"The High Water Mark" for the Germans?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

He [Hitler] believed that UK was hoping for USSR involvement...

Interestingly enough, so did Stalin. According to Gorodetsky he was deeply paranoid (and not entirely without reason) about suspected British attempts to get him into a fight with Hitler. This is proably the most important reason why Churchill's famous message tipping Stalin off before the opening of Barbarossa backfired, even though the Soviets had plenty of clues from their own sources.

Michael

[Ant]

One of the reasons that operation sealion seemingly has more credibility than it had in reality was because it was seen as a very useful propaganda tool by both Hitler and Churchill. As everyone knows Hitler hoped to use the threat of invasion as a lever to force Britain to the peace table, but what is usually less known is that the threat of an imminent invasion of the UK was actually more useful to Churchill. Contrary to popular belief not everybody in Britain in 1939/1940 supported a war with Germany. There were large sections of the population, and the establishment which favoured a peace deal. An iminent German invasion was hyped up by Churchill and his allies as a means of galvanising resistance, and a demonstration that Germany was a direct threat which had to be fought. Churchill also hoped that exaggerating the potential of a German occupied Britain would result in hastening the US entry into the war. As a result a lot of people today (even some reasonably knowledgeable ones) see operation sealion as a potentially viable plan, which of course it never was, and in all probability never really intended to be.

[Richie]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Richie:

Indeed then Adolf Hitler was a fool. The German army took Paris and the French sued for peace. If he wanted the English to sue for peace then he needed to take London. He failed to take Moscow and then it all turned bad. If you strike, you should strike for the head, reguardless of what Hitler thought the English would not be intimidated to sue for peace. Yes you can bludgeon your enemies but the best result lies in the decapitation of the governing body. If Hitler failed to realise that Operation Sealion was essential then the tide was only ever going to go out.

How would he have captured Ottawa, then? </font>

[Richie]

Originally posted by Ant:

As a result a lot of people today (even some reasonably knowledgeable ones) see operation sealion as a potentially viable plan, which of course it never was, and in all probability never really intended to be.

Out of interset do you consider Barbarossa as more viable than Sealion? Given history (and the attitude of some of the English as commented on) I can't say it wouldn't have worked.

[Ant]

Originally posted by Richie:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ant:

As a result a lot of people today (even some reasonably knowledgeable ones) see operation sealion as a potentially viable plan, which of course it never was, and in all probability never really intended to be.

Out of interset do you consider Barbarossa as more viable than Sealion? Given history (and the attitude of some of the English as commented on) I can't say it wouldn't have worked. </font>

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Ant:

Of course Barbarossa was more viable........it was a real military operation that was properly planned. Sealion was never anything more than an elaborate propaganda ploy.

Actually they both had about the same amount of planning. One because of Hitler's lack of real interest and one because of German overconfidence. Barbarossa was a more viable plan because it didn't involve transporting an army across an unruly body of water in the face of the world's best navy.

Germany was a continental power. Hitler felt that if he were to knock the Soviet Union out of the war it would put him in such a powerful position that everyone else would have no choice but to seek terms. He wasn't the first to underestimate British tenacity, nor the last.

[Ant]

Actually they both had about the same amount of planning.

I would dispute that. Sealion began planning on 2 July giving 84 days of planning before the (supposed) invasion. The initial planning for Barbarossa began in Aug. 1940. Almost a year before the actual event.

[ June 03, 2003, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: Ant ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ant:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Actually they both had about the same amount of planning.

I would dispute that. Sealion began planning on 2 July giving 84 days of planning before the (supposed) invasion. The initial planning for Barbarossa began in Aug. 1940. Almost a year before the actual event. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Ant:

Of course Barbarossa was more viable........it was a real military operation that was properly planned.

I do so hope you speak in jest. While I don't think it fair to expect any staff to come up with the "perfect plan", the planning for Barbarossa was in many respects nothing more than Hitler's pipe dream.

Michael

[ June 03, 2003, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Steiner14]

Nice to see so many experts knowing all about Hitler's whims and dreams.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ant:

Of course Barbarossa was more viable........it was a real military operation that was properly planned.

