Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Russian invasion was allegedly Hitler's Plan A. Everything else was secondary. He refers to that goal in Mein Kampf. Interestingly, he deliberately let the invasion of Normandy proceed. There are memoirs specifically saying that. He could have easily mowed those allied troops down, but didn't. I don't know what exactly the reason was. Some say it was his fear of the US's nukes which he was aware of.
I recall that one of the reasons Hitler didn’t immediately respond to the Normandy invasion was that he was asleep and his staff didn’t want to wake him up. He stayed up late and slept in during the morning.
The following is based upon my reading of Churchill's memoirs about the Second World War, which I read several decades ago.
Churchill was prepared to fight any Nazi invasion of Britain by any means necessary. In the event of failure, his plan was to evacuate the Royal Family, the government, the remaining army and air forces, and the entire British fleet to Canada, and to continue prosecuting the war from the outlying dominions of the British Empire.
But Dd714 has a valid point that a successful conquest of Britain by the Nazis (which in retrospect, was nearly impossible) could have driven Churchill from the government. My assumption is that if Britain was lost to conquest, it would rest upon George VI to either accede to a negotiated surrender and occupation, or back Churchill entirely and relocate the seat of government to its overseas possessions. My opinion is that the British monarch would back Churchill's plan.
I also believe that Churchill was correct that the key to defeating Nazi Germany was to bring other nations (specifically, the United States) into the war. When Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, it was a godsend to the United Kingdom. The dogged anticommunist Churchill welcomed with open arms a military alliance with Joseph Stalin.
I'm curious, why would it have been nearly impossible to conquest Britain?
I'm curious, why would it have been nearly impossible to conquest Britain?
It would have been nearly impossible because there was no way for Germany to cross the English Channel.
In 1940, the Royal Navy was the largest in the world (probably - the USN surpassed it sometime around then, but the point still holds). Germany? Not so much, and nowhere remotely close in terms of surface fleet. Further, the Kriegsmarine's plan for Sea Lion was to use barges (from the Rhine) to tow personnel and materiel across the Channel. The establishment of a beachhead is not out of the question before the Home Fleet could respond, depending on surprise achieved, but then the invasion force would have been cut off and destroyed. At a minimum, air superiority over the waters and landing zones would have been required, but the Luftwaffe could not even achieve air parity in those areas.
It is useful to use D-Day as a comparison. In 1944, the Allies had years of amphibious experience in the Pacific, in North Africa, and in Italy, to inform their planning. They had the combined industrial might of the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, and other nations toward the effort, a capacity which dwarfed that of Germany. They had air superiority bordering on air supremacy, while they ruled the waters of the Channel. They also had a local populace which largely supported them and worked in guerilla fashion in assistance. Germany never had any of these advantages, and it's hard to see how they could have achieved even one of them, much less all of them.
Yet for all of these advantages, the success of Overlord in 1944 was not a sure thing. Thus, it becomes clear that Germany in terms of ability to cross the Channel was so vastly far behind that of the Allies - who didn't have all that much to spare while still succeeding - had no realistic chance of success.
The Russian invasion was allegedly Hitler's Plan A. Everything else was secondary. He refers to that goal in Mein Kampf. Interestingly, he deliberately let the invasion of Normandy proceed. There are memoirs specifically saying that. He could have easily mowed those allied troops down, but didn't. I don't know what exactly the reason was. Some say it was his fear of the US's nukes which he was aware of.
The Allies spent a lot of time, effort, inflatable tanks, and fake military dispatches and radio traffic, to give the illusion that the Allied landings would happen in Calais, farther east along the English channel and the shortest distance from Britain to France. Hitler bought the ruse, hook, line, and sinker. While he was asleep during the first phases of D-Day and no one dared wake him, Hitler could have released the Panzer divisions he had at Calais to help repel the Normandy invasion. It is my recollection from what I have read that the German generals at Normandy begged for those divisions to be used, but Hitler held them in reserve, believing that the Normandy landings were merely a feint and the actual invasion would happen at Calais.
As for US nukes - I don't recall ever reading or hearing that Nazi Germany was conversant enough concerning Project Manhattan to fear US nuclear bombs.
The Allies spent a lot of time, effort, inflatable tanks, and fake military dispatches and radio traffic, to give the illusion that the Allied landings would happen in Calais, farther east along the English channel and the shortest distance from Britain to France. Hitler bought the ruse, hook, line, and sinker. While he was asleep during the first phases of D-Day and no one dared wake him, Hitler could have released the Panzer divisions he had at Calais to help repel the Normandy invasion. It is my recollection from what I have read that the German generals at Normandy begged for those divisions to be used, but Hitler held them in reserve, believing that the Normandy landings were merely a feint and the actual invasion would happen at Calais.
