What If Germany Won World War 2?

[Great Nepal]

If Normandy had failed, we would have actually committed enough troops to Italy, and entered Germany from below

Britain alone would never be able to do that, and US main threat is Japan not Germany... so US and Germany would rather sign agreement that US will withdraw it support to Britain and will never support it again and Germany withdraws it support to Japan. And USSR as I already said would be much larger as it would make peace in its own terms.

By Normandy, it was very unlikley that the Allies would have stopped for any reason. Japan was unable to launch any kind of attack agains the United States and it was important to both the US and the UK to capture as much of Germany as possible in order to prevent the Soviets from establishing satelites all the way to the Atlantic. The war with Germany was conducted with future conflict with Russia in mind.

US's danger = Japan.
US didnt had to care for USSR, the whole cold war was nothing but madness for no reason.Also US supported Britain cos the president wanted to support democracies and clause of allies. But if Normady landing would have failed, Japan's expansion would go uncontrolled in Pacific - main danger against US... so US would make peace with Hitler on term that US wont support allies and Germany wont support Japan. Of course Britain wont be able to do anything alone.. USSR would make peace - but on there terms.

[Mikedor]

If Normandy had failed, we would have actually committed enough troops to Italy, and entered Germany from below

Britain alone would never be able to do that, and US main threat is Japan not Germany... so US and Germany would rather sign agreement that US will withdraw it support to Britain and will never support it again and Germany withdraws it support to Japan. And USSR as I already said would be much larger as it would make peace in its own terms.

By Normandy, it was very unlikley that the Allies would have stopped for any reason. Japan was unable to launch any kind of attack agains the United States and it was important to both the US and the UK to capture as much of Germany as possible in order to prevent the Soviets from establishing satelites all the way to the Atlantic. The war with Germany was conducted with future conflict with Russia in mind.

US's danger = Japan.
US didnt had to care for USSR, the whole cold war was nothing but madness for no reason.Also US supported Britain cos the president wanted to support democracies and clause of allies. But if Normady landing would have failed, Japan's expansion would go uncontrolled in Pacific - main danger against US... so US would make peace with Hitler on term that US wont support allies and Germany wont support Japan. Of course Britain wont be able to do anything alone.. USSR would make peace - but on there terms.

Nu-uh.


Normandy had little to no effect on the Pacific, and they would have tried again.

And USSR could never have made peace with Germany, that was a war to the end.

[Great Nepal]

If Normandy had failed, we would have actually committed enough troops to Italy, and entered Germany from below

Britain alone would never be able to do that, and US main threat is Japan not Germany... so US and Germany would rather sign agreement that US will withdraw it support to Britain and will never support it again and Germany withdraws it support to Japan. And USSR as I already said would be much larger as it would make peace in its own terms.

By Normandy, it was very unlikley that the Allies would have stopped for any reason. Japan was unable to launch any kind of attack agains the United States and it was important to both the US and the UK to capture as much of Germany as possible in order to prevent the Soviets from establishing satelites all the way to the Atlantic. The war with Germany was conducted with future conflict with Russia in mind.

US's danger = Japan.
US didnt had to care for USSR, the whole cold war was nothing but madness for no reason.Also US supported Britain cos the president wanted to support democracies and clause of allies. But if Normady landing would have failed, Japan's expansion would go uncontrolled in Pacific - main danger against US... so US would make peace with Hitler on term that US wont support allies and Germany wont support Japan. Of course Britain wont be able to do anything alone.. USSR would make peace - but on there terms.

Nu-uh.


Normandy had little to no effect on the Pacific, and they would have tried again.

And USSR could never have made peace with Germany, that was a war to the end.

Why the hell would US kill its men and pour its huge resources for nothing?

And USSR had got so huge human looses, economy had been destroyed so they would agree to peace, on there terms.

[Jusela]

If Normandy had failed, we would have actually committed enough troops to Italy, and entered Germany from below

Britain alone would never be able to do that, and US main threat is Japan not Germany... so US and Germany would rather sign agreement that US will withdraw it support to Britain and will never support it again and Germany withdraws it support to Japan. And USSR as I already said would be much larger as it would make peace in its own terms.

That is just nuts!
The allies and the axis fought a total war, meaning that there was no such thing as "withdrawing" the support you're providing to your allied-in-arms. You had nations fully mobilised and fighting a war with all the manpower they could muster. Either you win or you lose, there is no middle ground.
Besides, the German-Japanese alliance was pretty much symbolic in terms of "support" exchanged between the two nations. Mostly because that these two nations are like seperated by several oceans, and the allies held total supremacy at sea, so sending any form of support or equipment just doesn't work.
It just wouldn't make any sense at all to have the US signing an agreement with a Germany that they absolutely hate, withdrawing their support for Britain, while asking the Germans to withdraw their support for the Japanese.. If Overlord would have failed, then the western allies would have come up with a different plan, as Mikedor suggested, maybe a push on the Italian front.

By Normandy, it was very unlikley that the Allies would have stopped for any reason. Japan was unable to launch any kind of attack agains the United States and it was important to both the US and the UK to capture as much of Germany as possible in order to prevent the Soviets from establishing satelites all the way to the Atlantic. The war with Germany was conducted with future conflict with Russia in mind.

Illithar, what you wrote is completly true yes. The rather cynic reason behind Overlord was to prevent Soviet domination over Europe after the expected German collapse.

US's danger = Japan.

Ever heard of the "Germany/Europe first" grand strategy adopted by the US? The US's main foe was Germany, not Japan, in terms of resources devoted to respective fronts.

US didnt had to care for USSR, the whole cold war was nothing but madness for no reason.Also US supported Britain cos the president wanted to support democracies and clause of allies.

The whole Cold War was "nothing but madness"? What? On one side you had a democratic world, filled with free nations, while on the other side you had an oppressive communist empire. I dont really understand what you mean by saying that it was "madness for no reason", but from my point of view, there is plenty of reasons and meaning in the Cold War, and thankfully the good guys won.

But if Normady landing would have failed, Japan's expansion would go uncontrolled in Pacific - main danger against US...

LOLWUT???

By June the 6th 1944, the US navy both outclassed and outnumbered the IJN, the japs had been on retreat/defensive all the time since Midway. No chance in hell they'd be capable of suddenly spawning ten aircraft carriers and go on the offensive. Besides, a few weeks later, the two navies clashed in the Philippine Sea, leaving the IJN completely in tatters.

USSR would make peace - but on there terms.

No they wouldn't. The USSR was more than capable of crushing Germany alone. Communism and Fascism cant coexist peacefully on the same continent. The thought of Stalin signing a peace treaty with Germany after three years of horrible war and millions of dead just isn't possible. The only way to end the war was to either parade through the streets of Berlin.

Why the hell would US kill its men and pour its huge resources for nothing?

For nothing? I think they'd try again because they truly believed in the fact that they were fighting evil itself.