I do so hope you speak in jest. While I don't think it fair to expect any staff to come up with the "perfect plan", the planning for Barbarossa was in many respects nothing more than Hitler's pipe dream.</font>

[Ant]

I do so hope you speak in jest. While I don't think it fair to expect any staff to come up with the "perfect plan", the planning for Barbarossa was in many respects nothing more than Hitler's pipe dream.

I don't quite know what you're talking about here. It's not as if in June 1941 Hitler just woke up one morning and said "right everybody we're off to invade Russia now" and the bulk of the German army just aimlessly wandered off into Russia as a result. Certainly Hitler had some input but Barbarossa was most definitely planned by the German army.

This is copied from somewhere, sorry, can't remember where from now:

General Marcks presented a plan for the defeat of the USSR in 9-17 weeks, using 110 infantry, and 24 Panzer divisions. This plan involved two central army groups, one operating in the Ukraine and one against Moscow. After extensive wargames and discussion, 'Barbarossa' evolved as a three pronged operation. Hitler decided that Moscow would not be his main target as this had been Napoleon's downfall and he did not think that it was a centre of power in the USSR. The southern army group would still aim for Kiev and the Ukraine but the two northern groups would first aim at controlling communications to Moscow, then encircle Leningrad before knocking out Moscow. On 3 February 1941 Hitler gave his final approval to 'Barbarossa' which now consisted of 116 infantry divisions (14 motorized), 19 Panzer, and 9 lines-of-communications divisions.

[Reichenberg]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The plans for Sealion were actually quite detailed; I forget which book I read about them in - before I quote another 60% figure :mad: I will not go further without checking my library first, but it seems to me that even a timetable of units to deploy had been created, landing areas outlined, etc.

The first detailed plan of the OKH had the II. Army under command of the AOK 6 in the area of Cherbourg - consisting of 12., 31. and 32. Div. They were supposed to attack the area of Weymouth. The VIII. and the X. Army under command of AOK 9 in the area between Caen and Dieppe. VIII. Army consisting of 8. and 28. Div. and X. Army consisting of 30. and 6. Gebirgsjäger- (Mountain-) Div.. There target area was between Portsmouth and Brighton. And finally AOK 16 with XIII. Army (17. and 35. Div.), XXXVIII. Army (26. and 34. Div.) and VII. Army (7. und 1. Gebirgsjäger-Div.) between the Somme and Ostende, targeting the area between Margate and Hastings (mainly Hastings to Folkstone). Attack of paras was planned near Dover and Brighton.

The first operational goal was to reach a line between the mouth of the Thames and Portsmouth. From there on AOK 16 was supposed to encircle London, while AOK 9 had to attack towards Swindon and Cardiff.

So much for the planning. But there was never even an attempt to drive forward with the planning. Hitler still hoped for a diplomatical solution and the German Navy and Luftwaffe hoped to bring down Great Britain by an air war. The navy was already by the end of July convinced, that a successful landing could not take place before 1941.

Source: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg , 2. book, Hans Umbreit, Deutsche Verlagsanstalt.

Regards

Uwe

[Steiner14]

Ant, such plans are normal part of each general staff.

Especially under the political circumstances in the 1930s, every army had to make such plans.

Even today, but as we all know, the Germans lost the war, and therefore we know everything about the plans, while the plans of the winners stay secret.

It's not correct, to make the conclusion, that an army was already well prepared for an attack, if the general-staff had made investigations and plans.

It's another topic, that the german plans still are presented to the uninformed civilians, to make them believe, Hitler had planned to attack the peaceful USSSR long ago.

Following this logic would mean, during the last 50 years, almost every state had planned to attack it's neighbours.

No, the plans for Operation Barbarossa had to be made by every statesman caring for his country.

What do you guess, was planned by the NATO?

Nuclear destruction of Germany, for example.

Or what was planned by the Soviets?

What i want to say is, that the existance of a plan, doesn't say much.

What's necessary is, to take a much closer look at the real unit-composition, how well the troops were prepared for the climate, how good were the tanks, what about maps, ...

