IS Seelöwe The Only Way To German Victory?

[Dave in St. Louis]

Mostlyharmless has a thread in which he states - "Everyone loves a successful Sealion as it is the only military way to achieve German victory in WW2 after 3rd September 1939."

Rather than hijack his thread, I decided to start another to present the argument that this may not the case.

Herman Wouk has Armin von Roon make the case (in War And Remembrance) that a southern or Mediterranean strategy would have worked as well. "von Roon" argues that doing the hard dirty work of cutting off the Med and concentrating on taking Malta and Gibraltar can lead to victory in North Africa and the Middle East - cutting England off from India and from Middle Eastern oil.

The claim is made that Raeder made a case for taking Gibraltar in 1940.

[cclittle]

German ships and U-Boats attempt to blockade England. Some English ships run the blockade. Others are sunk by ships or U-boats.

[B_Munro]

Originally Posted by cclittle

German ships and U-Boats attempt to blockade England. Some English ships run the blockade. Others are sunk by ships or U-boats.

Unfortunately, a full-blown blockade of the UK probably requires more resources than Germany can afford after it attacks the USSR, and anway is likely to draw the US into the war even if Hitler manages to avoid declaring war as OTL.

Now, unilaterally surrender in the undeclared naval war with the US (probably requires Hitler to have a personality change or fall down a well) don't declare war on the US (possible) and do everything _exactly_ right in fighting the USSR (an interminably disputed topic) and maybe the Germany win the war of attrition at some point, the US fails to get directly involved in Europe (might need Roosevelt's wheelchair to fall down another well) and the UK negotiates a no-losses end to its own seeming unwinnable situation...only for the Germans to get fried in a nuclear confrontation with the UK and the US in, say, 1949.

The trouble is that the Nazis were such horrible, horrible people that they couldn't help but unite the world against them - and they almost invariably got nastier and more horrible when they were winning, too. (All that stuff about European unity against the Red Menace? Only when the Germans were clearly in trouble. Earlier on, 1941, it was all "Germans say frog - everyone else jumps!") If they beat the Soviets, they would be such threatening, boastful assholes that the US couldn't help but prepare for war with them - the usual "US stays neutral" scenario is rather unlikely to last long enough for Germany to develop the nuclear arsenal that it needs to survive long-term.

Bruce

[I Blame Communism]

Lots of talk about blockade, but the fact is that the Germans did their damnedest to blockade us with U-boats and did not succeed. Any further resources put towards U-boat construction affects the land war. And as for blockading withs urface units, that's an invitation to the RN to sink them.

Originally Posted by B_Munro

do everything _exactly_ right in fighting the USSR (an interminably disputed topic) and maybe the Germany win the war of attrition at some point,

A damn fine summary here, succinct and accurate, so I just thought that as a reliable defender of Soviet prospects I'd offer my thoughts here:

Physically speaking,I do think it is possible for the German army to end the Red army as as effective modern, mobile fighting force. To do so, however, does indeed require the German was machine to be literally perfect, and that is disregard everything Klausewitz ever wrote, while at the same time making the Soviets blunder into trap after trap. For hypothetical purposes (like in Calbear's timeline) it's justifiable; but in reality the uncertainty of war means the the German will fall short of their aims eventually.

And of course, this causes Russia to become a second China. China lost both capitals, had no appreciable modern army, and had no realistic chance of evicting the enemy without foreign assistance, and yet they fought on in the face of gigantic casualties and were going to fight so long as they could equip infantry divisions. Russia will do the same. "Bitter peace" is pure bahookie when it's a question of national extermination.

[Blue Max]

Originally Posted by Dave in St. Louis

Mostlyharmless has a thread in which he states - "Everyone loves a successful Sealion as it is the only military way to achieve German victory in WW2 after 3rd September 1939."

Rather than hijack his thread, I decided to start another to present the argument that this may not the case.

Herman Wouk has Armin von Roon make the case (in War And Remembrance) that a southern or Mediterranean strategy would have worked as well. "von Roon" argues that doing the hard dirty work of cutting off the Med and concentrating on taking Malta and Gibraltar can lead to victory in North Africa and the Middle East - cutting England off from India and from Middle Eastern oil.

The claim is made that Raeder made a case for taking Gibraltar in 1940.

Hitler dies on September 4th of a drug overdose.

Goering agrees to Papal Mediation; Neville Chamberlain, offering an "Easy Peace", gets what he was looking for when Goering agrees to leave a rump Poland after an impressive display of German Military Efficiency.