And USSR had got so huge human looses, economy had been destroyed so they would agree to peace, on there terms.

No buddy. Nothing's stopping the USSR short of a total collapse, and it was Germany that was closer to a total collapse than the USSR.

ooo first post

[Wolffbaden]

As far as the actual outcome of the war is concerned, had the Germans invaded the British Isles under Operation Sea Lion, let the Italians handle the remaining French and British forces in Africa, and concentrated forces they had previously used on Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and their troops in the Afrika Korps on Russia, there is no doubt in my mind that they could have won, particularly during the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa.

The only real particular disadvantage the Germans had with the Russians was that they were poorly equipped for the harsh winters there. True, they lost 3.9 million men by December 1941, but the Soviet's lost 3.2 million and in just two months another 5 million. It really by that time came down to a contest between each side of how many men they could lose vs. how quickly they could replace them. Had the Germans had more men to spare, undoubtedly they could have held out through the winter and advanced farther into Soviet territory, possibly convincing Japan to attack them on the Far Eastern Front, by pushing up through China.

There were also, of course, the Finns fighting the Russians at the exact same time the Germans were. And they were a force to be reckoned with in the Winter War, which they effectively won under Mannerheim's leadership.

It's more or less then a problem of breaking the enemy's spirit and will to fight. The Soviet Union nearly collapsed by the time the Germans had advanced to Stalingrad in 1942, crossing the Don, Volga, and spreading their troops out into the Caucasus. Leningrad was surrounded, the Germans were right at the gates of Moscow, Rostov had fallen, and they were marching right towards Kursk, mounting for the 1943 battle there.

What the real focus of the Germans should have been in the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa were equipment and mobilization: the equipment necessary to survive the winter and keep your vehicles, weapons, and tools functional; more mobility to cover greater areas of ground faster and more effectively. As time progressed when the Soviets started digging in more and more (like they did at Kursk), the biggest mistake the Germans made at that point was not doing the same. Really, the only point when they actually started creating elaborate defensive positions against the Russians (comparable to the trench systems of the Great War) was around the time of the Battle of Seelow Heights, when it was pretty evident that it was just a question of how long they could hold out for and not when the final victory would come.

The one thing that can be said for the Germans, however, is that in practically every major battle they fought in against the Russians, they lost fewer men, fewer tanks, fewer aircraft, and fewer guns. The worst thing about that was that their production que focused too much on quality, and not necessarily so much on quantity, whereas the Soviets were less industrially concerned about manufacturing weapons, vehicles, and equipment on the grounds of quality and more concerned about quantity.

Basically, in my own interpretation, the best hope the Germans had of defeating the Soviets was breaking their spirit and will to fight. If they had done this, I think large sectors of the army simply would have deserted and gone home. Definitely some forces would have stayed in service and continued fighting, but they probably would have been so small they would have made no real difference. It would more than likely then degenerate into a guerrilla war, with it only being a matter of time and patience before the country was completely overrun.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

As far as the actual outcome of the war is concerned, had the Germans invaded the British Isles under Operation Sea Lion, let the Italians handle the remaining French and British forces in Africa, and concentrated forces they had previously used on Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and their troops in the Afrika Korps on Russia, there is no doubt in my mind that they could have won, particularly during the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa.

The only real particular disadvantage the Germans had with the Russians was that they were poorly equipped for the harsh winters there. True, they lost 3.9 million men by December 1941, but the Soviet's lost 3.2 million and in just two months another 5 million. It really by that time came down to a contest between each side of how many men they could lose vs. how quickly they could replace them. Had the Germans had more men to spare, undoubtedly they could have held out through the winter and advanced farther into Soviet territory, possibly convincing Japan to attack them on the Far Eastern Front, by pushing up through China.

There were also, of course, the Finns fighting the Russians at the exact same time the Germans were. And they were a force to be reckoned with in the Winter War, which they effectively won under Mannerheim's leadership.

It's more or less then a problem of breaking the enemy's spirit and will to fight. The Soviet Union nearly collapsed by the time the Germans had advanced to Stalingrad in 1942, crossing the Don, Volga, and spreading their troops out into the Caucasus. Leningrad was surrounded, the Germans were right at the gates of Moscow, Rostov had fallen, and they were marching right towards Kursk, mounting for the 1943 battle there.

What the real focus of the Germans should have been in the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa were equipment and mobilization: the equipment necessary to survive the winter and keep your vehicles, weapons, and tools functional; more mobility to cover greater areas of ground faster and more effectively. As time progressed when the Soviets started digging in more and more (like they did at Kursk), the biggest mistake the Germans made at that point was not doing the same. Really, the only point when they actually started creating elaborate defensive positions against the Russians (comparable to the trench systems of the Great War) was around the time of the Battle of Seelow Heights, when it was pretty evident that it was just a question of how long they could hold out for and not when the final victory would come.

The one thing that can be said for the Germans, however, is that in practically every major battle they fought in against the Russians, they lost fewer men, fewer tanks, fewer aircraft, and fewer guns. The worst thing about that was that their production que focused too much on quality, and not necessarily so much on quantity, whereas the Soviets were less industrially concerned about manufacturing weapons, vehicles, and equipment on the grounds of quality and more concerned about quantity.

Basically, in my own interpretation, the best hope the Germans had of defeating the Soviets was breaking their spirit and will to fight. If they had done this, I think large sectors of the army simply would have deserted and gone home. Definitely some forces would have stayed in service and continued fighting, but they probably would have been so small they would have made no real difference. It would more than likely then degenerate into a guerrilla war, with it only being a matter of time and patience before the country was completely overrun.

The Italians were completely incompetent. Giving Italy the North African front would be the same as saying "I give up."

Sealion was completely unfeasible, because the Allied navy and air force totally dominated western europe. Perhaps if they had fared better in the air and naval war vs Britain before the US entered, they would have had a shot, but I highly doubt the entire British military would have been easy to fight on their home turf, because it's incredibly unlikely that the Germans could have organized a landing on the same scale as overlord.

On the Russian Front, if the Germans had surged and taken Stalingrad, Moscow would have been theirs for the taking, and the Soviets would have collapsed almost undoubtedly.

The Finnish lost the Winter War. The Mannerheim line was breached by the Red Army, and they settled for a peace on Russian terms. The wound up giving up 20% of their industrialized land for useless, empty territories in the north.

I agree that the war with Russia was a war of Morale. The Germans never had the potential to cut and run the way the Soviets did, all it would take was several large scale victories, or the capture of Moscow to drop the Red Army to a fraction of it's size. A few bumbles and some meddling by the Fuhrer put a stop to this dream of a quick victory, which is in some ways disappointing.

[Divair]

As far as the actual outcome of the war is concerned, had the Germans invaded the British Isles under Operation Sea Lion, let the Italians handle the remaining French and British forces in Africa, and concentrated forces they had previously used on Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and their troops in the Afrika Korps on Russia, there is no doubt in my mind that they could have won, particularly during the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa.