Taking this into account - and comparing with the USSSR troop-concentrations on the border, and -movements and the official political target of the Communistic Highest Soviet and all Communist parties, i wouldn't dare to say, that the german attack was planned well and who really was better prepared for an attack-war...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Ant:

...Barbarossa was most definitely planned by the German army.

Of course it was planned. My objection was over your use of the word 'properly'. Was the planning for Barbarossa based on careful intelligence assessments of the enemy's capabilities and current stance. No. The Soviet Union will collapse like a house of cards, says Hitler. How does he know that? Does he have agents scouring the countryside and the parlors of the mighty, gathering information which is carefully sifted for clues that are pieced together to form a coherent picture of the enemy, his capabilities, and likely actions? No. The Soviet Union will collapse like a house of card because Adolf Hitler says it will.

That is not a proper plan in my humble estimation.

Some additional symptoms of improper planning: There was no provision to carry the fight deep into the USSR in case the country doesn't collapse in the first six weeks. Therefore, there was little or no preparation to supply the fighting forces more than about 500 kilometers in from the border. And that, much more than the legendary "delay" in opening the campaign, is why they failed at the gates of Moscow. And remember, the USSR was a very big country. Even though it's true that the population, agriculture, and industry tended to concentrate in the western 15-20%, there was always the possibility that the Reds could simply fall back as they had done before Napoleon and after drawing the invaders deep into an inhospitable land, launch their counterattack at their leisure.

While that might not have been foretold with any certainty, it was certainly a possibilitiy and not to have a plan in hand to meet it was sheer folly.

As Steiner14 has mentioned, they didn't even have maps. Neither did they have even a remote notion of how many tanks the Reds possessed. And in that vast ignorance they went to war? They gambled with the lives of millions of their countrymen and the future of their nation. Give me a break! They look like rank amateurs to me.

I could go on, but I hope you begin to see the nature of my objection. This was a plan alright, but it was not a good one in the sense that it had much of a chance of succeeding in the real world. If it was any good at all, it was only in the narrowest sense that before hostilities opened, it gave Hitler and his henchmen a little lift to their mood when they contemplated it.

Michael

[ June 03, 2003, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Ant]

Sorry Steiner14 but your post seems to go off at such a tangent that I've got a crick in my neck trying to follow it

All I'm saying is that operation sealion had absolutely no chance of success whatsoever and any serious military commander at the time must have known that. Therefore there can be only two reasons why such elaborate plans were drawn up.

1) because Hitler told them to

2) because the existance of a genuine (even if only a perceived) threat of invasion of the UK was essential for propaganda in forcing the British to the peace table.

1&2 are not mutually exclusive.

Now if Chruchill wanted to convince the British people and the world that there was absolutely no chance of a successful German invasion he could have pointed out the ludicrous nature of the plan and the whole world would have forgotten about operation sealion. However, it suited his plans to have this invasion as a reality so instead of talking it down he actually talked it up therefore giving the invasion far more credibility than it actually had. As a result poular history views operation sealion as a more viable plan than it ever was.

The navy was already by the end of July convinced, that a successful landing could not take place before 1941.

To say that that's a bit optimistic is the understatement of the year. It took the allies two years to plan D-day, and that was with the massive production of the US, naval superiority in the channel and air superiority over it. The Germans had no chance of pulling of an invasion of the UK.

[Ant]

Of course it was planned. My objection was over your use of the word 'properly'. Was the planning for Barbarossa based on careful................................................................................. If it was any good at all, it was only in the narrowest sense that before hostilities opened, it gave Hitler and his henchmen a little lift to their mood when they contemplated it.

Michael

OK. Yes, I see your point. But my contention is that at least the Germans, no matter how misguided, thought that they could succeed with Barbarossa (depending on your viewpoint they nearly did). I don't think that anybody could have fooled himself into thinking that sealion could have succeeded, not even Hitler.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Ant:

if Chruchill wanted to convince the British people and the world that there was absolutely no chance of a successful German invasion he could have pointed out the ludicrous nature of the plan and the whole world would have forgotten about operation sealion. However, it suited his plans to have this invasion as a reality so instead of talking it down he actually talked it up therefore giving the invasion far more credibility than it actually had. As a result poular history views operation sealion as a more viable plan than it ever was.

