulties" in achieving the aims of Operation SeeLowe. However, he was content to allow Goering to attempt the aerial supremacy part of the operation - but rapidly lost interest when Britain held out.

In retrospect we (the British) should probably be grateful that Hitler didn't give Sea-lion his full attention, as he did with the Battle of France. Goering and Udet were still caught up with the ideas of the First World War while Hitler was able to think "outside the box", as he demonstrated with the Blitzkrieg on mainland Europe. Perhaps he would have been able to direct the air operations in a more detached manner, and focussed his attentions on the vulnerable points in the British defences.

B

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Viking

In my opinion the hope and intention of the German offensive was to force the British to a peace agreement, you keep your dominions etc and we do as we please in Europe, and then get on with the plans in the east, the Barbarossa offensive. The invasion planes for Britain were just a hoax.

Viking

Edit: I believe bluff is a better word than hoax.

Wrong. The Germans had expected Britain to surrender after France fell, and in the eventuality that happened, Britain might have been treated more leniently. (surrender the fleet, pay reparations) But after Churchill's firery speeches to Parliament, ('We shall fight on the beaches....We shall never surrender') they realized that negotiations were not possible.

The Germans were deadly serious about the invasion of Britain, they drew up detailed plans for the occupation of England, as well, as I have mentioned earlier, plans to have all 'subversive' elements, ie. Churchill and his supporters, labour union leaders, Jews, Communists, and anyone else who they deemed to be unsatisfactory to be liquidated. S.S. supervised Concentration camps were planned to be set up. Hitler appointed a bureaucracy and military governor to rule the country in summer 1940. The plans also included the removal of King George and his replacement with the Nazi sympathizing Edward VIII.

Things were to be much the same as in France and the situation there with the Vichy state, with the occupation of most of industrial Britain, with a British 'puppet' government being installed at the Nazis pleasure in a smaller northern city, I think York was mentioned.

You are correct in assuming that the Nazis did not want the destruction of the British Empire, but that didn't mean they wanted things to remain as they were. The British were to be treated in the same way as the French, all their overseas possessions were to be run by the puppet government, under Nazi supervision, and in instances where the Eastern overseas possessions could not be controlled by the puppet government, then they would be handed over to Japanese supervision. (in the same way that Indochina was handed over to the Japanese when the Vichy government couldn't guarantee that it would stay in the Nazi orbit)

Canada, Australia and New Zealand would not have surrendered, the British Government would have gone into exile in Canada, and would have continued the war, while appealing for American protection. (which would likely have been offered, the U.S. under the Monroe doctrine, would not tolerate European control of areas of North America, or Australia) What was left of the British Fleet would have rebased, likely to Halifax, Canada, which is the largest deep water port in Canada. Australia would likely have tried to conclude an alliance with the U.S. in protection against Japanese attack.

The United States would probably have built up its bases in Iceland, as a screen and warning for any potential threats from Europe.

India would also likely initially have stayed in the war, but there would have been a lot of agitation by Indians for independence, and a self controlled parliament, which might have wanted a peace.

The Japanese would have automatically occupied Hong Kong, Singapore, and the British Pacific islands.

Let's not forget who was running Germany. Hitler was a genocidal sociopath, not some altruistic statesman, and his Nazi party cohorts were just as bad. That was one of the major reasons that Britain would not surrender after the fall of France. Churchill and the British knew that Hitler could not be trusted, and that any peace treaty would not allow the British people to remain masters of their own destiny. Hitler would not have accepted a peace which did not involve the surrender of the British fleet, and with their fleet gone, Britain could be occupied at anytime by the Nazis.

[Viking]

I’m not young enough to know everything; I just stated my opinion.

Viking

[Asheshouse]

The Battle of Britain was a draw. Neither side won outright.
The loss of pilots was similar on both sides.
As far as Britain was concerned a draw was enough to stay in the fight.
Germany gave up the attempt and concentrated its efforts elsewhere.
So a tactical draw but strategic defeat for Germany.

[mmitch10]

Originally Posted by Asheshouse

The Battle of Britain was a draw. Neither side won outright.
The loss of pilots was similar on both sides.
As far as Britain was concerned a draw was enough to stay in the fight.
Germany gave up the attempt and concentrated its efforts elsewhere.
So a tactical draw but strategic defeat for Germany.

The LW were tasked with obtaining air superiorty. The RAF prevented the LW from gaining air superiority. I don't see how that makes it a draw.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Asheshouse

The Battle of Britain was a draw. Neither side won outright.
The loss of pilots was similar on both sides.

Not correct. The Germans lost far more pilots and aircrew. Many RAF pilots were able to bail out of damaged planes and fight again. Not so for Luftwaffe pilots who bailed out over England.