Which invasion was more unlikely to succeed for Germany: Sealion or Barbarossa?

Which invasion was more unlikely to succeed for Germany: Sealion or Barbarossa?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3YFdU4ZXaDw
michaeltfassbender.com/nonfiction/the-world-wars/big-picture/the-transfer-of-soviet-factories-during-world-war-ii/
forum.axishistory.com//viewtopic.php?t=22442
history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-21/cmhPub_104-21.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
youtube.com/watch?v=8vMypCinkRk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Sealion

britain and the US had at that point extensive practice in amphibious landings. Germany never had that experience let alone the landers necessary to accomplish it without staggering casualties. and thats just establishing a beachhead let alone marching inland

When Nazi Germany attempted first to invade Norway... They lost ships and personnel at a amazing rate,

Right, I am aware. The reason I am asking is that Raeder actually urged Hitler not to declare war on the USSR; considering his generals were strategically superior to Hitler, there must be some credence to Raeder's warning.

Say Sealion commences in April 1942, and no Barb. What then?

Haha wrong faggot, UK was close to capitulation during the Blitz; if the Luftwaffe focused on industry and military, instead of terror bombing Sealion is possible. As for the USSR i think that is possible too

Sealion, obviously. Barbarossa almost worked. Sealion's boats sank in a calm river.

He would have had to contend with the world's two biggest navies.

this is far from correct, the bombing of london solidified public support for the war with germany, not to mention the luftwaffe's performance in neutralizing the royal air force was nowhere near as a effective as high command thought. Britain was not close to capitulation.

Barbarossa for sure. It was just improbable and against very steep odds. Sealion was a pure pipe dream and could never, ever have worked.

youtube.com/watch?v=3YFdU4ZXaDw

>neutralizing the RAF
That didn't happen, read up on the Battle of Britain. The Luftwaffe was destroyed because they underestimated the RAF.

Right, but in terms of addressing the UK's navy in 42, could H send paratroopers into the island to seize the British ports? Or, Blitz and control the Suez? Also, what about naval bombers knocking out British capital?

Britain was on the verge on breaking from the destruction of airfields and factories, then hitler had a personal chimpout and decided to terror bomb cities instead to punish the bongs for not siding with him spurning his anglo-german alliance dreams. Actually, he was constantly interfering with and obstructing with the planning of the Luftwaffe and Göring was an a gloryhound promoted far above his competence aswell. Dont forget about the massive amount of airplanes pulled off for Barbarossa too.

Properly focused and coordinated the air war could have been won and Britain forced to the negotiating table.

How do you supply the paratroopers?

The nazis invented ufos.

You should be proud of your pilots during the battle of britain. But what if H followed the advice of his Generals, and stuck with Britian? That is, from 40 to 42 focus war industry on Airforce and Navy? It seems if this were to happen, then Sealion would still fail, but the odds would be lower than Barb.

That's basically what I said. They attempted to neutralize the RAF and overestimated their performance in doing this.

actually the terror bombing of cities was a mistake during a night raid the luftwaffe pilot's mistook the lights of one area for an airfield. turned out it was london and the brits responded with their own bombing of a german city (can't remember which one) after that the gloves came off.

Transport planes.

Britain could have fought indefinitely, albeit in total misery. Churchill would had to have been ousted, too. There was no way for Hitler to control the seas, so no way to starve them out.

Attrition was favoring the British in the air, too.

No point in invading the UK.

Just bomb the ports, and mine the coast

UK only mattered as a base for US invasions. Prevent anyone from entering and leaving and you're golden.

East Europe is a continent onto itself with large lands and populations. It'll take decades to surround, contain, infiltrate, convert, destroy, etc.

They couldn't make precision air drops and the paratroopers would have extremely limited means to coordinate with the supply plains.

Unless you're dreaming of the biggest paradrop in history times five and they drop enough SS to seize multiple ports and airfields.

Okay, found one who agrees with me.

