Would it have worked?
>>18108612no hence why they never bothered trying it
>>18108612No, but truth be told it was no more retarded than Barbarossa, so he might as well have tried it.Thing is if he did launch Sea Lion and Uncle Joe attacks from the East people would spend the next 80 years saying "Could Barbarossa have worked?"
>Gamble on war with an island>That has a better navy than you>Island literally gifts you 90% of its army>let them go
>>18108642>let them gothey pretty much tried everything they realistically could to stop the evacuations, it just didn't work out
>>18108623>>18108631Ok ok but let's just say the luftwaffe won the battle of Britain instead of the RAFCould it have worked?
>>18108631>No, but truth be told it was no more retarded than BarbarossaWhy? It was almost certain that the US would intervene on Britain's behalf. Whereas nobody would give a shit about the USSR being defeated.
>>18108666its a case of it had a slightly higher chance but still very unlikely, controlling the skys was essentially a very basic first step, and them winning was already unlikely since Britain had air bases further up the island they simply could not reach
>>18108642Realistically, they never could've taken them prisoner. Germany could barely feed itself. If they just executed thousands of soldiers, the entirety of the British war effort would've shifted into panicked anger and they probably would've carried out Operation Vegetarian.
>>18108666I think the issue is less getting them across the Channel so much as it's keeping them supplied. During the height of the war they were going through hundreds of millions of bullets per DAY. Not to mention food, fuel, just all the shit that an army in the millions would go through whilst in active duty.
The true hero of WWII is the French for surrendering so fast. This filled the Germans with a sense of arrogance and inevitability of their final victory, which led to them dropping the ball when it came to grand strategy for the rest of the war.France sacrificed its reputation and dignity to save the world.
>>18108725you can see the different mentalities at work, WWI vet Hitler thought it was Germany against France with Britain on the side. The allies were a global entity who could surrender France without losing their capital.
>>18108666If you're just gonna change the factors you might as well just say "could Germany win the war if they just won the war??"The Luftwaffe lost, hence they were incapable of winning, hence Sealion couldn't have worked because not even the pre-phase of the plan worked.These questions are basically like asking> could I possibly defeat GSP in an MMA fight if I won against him????
>>18108612No.Even in the unlikely scenario they managed to land German troops on British soil the Brits would just blockade the English channel with their superior navy then starve the German forces stuck therePlus Britain was just not worth it
>>18108666No. You don't supply an invading army across a channel from the air and with the Royal navy dominating the surface Germany had no means to resupply them via sea. D-Day required like 6,000 surface ships, even if you assume an invasion force a tenth the size that's still 600 ships, far more than Germany could gather for an invasion.
>>18108642>>18108652>>18108679Hitler should've massed every possible air asset and held them hostage in one big crater. Focus on keeping ships away and trade them for a temporary peace. In fact, he could've done this with the Smolensk pocket if he wanted a normal empire, or he could've traded the lives of Jews for peace if Britain were willing to play ball over a mere six million jews, which I doubt. The fact is both sides were implacably set on war, they wanted to test themselves in battle. Stalin wouldn't have minded a little peace though.
>>18108666They still need ships which they dont have, so no
>>18108920they seriously couldn't find 1000 ships between Alexandria and Trondheim?
>>18108642They couldn't catch them, supply lines were to thin to push. They had no choice but to sit and wait.
>>18108924I mean sure they could of used a bunch of fishing boats, but if your going to land thousands of men on a fucking reinforced and heavily defended beach like that, they will be massacred. It would of been normandy but waaaaaay worse. They needed proper warships.
>>18108906>Hitler should've massed every possible air asset and held them hostage in one big crater. Yeah well goring was an idiot. So even if they did that the fatty would of problem fucked it up.
