Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
OPERATION SEALION
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by KIWIDOCTOR (U3274572) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
If germany had invaded england .would there had been a resistance movement like in france/holland/greece , how would the commenwelth helped , what would have happened to the king and his family
-
Message 2
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
Yes, I imagine there would have been a lot of resistance fighters.
It's hard to know what the Commonwealth countries could have done to help. Most of them were already involved in the war.
I think there were plans to evacuate the Royal Family to Canada if there had been an invasion. -
Message 3
Posted by ungodfather (U2173708) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
Actually the chances of Germany making a successful opposed invasion were nil, even if that wasn't clear at the time. The RN, with or without fighter cover, would have left the would-be invaders stranded (all be it at huge cost in ships and men).
However, the chances of a morale collapse were much greater - the decision to back Churchill and continue to resist was a close run thing.
So the most likely scenario - really the only scenario - for a German take over is following a negotiated surrender or peace deal with Halifax as PM.
So any resistance would have been unofficial, viewed as terrorism. The King would probably have had to abdicate as the price of peace - maybe Edward VIII would have been brought back as a legitimate monarch but compliant Nazi sympathiser.
The Commonwealth would have been left to look after itself - maybe it would still have played some role vs the Japanese, maybe not unless directly threatened. -
Message 4
Posted by MB (U177470) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
There were stay-behind networks, one for sabotage and the other for intelligence gathering. The Auxiliary Units did not expect to survive more than a few weeks but parts of the intelligence gathering network could have last longer.
There are a number of books on the subject, this is perhaps the best.
With Britain in Mortal Danger: Britain's Secret Army
MB -
Message 5
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
I pretty much agree with ungodfather.
But assuming the Germans did launch operation sealion in 1940 and assuming that it was successful then we have a whole host of possible scenarios.
For a start there would of course have been a resistance as well as plenty of collaboration.
But the resistance would have been less than was actually seen in occupied Europe.
Mainly because the resistance was funded and organised largely from a free nation with links to other allied nations, that nation was of course Britain. Without a free Britain and without any other possible European based outside source of weapons and backing it is very doubtful that any European resistance could have achieved a great deal.
The British commonwealth/Empire would of course have tried to aid Britain, but they simply did not have the industrial strength to have conducted any military operations to free Britain.
But it is documented that Hitler considered the British Empire vital for world affairs, and possibly there could have been a German backed British Empire fighting the Japanese, or maybe not?
I think the King and Queen would not have survived the invasion, along with Churchill and many others they would have been killed fighting or as soon as they were captured.
From comments made by the Queen mother it is obvious that the King would not have gone to Canada and she would not have left the King and the two princesses would have stayed and met the same end.
The new German backed regime would probably have invited Edward and Simpson to take over as heads of state, something I am sure they would have relished.
But of course on the bright side at least we would have had 60 glorious years of a unified Europe and any of them silly EU sceptic would long ago have been sent to the death camps.
So in fact the world would be pretty much as it is now but we would all face being transported to the camps for daring to hold a point of view. -
Message 6
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
she said
"The children will not leave unless I do so. I shall not leave unless their father does and the King will not leave the country in any circumstances whatever."
upon being asked to go to canada with the girls for their safety
any resistance would have been short lived - the bullets would have run out and there was nowhere to get more - although there were lots (esp in kent) of underground hideouts prepared with trained personnel (interestingly, mostly local civilians - NOT military)
st -
Message 7
Posted by Taffnp (U9933321) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
There were a great number of underground bunkers constructed and equipped. The plan was to move parliament and the PM further inland and the Royal family were going to be evacuated to Canada.
After the initial invasion, the small cells in the bunkers would carry out sabotage on the German supplies etc.