The only real particular disadvantage the Germans had with the Russians was that they were poorly equipped for the harsh winters there. True, they lost 3.9 million men by December 1941, but the Soviet's lost 3.2 million and in just two months another 5 million. It really by that time came down to a contest between each side of how many men they could lose vs. how quickly they could replace them. Had the Germans had more men to spare, undoubtedly they could have held out through the winter and advanced farther into Soviet territory, possibly convincing Japan to attack them on the Far Eastern Front, by pushing up through China.

There were also, of course, the Finns fighting the Russians at the exact same time the Germans were. And they were a force to be reckoned with in the Winter War, which they effectively won under Mannerheim's leadership.

It's more or less then a problem of breaking the enemy's spirit and will to fight. The Soviet Union nearly collapsed by the time the Germans had advanced to Stalingrad in 1942, crossing the Don, Volga, and spreading their troops out into the Caucasus. Leningrad was surrounded, the Germans were right at the gates of Moscow, Rostov had fallen, and they were marching right towards Kursk, mounting for the 1943 battle there.

What the real focus of the Germans should have been in the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa were equipment and mobilization: the equipment necessary to survive the winter and keep your vehicles, weapons, and tools functional; more mobility to cover greater areas of ground faster and more effectively. As time progressed when the Soviets started digging in more and more (like they did at Kursk), the biggest mistake the Germans made at that point was not doing the same. Really, the only point when they actually started creating elaborate defensive positions against the Russians (comparable to the trench systems of the Great War) was around the time of the Battle of Seelow Heights, when it was pretty evident that it was just a question of how long they could hold out for and not when the final victory would come.

The one thing that can be said for the Germans, however, is that in practically every major battle they fought in against the Russians, they lost fewer men, fewer tanks, fewer aircraft, and fewer guns. The worst thing about that was that their production que focused too much on quality, and not necessarily so much on quantity, whereas the Soviets were less industrially concerned about manufacturing weapons, vehicles, and equipment on the grounds of quality and more concerned about quantity.

Basically, in my own interpretation, the best hope the Germans had of defeating the Soviets was breaking their spirit and will to fight. If they had done this, I think large sectors of the army simply would have deserted and gone home. Definitely some forces would have stayed in service and continued fighting, but they probably would have been so small they would have made no real difference. It would more than likely then degenerate into a guerrilla war, with it only being a matter of time and patience before the country was completely overrun.

The Italians were completely incompetent. Giving Italy the North African front would be the same as saying "I give up."

Sealion was completely unfeasible, because the Allied navy and air force totally dominated western europe. Perhaps if they had fared better in the air and naval war vs Britain before the US entered, they would have had a shot, but I highly doubt the entire British military would have been easy to fight on their home turf, because it's incredibly unlikely that the Germans could have organized a landing on the same scale as overlord.

On the Russian Front, if the Germans had surged and taken Stalingrad, Moscow would have been theirs for the taking, and the Soviets would have collapsed almost undoubtedly.

The Finnish lost the Winter War. The Mannerheim line was breached by the Red Army, and they settled for a peace on Russian terms. The wound up giving up 20% of their industrialized land for useless, empty territories in the north.

I agree that the war with Russia was a war of Morale. The Germans never had the potential to cut and run the way the Soviets did, all it would take was several large scale victories, or the capture of Moscow to drop the Red Army to a fraction of it's size. A few bumbles and some meddling by the Fuhrer put a stop to this dream of a quick victory, which is in some ways disappointing.

Perhaps if the Luftwaffe focused on the airfields more than the cities, they would have won the air war, and could have bombed Britain into either extinction or surrender, but I highly doubt that.



I do agree on the North African thing.



The Italians were, for lack of words, pure crap fighters. They were losing hundreds of thousands of troops while Britain simply advanced westward like a plague.


If the Germans hadn't fought with the Italians, the British forces would have overrun the Italians and landed in Italy by the end of 1942.




The only two problems the Germans faced in Barbarossa were these ones:


A. Lack of winter gear. Hitler was expecting a sift victory, and that was a major flaw.


B. Stretched and too few supply lines. Travelling all the way from Germany's factories and farms to the Eastern front took hours, if not days. Not only were the lines stretched, there simply weren't enough of them. If the Germans had established more roads and repaired more of the railways, they could have gotten a lot more supplies in a much shorter amount of time to the Eastern front.

[TerraPublica]

US didnt had to care for USSR, the whole cold war was nothing but madness for no reason.Also US supported Britain cos the president wanted to support democracies and clause of allies.

The whole Cold War was "nothing but madness"? What? On one side you had a democratic world, filled with free nations, while on the other side you had an oppressive communist empire. I dont really understand what you mean by saying that it was "madness for no reason", but from my point of view, there is plenty of reasons and meaning in the Cold War, and thankfully the good guys won.

I wouldn't really call the USSR communist, because Communism itself isn't evil. I would say it was more of a State Capitalism. It's what China has now.
Also, the good guys didn't win. Gorbachev tried to form the USSR into a free Democratic Socialist state, but he was forced to collapse the Soviet Union in 1991 due to economic problems. Now, if Reagan had helped him instead of whining about communism and giving weapons to religious extremists, then Russia wouldn't be as corrupt and oppressive as it is now, under the quasi-capitalist rule of Putin.

[Panzerjaeger]

As far as the actual outcome of the war is concerned, had the Germans invaded the British Isles under Operation Sea Lion, let the Italians handle the remaining French and British forces in Africa, and concentrated forces they had previously used on Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and their troops in the Afrika Korps on Russia, there is no doubt in my mind that they could have won, particularly during the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa.

The only real particular disadvantage the Germans had with the Russians was that they were poorly equipped for the harsh winters there. True, they lost 3.9 million men by December 1941, but the Soviet's lost 3.2 million and in just two months another 5 million. It really by that time came down to a contest between each side of how many men they could lose vs. how quickly they could replace them. Had the Germans had more men to spare, undoubtedly they could have held out through the winter and advanced farther into Soviet territory, possibly convincing Japan to attack them on the Far Eastern Front, by pushing up through China.

There were also, of course, the Finns fighting the Russians at the exact same time the Germans were. And they were a force to be reckoned with in the Winter War, which they effectively won under Mannerheim's leadership.

It's more or less then a problem of breaking the enemy's spirit and will to fight. The Soviet Union nearly collapsed by the time the Germans had advanced to Stalingrad in 1942, crossing the Don, Volga, and spreading their troops out into the Caucasus. Leningrad was surrounded, the Germans were right at the gates of Moscow, Rostov had fallen, and they were marching right towards Kursk, mounting for the 1943 battle there.

What the real focus of the Germans should have been in the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa were equipment and mobilization: the equipment necessary to survive the winter and keep your vehicles, weapons, and tools functional; more mobility to cover greater areas of ground faster and more effectively. As time progressed when the Soviets started digging in more and more (like they did at Kursk), the biggest mistake the Germans made at that point was not doing the same. Really, the only point when they actually started creating elaborate defensive positions against the Russians (comparable to the trench systems of the Great War) was around the time of the Battle of Seelow Heights, when it was pretty evident that it was just a question of how long they could hold out for and not when the final victory would come.