>>18108612I never understood how do people imagine actually moving things across the channel. The RAF isn't completely defeated and realistically it wouldn't have been, the royal navy has more than enough lighter ships to sink all German transports before they reach their shores and their Nelson class BBs with proper escorts could block any attempts at sending the few heavier kriegsmarine ships into the channel even assuming a counterfactual where Bismarck is ready for early autumn 1940(Bismarck had worse guns and armour than both of these but was faster, however there's no use of being faster there, you have to win a naval battle and there are other heavy ships in the royal navy than just these two). Even if the Germans manage to land some troops and equipment, they would have massive supply disadvantage as over time their transport capability would decrease, if they get stalled like the allies were stalled in Normandy initially they're toast.
>>18108933If I were Hitler I would requisition the three biggest ships of every merchant and war fleet in Greece, Italy, France, Denmark and so forth. I would capture luxury liners from neutral countries and release their passengers courteously, it's no different than britain sinking neutral and allied fleets.
>>18108949Ok so the problem here would be the time required to bring all of them over to pick up the troops, every single day that beach is getting more and more reinforced. Now lets talk about italy and greece, guess what their ships need to pass to reach the uk? Gibraltar. Guess what would happen during that passage, the brits would of bombed them to hell, and there goes those ships.
>>18108949>>18108960Suppose i should also mention Malta, which was bombed for over an entire year and they couldnt knock it out. Any ship that was in the med sea, was never getting out of it.
>>18108969wrong island. did they even try to capture gibraltar? I imagine Franco wouldn't have liked the idea>>18108960Ships sail it's what they do, not like Germany was conducting much international commerce they were needed for. The british would be frantically devoting resources and that's good. Things are moving in a good direction. Choosing the form of an invasion or the invasion beach is also a complex subject, the british navy is the biggest issue as usual. Imagine if they developed the ASM for sealion instead of a regular V1
>>18108876>you might as well just say "could Germany win the war if they just won the war??"You say this as if alt-hists where Germany just wins the war and what the aftermath would be like aren't a common thing
>>18108983>did they even try to capture gibraltarthey had hundreds of ideas but yeah franco did not like any of them.>The british would be frantically devoting resources and that's good.They had multiple sea bases and enough ships to divert, and gibraltar literally was right on the exit.
>>18108666>Ok ok but let's just say the luftwaffe won the battle of Britain instead of the RAF>Could it have worked?The Germans never planned to invade the UK and so when the time came, they had nothing ready for it.
>>18108666>say the luftwaffe won the battle of Britain>>18108904>Royal navy dominating the surfaceIf the Germans invade, the Brits have no choice but to zerg rush into the confines of the English Channel to try and stop them but if the Germans control the skies, the Royal Navy will be destroyed.
>>18109016Gibraltar would be taken in this scenario, it's not really Franco's call. Nice guy Hitler really never got serious about invading Britain to that degree, he had an image to maintain. The more I think about it though, the move would be to have Speer set up a massive shipbuilding yard. Worked by prisoners and concentration camp inmates, supplied with master technicians and naval architects from France and Italy. That would in turn trigger a bombing obsession for the British, a single focal point for the german air defenses, and maybe someday it would get some ships built. Probably easier to purpose-build some iron tubs than take gibraltar and mess around with requisitions.
>>18109026>the Royal Navy will be destroyed.Not really, the germans had the worst torpedo's of everyone in the war, their best ones came from italy, and those were artisan made and couldnt be mass produced. And the luftwaffle really didnt have much experience in it either. I cant really think of any actual warships the luftwaffle sank outside what you posted and her destroyers. And mind you those were the italian torpedo's.
>>18109037It would not have been taken, Franco would not have allowed the german army into spain. Spain was entirely dependent on american food. If they let the germans in, him and his people were going to starve. If what you even said was remotely true, Hitler would have actually invaded.>Worked by prisoners and concentration camp inmates, supplied with master technicians and naval architects from France and ItalyThose ships would of taken YEARS to build... God could you imagine the fortifications that could be built in that time? And Need i remind you, Germany was entirely dependant on imports for most war material? Where the fuck they getting the supply to manage that?
>>18109044Hitler would've conducted a special operation on Gibraltar without Franco's permission, probably a naval landing on the mainland. Franco wasn't going to declare war on Germany over it either.The more fortifications built the better, they're a waste. An iron invasion fleet wouldn't take much time or exotic resources with a proper assembly line, the biggest item would be the fuel.