That does read like hindsight. I'm not sure that Britain had such a detailed knowledge of German plans, preparations and capabilities in 1940. With such a powerful and all conquering enemy at the gates, invasion must have seemed a certainty.

[Jim Boggs]

Boy, you Grogs sure know your stuff!!

All this time I thought the high water mark in Germany took place during the night of May 16/17, 1943 as a result of Operation Chastise.

Thanks for setting the record straight!

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Ant:

Sorry Steiner14 but your post seems to go off at such a tangent that I've got a crick in my neck trying to follow it

Sorry that you can't follow my academic argumentation.

All I'm saying is that operation sealion had absolutely no chance of success whatsoever and any serious military commander at the time must have known that. Therefore there can be only two reasons why such elaborate plans were drawn up.

I didn't mean the discussion about sealion, but the plan for Barbarossa, you mentioned.

Regarding sealion:

Absolutely sharing our opinion, that this was pure fiction.

Such plans were made. Yes. Ofcourse they were made.

Once again: the existance of such a plan, has not much to say about the real decisions.

IMO, the propaganda by those who win a war against those who lose, cannot be overestimated.

IMO, Sealion was only a hypotetical what-if general-staff-game.

The german Marine had by far not enough ships for the necessary troops.

Not to mention, that the Empire had the most powerful Navy, many times stronger than the tiny german one.

Looking closer at the german naval transport-capacities, amount of heavy ships, and the complete miss of long-range aircraft, i have the impression, Sealion is used more for propaganda, than anything else.

If we take a look, what Hitler really did, to avoid war with the Brits, no one else in Germany could have dared to do that:

- stopping the german troops before Dünkirchen instead of eliminating a whole army

- waiting several weeks after first British bombing of german city centers, before the first geman bombers were allowed to attack industry targets at Coventry and London (while, i.e. Britain declared war only two days after Germany attacked Poland, and not GB)

- the flight of Rudolf Hess

Yes, i totally agree, Sealion was made to bring the British government back to the table and to support those Anti-Churchill forces, who wanted peace with Germany.

But i don't agree, that if Sealion wouldn't had been planned, Churchills government would had not lied to the British people, that they are threatened: like Roosevelt (and mass-media) told the US-citizens, that the Germans are even planning to invade the USA.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

Boy, you Grogs sure know your stuff!!

All this time I thought the high water mark in Germany took place during the night of May 16/17, 1943 as a result of Operation Chastise.

Thanks for setting the record straight!

Hah, beat you with the Bismarck reference.

Slacker...

[Ant]

That does read like hindsight. I'm not sure that Britain had such a detailed knowledge of German plans, preparations and capabilities in 1940. With such a powerful and all conquering enemy at the gates, invasion must have seemed a certainty.

Invasion a certainty? which is probably why Britain built up the bulk of it's effective European forces in...........North Africa. Not much good for stopping an iminent invasion of the UK there are they? As the pre-eminant naval power in the world in 1940 Britain certainly had an understanding of what a naval invasion of the UK would entail, They'd spent 800 years successfully countering the threat and it didn't take a huge amount of deduction to work out that the Germans simply weren't capable of it. Churchill himself,after WW2, admitted that the only thing that really worried him was the U-boat threat.

Sorry that you can't follow my academic argumentation.

Sorry. I'm not that bright and need a simple argument

Yes, i totally agree, Sealion was made to bring the British government back to the table and to support those Anti-Churchill forces, who wanted peace with Germany.

Exactly. The main difference between barbarossa and Sealion was the fact that Barbarossa was actually meant to happen, and did. Sealion was never any more than a hypothetical plan aimed more toward propaganda than reality.

But i don't agree, that if Sealion wouldn't had been planned, Churchills government would had not lied to the British people, that they are threatened: like Roosevelt (and mass-media) told the US-citizens, that the Germans are even planning to invade the USA.