The one thing that can be said for the Germans, however, is that in practically every major battle they fought in against the Russians, they lost fewer men, fewer tanks, fewer aircraft, and fewer guns. The worst thing about that was that their production que focused too much on quality, and not necessarily so much on quantity, whereas the Soviets were less industrially concerned about manufacturing weapons, vehicles, and equipment on the grounds of quality and more concerned about quantity.

Basically, in my own interpretation, the best hope the Germans had of defeating the Soviets was breaking their spirit and will to fight. If they had done this, I think large sectors of the army simply would have deserted and gone home. Definitely some forces would have stayed in service and continued fighting, but they probably would have been so small they would have made no real difference. It would more than likely then degenerate into a guerrilla war, with it only being a matter of time and patience before the country was completely overrun.

The Italians were completely incompetent. Giving Italy the North African front would be the same as saying "I give up."

Sealion was completely unfeasible, because the Allied navy and air force totally dominated western europe. Perhaps if they had fared better in the air and naval war vs Britain before the US entered, they would have had a shot, but I highly doubt the entire British military would have been easy to fight on their home turf, because it's incredibly unlikely that the Germans could have organized a landing on the same scale as overlord.

On the Russian Front, if the Germans had surged and taken Stalingrad, Moscow would have been theirs for the taking, and the Soviets would have collapsed almost undoubtedly.

The Finnish lost the Winter War. The Mannerheim line was breached by the Red Army, and they settled for a peace on Russian terms. The wound up giving up 20% of their industrialized land for useless, empty territories in the north.

I agree that the war with Russia was a war of Morale. The Germans never had the potential to cut and run the way the Soviets did, all it would take was several large scale victories, or the capture of Moscow to drop the Red Army to a fraction of it's size. A few bumbles and some meddling by the Fuhrer put a stop to this dream of a quick victory, which is in some ways disappointing.

Completely agree with the both of you. Excellent posts.

[Wolffbaden]

The Italians were completely incompetent. Giving Italy the North African front would be the same as saying "I give up."

This, while it made for good British propaganda at the time, is not true. There was only one single event in the entire war where superior Italian forces were destroyed by a mediocre enemy force: the 10th Army in the second phase of the early North African Campaign. Italian military commanders and indeed many soldiers during the Second World War were seen by most of the world at the time as being brave and strong fighters, particularly from the exploits of the Arditi assault troops during the First World War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arditi

For a nation who's equipment was not up to the standard of the German, Japanese, or Allied armies, they nevertheless showed considerable fighting strength, particularly demonstrated well at their stubborn resistance during the Battle of Keren. The participating Savoia battalions, Alpini, Bersaglieri and Grenadiers were acknowledged as being equal to the best opposition the British and Indians had faced during the war, along with the German Fallschirmjager divisions encountered in Italy (particularly at Monte Cassino) and the Japanese in Burma.

Compton Mackenzie, a Scotsman who did extensive reporting on the battle and research thereafter on it, wrote:

Keren was as hard a soldiers' battle as was ever fought, and let it be said that nowhere in the war did the Germans fight more stubbornly than those Savoians, Alpinis, Bersaglieris, and Grenadiers. In the first five days' fight the Italians suffered nearly 5,000 casualties - 1,135 of them killed. Lorenzini, the gallant young Italian general, had his head blown off by one of the British guns. He had been a great leader of Eritrean troops.

The unfortunate licence of wartime propaganda allowed the British Press to represent the Italians almost as comic warriors; but except for the German parachute division in Italy and the Japanese in Burma no enemy with whom the British and Indian troops were matched put up a finer fight than those Savoia battalions at Keren. Moreover, the Colonial troops, until they cracked at the very end, fought with valour and resolution, and their staunchness was a testimony to the excellence of the Italian administration and military training in Eritrea.

http://www.comandosupremo.com/KerenBattle.html

They also fought in Russia, a less well known fact to many people today, for some odd reason.

Sealion was completely unfeasible,

Not really. There really only needed to be three things accomplished for it to succeed.

1. Cripple the RAF (done)

2. Clearing the English Channel of British mines, and using German mines to seal the Straits of Dover (not done as far as laying their own mines are concerned)

3. Dominating the coastal zone of occupied France with heavy artillery (done)

4. Preventing the Royal Navy from intervening in the invasion, by engaging the British fleet in the North Sea and Mediterranean, and by attacking the home squadrons (was done to some extent with the uboat fleet preventing them from getting any hold in the channel, as well as the RAF being so badly crippled with barely any active pilots and any petrol to fly off of by the Luftwaffe)

because the Allied navy and air force totally dominated western europe

The only member of the Allies in Western Europe as of 1940/early 1941 was Britain. France had fallen already, their navy had been completely destroyed BY the British after they refused to hand them over, Petain under the Vichy government was openly friendly with the Germans and collaborated with them, the Russians had barely any navy that could reach outside of Skagerrak or the Black Sea (though they weren't actually at war with Germany yet), and what had survived of France had been pushed clear down into their territories in Africa.

I'm well aware of the outcome of the 1970s war game as well.

In wargames conducted at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 1974, which assumed the Luftwaffe had not yet won air supremacy, the Germans were able to establish a beachhead in England by using a minefield screen in the English Channel to protect the initial assault. However, the German ground forces were delayed at the "Stop Lines" (e.g. the GHQ Line), a layered series of defensive positions that had been built, each a combination of Home Guard troops and physical barriers. At the same time, the regular troops of the British Army were forming up. After only a few days, the Royal Navy was able to reach the Channel from Scapa Flow, cutting off supplies and blocking further reinforcement. Isolated and facing regular troops with armour and artillery, the invasion force was forced to surrender.

The Germans HAD, however, established airborne supremacy by the time the invasion was to take place in September 1940. In the latter half of August ALONE, the RAF lost 208 fighters and 106 pilots, the Germans lost 50 planes (mostly bombers) and 22 airmen (and although the Germans lost more planes in the end of it all, the British had far less ones to expend; 208 was a lot to lose, nevermind their shortage of pilots).