>>18109050>Hitler would've conducted a special operation on Gibraltar without Franco's permission,Again hitler did not even do this in reality. What kind of magic would of made hitler do it now? Franco would of been forced to war with germany if they did that. Not declaring war my ass, as i told you, they were dependent on american food. They aren't going to sit there and starve.>probably a naval landing on the mainland....With what ships. You think that heavily defended sea base is just gonna sit there? There was a large military force, it would of taken months of bombing before it was remotely ready for a proper invasion. Or you suggesting they stupidly throw their completely untrained in maritime warfare military force at a fortified enemy?>. An iron invasion fleet wouldn't take much time or exotic resources with a proper assembly line, the biggest item would be the fuel.When i said war material we aren't talking exotics, Germany had jack shit in most of them. You cant hand waive this away. One of the major reasons he invaded the USSR was to fix this. And unless hes gonna go at the USSR even earlier, he has no where to go to fix the import problem.
>>18109050Also i do want to bring something up. Bombing doesnt really work. Especially at a time when bunker busters dont exist. You can move bases and factories underground. The luftwaffle doing a large bombing campaign doesnt really soften them up. We saw this in Malta.
The Crete shoreline is as long as the English one.The Brits there had numerical superiority on the ground and total dominance over the sea and still couldn't stop the drops or the subsequent landings. So Sealion wasn't as impossible as you might think.
>>18109344...The numbers they had in crete would not remotely be similiar to what they would have on fucking britain, nor the defenses. What a fucking dumb post.
>>18109344>Cretecretes failure was majorly because laylock was a complete an utter dumbass. And well 2 being they didnt even have enough radio's so half the island wasnt even aware it was under attacks till it was too late.
>This kills the fallschirmjäger.
>>18108612In 1941 or 42, not in 1940 based on the numbers. Based on quality it may have. The British did not acquit themselves well.
>>18109026>the Germans control the skies, the Royal Navy will be destroyed.Based on what?
>>18108612It would have to be a suicide mission consisting of Germans landing in empty beaches by hundreds of u-boats and the entire Fallschirmjäger parachuting men into England. The Luftwaffe annd Kriegsmarine would have to distract the Brits elsewhere. However, most if not all of the U-Boats and planes would be destroyed in an attempt like this, it would be sending Germans into a meat grinder. The goal would be for the soldiers that landed to cause as much as damage as possible, but every single one of these men would have to be ok with the fact that their chances of surviving or not being captured are very slim.
>>18109512The entirety of the war in the pacific.Planes beat ships, as long as they have a base close by.
>>18108902The British fleet could not remain in the channel for more than hit and run attacks, otherwise it would be sunk by aircraft. Repelling a landing would not be straightforward. If the Germans landed then what would follow would be the most spectacular air and sea campaign ever fought, making the battle of Britain look like a skirmish.
>>18108612Sandhurst performed war games to see how operation sealion panned out, as in actual war games with professionals not dungeons and dragons, inviting ex-German officers to command the Germans who were motivated to share their ideas by their alliance with Britain in the cold war. Even with everything slanted in Hitler's favor the result was a total defeat of the landing troops.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)Although the Germans might be able to rush troops across the channel, once it was known where they were landing the British army would respond while supply ships would be constantly harassed by British destroyers thus German efforts would grind to a halt.
>>18109344Crete was captured because one battalion of the German paratrooper managed to secure a single hill overlooking an airfield. All the other paratroopers failed their objectives and were slaughtered or taken POW.The hill was mostly captured because of allied confusion.To conquer England, you need to capture entire cities. Paratroopers cannot capture a city. They were at best tasked to capture a single bridge within a city, which they often failed to do, because paratroopers in ww2 were an overglorified meme. Even on Overlord their actual strategic worth can be heavily debated. Also, paratroopers can survive at most for roughly a week before they must be relieved, otherwise they are forced to surrender.Like another anon said, the problem isn't to actually get the wehrmacht across (even tho it was physically impossible because no boats), the real problem is how to maintain them. How to maintain the entire overseas campaign. A division requires several tons of supplies per day to be able to move. There must always be an uninterrupted chain of logistics.If the Germans had attempted sealion, it's more likely that Britain would have allowed them to land as much men and material as possible before moving in and close the channel, thus creating the largest encirclement in human history.