When I say this, it is by no means an insult to British military and will, it is just that most German generals were terrified of invading the soviet union, and would rather continue the war with UK - this speaks a lot about the odds of victory.

Also on Barbarossa. Hitler was being critically retarded again, opening up a second front for no reason at all aganist the one great power actually allied to him or atleast willing to stay neutral for a while. Then after the invasion began the soviet state started collapsing like a house of cards, many people had enough of the opressive and genocidal stalinism, many ukranian, belorusssian etc villagers and even many russians greeted the germans with flowers, ready to fight aganist communism. The hitler decided to go "lol no ur untermenchen, get ready to be exterminated" forcing them into a desperate war for literal survial and siding with stalin. Then came the second absolute stoke of retardation, declaring war on the united states after the japanese chimpout. No treaty forced him to do it. He just went and did it just to stand with his ally, instead of forcing the japanese to open up a second front in siberia. Even a losing front would have tied enough soviet forces to punch through to Moscow. Italy ALSO fucked over them by getting involved with a balkans war and losing, forcing the germs to delay barbarossa for six weeks to deal with it. That six summer weeks could have been critical in pushing on and gaining more ground before the winter of 41/42 witch by the luck of fate was the coldest of the entire 20th century

Okay let's put aside the paratroopers. Keep in mind, I know Germany had an expiration date, and I myself am not german, so there is no emotion behind these questions.

What is stopping the Germans from building more capital ships, landing craft, and naval bombers instead of the tanks used to invade the USSR?

>The Luftwaffe was destroyed

You mean the Luftwaffe went to the eastern front

My point is Barbarossa was a bigger mistake than attempting to invade Britain.

Barbarossa for sure.
All Operation Sealion needed was German dominance in the air. The Luftwaffe was actually really close in destroying the RAF. If the Luftwaffe focused on industry and military then SeaLion would have worked.
England's Navy is no match for the Luftwaffe to take on.

>actually the terror bombing of cities was a mistake during a night raid the luftwaffe pilot's mistook the lights of one area for an airfield. turned out it was london and the brits responded with their own bombing of a german city (can't remember which one) after that the gloves came off.

Nope. That was all hitler. The fake lights and hidden factories and all the other stuff came later to counter unrestricted strategic bombing.

Dont mistake wartime propaganda and victors winning history for real. Britain WAS close to breaking. There would be no way to keep fighting with the Luftwaffe winning the air war and destorying all the port facilities, factories and cities.

No one of knowing, or calculating the odds for certain but the Soviets industrial power was more powerful than Britain and Germany. Sealion in 40 would have failed yeah, but focusing on just knocking out britian is a maybe.

>most German generals were terrified of invading the soviet union
No doubt about that, imagine the stress that Hermann Göring, Franz Halder, and Walther von Brauchitsch had when preparing for the invasion.

No, he means the Luftwaffe was destroyed. They lost so many bombers and fighters over Britain that they were effectively neutered. The Heer on the Eastern Front constantly complained about their lack of air support. The Luftwaffe simply didn't have enough manpower or materiel left to cover such a vast swathe of territory.

Read a book sometime.

Dont forget the literally millions of tons of war aid the US gave to the soviets after hitler decided to declare war on both.

And in the end no one worked harder than hitler to defeat germany. Imagine what if he just let the generals to do their thing like stalin after he wisened up.

So, you would agree with me that Barbarossas success was more mathematically impossible than defeating the UK? Both were doomed to fail, this is just am exercise in strategy.

Oh, absolutely nothing. But the British could have done the same, and they were starting with an immense head start in domestic shipbuilding, naval tradition and experience, and ships already in the water due to treaties.
Resources put by Germany into shipbuilding would presumably be taken away from other elements of their military. If they'd spent all their time trying to out-British the British at sea, not only would they likely have failed, they probably would have had a much harder time on the ground.