Of course for the Germans to even attempt any invasion, they required air superiority and secondly our home fleet would have destroyed them. Failing that there were plans to pump petrol into the sea and set it on fire. -
Message 8
Posted by Lee (U8097024) on Thursday, 29th November 2007
A few years ago, the T.V company for Kent, screened a documentary about the "stay behind units"(Auxiliary units as already stated),
They interviewed the surviving members,most of these were farmers,They knew the lay of the land,ie the best place to put your "hideout", ambushes etc,In the woods around the Village I was living in at the time,(Barham?Kinkston)they found many very badly run down hideouts,some with the bunk beds still in place,and the required 2nd emergency exit,still ready for the day when the enemy got to near! -
Message 9
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 30th November 2007
Actually the chances of Germany making a successful opposed invasion were nil, even if that wasn't clear at the time. The RN, with or without fighter cover, would have left the would-be invaders stranded (all be it at huge cost in ships and men).
However, the chances of a morale collapse were much greater - the decision to back Churchill and continue to resist was a close run thing.Μύ
Good points ungodfather.
Although there was no serious German policy to invade Britain there were basic contingency plans drawn up by the Wehrmacht.
These included a landing of paratroopers in Dover, Folkestone and Ramsgate to seize the docks. These paratroopers were also to act as something of a diversionary action as the main amphibious landings were simultaneously to be made around Deal. The troops coming ashore at Deal would then rush north and south to relieve the paratroopers in the 3 ports.
Once a bridgehead had been established the Wehrmacht commanders would then direct operations from Ramsgate. (The plans were so detailed that they had even pre-selected St Augustine's monastery in the town to house their headquarters.)
Without giving the British time to draw breath, further paratroop landings would be made south of London. A large group would land on Shooters Hill, Woolwich. This group would then split in 2 with a sub-group tasked with launching an aggressive attack on the artillery barracks and military academy on Woolwich Common while the other sub-group would secure the strategic heights of Shooters Hill itself.
Armed with mortars and heavy machine guns, they would then sit tight and wait for relief from the main force charging up the A2 with tanks and heavy artillery pieces. The Wehrmacht reckoned that if they could get some heavy artillery on to Shooters Hill then it would be all over for London's defenders. They were probably right. It's no coincidence that the Royal Artillery is located at Shooters Hill and that the hill is so named. It affords a commanding view north and west across the whole city.
Winston Churchill had said that 'the vast mass of London itself, fought street by street, could easily devour an entire hostile army.' Maybe - but a few pieces of Krupp hardware on Shooters Hill would almost certainly have seen the whole city quickly capitulate before it came to that. -
Message 10
Posted by MB (U177470) on Friday, 30th November 2007
There is no doubt that the Germans could have landed paratroopers in Southern England but getting tanks and heavy artillery across the Channel then landing them is much more difficult. They did not have the purpose built landing craft that were used later in the war, just modified river barges.
MB -
Message 11
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Friday, 30th November 2007
The revised sealion plan that the German army and navy agreed on envisioned landing 138,000 troops in the first wave and by D-Day plus 14 there would have been 248,000 men ashore, including an entire Panzer division. (from Peter Schenkβs βThe Invasion of England 1940β)
The converted barges and pontoons would not of course have been as good as dedicated landing craft, but they could have transported tanks and heavy artillery. Casualties would have been high but in the practise exercises the system worked, sort of.
The difference between operation Sealion and the Normandy invasion in 1944 was of course considerable. But the defences were also very different, Germany had built massive defences over four years using millions of men, whereas Britain had a couple of months and very little in the way of troops to defend the coast.
Most of the British army had lost all its equipment in France and what was left was hardly worthy having.
If the Germans could have got the troops across the channel intact they stood a good chance of defeating the British army in battle.
Of course it is very doubtful that they could have got across the channel against the considerable might of the Royal navy and the Royal Air Force.
But the question was what if the invasion had succeeded?
In that respect I think the resistance would have been limited after the army had been defeated.
Yes the stay behind groups would have inflicted some casualties and fighting would have been fierce, but once the battle had been won and the Germans controlled Britain there would have been very little point in a resistance.
European resistance movements operated in the hope of liberation and were funded and supplied from Britain, there was a point in resisting, and there was a chance of winning. But just as when the Soviets occupied Eastern Europe, if there is no base of resistance and no prospect of liberation then why risk fighting the occupying forces?
Yes obviously some did resist the soviets, there were even revolts and uprisings but without outside assistance or the prospect of liberation the resistance was futile.