>>18109026>the Brits have no choice but to zerg rush into the confines of the English Channel to try and stop themActually no. The British would likely have done the opposite: stand down and let the Gernans ferry as much men and material as possible, because it's just going to increase the disaster later. The larger force; the more supplies needed to even maneuver.>but if the Germans control the skies, the Royal Navy will be destroyed.Except luftwaffe had a terrible record of Air-to-Ship combat which was shown when the luftwaffe failed to prevent the Dunkirk evacuation, the Crete evacuation, and the Narvik invasion.Also, all it takes is one day of bad weather, and the weather over the channel was more bad than good. A major reason Battle for Britain failed and the Blitz was called off was because of the weather.The royal navy isn't grounded by bad weather. The airforce always is.Also, all it takes is nightfall. A single Royal Navy taskforce of destroyers could steam into the channel and wreck anything that floats and every supplydump on the beach.Not that any of this matters because luftwaffe was never going to defeat RAF because the RAF produced more aircrafts than Luftwaffe, trained more pilots than luftwaffe, shot down more planes than luftwaffe, recovered more pilots than luftwaffe, had greater access to aluminum and oil and high-octane level avgas than luftwaffe. The list goes on. Sealion is the biggest meme of ww2. You'd think wehraboos would give it up when even Hitler knew it was a meme.
>>18108612This entire thing depended heavily on air superiority, and with them mostly fighting over British skies it was a doomed plan from the startA destroyed bf109 can be rebuilt in a factory, but a captured pilot is lost forever. Battle of Britain was just thatI still find it funny though, that this fucking island off the coast of Europe has been a thorn on every major European power's sideNapoleon>Got cucked by Admiral Nelson on TrafalgarHitler>Got cucked by the RAF and RADAR One foiled by sea, the other by air, actually fucking insane
Politically, it would have been best if the Germans had landed.Militarily, it was near impossible to pull off
>>18108612If he didn't invade the USSR sure, but he would've been invaded by the USSR and been fucked by a 2-front war
>>18108906>The fact is both sides were implacably set on warCompletely untrue. After the first World War Britian did everything it could to give peace a chance until Hitler finally crossed the final red line at Danzig which forced the British hand.
>>18109776The British were also masters of diplomacy, they always got someone else to fight for them.During the Seven Years War most of the fighting was done by Prussia yet Brirain claimed most of the spoils from that shared victory.During the Napoleonic wars, Wellington army was majority allied soldiers (Dutch, Germans, Portuguese etc).During ww2, the 8th army under Montgomery was only 50% British while the other half were Commonwealth/Colonial/allies (Czech, Dutch, Poles, Greeks).Britain has also been masters of propaganda because they successfully sell every conflict as "poor little Britain" vs the world, when in reality it was the other way around given the vastness of the empire. It's how most normies learn ww2 that Britain "stood alone" against all odds etc.
While we're on this topic...How would you compare these two beautiful machines
>>18109814Bit of an unfair comparison in context to the battle itself since the overwhelming majority of British aircrafts were Hurricanes.
>>18109823This 200%Fuck you>>18109814 the hawker hurricane was the backbone of the RAF and had more kills than spitfire squadrons
>>18109364Oh yeah, The Home Defense was going to repulse the landings, they were training with brooms after all.Learn a little before posting.
>>18109990Doesn't matter if the home army was one man.Germany has no way to cross the channel and launch an amphibious operation.Germany has no way to control the channel from the Royal Navy.Germany has no way to launch sealion in 1940.