I agree on the impossibility of Germany ever out producing Britain's Navy. But, in terms of airforce, I think the Germans could mass produce naval bombers to compensate for their smaller navy.

>Both were doomed to fail,

Barbarossa wasnt and the actual ground invasion of britain would have been completely unneeded. Despite everything, taking on literally all the great powers of the world, going in the war unprepared, the largest armies and industries lining up aganist germany and hitler personally fucking over the best generals Barbarossa was STILL nearly a success, they got in the outskirts of Moscow and managed to capture Stalingrand even if not for long.

Sealion was just like Tannenbaum, something hitler dreamed up but put away as something unneccessary and a most likely ending up to be a costly failure

Considering 90% of german casualties were in the east they probably could've done Sealion instead and won it.

Barbarossa would've been successful, had Nazi Germany succesfully held Stalingrad and fended off further counterattacks, keeping the Soviets away from the sweet liquid gold South of the region. Sealion would have been impossible, however.

Had Operation Barbarossa succeeded, then Germany could have secured the occupied Soviet territory, with the help of Japan, and they can siege Great Britain, and build up a proper invasion force to conduct a proper invasion with.

Germany's (or Hitler's) main problem was always overestimating their enemies. They assumed the Soviets were incompetent, and expected to mirror Finland's results from the Soviet-Finnish War

No, I say that Barbarossa was flat out impossible.

Zero percent chance of Germany beating the USSR.

Germany's generals were more afraid of the Soviets than the British. Raeder, in September 1940, attempted to convice retard not to invade the USSR, amd continue planning SeaLion.

Then you're just wrong as shit.

No.

Barbarossa was impossible.

Say the Germans took Moscow in 1941. They have to deal with in city close quarters partisans. Also, a Soviet winter counter attack. Even if leningrad moscow and stalingrad all fell, the Soviets already moved their industry to central Asia, far far away from German bombers.

Germany invaded the USSR with 130 divisions, 30 armored and mech. The soviet industry was a monster that could out produce that number, and make even more tanks and mechs, which they did.

Bump

>they got in the outskirts of Moscow
Was it a smart move after the Battle of Moscow to move south towards the The Volga River ? Or should have the Germany Army kept it's assault on Moscow?

that's nowhere near where stalingrad actually is

what a shitty map

Can you share the love with a improve one?

No. I am absolutely right on this. Hitler fantasied about USSR being on the verge of breaking and even bragged about kicking the door down. But this was no were near a reality.

At what junctures were the Germans close to beating the USSR?

As I said, Soviet Industry was a killer. And since it was tucked safely away in central Asia, there was no way the Luftwaffe could stop it. The same could not be said for Britain, whose industry was still vulnerable. Also, if that is not enough, look at the Soviet Manpower ratio.

> Imagine what if he just let the generals to do their thing

I think about it everyday

Germans accomplished Sealion with sticks and stones
Barbarossa was the real challange

Think your right and I might play devils advocate, but that guy is just salty cause hungary got btfo.

Pound for pound, idk soviets seem like a more difficult opponent than the brits.

They need oil to fuel their war machines and taking the Caucus region would've hindered their effectiveness, drastically. Had Germany been able to withhold the Caucus from the USSR, then the Soviets wouldn't have fuel for their motorized/armored divisions, and their infantry wouldn't stand a chance against the Germans and their joke of an air force wouldn't fare well, either.

The map is about 280 miles off for Stalingrad.

But the Germans were no where near taking the Caucasus for oil.

Say they did. USSR had more oil reserves in Kazakhstan, Asian Russia, and Siberia.

I mean, just look at the fucking size of the USSR. How, even the most insane person could not see its futility is beyond me.

Hitler did almost everything wrong. I wish I could go back in time and murder baby Hitler so someone else took power and became Fuhrer instead.

It almost happened , if that idiot of Hitler and goering didn t decide to bomb london instead of keep destroying airfields and factories , your RAF couldn t resist longer .