As for US nukes - I don't recall ever reading or hearing that Nazi Germany was conversant enough concerning Project Manhattan to fear US nuclear bombs.
In Operation Epsilon, German nuclear scientists were interred at Farm Hall in England. Secret listening devices recorded their conversations, intended to glean insights into whatever German work on a atomic bomb had been completed. Among the conversations recorded were those immediately after the BBC had announced the bombing of Hiroshima.
Quote:
Werner Heisenberg [Nobel-winning theoretical physicist]: I don't believe a word of the whole thing. They must have spent the whole of their £500,000,000 in separating isotopes; and then it's possible.
Quote:
Otto Hahn [Nobel-winning chemist, co-discoverer of uranium]: I didn't think it would be possible for another twenty years.
Carl Friedrich Freiherr von Weizsäcker: I don't think it has anything to do with uranium. [Little Boy was, of course, a uranium device]
Given the above admissions by Germany's experts, the political leaders cannot have been too concerned about the use of atomic weapons by the western Allies. Hitler once described an atomic bomb [then theoretical, obviously] as being able to 'knock a man off his horse from two miles away'. While, yes, that's true, it also conveys a man who really doesn't realize the implications of nuclear weapons.
Yes, I was aware that the Allies captured German scientists working under the Nazi regime who were capable of understanding the science behind creating an atomic bomb. However, it is my understanding that the only world leaders who knew of the progress of the Manhattan Project were Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill (via British experts who were working on the project), and Joseph Stalin (via spies implanted in the project).
It would have been nearly impossible because there was no way for Germany to cross the English Channel.
In 1940, the Royal Navy was the largest in the world (probably - the USN surpassed it sometime around then, but the point still holds). Germany? Not so much, and nowhere remotely close in terms of surface fleet. Further, the Kriegsmarine's plan for Sea Lion was to use barges (from the Rhine) to tow personnel and materiel across the Channel. The establishment of a beachhead is not out of the question before the Home Fleet could respond, depending on surprise achieved, but then the invasion force would have been cut off and destroyed. At a minimum, air superiority over the waters and landing zones would have been required, but the Luftwaffe could not even achieve air parity in those areas.
It is useful to use D-Day as a comparison. In 1944, the Allies had years of amphibious experience in the Pacific, in North Africa, and in Italy, to inform their planning. They had the combined industrial might of the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, and other nations toward the effort, a capacity which dwarfed that of Germany. They had air superiority bordering on air supremacy, while they ruled the waters of the Channel. They also had a local populace which largely supported them and worked in guerilla fashion in assistance. Germany never had any of these advantages, and it's hard to see how they could have achieved even one of them, much less all of them.
Yet for all of these advantages, the success of Overlord in 1944 was not a sure thing. Thus, it becomes clear that Germany in terms of ability to cross the Channel was so vastly far behind that of the Allies - who didn't have all that much to spare while still succeeding - had no realistic chance of success.
The Nazi's didn't have to cross the English Channel in order to defeat Great Britain. Churchill was worried about Great Britain being starved into submission due to the U-Boat threat. Without supplies getting through Great Britain would have been finished. Which stands to reason if lend lease wasn't enacted and the United States never entered the war.
Quote:
www.bbc.co.uk › history › worldwarsBBC - History - World Wars: The Battle of the Atlantic: The U ...
Mar 30, 2011 · Britain might have been starved into submission, and her armies would not have been equipped with American-built tanks and vehicles.
If Germany had prevented merchant ships from carrying food, raw materials, troops and their equipment from North America to Britain, the outcome of World War Two could have been radically different. Britain might have been starved into submission, and her armies would not have been equipped with American-built tanks and vehicles.
Moreover, if the Allies had not been able to move ships about the North Atlantic, it would have been impossible to project British and American land forces ashore in the Mediterranean theatres or on D-Day. Germany's best hope of defeating Britain lay in winning what Churchill christened the 'Battle of the Atlantic'.
Germany had waged a similar campaign in World War One, and in 1917 had come close to defeating Britain. But in spite of this experience neither side was well prepared in 1939. Germany had underestimated the impact of U-boats, and was fighting with only 46 operational vessels, using mostly surface vessels - rather than submarines - to prowl the Atlantic. However, on 3 September 1939, the day Britain declared war on Germany, the British liner Athenia was torpedoed by a U-boat. This marked the beginning of the second Battle of the Atlantic.
Because the English Channel is between the UK and France.
It didnt stop the Allies from invading Germany.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