>>18109563The pacific war illustrates the exact opposite. Ships that are properly supported as part of a fleet were difficult to engage and sink even with air superiority and most battleships sunk by aircraft were largely or entirely isolated or were still in port unable to maneuver and unprepared for an air attack. The Germans would not have been able to reasonably destroy or cripple the Royal Navy with just their air force in a reasonable timeframe.Even then they simply do not have enough available ships to actually supply their forces nor a harbour unless they capture a major city almost immediately, and England will not just give up major port cities to German paratroopers or marines quickly.This isn't Hearts of Iron, you're proposing a reverse D-Day while lacking almost everything the actual D-Day had.
>>18109366The battle of Crete was over and the Allies in full retreat before Laycock even set foot on the island...
>>18109990You reckon LDV was the only military force in the UK?
>>18110051Why the fuck do people keep bringing in Crete to this discussion?Crete was a tiny island defended by a skeleton force.The battle was decided because one paratrooper battalion captured a hill due to allied negligence.The rest of the German paratroopers failed their objectives and were killed/captured.
>>18109026>t if the Germans control the skies, the Royal Navy will be destroyed.Germans never came close to gaining even air superiority but even if they could gain air supremacy over the Channel, they still don't have any experience or demonstrated success at hitting moving naval vessels and the RN can just attack at night.
>>18110083Because they're autistic and see "German paratroopers invaded an island and won therefore German paratroopers can ALWAYS win if they invaded an island" binary thinking.
>>18108666Why stop there? Why not just say "What if the Germans had modern jet fighters that they received from a time machine?"
>>18110095Not just nightfall but simply one day of bad weather, and the channel was extremely prone to bad weather. A navy is never grounded by bad weather. An airforce always is. One day of bad weather and the barges and the entire beachhead will be exposed.Plus if sealion was going to be launched in 1940, they need to hurry up plan, prepare, train, mobilize, execute & complete this overseas campaign in less than a few months because after November it wasn't possible to fly over the channel because of the winter weather. It was the main reason why the Blitz was called off.If Sealion isn't launched in 1940, then it's going to be far more difficult to overwhelm a prepared Britain. It's actually insane to imagine this reversed Overlord to be planned, prepared, trained, mobilized, executed & completed under such a small time frame, especially with makeshift barges to travel on open ocean, to load and unload military equiptment, to logistically function on a beachhead. How are you even supposed to move things on and off from them on a beach? How are tanks supposed to get off. Thousands of tons of supplies and barrels. How are they not going to capsize on route. How are civilian vessels going to sustain themselves being fired upon.So many questions, so few answers.
>>18110122in addition, Germany was chronically incapable of forecasting the weather because they didn't have reliable meteorological information from the Americas, which Britain did from both Canada and the US
>>18108612No way it could have worked, even with air superiority. I think Britain did a war game in the 70's to see if Sealion could have succeded and the conclusion was a huge failure for the germans
>>18109990......they had the entire force from dunkirk, are you being fucking serious here?
>>18110051oops, yeah im mixing him up with freyberg
Hear me out... What if... They built a bridge
>>18108924>Let's load up a tank onto this fishing trawler, diggaYeah what could go wrong lmao
>>18108949>Seize enormous ocean passenger liner>Have nowhere to actually dock it and disembark its cargo because it turns out you can't just ram a ship that size onto any beach and unload it I think many of you dweebs are also forgetting that Containers (as in the big boxes you see on ships nowadays) weren't actually extensive yet back then, unloading ships was a slow and mighty inefficient process which required absurd man-hours to complete
>>18109812I smell seething in your post>Czech, Dutch, Poles, GreeksYeah, I sure wonder why
>>18110731How am I seething?
>>18108612Maybe but likely not.>>18108642He let them go as a gesture of good will.
>>18110903>let them go as a gesture of good will>so long as you ignore the multiple air raids and assults from any nearby troops he could muster
>>18108612Germany should have spent money on a different sort of wonder weapon. One which would allow the army to cross the channel without relying on the navy or airforce
>>18110918They could've used this to dig under Moscow.