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ba ... ritain.htm

Now on there, it says the Royal Navy was able to come down from Scapa Flow and cut off the Germans in the channel. What they failed to account for was the number of losses they would have sustained from the minescreen (given what Raedar was advising on) they had set up, AS WELL AS THE UBOATS the Germans had ALWAYS patrolling the channel, in wolfpacks, that were based not only in Kiel and Bremen, but also La Rochelle, Brest, and St. Nazaire (as well as Lorient and Bordeaux; note also that uboats were used more often to lay mines than were ships with the Germans). The Germans would have undoubtedly spotted the ships moving either from patrolling unterzeeboots who would have relayed the message home, or they would have inevitably picked up their radio signals and messages on land via the frequency stations they'd set up all along there. You cannot have that many ships and not pick up at the very least a half-dozen signals. Once they would have known the fleet was moving to intercept the invasion force, they would have sent out all the ships and submarines they had to intercept them. Odds are, they would have waited for them to get caught in the channel so they could not move and would be not only exposed to torpedo fire from uboats and shell fire from the surface fleet but also the artillery outposts the Germans had set up along the coast of France. In that kind of close quarters naval combat, it would have been a massacre for the Royal Navy. Hell- in the real war, less than a year after Sea Lion was planned, uboats sank both the Ark Royal aircraft carry and Barham battleship.

They would have pushed their fleet out eventually, if not eradicated them. Mussolini was even offering to send naval bombers and ten divisions of men to help them in the invasion after he'd heard about the plan from Count Galeazzo Ciano, his son in law and Minister of Foreign Affairs. Even then, it doesn't matter how much firepower you have. Submarines are entirely about stealth; stealth is one thing battleships do not have. Submarines are equal to battleships on at least one ground: firepower. A torpedo is, indeed in many ways, far more deadly than a shell can ever hope to be, particularly when you can see the enemy, but the enemy can't see nor are they firing at you. The British were not able to effectively combat the uboat menace until 1943. They lost millions of tonnes of ships and shipping because of them in 1941 alone, and in 1942, until the "Happy Times" ended.

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ ... index.html

Perhaps if they had fared better in the air and naval war vs Britain before the US entered,

In 1942 (yes, Pearl Harbor was in 1941, but the Americans didn't mobilize and actually do anything with their military until 1942). But this was 1940. They call it the start of the "Happy Times" for the uboat fleet for a reason, you know. The surface fleet was not necessary at all to injure the Royal Navy, as the British soon found out. The air war also showed them that the Germans were willing to put up a long lasting fight, as were the Italians in hearing about Sea Lion.

they would have had a shot,

There's no way they could have lost. They would have eventually just gotten so many men on the isles and restricted the flow of supplies by both land and sea so much that they would have eventually starved the people into submission, and ruined their tank corps, air force, and transport divisions. They can't get their damned machines running if they can't get petrol to run them, can they?

but I highly doubt the entire British military would have been easy to fight on their home turf,

The British Isles would have gone a lot like the Fallschirmjagers assaulting Crete. The Germans would have won eventually. Their tactics, if the British got too annoying, would have become VERY bloody VERY quickly as well. They would have started treating them like the Russians: rounding medium numbers of civilians up and executing them as a message to stop resisting, or die horribly.

because it's incredibly unlikely that the Germans could have organized a landing on the same scale as overlord.

Overlord wasn't exactly like an invasion of an island though, was it? The German's invading Crete... that's at least somewhat comparable to Sea Lion (albeit the limited use of Fallschirmjagers in Sea Lion).

The Finnish lost the Winter War. The Mannerheim line was breached by the Red Army, and they settled for a peace on Russian terms. The wound up giving up 20% of their industrialized land for useless, empty territories in the north.

They lost nothing. They did nothing more than agree on peace terms because the war was going no where. Russia would take ground, Finland would retake the ground, Russia would retake the ground. Rinse and repeat. It turned into a stalemate of trench warfare.

FINLAND

25,904 dead or missing
43,557 wounded
1,000 captured
957 civilians in air raids
20–30 tanks
62 aircraft

RUSSIA

126,875 dead or missing
188,671 wounded, injured or burned
5,572 captured
3,543 tanks
515 aircraft

The Russians pushed only as far in as Viipuri, where they established a beachhead after crossing the gulf in jollyboats. The Oesch Battalion pushed them out and back into the sea, the stragglers lucky to reach the southern coast.

[South Norwega]

The Finnish lost the Winter War. The Mannerheim line was breached by the Red Army, and they settled for a peace on Russian terms. The wound up giving up 20% of their industrialized land for useless, empty territories in the north.

They lost nothing. They did nothing more than agree on peace terms because the war was going no where. Russia would take ground, Finland would retake the ground, Russia would retake the ground. Rinse and repeat. It turned into a stalemate of trench warfare.

You're seriously trying to spin it that way? Seriously? You lose territory, you lose a war. Whilst the Finnish performed admirably, the Soviets did win the war. They lost more troops, but they had more troops. The Finns couldn't recover after the Mannerheim Line was broken.

[Wolffbaden]

You're seriously trying to spin it that way? Seriously? You lose territory, you lose a war.

That's like saying because the United States lost territory they'd taken previously in Canada to the Canadian colonists there during the War of 1812, they lost the war.

Whilst the Finnish performed admirably, the Soviets did win the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

Result Interim Peace

They did not win the war against the Finns. They both agreed to declare peace. They did not storm the Finns to their border with Sweden and occupied Norway, they did not annex them, they did not even occupy their nation's capital. Then there was the Continuation War.

They lost more troops, but they had more troops.

And consequently, because of the amount of men they had to devote to take on the Finns, lost during the assault on Smolensk during the second half of their war with Finland.

The Finns couldn't recover after the Mannerheim Line was broken.

Yet, they did. From June 25, 1941, to September 19, 1944, they fought along with the Germans against the Soviets. Finally they agreed to an armistice after both sides suffered heavy losses in the Baltic Sea.

http://www.feldgrau.com/baltsea.html

[Jusela]

They did not win the war against the Finns. They both agreed to declare peace. They did not storm the Finns to their border with Sweden and occupied Norway, they did not annex them, they did not even occupy their nation's capital. Then there was the Continuation War.

Despite humilating casualties, they Soviets did infact win. If Finland seceding Karelia to them does count as a victory.

Sealion was completely unfeasible,

Not really. There really only needed to be three things accomplished for it to succeed.

Not really. Sealion was infact completely unfeasible, due to plenty of factors. I suggest a read here:
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ww ... rlord.aspx

1. Cripple the RAF (done)

No? The RAF was far from crippled. And even if the Luftwaffe managed to gain air supremacy, the RAF would have simply moved to airbases that were out of range for the German bombers. Either way, the RAF would greatly interfere with Sealion if it did happen.

2. Clearing the English Channel of British mines, and using German mines to seal the Straits of Dover (not done as far as laying their own mines are concerned)

Really doubt the Germans could have done it properly, considering that the Kriegsmarine suffered quite big losses executing the invasion of Norway. And even then, it is doubtful that only mines would have stopped the RN from entering the Channel and wrecking havoc.

3. Dominating the coastal zone of occupied France with heavy artillery (done)

Cant find any sources on this one. However it is very very probably that it wouldn't have done any difference. With the RN in the channel, Sealion would be in tatters.

