If the RAF had been defeated in the Battle of Britain

[fastmongrel]

But Attlee and Labour Party opposed the rearmament till 1937. IMHO it was not very bright policy to pursuit active anti-nazi policy while in the same time made best efforts to make sure that one's own armed forces would be as weak as possible. Singing the International / Red Flag wasn't the most effective way to stop bombers or panzers.

Juha

To be fair it was only really Churchill that was pushing for rearmament before 1937 and he was in a political no mans land. The political class usually goes with the public mood and you wouldnt have found many outside the military that wanted to spend the money.

 

[Juha]

Not so simple. E.g when in April 1936 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Neville Chamberlain, introduced a budget which increased the amount spent on the armed forces, Attlee was not only opposed it in the Parliament but also made a radio broadcast in opposition to it. And we know the reputation of NC.

Juha

 

[stona]

Not so simple. E.g when in April 1936 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Neville Chamberlain, introduced a budget which increased the amount spent on the armed forces, Attlee was not only opposed it in the Parliament but also made a radio broadcast in opposition to it. And we know the reputation of NC.
Juha

He was still an opponent of appeasement, many in Britain jumped through hoops to avoid another war an Attlee was no exception. We are not talking about 1936 but 1940, Attlee and the Labour Party were solidly behind the war. The war was now de facto, not something that might be avoided. There is no way they would have become involved in negotiations with Germany. The Labour Party was founded by and funded by the Trade Union movement. Those organisations would have been well aware of the fate of their German "brethren" in the 1930s.

Singing the Internationale worked for the Red Army, along with tanks and all the rest.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Juha]

He was still an opponent of appeasement, many in Britain jumped through hoops to avoid another war an Attlee was no exception. We are not talking about 1936 but 1940, Attlee and the Labour Party were solidly behind the war. The war was now de facto, not something that might be avoided. There is no way they would have become involved in negotiations with Germany. The Labour Party was founded by and funded by the Trade Union movement. Those organisations would have been well aware of the fate of their German "brethren" in the 1930s.

What I mean is that if in 34 - 36 Attlee and Labour Party had won the day it would have been rather irrelevant what they did in 40 because if GB's rearmament would have begun a couple years later the options would have been 1) ask terms or fight and after defeat ask terms.

Singing the Internationale worked for the Red Army, along with tanks and all the rest.

That was the reason for a part of the LabP to oppose rearmament, they were ready to risk the security of GB for the certainty that the armed forces of GB would not be used against SU. A part opposed rearmament because of pacifism.

Juha

 

[buffnut453]

I'm sorry Buffnut, but I think you are overestimating the extent of the anti-war sentiment and how big a part these people would or could play in Britain's future at that time. Churchill's decision making was made behind closed doors during private meetings with senior personnel, none of whom held anti-war sentiment. Britain was very autocratic at this time; it had to be. If there was an invasion you can guarantee that many of these individuals would quickly change their minds about any peace deals with the Nazis if their liberties were being threatened. You are right in stating that there was sympathy for the Nazis and an idea of peace being with among indivduals, but once the bombs started dropping and the dead began to be rolled out into the streets much of this dried up. No, people didn't want war, but they didn't want invasion and occupation either.

You keep talking of an invasion when I'm saying that wouldn't happen because it wasn't needed. As you observe, Government in 1940 was autocratic and held behind closed doors. If the RAF lost the BoB there would have been a vote of no confidence in Churchill and his Government would have fallen and replaced, without an election, by something else. The question is what would replace it - a continuance of "fight them on the beaches" or a more concilliatory agenda? I think the latter, others think the former. We'll never know but I would go with the latter.

 

[buffnut453]

As soon as Barbarossa was launched this all became irrelevant.

But Barbarossa was April 1941 not September 1940. At the earlier stage of the war, who knows what would happen. There was no clear majority in Parliament. Would Attlee be allowed to lead in the place of Churchill? Unlikely as I think the Conservatives would want one of their own to take over.

Interesting discussion though!

 

[swampyankee]

What I mean is that if in 34 - 36 Attlee and Labour Party had won the day it would have been rather irrelevant what they did in 40 because if GB's rearmament would have begun a couple years later the options would have been 1) ask terms or fight and after defeat ask terms.



That was the reason for a part of the LabP to oppose rearmament, they were ready to risk the security of GB for the certainty that the armed forces of GB would not be used against SU. A part opposed rearmament because of pacifism.

Juha

I think it was a bit more than worries about the British armed forces being used against the bolsheviks again; it was that something like 1 out of 8 military-age men were killed in the war and the expectation was that the same thing would happen again. If I remember my history correctly, hitler was not considered a threat until Anschluss; even had Churchill been in charge, he may well have been more concerned with suppressing the independence movement in India than preparing for a war in Europe.