I think that is the attitude that most would have been forced to accept within Britain, once the fighting was over and the Germans were in control what was to be gained by open armed resistance? -
Message 12
Posted by Shaz519 (U2827975) on Friday, 30th November 2007
Len Deighton wrote SS GB a novel about Britain under Nazi occupation. Churchill was shot, the King was sickly and kept in the tower. Britains assets and financial reserves were shipped off to Canada.The only hope was with the Americans who were tricked into supporting us, when they thought it was pointless.
He didnt go into too much detail about the actual invasion, the veterans reminisced about how bad the the first wave had it.
If that had happened, wouldnt the Empire come to Britain's help, as opposed to the US? Australia, Canada, South Africa, NZ, what would there interests be? Were they loyal to the Empire or prefer to be neutral?
The nation that supplied most troops, was India. Would they be willing to fight for the British to continue ruling them? Or would they take the opportunity to gain their indipendence? What about the African colonies?
Didnt France have her colonies mainly in Africa to help her resistance? They didnt become 'occupied' one France fell did they? -
Message 13
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 1st December 2007
There is no doubt that the Germans could have landed paratroopers in Southern England but getting tanks and heavy artillery across the Channel then landing them is much more difficult. They did not have the purpose built landing craft that were used later in the war, just modified river barges.Μύ
Yes.
After the war, the head of the Luftwaffe fighter section, Adolph Galland, described the preparations for Operation Sealion as 'just about ridiculous'. -
Message 14
Posted by Scarboro (U2806863) on Saturday, 1st December 2007
Australia, Canada, South Africa, NZ, what would there interests be? Were they loyal to the Empire or prefer to be neutral?
Μύ
Canada had declared war on Germany in September 1939, and in June 1940 had 2 divisions in Britain, including an armored division that actually had tanks to fight with.
Canada would have been in the fight to the end. I think the same can be said of Australia and New Zealand.
Cheers
Brian -
Message 15
Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Saturday, 1st December 2007
From interviews conducted amongst the survivors and those who would have been involved in the the proposed German invasion of Britain it would seem that Hitler never really intended to invade the UK. The whole thing was a smokescreen for covering the preparations for invading Russia.
Some 20 years ago, a couple of the surviving WW2 German General staff played out the whole idea on the Sandhurst war games board and concluded that although, assuming very good weather conditions, perhaps 10,000 men and their immediate equipment could have been landed.
With an undamaged RN in Scap Flow no reinforcements or supllies would have reached the invading army.The General Staff seem to have appreciated this and the original plans for invading Russia continued under the invasion smokescreen.. -
Message 16
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 1st December 2007
Interesting points terakunene.
It can also be said that it was the threat of invasion, rather than actual invasion, which the Germans hoped would end the war in the West.
They probably reckoned that the threat of invasion would strengthen the peace party in Britain. It seems, however, that this actually had the opposite effect. -
Message 17
Posted by Scarboro (U2806863) on Sunday, 2nd December 2007
But the question was what if the invasion had succeeded?
In that respect I think the resistance would have been limited after the army had been defeated.
Yes the stay behind groups would have inflicted some casualties and fighting would have been fierce, but once the battle had been won and the Germans controlled Britain there would have been very little point in a resistance.
Μύ
I am always surprised when people underestimate the passion of the British people. Maybe it has something to do with that "stiff upper lip" stereotype. The russina fought fiercely in defense of Leningrad and Stalingrad, even in the face of a string of disasters. What makes anyone think the British would be any less fierce in defense of their homes?
Past practise is the best predictor of future behaviour. In 1940 Britian did not have a track record of backing down from a fight.
Having said that, I do agree that had Britain fallen, any future invasion of Britain or Europe would have been very unlikely.
The question that I always come back to is what made Hitler feel it was afe to invade Russia while still at war with Britain?
Regards
brian -
Message 18
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Monday, 10th December 2007
In 1974, some of those who were still alive, and who had originally been involved in the original plans for Operation Sealion,(from both sides) held a series of war-games to try and determine what would have been the outcome had Germany tried to invade. The outcome was that the defenses were so intricate and well placed across the whole of the South East, even as far north as Hull, that had the Germans even have successfully landed, they would have been descimated at each and every line of defence as they tried to make their way towards the capital. The outcome of these war-games concluded that Operation Sealion could only have been a disaster for the Hun.