4. Preventing the Royal Navy from intervening in the invasion, by engaging the British fleet in the North Sea and Mediterranean, and by attacking the home squadrons as well as the RAF being so badly crippled with barely any active pilots and any petrol to fly off of by the Luftwaffe)

The British plan incase of invasion was to rush all of the Home Fleet into the channel. Besides, by doing diversionary attacks in the North Sea (diversionary attacks in the Mediterranean doesn't make any sense. Note the fact that Italy had already entered the war, and the British had to station a fleet in the Mediterranean to combat the RM.), the KM would leave their troop transport even more vulnerable.
Also you overestimate the German uboats. Uboats were mostly used to attack convoys, not armed ships. Having uboats operating in the shallow water of the channel with British destroyers swarming all over the place doesn't bode well.

as well as the RAF being so badly crippled with barely any active pilots and any petrol to fly off of by the Luftwaffe

Luftwaffe crippling RAF like that just doesn't make sense at all. The British had every advantage that one could have during the Battle of Britain. They produced more aircraft than the Germans, and most importantly, RAF pilots could parachute out and land on British soil without being thrown into a POW camp. Also, petrol was one thing the British would have trouble running out of.

The British Isles would have gone a lot like the Fallschirmjagers assaulting Crete. The Germans would have won eventually. Their tactics, if the British got too annoying, would have become VERY bloody VERY quickly as well. They would have started treating them like the Russians: rounding medium numbers of civilians up and executing them as a message to stop resisting, or die horribly.

Gone like Crete? Heck? The German paratroopers suffered huge casualties assaulting Crete, so huge that Hitler never allowed large-scale airdrops again. Also the first shipment of German supplies to Crete was completely destroyed by the British. So yes, it would have gone like Crete, with huge casualties for the Germans, adding to the fact that the British would have literally used gas on the German landing beaches.

Sealion would also have been conducted using river barges, and during night too.

Most of the barges were designed for river traffic and would sink in anything greater than sea state two. On D-Day men and equipment loaded in open barges were to steam in column until ten miles from the landing site, then turn sequentially and steer parallel to the coast. Upon signal all vessels were to execute a flank turn and proceed in line abreast to the beach. This intricate maneuver by barges under tow would take place at night with minimal lighting, controlled and coordinated by loud hailer!

I recommend you to read the link that i posted up there. It is worth a read, and it explains in detail why Sealion would have been a complete disaster if attempted.

[Unidox]

I recently watched a movie that had an alternate history of Germany winning World War 2.
-snip-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvR15G8yEhg First five minutes or so of the movie which is undoubtedly the most interesting part and the only reason I watched the movie.

I remember that book. Didn't know it had been made into a movie.

[Sun Aut Ex]

I believe that the question is "What if Germany won World War II?", not "How could Germany win WWII?".

[Molested Sock]

I recently watched a movie that had an alternate history of Germany winning World War 2.

The Allied invasion of Normandy was rebuffed. The United States never got a foothold in Fortress Europe and was unable to aide in the liberation of the countries occupied by Germany and instead concentrated their efforts against the Japanese Empire with a similar outcome as happened in real life. The movie takes place some twenty years later where the SS has evolved into a peace time police force and the death camps and Hitler's "Final Solution" were not known to the world. Hitler has mellowed with age and is attempting to put a friendlier face on the Nazi Empire.

The Nazi Empire is still fighting the Soviets in the East and now seeks an alliance with the United States against them.

My question is: Is this turn of events possible? What would Germany had to have done to actually win the War in Europe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvR15G8yEhg First five minutes or so of the movie which is undoubtedly the most interesting part and the only reason I watched the movie.

Isn't there a book about this?

I don't know. Germans would be deep in Russia. England has a puppet, crony king edward whatever of the Nazis. No Israel. I dunno.

Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_%28novel%29

Indeed, not half bad, I had it taped for quite a while.
All about arse kissing America, but then that holocoust thing is discovered...

[DeltaDawgLand]

for all of you who think russia would have been able to win without america look at this please. Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Noniron metals......................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs that seems to be the amount of aid given from the USA to the USSR during WW2

[Molested Sock]

hitler would be assasinated, and we would get a united european republic, or a non rascist military dictatorship.

Wow, where the hell did you get that from?

there were so many assasination atempts on hitler, it would only be some time before he got assasinated

Mostly if not solely because Hitler wasn't winning absolutly, few if any would be upset enough to try to assasinate him if things were peachy.

[Unidox]

I recently watched a movie that had an alternate history of Germany winning World War 2.

The Allied invasion of Normandy was rebuffed. The United States never got a foothold in Fortress Europe and was unable to aide in the liberation of the countries occupied by Germany and instead concentrated their efforts against the Japanese Empire with a similar outcome as happened in real life. The movie takes place some twenty years later where the SS has evolved into a peace time police force and the death camps and Hitler's "Final Solution" were not known to the world. Hitler has mellowed with age and is attempting to put a friendlier face on the Nazi Empire.

The Nazi Empire is still fighting the Soviets in the East and now seeks an alliance with the United States against them.

My question is: Is this turn of events possible? What would Germany had to have done to actually win the War in Europe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvR15G8yEhg First five minutes or so of the movie which is undoubtedly the most interesting part and the only reason I watched the movie.

Isn't there a book about this?

I don't know. Germans would be deep in Russia. England has a puppet, crony king edward whatever of the Nazis. No Israel. I dunno.

Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_%28novel%29

Indeed, not half bad, I had it taped for quite a while.
All about arse kissing America, but then that holocoust thing is discovered...

Slight off topic question: did that book have a different blueish cover with Hitler posing and a lightning bolt or rift towards the corner? Asking because I am having doubts about the title and author.

[Sveltlande]

read the book 'a man in the high castle' by Philip K. Dick which talks about all this.
And its a cracking read as well

[Waldonians]

The German army would never defeat the Soviets, the only way they could "win" would be defeating the remaining countries in mainland Europe, and pulling out of the USSR and the UK

outcome: Germany controls everything from Albania to France, But not Great Britain or anything in the USSR's control. Japan loses the Pacific after atomic weapons are dropped on two Japanese cities, and Germany, trying to avoid conflict, refuses to help. after a bit the Soviet union decides that invading eastern Europe would be a good idea, and sends a massive army to invade it.
Ultimate outcome: eastern Europe crumbles, and The Dictator (Hitler or otherwise) is assassinated. and the empire falls

[New Manvir]

for all of you who think russia would have been able to win without america look at this please. Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Noniron metals......................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs that seems to be the amount of aid given from the USA to the USSR during WW2

No one said the Russians would win without America, but they still would have won without D-Day. Even Stalin acknowledged that.

"Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war." — Joseph Stalin during the dinner at the Tehran Conference

[Wolffbaden]

Despite humilating casualties, they Soviets did infact win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

Result Interim Peace

Derp dee derp.

If Finland seceding Karelia to them does count as a victory.

Apparently not, at least, not according to Wikipedia or their cited source:

http://www.winterwar.com/

Not really. Sealion was infact completely unfeasible, due to plenty of factors. I suggest a read here:
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ww ... rlord.aspx

Already read it. Pointed out why it WAS feasible.