I agree. Churchill would have talked up the threat no matter what. The existance of sealion merely helped him out in this.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Ant:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That does read like hindsight. I'm not sure that Britain had such a detailed knowledge of German plans, preparations and capabilities in 1940. With such a powerful and all conquering enemy at the gates, invasion must have seemed a certainty.

Invasion a certainty? which is probably why Britain built up the bulk of it's effective European forces in...........North Africa. Not much good for stopping an iminent invasion of the UK there are they?</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

The GD history specifically mentions that the Regiment went into training for the invasion of England. Unfortunately, what this training entailed was not discussed. Barges were, in fact, moved - they were at Dieppe in August 1942 and were one of the targets of the Raid there; Commandos were to secure the boat house in Dieppe's harbour and remove one of the barges, for towing back to England. This isn't proof they were there in 1940, but other sources talk about boat training.

It may indeed be a moot point - staff exercise or actual plan? Whatever Hitler's intent, that intent would not be known to the troops - or general staff. They were told to prepare, and they prepared. That in and of itself cannot be used as evidence of what Hitler really wanted to do or accomplish by so doing. For that, other things must be considered.

The smart ass comment above about knowing what Hitler really wanted to do does actually have some validity, but I think it is reasonable to come to certain assumptions. I'm pleased that many seem to agree the invasion was intended as a threat, rather than an actual invasion, though I think again that Michael Emrys had it spot on by suggesting that it might have gone ahead if favourable conditions presented themselves.

Certainly the British had to take it seriously either way; 1st Canadian Division is often described as the only fully equipped division in southern England in Aug 1940; I doubt this is true, as the division was deficient in such things as transport and heavy weapons. But the state of the BEF was quite bad, and 1 Cdn Div may indeed have been one of the best equipped, if not the only equipped division in the Isles.

Was Sealion a paper exercise or a full fledged plan? It only matters what happened, I suppose, and if you want to say that because it was never executed, it was only a paper exercise, it is difficult to prove you wrong.

However, bear in mind that real resources were expended in getting land units in readiness; to what degree I do not know, most histories in English that I have seen spend very little time on this.

Sealion continues to be a tantalizing "what if".

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Was Sealion a paper exercise or a full fledged plan? It only matters what happened, I suppose, and if you want to say that because it was never executed, it was only a paper exercise, it is difficult to prove you wrong.

However, bear in mind that real resources were expended in getting land units in readiness; to what degree I do not know, most histories in English that I have seen spend very little time on this.

Sealion continues to be a tantalizing "what if".

Well put, Michael. And part of the uncertainty, for those involved at the time, was what the Germans might accomplish via airpower. Keep in mind that people on both sides were making grandiose claims for airpower, to the point of suggesting that it could win wars by itself, and nobody knew exactly how valid these claims might be. My impression is that one real element of uncertainty here was the air war against Britain. That war was certainly prosecuted with vigor and its goal (at least some of the time--the goal seemed to shift) was to win air superiority over the Channel and southern England.

Now, if that aim had succeeded (and many authorities believe that it came very close) then Sealion might have appeared to have a chance. The idea would be that airpower could keep the British navy at bay, and the amphibious assault could then succeed. My understanding is that it was only after the air campaign against Britain failed that Sealion was definitely cancelled. Whether Hitler would really have risked an amphibious assault if he did have air superiority is another question.

As Michael D says, most accounts of this phase of the war are rather sketchy on this whole subject. But it does seem plausible that Hitler (as Michael E seems to suggest) wanted to be poised to make a dramatic leap into southern England if he did win the air war.

BTW, I have to believe that a lot of the German fixation on an Allied invasion in the Pas de Calais stemmed from their own worries about a naval crossing. To them, with a minimal navy, crossing at the narrowest possible point seemed the only way. They seemed to forget that the Allies had a huge navy and massive merchant service and (in the Pacific and to North Africa) habitually transported invasion forces over thousands of miles. The Germans showed a real inability to put themselves in the shoes of their foes on that one.

[ June 03, 2003, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]