Neville Chamberlain is a grossly humiliated man who is forced from office, while all eyes are on Goering, who has come to office and settled Danzig, the Corridor, and the war with the West in the span of two months.

Germany Wins.

[B_Munro]

Originally Posted by Blue Max

Hitler dies on September 4th of a drug overdose.

Goering agrees to Papal Mediation; Neville Chamberlain, offering an "Easy Peace", gets what he was looking for when Goering agrees to leave a rump Poland after an impressive display of German Military Efficiency.

Neville Chamberlain is a grossly humiliated man who is forced from office, while all eyes are on Goering, who has come to office and settled Danzig, the Corridor, and the war with the West in the span of two months.

Germany Wins.

Well, until Goering decides to distract the population from increasing economic woes by provoking a war with the USSR. I mean, the USSR is a house of cards, right?

Bruce

[Blue Max]

Originally Posted by B_Munro

Well, until Goering decides to distract the population from increasing economic woes by provoking a war with the USSR. I mean, the USSR is a house of cards, right?

Bruce

Going on a "Zero Point" ASB sort of rationale, it is fair to suggest that Hitler could die of a drug overdose and Goering dies of DUI shortly afterward.

But I think the idea of a German Victory that greatly expands the state and solves its major Post-WWI baggage is far from ASB. All we need to do for this scenario to pan out is for Germany to accept a victory that really isn't a WWII stakes level one.

Germany doesn't get to live out its insane Lebensraum fantasy, but it is far ahead of antebellum or even a Second Reich Germany. Such an outcome is entirely possible. But Germany winning all the marbles: No Way.

[Cockroach]

I guess it's a matter of how you want to define victory.

Certainly, a peace settlement in the west generally favourable to Germany (Alcase-Lorraine and much of Poland annexed, Denmark and possibly Norway reduced to puppets) is possible with a wide variety of PoDs (early demise of Hitler, crushed BEF, Churchill not becoming PM, etc.). Problem is really keeping the krauts from promptly blowing it in the East...

An outright German victory in the west (France crushed, Britian reduced to impotence or conqured, etc.) may be possible without Seelowe (or later invasion of Britain) but alternate routes -blockade, Med stratergy- really require almost everything to go the krauts' way (in the Med case it's really less a matter of Africa falling than of the RN getting crippled in the process...).

As for the Naziwankers' victory -3rd Reich from the Atlantic to the Urals- it's pretty much bonkers.

[B_Munro]

Originally Posted by Cockroach

As for the Naziwankers' victory -3rd Reich from the Atlantic to the Urals- it's pretty much bonkers.

The trouble is that Hitler _wanted_ that, so you really need to kill him off: and by 1941 his subordinates probably thought it was possible as well, so you need to kill _them_ off as well...really, the solution is in the title of this thread, which says "German Victory" rather than "Nazi Victory." Anything like OTLs Nazi Germany is essentially a machine for conquest, which must keep growing: the Nazi economic pyramid scheme would collapse if Goering did not radically cut military spending immediately after achieving peace as in Max's scenario above. But if he does that, he knows Germany is unlikely to ever get any further than it currently stands, and indeed might find itself in very deep crap if the Soviets decide to ally with the French the next round...

Bruce

[Snake Featherston]

Germany has very few means to pursue a military victory if we're talking an OTL-style scenario. One thing that might make the war a lot more dangerous and closer is if say, the Germans decide to test whether or not the Enigma Machine codes were broken. Something like the way the TL-191 Confederacy did.

If the Allies suddenly lose their biggest coup of the war, the war starts turning more in favor of the Axis. There is no 20th Century war that could be won in a single battle, save the Anglo-Zanzibar War.

[HMS Warspite]

Originally Posted by Dave in St. Louis

Mostlyharmless has a thread in which he states - "Everyone loves a successful Sealion as it is the only military way to achieve German victory in WW2 after 3rd September 1939."

Rather than hijack his thread, I decided to start another to present the argument that this may not the case.

Herman Wouk has Armin von Roon make the case (in War And Remembrance) that a southern or Mediterranean strategy would have worked as well. "von Roon" argues that doing the hard dirty work of cutting off the Med and concentrating on taking Malta and Gibraltar can lead to victory in North Africa and the Middle East - cutting England off from India and from Middle Eastern oil.

The claim is made that Raeder made a case for taking Gibraltar in 1940.