There really only needed to be three things accomplished for it to succeed.

1. Cripple the RAF (done)

2. Clearing the English Channel of British mines, and using German mines to seal the Straits of Dover (not done as far as laying their own mines are concerned)

3. Dominating the coastal zone of occupied France with heavy artillery (done)

4. Preventing the Royal Navy from intervening in the invasion, by engaging the British fleet in the North Sea and Mediterranean, and by attacking the home squadrons (was done to some extent with the uboat fleet preventing them from getting any hold in the channel, as well as the RAF being so badly crippled with barely any active pilots and any petrol to fly off of by the Luftwaffe)

The only member of the Allies in Western Europe as of 1940/early 1941 was Britain. France had fallen already, their navy had been completely destroyed BY the British after they refused to hand them over, Petain under the Vichy government was openly friendly with the Germans and collaborated with them, the Russians had barely any navy that could reach outside of Skagerrak or the Black Sea (though they weren't actually at war with Germany yet), and what had survived of France had been pushed clear down into their territories in Africa.

I'm well aware of the outcome of the 1970s war game as well.

In wargames conducted at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 1974, which assumed the Luftwaffe had not yet won air supremacy, the Germans were able to establish a beachhead in England by using a minefield screen in the English Channel to protect the initial assault. However, the German ground forces were delayed at the "Stop Lines" (e.g. the GHQ Line), a layered series of defensive positions that had been built, each a combination of Home Guard troops and physical barriers. At the same time, the regular troops of the British Army were forming up. After only a few days, the Royal Navy was able to reach the Channel from Scapa Flow, cutting off supplies and blocking further reinforcement. Isolated and facing regular troops with armour and artillery, the invasion force was forced to surrender.

The Germans HAD, however, established airborne supremacy by the time the invasion was to take place in September 1940. In the latter half of August ALONE, the RAF lost 208 fighters and 106 pilots, the Germans lost 50 planes (mostly bombers) and 22 airmen (and although the Germans lost more planes in the end of it all, the British had far less ones to expend; 208 was a lot to lose, nevermind their shortage of pilots).

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ba ... ritain.htm

Now on there, it says the Royal Navy was able to come down from Scapa Flow and cut off the Germans in the channel. What they failed to account for was the number of losses they would have sustained from the minescreen (given what Raedar was advising on) they had set up, AS WELL AS THE UBOATS the Germans had ALWAYS patrolling the channel, in wolfpacks, that were based not only in Kiel and Bremen, but also La Rochelle, Brest, and St. Nazaire (as well as Lorient and Bordeaux; note also that uboats were used more often to lay mines than were ships with the Germans). The Germans would have undoubtedly spotted the ships moving either from patrolling unterzeeboots who would have relayed the message home, or they would have inevitably picked up their radio signals and messages on land via the frequency stations they'd set up all along there. You cannot have that many ships and not pick up at the very least a half-dozen signals. Once they would have known the fleet was moving to intercept the invasion force, they would have sent out all the ships and submarines they had to intercept them. Odds are, they would have waited for them to get caught in the channel so they could not move and would be not only exposed to torpedo fire from uboats and shell fire from the surface fleet but also the artillery outposts the Germans had set up along the coast of France. In that kind of close quarters naval combat, it would have been a massacre for the Royal Navy. Hell- in the real war, less than a year after Sea Lion was planned, uboats sank both the Ark Royal aircraft carry and Barham battleship.

They would have pushed their fleet out eventually, if not eradicated them. Mussolini was even offering to send naval bombers and ten divisions of men to help them in the invasion after he'd heard about the plan from Count Galeazzo Ciano, his son in law and Minister of Foreign Affairs. Even then, it doesn't matter how much firepower you have. Submarines are entirely about stealth; stealth is one thing battleships do not have. Submarines are equal to battleships on at least one ground: firepower. A torpedo is, indeed in many ways, far more deadly than a shell can ever hope to be, particularly when you can see the enemy, but the enemy can't see nor are they firing at you. The British were not able to effectively combat the uboat menace until 1943. They lost millions of tonnes of ships and shipping because of them in 1941 alone, and in 1942, until the "Happy Times" ended.

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ ... index.html

There's no way they could have lost. They would have eventually just gotten so many men on the isles and restricted the flow of supplies by both land and sea so much that they would have eventually starved the people into submission, and ruined their tank corps, air force, and transport divisions. They can't get their damned machines running if they can't get petrol to run them, can they?

The British Isles would have gone a lot like the Fallschirmjagers assaulting Crete. The Germans would have won eventually. Their tactics, if the British got too annoying, would have become VERY bloody VERY quickly as well. They would have started treating them like the Russians: rounding medium numbers of civilians up and executing them as a message to stop resisting, or die horribly.

No? The RAF was far from crippled.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ba ... istics.htm

The Luftwaffe had in excess of 2,000 combat ready aircraft during the battle, as opposed to the 675 in British inventory, from France to Norway that could strike England. Despite shooting down more German aircraft than they had lost they were still losing the battle of attrition; the rate of destruction vs. favored the Luftwaffe. The British were losing more planes and pilots than they could make up for, in addition to having to suffer their industrial centers being bombed day and night by the Germans.

And even if the Luftwaffe managed to gain air supremacy, the RAF would have simply moved to airbases that were out of range for the German bombers.

How would they intend to do that? By day if they flew, they'd simply be attacked by escort fighters the bombers had, and, given that they would be in no position to engage them, having their capabilities crippled, be destroyed. Night flying was completely out of the question for moving them, as the missions were always seen as risky by the commanders. The only real option they'd have is to fold up the wings and move them by trucks to new airbases, which guarantees you no safety as your convoys are even more vulnerable to air attack (the Russians learned this in the Battle of Smolensk).

Either way, the RAF would greatly interfere with Sealion if it did happen.

How lol? If they're crippled, they have no tactical capabilities. IF they were foolhardy enough to try to interfere with the invasion, they'd simply by shot down either by the flak batteries on board the assisting ships or by the Luftwaffe, providing cover and support for the invasion. Not to mention they first have to be able to GET THERE to attack the invaders, which seems unlikely given their fuel troubles of 1940. Furthermore, they had no effective weapons for attacking ships or personnel on the ground. It would have been like the Luftwaffe calling in for support on Overlord: they would have strafed some and then flown away, not hampering the invasion at all.

Really doubt the Germans could have done it properly, considering that the Kriegsmarine suffered quite big losses executing the invasion of Norway.

3 cruisers and 10 destroyers. For a navy with literally hundreds of ships, the losses were barely severe, especially considering that they still had battleships Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, the Schleswig-Holstein, Schlesien, cruisers Lutzow, Scheer, Hipper, Prinz Eugen, Emden, Konigsberg, Karlsruhe, Koln, Leipzig, Numberg, and dozens more destroyers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kriegsmarine_ships

And even then, it is doubtful that only mines would have stopped the RN from entering the Channel and wrecking havoc.