There was a scheme, however, during the Blitz,and again during the V1-V2 rocket attacks, to move the Royal Family and even the Government to somewhere like Gloucestershire, but of course, it never came to that. Churchill was noted for bouts of depression at this time, so it is impossible to know how many of these suggested schemes were simply the result of his woes. -
Message 19
Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Monday, 10th December 2007
Intersting point. There was a British "Maginot Line" built across Midlands UK, based on pillboxes and which has now been traced on the ground.
The Ultra intercepts of the German messages seem to make it quite clear that British government were reasonably well aware that invasion was unlikely. -
Message 20
Posted by brianwood1938 (U10430883) on Monday, 10th December 2007
Had Germany not divided it's forces against Russia and this country, We could not have repelled his whole armed force.
-
Message 21
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Monday, 10th December 2007
Scarboro,
I'm sure that the British would have fought bravely and doggedly to defend their homes and towns against German invaders.
But Britain had neither the manpower to throw millions of men into the fray, however poorly equipped, nor the inhumanity to forbid them to retreat in the face of unimaginable losses.
Certainly I don't think British commanders would have machine gunned their own men to stop them retreating. -
Message 22
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 10th December 2007
Intersting point. There was a British "Maginot Line" built across Midlands UK, based on pillboxes and which has now been traced on the ground.
Μύ
There were actually a series of "stop lines" with chains of pillboxes and gun positions using natural defensive features like railway lines and canals.
MB -
Message 23
Posted by AgProv2 (U538194) on Monday, 10th December 2007
Didn't France have her colonies mainly in Africa to help her resistance? They didnt become 'occupied' one France fell did they?Μύ
Apparently French colonies were deeply divided on this, to the extent that the only time in its history that Foreign Legion troops fired on each other in anger was during the invasion of Syria, where Free French and British troops moved in to tip out a pro-Vichy colonial administration. FFL units were present on both sides in that brief battle.
In Africa, French colonies in the sub-Saharan belt (Chad, Upper Volta) were pro-British and offered help to British forces operating at the outer extent of their mobility, such as the LRDG and SAS: without refuelling and reprovisioning stops in friendly French territory, Britain's long-distance commandoes might not have had such an effective war. However, Algeria, whilst theoretically neutral, was pro-Vichy and pro German/Italian, offering assistance to Rommel whilst being hostile to British interests. A Royal Navy pilot called Charles Lamb wrote after the war about flying covert missions into Algeria to drop off "agents". On his last mission, his plane crashed, and he and his aircrew then spent eighteen months in an internment camp for British military personnel which was only one step up from being a concentration camp. Whilst British military personnel straying into Algeria were routinely interned, German and Italian troops were under no such restriction. The Algerian administration therefore broke international law on many counts, something taken into account when British and American forces captured the country in 1943.
Most French colonies around the world were forced to choose: to support the Vichy administration and effectively become part of the Nazi axis, or to throw their lot in with the Free French. If Britain had fallen, it's sobering to reflect that our own colonial administrations around the world would have had to make similar choices... -
Message 24
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Tuesday, 11th December 2007
The key to any successful invasion was based on successful air control. Having to land infantry, and even Tanks and the like, without adequate air support would have been a disaster fro the Germans. Furthermore, where as the Germans 'might have had' four years to defend the whole Atlantic Wall. All of these defences were built in lands they had occupied, and were sporadic in places. the defence of Britain waw, of course, undertaken by the people who had a vested interest in the defence of the realm. Although I sometimes wonder, would the Scots have argued for a seperate peace?
-
Message 25
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Tuesday, 11th December 2007
Hitler had a very narrow window of opportunity to launch his invasion. That was immediately after Dunkirk. Unfortunately he had the rest of France to subjugate. He then had to reassemble, organise and train his troops for an amphibious assault. He also had to collect the appropriate shipping to take them over, provide adequate naval and air cover to protect them on the slow travel across.