>>18110910Just bantz
>>18110938fair enough
>>18110731Pic is you >wah wah
>>18111162I'm pro-British actually
>>18111171This isn't about being pro or anti retard.It's an arguable fact that Britain were experts at diplomacy because in virtually every conflict they managed to find a continental power that could soak up the heaviest fighting.This is in stark contrast to German diplomacy who had a tendency to find the worst allies in most conflicts.Stop being an insufferable faggot just because someone doesn't cheer for your "team". It's a history discussion, not a "us vs them".You also asked why did Greeks, Dutch, Czechs, Poles fight in the 8th army in ww2. Like are you seriously this fucking stupid I have to spell it out for you? Germany attacked them so naturally they joined Britain's cause.
>>18108612This fucking island denied Napoleon by sea, and Hitler by air Is this the power of being an island nation?
>>18111220You are dense>You also asked why did Greeks, Dutch, Czechs, Poles fight in the 8th army in ww2That was a rhetorical question, mate
>>18108642That is a myth, the Germans fought hard to stop the dunkirk evacuation but failed.
>>18111230Eh once upon a time, ICBMs with MIRVs exist now sooooooo being an island kinda irrelevant
>>18111251Navy is still the ultimate form of power projection. The navy is the Ace of spades then as it is now. That's what worries USA the most about China. So far China isn't as much of a threat, but once they build a blue-water navy they will be, because then they can start asserting themselves globally.
>>18111234I dont even think you yourself had a point besides seething that someone provided nuance to ww2 which you instantly interpretated as picking a side because to you history is all about picking a side, which is pathetic.
>>18111293>they successfully sell every conflict as "poor little Britain" vs the world, when in reality it was the other way aroundSuch nuance
>>18111306Are you saying Britain did not have a global empire behind her? I can name countless of documentaries where in 1940, after the fall of France, it's framed as "Britain standing alone", and the conflict is viewed only from continental Europe to make it seem like Britain is up against horrible odds when that wasn't the case.The British also hyped up every victory with grandiose speeches about how "a few overcame the impossible" rather than simply saying it was due to overwhelming material advantages.Again, because attributing the victory over England to a few brave men sold as a much better story.It's not even close to how the nazies framed every victory with their ubermenschen narrative, but it should still be pointed out.You really have a child's mind of ww2 because you can't comprehend that even the allies were capable of propaganda. It's pathetic, and it undermines any serious and nuanced discussion on ww2. As if this is supposed to be some sort of contest with teams.Again, pic is you.
>>18111306Also I noticed how you're only able to reply with one-liners because you cant really say anything of substance. It's basically just shitposting. Good work "team Britain".
>>18111402Now post this about WWI
>>18111437Britain didn't "stand alone" against a continental power like in 1805 and 1940.You really can't see the point I was making earlier?But sure, even in ww1 the odds are heavily stacked against the central powers after they failed to achieve a quick victory in the opening offensives of the war, again, because the Entente controls a third of the planet, which includes the British empire.It's just that ww2 post-war propaganda is far more prevailing than ww1. It's heavily romanticized in Britain's favor in terms of the actual situation the Axis faced even with the surrender of France.Again, all I hear from you is >Wah Wah
>>18111535I quote again>they successfully sell every conflict as "poor little Britain" vs the world>every conflictWhich is apparently not true. It was said because someone clearly seethes about Britain
>>18111284China is blockade by SEA and Japan which are all allies and friends of the US but idk if Washington will really come to their rescue
Realistically.. do you even need more than these two?
>>18111546How am I "seething over Britain"?See these posts?>>18109576>>18109589>>18110122I wrote them.Does it look like seething to you?You're overreacting because I said one thing negative which is Arguably true.Perhaps I shouldn't have said "every" conflict, because that goes back to the Spanish succession war, but at least every modern conflict where Britain "stood alone", and it was those conflicts I wanted to highlight, especially ww2, which is heavily propagandacized as portraying Britain as the underdog in most narrations of ww2 among the general public.