 

[JtD]

While I don't think that Sealion would have successfully taken place, I find the certainty with which some predict its failure a bit over the top. I know the far east is not England in many ways, but looking at the Japanese invasion of Malaya, the odds were against them and they still succeeded. I'd never say never.

I still think the more interesting question is the impact of a lost BoB on the overall strategic situation.

 

[Juha]

I think it was a bit more than worries about the British armed forces being used against the bolsheviks again; it was that something like 1 out of 8 military-age men were killed in the war and the expectation was that the same thing would happen again.

That was the motivation behind the pacifist wing. Attlee had served during the WWI, wounded and after all end up being a Major. Fougt in Gallipoli, Iraq and France. I don't doubt sincery of his pacifism. But in the party there were also those who looked USSR through very pink glasses.

If I remember my history correctly, hitler was not considered a threat until Anschluss; even had Churchill been in charge, he may well have been more concerned with suppressing the independence movement in India than preparing for a war in Europe.

Now Chamberlain worried on GB air defence from at least late 1935 and in his 36 budget wanted and got more money for defence, especially for air defence. IMHO it is difficult to see other reason than Germany behind those worries.

Juha

 

[Juha]

Pattle,

The British people had no choice when Churchill became their Prime Minister. There was no election. Chamberlain went to King George and simply recommended Churchill to be his successor. Why would a replacement for Churchill be any different? Vote of no confidence in Parliament, Halifax stakes his claim as the only viable candidate. Also, bear in mind that a defenceless London would likely be evacuated. With Parliament on the run, who would be in any position to oppose an appeasing faction from taking power.

Why wouldn't the Parliament meet in some other place. During the Winter War Finnish Parliament moved from Helsinki to Kauhajoki, a small municipality in Western Finland and met there.

Juha

 

[oldcrowcv63]

The highly trained Nazi Sea Lions would have easily got across the Channel and invaded at night. Can you imagine the chaos caused by squads of Sea Lions roaming the countryside balancing balls on there noses and attacking all the Fish shops. Luckily the Royal Seal Heavy Infantry aided by The Queens Own Otters would be ferried in and there would be bloody flipper to flipper combat in the Council Swimming pool at Walmington On Sea.

Now you are just being silly... The more serious concern for any invasion of the southern coast of Britain is the necessity for the invaders to deal with Basil Faulty in Torquay. I cannot imagine any invading German force overcoming the combined opposition of Basil, Sybil, Polly but worst of all, Manuel.

On the other hand, if the Germans had formed an alliance with the intelligent blancmange-shaped aliens from the planet Skyron, they could have easily won Whimbledon Fortnight.

 

[Juha]

...With a negotiated peace, there's no need for an invasion force. Hitler could simply bide his time, installing pliant British politicians who would accede to his every whim. Want to station more German troops in the UK to protect against America? Certainly Herr Hitler. Like Vichy France, in the end the UK would become a Nazi satellite with zero autonomy. Undoubtedly, there would be resistance but where would they get their supplies? Resistance on the continent only survived because it had a good resupply base from the UK. Without that, there's nothing to sustain resistance other than courage. Certainly not sufficient to overcome the Nazi war machine.

Why would Halifax and co to allow German troops into England? One ask the terms and either accept them or if unacceptable continue fighting. Germany had to accept terms in Nov 18 but GB was in better position being an island state with a powerful navy and great industrial capacity, also in Midlands and in Scotland and so outside the effective range of Bf 109s.

Juha

 

[redcoat]

So how does your comment square with Hitler's offer that Britain would retain it's Empire?

There was no offer.
After the battle of France was over Hitler waited for the British to come to him to seek peace. When that didn't happen Hitler made his 'Appeal For Reason' speech' on the 17th July 1940 in which he spent the majority of the speech ranting on how Britain and France were responsible for the war, he then ended it on these words.

"In this hour I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense, in Great Britain as much as elsewhere. I consider myself in a position to make this appeal since I am not the vanquished begging favours, but the victor speaking in the name of reason. I can see no reason why this war must go on.

Possibly Mr Churchill will again brush aside this statement of mine by saying that it is merely of fear and doubt in our final victory. In that case, I shall have relieved my conscience in regards to the things to come."

That was as close as Hitler ever got to a peace offer to the UK in the summer of 1940
.

 

[redcoat]

During the Battle of Britain a British battleship and it's destroyer escorts sailed across the Channel and bombarded the German held Channel ports, and it wasn't even attacked by the Luftwaffe...because it was at night.