His navy was inadequate to the task for several months. His airforce fought and lost the Battle of Britain.
The British grew stonger month by month. They had plenty of troops merely had to rearm them which they did.
After September it was too late. The British would be too strong, Hitler did not have control of the air nor of the sea. The winter storms would arrive -
Message 26
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 11th December 2007
Although I sometimes wonder, would the Scots have argued for a seperate peace?
Μύ
I have seen some suggestions that some of the Scots in the army thought the opposite and the English would surrender leaving them to carry on fighting.
Much or the pioneering work on irregular warfare was led by Scots or people with Scottish connections and centred on Lochailort.
MB -
Message 27
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Tuesday, 11th December 2007
You are of course in one way correct. The UK could not have faced Hitler's entire army, we didn't have the manpower.
However, the flaw in that argument is, how do you expect him to get them ALL over to the UK.
Coming over in dribs and drabs would have meant that they would have been defeated in detail.- See the German General Halder's comments on that idea! -
Message 28
Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Tuesday, 11th December 2007
It's a lawyers dream.
The Free French considered that they hadn't surrendered to the Germans.
The vichy French were a whole new government formed after the collapse of the previous government which had signed a peace treaty with the Germans. Therefore the Vichy government were a nuetral government.
Troops supporting either side were technically legally entitled to fire on each other -
Message 29
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Friday, 14th December 2007
JMB, my comment wasn't aimed at insulting the Scots. Ive based the comment 'Would the Scots argue for a seperate peace@ on what actually happend in France. If Britain had successfully been invaded as far north as London. (As a northerner, that isn't very far north to me. I greatly doubt that the territories of Britain, not immediately under Nazi control, would simply give up the fight. However, As a Northerner, I realise, that the only realistic chance that my 'Forefathers' would have had, was if Scotland came in on their side. Would Scotland fight for terrirories that they weren't directly responsible for? Or would Scotland see it better suited their own defence plans, to only defend that territory which was part of Scotland.?
-
Message 30
Posted by MB (U177470) on Friday, 14th December 2007
I have no problem with insulting the Scots, I am not one!
There have been comments in several books that I have read that some of the Scots in the army did not trust the English and thought they might surrender.
Similarly some of the Jewish internees on the Isle of Man thought the British might surrender and just hand them over to the invading Germans.
Incidentally, there were some papers released from the PRO which showed planning for the possibility of the Soviets occupying either the Western Isles or Northern Isles to use as a base for an attack on the UK mainland. The plans were for local TA units to become a stay-behind unit though I don't think they ever got past the planning stage.
MB -
Message 31
Posted by VESTURIS (U10660293) on Saturday, 15th December 2007
Let us face it out there as long as Canada was
on side the outcome was never in doubt.
Seriously though were my neighbours to the south
basically seeking a chance to profit from the
troubles of Great Britain. -
Message 32
Posted by dmatt43 (U7656541) on Sunday, 16th December 2007
I notice you mention only an invasion of England and I am sure the Scots would have put a fight to protect the UK, they had after all planned for the invasion of Napoleon and were less likely to be affected by German bombing because of distance than London was. I believe that countries Australia and New Zealand may have found it difficult to help the UK, Australians were trying to protect their country from Japan.
I am not sure about the reference to moving prominent people to Gloucestershire, since the German spies were captured and false reports were sent back to Germany saying the V1s were falling short of London, so by increasing the range would end up en route to Gloucestershire, defeating the object. I suppose we could have had a government in exile like the Dutch, Belgians and Poles, but the situation in the Channel Islands was a precedent. -
Message 33
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 16th December 2007
Might I recommend David Lampe's `The Last Ditch, published 1968. This describes the Auxiliary Units of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Guard which remained secret well after the end of the war. Mention of the Auxiliary Units also appears in Peter Fleming's `Invasion 1940', published in 1958.
My late father who had been involved in the round up of those German nationals who were less inclined to turn themselves over to the authorities in the early stages on 1940, was drafted into the arrangements for a post-invasion resistance in London. He was rather inarticulate on the matter but it seemed to revolve around turning London into a killing ground and, if worse came to worst, `taking one with you'.