>>18111598>me me meOk, you're totally not seething
>>18111576Yes. An aircraft carrier requires an entire fleet to support it, because it needs auxiliary protection and a source of supplies.
>>18111611What's wrong with you anyway?
>>18111576Yes you do But these two are pretty much 90% of the power of a navy
>>18111284Britain doesnt have a navy anymore and navy isnt the ultimate form of power projection. It is air power and ballistics.The US worries about China because they are beyond the strategic range of US air power.The Navy today, ultimately, exists to protect the Aircraft carriers because they are the pivot for air power.
>>18108612Fuck no.Even just assuming out the gate that the Royal Navy and the RAF were were completely useless and discounting the fact that the Germans had>a fraction of the naval armada that was assembled for D-Day>no purpose-built landing craft (the plan was to use converted barges, most of which couldn't get across the channel under their own power)>virtually no practical experience in large scale expeditionary warfare (the only time they did it on any appreciable scale was Norway in 1940)there remains the simple fact that invading the United Kingdom would have almost certainly provoked a premature American entry into the war. There was a general consensus at the time that even if Americans didn't want to fight, that they could not afford to lose the UK. Hence why the Roosevelt Administration was so willing to push its luck with Lend-Lease and later the occupation of Iceland.
>>18112233cope. There is no reason to believe the Germans, having defeated the British army in France near effortlessly, couldnt defeat the British army in Britain even if we assume considerable effort is needed.>NO THE HECKIN NAZIS CNA NEVER HAVE A PATH TO VICTORYstop coming to these threads.
>>18112034>The US worries about China because they are beyond the strategic range of US air power.Kadena Air Base is 400 miles from China and is home to 20,000 active servicemembersChina couldn't even begin to fathom having a major active air base even a thousand miles from US soil let alone 400
>>18108612Absolutely.
>>18112243>"considerable effort"NTA but I would really like to know what "considerable effort" means in your scenario that would more or less negate opposition to a German landing by the Royal Navy and RAF.inb4 you invoke muh Battle of Crete for the 100th time.
>>18112243>There is no reason to believe the Germans, having defeated the British army in France near effortlesslyThey beat the British because the French massively dropped the fucking ball thinking that the Maginot Line was all they needed to invest in. The British Expeditionary Force was small (300,000 out of the 3 million Allied troops in the West in 1940) and unable to do much to prevent the Wehrmacht from sweeping through France once the French Army was routed.>defeat the British army in Britain even if we assume considerable effort is needed.They couldn't get ashore in Britain in the first place you fucking retard. At you would have gotten from attempting Sealion was just Dunkirk in reverse.>stop coming to these threads.Nazi Germany was an economically unstable basket case that was going to fall apart as soon as the conquests stopped.CopeSeetheDial the Number 8
>>18108612>Withouth American intervention? Totally It was a matter of time until Germany crossed La Manche, British supply lines would have been oblitarated by the Japanese withouth American intervention in the Pacific. And withouth american resources-men it was going to be an quick war of atrition. Now, the second USA got inside the war, it was over.
The Royal Navy has a terrible track record of taking losses and continuing the fight.>WW1>tasked to take the straits >take a few losses to mines>give up, leave it for the army to take over "it's their problem now">WW2>Crete>take a few losses to planes>high tail it out of there and let the island fall>East Asia>take a few losses to Japs>run like the wind "It's the Americans problem now"In conclusion, they would probably give up on the channel too after Germany sunk a few of their ships and the Home Guard would be left to defend the beaches with their brooms.
>>18114898I don't think its reasonable to use the performance of fleets in distant theaters where withdrawal/defeat was no immediate threat to the homeland.
>>18112034>The US worries about China because they are beyond the strategic range of US air power.Are you retarded, Japan, Korea? Aircraft carriers?
>>18114898>WW2>Crete>take a few losses to planes>high tail it out of there and let the island fallbetter to fight another day, and they did. Throwing away lives is how you end up like germany after barbarossa..