There might have been a much more reasonable way to win the war for Germany in WW2, namely by doing a much more powerfull diplomatic offensive in the 30's before hostilities actually started. Since Hitler was the primary factor in Germany in International Affairs, ithe best way to have the Germans more succesfull is by replacing him in this field by a more competent diplomat, like Rudolf Hess, who was not so radical as his master. A non NSDAP politician, or even a member of an old Weimar Republic Political stream, would have been a better solution still.

The principle thinking in this is to have the policy lead by the rules of: Divide and Conquer. Alliances are to be formed with especially Austria and the UK, before actually going to war against whoever it might be. Most likely this would be the USSR, since that part of Europe was to become the "Lebensraum" intended to home the growing German Nation's expansion. In doing so, Poland simply was in the way and needed to be invaded as well, hopefuly by non violent means, but if necessary with force. The likelyhood was however that France especially would come to Poland's aid in case of an attack.

So the priority was to seperate the UK form France in their alliance with Poland. By stalling the Suddeten Issue and foccussing on Poland first, the Appeasement policy of Chamberlain might come in handy, as Brittain was not ready for war yet politically.

Alternatively, another way of forcing up an Alliance with the Allies of the West was to provoce the USSR to attack first against Poland, or possibly Finland. This might be a reason to force an Alliance against the Bolsjevic Russians and in the mean time give the Germans a good excuse to invade Poland outright, to "Liberate" them form the Russians and move into the USSR itself for the wanted "Lebensraum". With British and hopefully French backing, this could be interpeted as legal action. SO there would be no western front in this scenario, but only one in the East, possibly a year earlier than in the OTL, making the chances of Germany better still, given the USSR's own chaos resulting from Stalin's Purches policy.

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Dave in St. Louis

The claim is made that Raeder made a case for taking Gibraltar in 1940.

While certainly a moral victory for the Germans, it doesn't put the British in any worse of a position. Beyond that requiring Spain to work (and that puts Germany in a far worse position economically), British convoys weren't going through Gibraltar. They were going around the Cape (the long, but ultimately safer way). To kick the British out of the Med., you'll need to cut off the Suez.

[Dave in St. Louis]

Originally Posted by Inquisitor Tolkien

While certainly a moral victory for the Germans, it doesn't put the British in any worse of a position. Beyond that requiring Spain to work (and that puts Germany in a far worse position economically), British convoys weren't going through Gibraltar. They were going around the Cape (the long, but ultimately safer way). To kick the British out of the Med., you'll need to cut off the Suez.

Considering that the Iraqi oil fields are the ultimate goal of this strategy (in order to reduce the vulnerability of German oil supplies from Ploesti to Russian mischief), that goes without saying. What is currently been argued over here is the set up to get to Alexandria and the Suez Canal beyond that.

[Dave in St. Louis]

Originally Posted by Inquisitor Tolkien

Beyond that requiring Spain to work (and that puts Germany in a far worse position economically),

How does this put them in a worse position economically?

[PyrrhusVictorius]

No Miracle at Dunkirk, the Germans capture over 300,000 British and French soldiers and thereby leaving England utterly defenseless. Hitler offers peace in exchange for being given a free hand on the Continent, England has no choice but to accept...

[galveston bay]

Originally Posted by PyrrhusVictorius

No Miracle at Dunkirk, the Germans capture over 300,000 British and French soldiers and thereby leaving England utterly defenseless. Hitler offers peace in exchange for being given a free hand on the Continent, England has no choice but to accept...

that would be a very heavy blow, but not necessarily a decisive one unless Halifax is PM instead of Churchill. The loss of the best part of the Army (a lot of the regulars and territorials) would cripple the British Army severely, but the Indian Army (which has a lot of regulars) is the still intact, as are most of the garrisons, including the Western Desert Force. The Canadians are already en route (a brigade or two are already in England) and there is still a considerable force in England as well (partially trained and equipped). Certainly the remainder of the BEF would be recalled (1st Armored and 51st Highlanders) as it would now be too risky to leave them in France.

Its a bad situation for Britain, but not necessarily militarily fatal. Politically however it is a far worse blow. Which could the the decisive element here.

Assuming the war goes on, certainly Churchill would not have the troops to spare for the Greek adventure and troops to spare in general would be pretty tough to come by for 1941.

[T3h_shammy]

Originally Posted by PyrrhusVictorius

No Miracle at Dunkirk, the Germans capture over 300,000 British and French soldiers and thereby leaving England utterly defenseless. Hitler offers peace in exchange for being given a free hand on the Continent, England has no choice but to accept...

Defenseless except for....