Thank god for uboats, which the Germans had a lot of (as I previously mentioned, stationed at such places in France as La Rochelle, St. Nazaire, Lorient, Brest, and in Germany at Kiel and Bremen, and in Norway at Trondheim.

However it is very very probably that it wouldn't have done any difference. With the RN in the channel, Sealion would be in tatters.

With the RN pinned in the channel between packs of uboats, the surface fleet, and the Luftwaffe flying overhead, there would have been no way to escape. The submarines, especially, would be deadly towards their ships.

The British plan incase of invasion was to rush all of the Home Fleet into the channel.

Which would, of course, have them pinned in there by the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe naval bombers.

Besides, by doing diversionary attacks in the North Sea

Actually a complete interception of the Royal Navy before they could even reach the channel, not a diversion.

(diversionary attacks in the Mediterranean doesn't make any sense.

Which is exactly why they weren't planning a diversionary attack, rather the interception of the RN's ships docked in Malta, Egypt, and Crete.

the KM would leave their troop transport even more vulnerable.

No, actually. Asides from being covered by the Kriegsmarine, the Luftwaffe's naval bombers were also to provide support and protection to the landing crafts and tug barges that had been assembled for the job.

Also you overestimate the German uboats. Uboats were mostly used to attack convoys, not armed ships.

On the contrary, it is you who underestimates the capabilities of the uboat fleet. Uboats were armed to do one thing: sink ships. Granted, more often than not their MISSIONS revolved around attacking convoys, but a torpedo is just as deadly to a merchant as it is to a battleship. The British learned this the hard way after the sinking of the Barham and Ark Royal, and Royal Oak. And then there's also U-47's great raid on Scapa Flow under the expertise of Günther Prien, not to mention Erich Topp's attack on the attempted (which failed, in the end) British raid on Narvik.

Having uboats operating in the shallow water of the channel

The English Channel has an average depth of 390 feet. That's hardly a shallow depth for a uboat to operate in, nevermind the standard Type VIIBs, IXBs, IIA-Ds, or even your most basic VIID minelayers.

http://www.uboat.net/types/index.html

with British destroyers swarming all over the place doesn't bode well.

Problem: destroyers in the Royal Navy were not equipped with ASDIC sonar to detect submarines until late 1942/early 1943. Sea Lion was going to take place in September 1940. Up until that time, it was a very rare and difficult thing to successfully trap and sink a German uboat by the British.

Luftwaffe crippling RAF like that just doesn't make sense at all.

Have you not been reading? By the end of August 1940, the British had only a few hundred planes left with even less pilots to fly them. Out of 1,963 serviceable aircraft at the beginning, 1,547 aircraft were destroyed by the Germans leaving roughly 416 available for use (not accounting for the fact that they did not have enough petrol to fly a good lot of them). They lost just over 900 personnel by that time, too. Your average pilot flew FOUR sorties a day, leading to fatigue and exhaustion.

The Germans had over 800 working aircraft still to use and an additional 3,240 active personnel.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ba ... ritain.htm

Sea Lion was scheduled for just a month after in September. What doesn't make sense is the unrealistic expectation of the RAF recovering as quick as a snap. Only 416 working planes to use to the Luftwaffe's +800, 900 personnel killed to the Luftwaffe's remaining 3,240. There is no way they could have repelled an invasion of this magnitude and expected to have succeed. It's a militare impossibility.

The British had every advantage that one could have during the Battle of Britain.

Yet they only 416 working planes to use to the Luftwaffe's +800, 900 personnel killed to the Luftwaffe's remaining 3,240, and were flying four sorties a day... if the first two aren't a dead-giveaway, the last one clearly shows that they were getting desperate.

They produced more aircraft than the Germans,

Before the battle, when Germany emphasized vehicle and weapon construction and rearmament over ship and aircraft production. After the Germans bombed most of their factories into ruin, starved them for supplies with their unrestricted submarine warfare blockade (to which they had to consult the United States for help, leading to Roosevelt approving the Lend-Lease Act), and destroyed over 1,500 of their aircraft, they had neither the ability nor the manpower to build at a superior rate to the Germans.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... n/AP22.htm

Furthermore, they didn't have near enough pilots to fly the planes that they did manage to get through.

and most importantly, RAF pilots could parachute out and land on British soil

Or in the channel, where their equipment would just (and did) weigh them down and drown them.

Gone like Crete? Heck? The German paratroopers suffered huge casualties assaulting Crete,

Because they were outnumbered by British, Australian, NZ, and Greek forces. They had 31,000 to the Allies' 42,000. Wikipedia also points out as well that the German casualties the British and New Zealanders reported were very much over-exaggerated for propaganda purposes.

http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Cret-b5.html

so huge that Hitler never allowed large-scale airdrops again.

Actually, he only wanted the air assault doctrine's use limited only for operations in the Soviet Union, not completely barred. They went on to use them quite successfully in the Balkans against the Soviets.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/balkan/intro.htm

Also the first shipment of German supplies to Crete was completely destroyed by the British.

To which the Germans responded by bombing and sinking HMS Gloucester, HMS Fiji, Kelly, Greyhound, Kashmir, Hereward, Imperial, and Juno, badly damaging HMS Warspite, HMS Valiant, and HMS Orion. Over 2,000 British sailors were killed.

Fun fact, wanna know who carried out the bombing?

THE LUFTWAFFE.

So yes, it would have gone like Crete, with huge casualties for the Germans,

Perhaps, but it would have definitely gone like Crete in that it would have been a victory in the end.

adding to the fact that the British would have literally used gas on the German landing beaches.

Good thing the Germans perfected gas warfare during the First World War, and had the VM-40 gas mask.

http://www.gasmasks.net/database/germany/germany.htm

I recommend you to read the link that i posted up there. It is worth a read, and it explains in detail why Sealion would have been a complete disaster if attempted.

Might want to check out "Hitler on the Doorstep: Operation 'Sea Lion': The German Plan to Invade Britain, 1940", published by the United States Naval Institute, which explains, in addition to sourcing actual documents saved pertaining to the plan, in detail why the operation was not nearly as far fetched as too many people incorrectly believe.

http://www.a1books.com/cgi-bin/mktSearc ... RATION-SEA

[South Norwega]

Despite humilating casualties, they Soviets did infact win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

Result Interim Peace

Derp dee derp.

You're failing to see why it was an interim peace.

Because of the continuation war, which was circumstantial. It was still a Soviet Victory, yes the peace didn't last, but the Soviets did win.

[Wolffbaden]

Despite humilating casualties, they Soviets did infact win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

Result Interim Peace

Derp dee derp.

You're failing to see why it was an interim peace.

Because of the continuation war, which was circumstantial. It was still a Soviet Victory, yes the peace didn't last, but the Soviets did win.

The Continuation War is a separate war entirely... we're talking about the Winter War, nothing else.