>>18108904The British Army after Dunkirk was vastly inferior to the Wehrmacht even in its depleted 1944 state so revise that number way down. Still beyond Germany's capabilities ofc
>>18108612>German land on the south east coast>Royal navy blocks the English channel >Germans are stuck on a hostile island with no chance of resupply or reenformentsSealion was always doomed to fail, that's why Hitler wanted to bomb Britain into submission
>>18110903>He let them go as a gesture of good willNeo-nazi cope
>>18116665>>Royal navy blocks the English channelThe British navy is the most overhyped organization in all of human history. They were getting BTFO by undermanned Japanese air squadrons. In fact, if the Germans did not move against the USSR but rather maintained its focus on Britain, the British navy would have snapped readily. >Hitler wanted to bomb Britain into submissionExcept that's not what they even did. They led retaliation raids early on, but obviously since they moved east they clearly did not want to pulverize the British completely, else they would have done it. England, Wales, and Scotland combined are smaller than most American states with its population concentrated in only four cities, with one city holding over 8 million people. Realistically, all Germany would have to do is encircle London and it would be game. Liberating Wales and Scotland and Ireland are just bonuses.
>>18116690>Japan and the English Channel are the same thing
>>18116690>just encircle London bro
>>18108642The nazis, unfortunately, ran out of fuel before they could get to dunkirk and really had no way of effectively killing the bongolians there
>>18116699You're right: the Japanese case is even crazier because they had to fight the British navy hundreds of miles from their home territory while Germany only needs to fight near its own lands. Japan had to set up shop in areas where the British had already established themselves for decades, in some cases for nearly two centuries. >>18116703Encircling London would be magnitudes easier than encircling Stalingrad, Leningrad, and attempting the Moscow approaches- obviously. You said that sarcastically but you sound stupid doing so.
>>18116715You just made that up. Fuel was not in the consideration. Rundstedt in fact argued that they should make the attack but others like Guderian insisted that because the low countries are marshy that tanks would not be able to maintain speed and trucks might get stuck off-roading. It was a geographic consideration based on case studies prepared by the German military in the interwar period. Also, there was no "Hitler VS his general staff" argument about this either, Guderian and the staff was arguing against Rundstedt.It's obvious why you keep lying about all of these things though.
>>18109793I was talking about 1940 at the time of dunkirk
>>18110680Germany had the capability to rig up a boarding ramp for a big ship, yes indeed. They could build their own if practicable but why bother. In fact the allies worked hard to deny potential landing craft to Hitler but it also wasn't a point of emphasis for the nazis. They preferred to look good in front of neutrals.
>>18116725>As it turned out, the Germans halted their advance in order to resupply their fast-moving armoured divisionseat shit, faggothttps://www.worldhistory.org/Dunkirk_Evacuation/
>>18116717>Encircling London is easy
>>18116725>It was a geographic consideration based on case studies prepared by the German militarythat's a cute way of saying WWI vets were scared of flanders fields. Strategically it only makes sense if you're still trying to curry favor with the british, which isn't a serious position unfortunately. This was one of very few opportunities to capture or destroy a british army.
>>18116786https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/254024.Panzer_LeaderHere ya go champ.
>>18116674He's right. Hitler was all about that kind of thing, it doesn't make him a genuine good guy but nazism is incredibly sentimental. It's all vibes and aesthetics.
>>18116788It would take three armies in Essex, and two armies Cornwall side. That's a fraction of what they expended against the USSR.
>>18116822>goodreadsno thanks, fag
>>18116674>>18116834Just listen to this clip of his speech about keeping women in the kitchen. You've never heard so much pathos and visceral feeling in a political speech, his normal way of talking was like someone else having a major freakout. Nobody at the time had any question, nor has it ever been questioned since that they were witnessing an historic pinnacle of populist oratory. That doesn't make him a good guy, more like a cautionary tale, but it is what it is. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x308jq6
>>18116850Read it you moron.
>>18116871not gunna, fagolio
>>18116840>two armies Cornwall side
>>18116877Why are neo-rabs so anti-intellectual?
>>18116920when did I say I was arab? I just don't like bongs
>>18116941Neo-rabbinical