He hated the Nazis and when it became apparent they were not going to come to a party in England he joined up with SOE and went out to set Europe ablaze. -
Message 34
Posted by MB (U177470) on Sunday, 16th December 2007
The Last Ditch was written quite a time ago, "With Britain in Mortal Danger" by John Warwicker is more up to date and has much more information.
MB -
Message 35
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Monday, 17th December 2007
dmatt43.
Well no, it might not have been Gloucestershire, but there was definately a plan to evacuate the Royal Family and the government if the threat on London became critical. The idea was that a policeman, would knock on the door of some country pile out in the sticks, tell the occupants that they had 30 minutes to evacuate, without being given the 'Why's and wherefores...'
and unbeknown to the peoples of Tewksbury, the King would be their new next door neighbour.
Of course, thing s didn't become so critical. -
Message 36
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 17th December 2007
Wasn't Madresfield Court identified as the place where the two Princesses would be evacuated to? The owners appear to have been aware of this.
They immediately drew up "provisional arrangements" to spirit the two princesses to Madresfield Court, just outside Malvern. There, they would be kept in the home of the Earl and Countess Beauchamp until King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, their parents, joined them from Buckingham Palace.
Μύ
Food supplies had been taken to the house in unmarked lorries in the weeks after war broke out, when it first became clear to the Palace that it should make plans for the possible evacuation of the Royal Family. The supplies were stored in the vast cellars of the moated stately home.
Μύ
It is believed that similar arrangements were planned during the Cold War under Operation CANDID, the house was not named but it seems to have been in the same general area.
MB -
Message 37
Posted by schuhbox4 (U10370736) on Monday, 17th December 2007
First off, I'll agree with others that there was a very low probability of a successful invasion for the same reasons they have sited; lack of air superiority and the Royal Navy. But that doesn't change the fact it seemed a very real possibility in 1940. In letters and cables to FDR, Churchill suggested that should Britain be invaded he would try to send the Royal Navy to Canada and continue the fight from there with the help of the Commonwealth. But Churchill and American planners also knew there were problems with that scenario. First, it would have been extremely unlikely that Germany would have agreed to any treaty that left the Royal Navy intact and not under German control. WC even hinted darkly to FDR that the Fleet under German control would be a menace to the US and American commerce. Secondly, though I doubt not their spirit, the problem is that it is doubtful what effect the Commonwealth could have had on the situation. Others have mentioned that perhaps the largest obstacle to any resistance movement in Britain would have been a lack of war material. It is hard to imagine the Commonwealth being much help in that regard. The US would have been the only possible source capable of supplying arms in sufficient numbers to be of any real help. I do believe an invasion of Britain would have spurred the American people to action and since FDR was waiting for the chance to act, I think it quite likely the US would have become involved soon after the invasion.
I am quite surprised to hear a number of people suggest any resistance in Britain would have been short lived. I really have a hard time imagining the Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English peoples giving in to Hitler. How effective the resistance might be is certainly debatable, but I have to believe the partisan movement would not have died easily. In a book I recently read on WC, it mentioned that at the time of the Normandy invasion, not a single German division was detailed to fighting the resistance movements in Europe, though some obviously must have been detailed to occupation. I thus also wonder how many troops the Germans could have detailed to occupying the country. Hitler certainly would have turned on Russia almost immediately after any victory in Britain and the vast majority of German troops would have been detailed to that endeavor. -
Message 38
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 18th December 2007
It depends a bit, I suppose, on when the invasion would have happened. If it could have been done immediately after the defeat of France, then the Nazis could have profited from their aura of glory and success, as well as still widespread anti-war feeling. There were enough people in conservative and ultra-conservative circles who willingly embraced Nazism and Fascism as a defense against the feared communists and socialists. It would have been possible to form a collaborationist semi-neutral government, in the style of Vichy. (Churchill had few illusions about this.)
Hitler was willing to let Britain retain its colonial empire, which would have been enough for some people; and his anti-democratic, anti-semitic doctrines were quite popular in the late 1930s. Even today there are people who argued that the UK should have reached a deal with Hitler in 1940, to be able to better retain its Empire.