So I have a question.
How does the Luftwaffe protect the invasion fleet and zones at night ?

 

[Civettone]

I don't think the Royal Navy tried again. So that must have had a reason?

Anyway, with illumination Ju 88s and Ju 87s could be used against the RN. And E-boats, like during the D-day invasion exercises.

It seems to me that the Royal Navy could be destroyed from the air - just see what losses they inflicted on British ships during Battle of Crete, BUT it would take several days and the Royal Navy would have to stay in the Channel, which seems unlikely.

Kris

 

[stona]

Why would Halifax and co to allow German troops into England? One ask the terms and either accept them or if unacceptable continue fighting. Germany had to accept terms in Nov 18 but GB was in better position being an island state with a powerful navy and great industrial capacity, also in Midlands and in Scotland and so outside the effective range of Bf 109s.
Juha

Now we are arguing what terms would be acceptable to a British government. None that the Germans could offer. Try and invade then.

I take it people here have read the full text of Hitler's July 19th "final appeal to reason" speech. It is nothing less than a typical Nazi rant, blaming everybody but Germany for the war. It was hardly likely to inspire a will to negotiate in the British government. Several members of that government, not just Churchill, were roundly abused in the speech.

Cheers
Steve

 

[Shortround6]

I believe the "theory" is that after the British loose the BoB ALL British air activity over the entire British isles ceases, German bombers either sink the Royal Navy at their moorings or force them to withdraw well beyond their operational radius in one night's steaming. If the Royal navy is caught by day they will be wiped out down to the life boats in just a few hours time.

That and the impenetrable 40-60KM long mine fields that spring up in just a few days on both sides of the invasion routes.

As with a lot of things it is a question of degree, the Luftwaffe could and did sink ships both at moorings and in the channel and they could do it at a rate that could make sustained operations difficult or impossible. But the invasion and counter invasion operations are NOT sustained operations in the sense that coastal convoys were. They are pretty much an all or nothing effort in a few days or few weeks at most.

The Royal Navy had two basic jobs for over 350 years, defend Britain from invasion and protect the trade routes. If the Britain is invaded and conquered the trade routes don't matter.

A variable in this scenario is when the BoB is lost. By Sept 1st? Sept 15? Sept 22?

Historically Sea Lion was "postponed" on Sept 17, if the Germans had made good progress in the air would they have held on for another week or two? But there is a closing time when the worsening fall weather makes it too much of a gamble.

The next variable is the extent of the loss, Are all the British Isles a "No Fly Zone" for the RAF or just south east England which reduces the distances the Anti invasion forces have to cover to manageable distances?

 

[Shortround6]

It seems to me that the Royal Navy could be destroyed from the air - just see what losses they inflicted on British ships during Battle of Crete, BUT it would take several days and the Royal Navy would have to stay in the Channel, which seems unlikely.

And what damage is the Royal Navy doing to the invasion "fleet" in those several days?

 

[stona]

A variable in this scenario is when the BoB is lost. By Sept 1st? Sept 15? Sept 22?

And what do we mean by lost?
Defeat 11 Group and maintain something like local air superiority, at least temporarily, over the Channel and South Eastern England? That seems to have been the only objective that the Luftwaffe itself considered attainable in the time frame available, and it wasn't.
This is not the same as defeating the RAF. It does not make Southern Britain a "no fly zone" for the RAF and it does not prevent it interfering with the invasion. It just makes it more difficult and probaby more expensive.
This is partly why Dowding knew that he didn't have to win, he just had to avoid defeat. It's also why he had no intention of withdrawing Fighter Command north until an invasion was actually ashore.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Gixxerman]

To be fair it was only really Churchill that was pushing for rearmament before 1937 and he was in a political no mans land. The political class usually goes with the public mood and you wouldnt have found many outside the military that wanted to spend the money.

Even Churchill wasn't entirely negative about fascism, Hitler his gang (just) before the war.
I haven't got the exact quote here just a summary of it but it goers along these lines

"He said that if he had been an Italian he would have been a Fascist, and as late as 1938 he stated that if England were ever in the same straits that Germany had been in 1933, he hoped that England would find "her Hitler." "

Those less than hard-line attitudes were undoubtedly held....but as event were to prove they were not as widely held as some might imagine - and when it came to it they were decidedly conditional on events.

I think that in many ways (from my reading on the subject) there was a strand of thinking in the Nazi leadership in Germany that had a very naïve view of the British and how the UK would respond to Germany and a German dominated European continent (including western Russia the Ukraine etc).
But then most of them had zero experience about these things and seemed happy to rely on whatever came out of their own heads as some sort of reality.
All that 'force of will' being always capable of determining reality nonsense.