In that case, there would have been resistance, but as in other occupied countries, this could have taken the form of violence between pro-Nazi and anti-Nazi groups, with the Germans in the relatively comfortable position of spectators.
However, after the German bombing and defensive successes in the battle of England, German hopes for a successful occupation were much less. And not just in a military sense; the bombs created a sense of unity and actually improved morale. War was no longer a sideshow on the continent that some people preferred to ignore, war happened at home. If an invasion had happened in 1941, it would have found more resistance and less collaboration than in 1940. There probably would have been no credible collaborationist government, no peace deal, and no surrender of the fleet or the colonies.
Of course, resistance would have been problematic without supplies. The British and later also American services did what they could to supply the resistance movements on the continent with equipment and weapons, and were major consumers of the intelligence generated by them. Supplying a resistance movement from the US or Canada would be a different story altogether. By ship it would have been too easy to intercept, by submarine only coastal sites could be reached, and there were no aircraft that could cross the ocean, drop supplies and fly back. (The US did actually start design work on an true intercontinental bomber for use in the case Britain was occupied, but it did not enter service until after WWII, as the B-36.) -
Message 39
Posted by hambi22 (U2309395) on Tuesday, 18th December 2007
"In that case, there would have been resistance, but as in other occupied countries, this could have taken the form of violence between pro-Nazi and anti-Nazi groups, with the Germans in the relatively comfortable position of spectators. "
Mutati,
in which occupied countries, were there violance between the pro-nazi ansd anti-nazi? -
Message 40
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Tuesday, 18th December 2007
I notice you mention only an invasion of England and I am sure the Scots would have put a fight to protect the UK, they had after all for the invasion of Napoleon and were less likely to be affected by German bombing because of distance than LondonΜύ
Couple of things.
Britain was to be invaded, but the first likely landing would be in England. You must excuse some people who forget that England is just part of the UK. There was no English army, not even a Scottish army, just the British Army, whose makeup is irrevocably mingled between the various people of the UK - even the Irish Republic. It's worth noting that most battalions although designated 'Scottish' 'Welsh' or 'English' are usually a mixture of the various parts of the UK, especially well into a world war when the forces become flooded with civilians.
Scotland and the North of England were well within range of the Luftwaffe, mainly from those units based in Scandanavia.
It would be interseting to know though, how far the Govt really intended to 'fight them on the beaches' etc or would have thrown in the towel if the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Counties went under.
I would hope that we would have resisted all the way up the country. -
Message 41
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 18th December 2007
Re: message 39.
hambi,
France for instance?
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 42
Posted by hambi22 (U2309395) on Tuesday, 18th December 2007
Hi Paul,
that is not quite god example. The vichi france was not ocupied country. Then when the free france force fought in Syria, the were not fought alone but together with Britisch.
But ok , that is one country were fought the pro-nazi and anti-nazi.
May be the Yugoslawien could be the second, but that is all.
But in this case of Yugoslawia were the German surely not only the spectators.
best regards
Hambi -
Message 43
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 18th December 2007
Re: Message 42.
Hambi,
three fifths of France were occupied territory, only 2/5 in the South were Vichy France.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 44
Posted by vera1950 (U9920163) on Sunday, 23rd December 2007
hi, I am no expert on the what may have been.
It is all so much conjecture ,pick any scenario you ike and it would have as much merit as the next one.
It appears to me that although Britain feared the threat of invasion,the threat was greater than the possibility.
Hitler did not really wish to subjugate
Britain but would have preferred to negotiate with Britain,when it became apparent that negotiation was out of the question it was necessary to wound Britain into a treaty of some kind.
Hitler ,mad though he was,would know that succesful invasion did not mean succesful occupation. It would have been a masive effort to keep supplied and to maintain co-operation of the natives as well as continuing to fight in the other theatres at the same time .Britain was Germanys 'bridge too far''.
It is also not to be thught that Britain in all of its regions ,would not have fought tooth and nail against the invader.I have more faith in our predecessors than to right off their tenacity, despite all the odds.
Vera
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.