It was a three-pronged strategic attack. Leningrad not falling for years despite the siege was just as important as Stalingrad where hitlers personal retardation about air resupply lost an entire army group for the germans

The soviet union WAS on the verge on breaking.

>At what junctures were the Germans close to beating the USSR?

Like literally almost marching into their capital? Or the time when it took the combined production of three superpowers to push them back? Or the times when they successfully pulled off the largest encirclements and mass surrenders of history?

>And since it was tucked safely away in central Asia

Very little of the industry got moved and Moscow was the railway and administrative hub of the SU. Without russia they would have lost.

They bombed Berlin and Hitler chimped out and said fuck tactical bombing and started going after cities. This allowed the RAF to survive

>joke of an airforce

Lol no. Soviet bombers were great at bombing highway choke points, and even the Luftwaffe admitted this.

Dont forget how he was fucking with the development of the Luftwaffe from the start. He had a huge boner for the worthless Schnellnbomber concept and canceled the development of strategic bombers because he expected a quick war.

Germany could have easily built up a sizeable bomber force before the war if not for hitler.

>Very little of the industry got moved and Moscow was the railway and administrative hub of the SU. Without russia they would have lost.

Except this is factually wrong. The USSR was not near any breaking point what so ever, because Stalin moved most of the industry in Ukraine to Central Asia. See Novosibirsk. See every tank amd aircraft factory was 600 miles away, from Moscow. And nothing was preventing the Soviets from moving their HQ and population eastward. Moscow was not permanent. You think a cold calculating leader such as Stalin would have not moved everything if he saw Moscow in danger? To him, it was just another city.

Imagine their faces when they almost fucking did it.

Except the Germans were never close to a victory in the USSR, it only LOOKED that way to high command.

Bump

Prove it.

Sealion would have won them the war.

Sealion would have prevented the UK from being a staging ground for the massive genocidal carpet bombing campaign of the US.

Sealion would have collapsed the British Empire.

The Germans could have marched right into the UK after Dunkirk. The UK was totally unprepared.

If they had taken the UK uncle Adolf could have set up a proxy government and integrated the British/Irish into his army.

Sealion would have won the good guys the war.

Sealion could have united the Aryan people.

Follow my posts.

>Stalin moved most of the industry in Ukraine to Central Asia

Stop repeating wartime propaganda.

>And nothing was preventing the Soviets from moving their HQ and population eastward. Moscow was not permanent.

Are you really this stupid? You think they are going to be able to move one of the largest cities in europe? Every single factory, design bureu and critical infrastructure? Moscow was also the railway hub of the SU

>You think a cold calculating leader such as Stalin

Stalin was a dangerous and volatile psychopath who loved hitler and refused to believe the reports about Barbarossa till it actually happened. He is also responsible for most of the early soviet defeats, forcing them into pointless fights and executing them for retreating till he wised up and let his generals luke Zhukov win the war for him.

>Stalin would have not moved everything if he saw Moscow in danger? To him, it was just another city.

They made so sure that Moscow isnt getting given up they held a military parade, an extremely risk move on stalins orders right as it was under siege.

Except when the USA invades Britain. Taking away German gains. No way these retards could have ever won the war, only delay it by first beating the UK

This is exactly correct.

The u-boats could have monopolized English seaways.

They could have then invaded Ireland/Scotland first and armed all the Irish/Scottish separatists.

They could have bombed the coast so heavily that a coastal attack (ala D-Day) would have been unnecessary.

If the UK had gone down, the US would probably rethink the European war.

He could have even kept the (Germanic) royal family intact.

>USA invades Britain.
Good luck launching Operation Overlord from the US all the way to England. Crossing the entire Atlantic.
>these retards
Great word choice describing the same people who got us to the moon.

No, the US was only capable of invading France because the UK is 12 miles away.

There is no way the US could move the needed troops at that point in the war all the way across the atlantic without the u-boats annihilating them.

The English actually believed they were going to be invaded and possibly lose, hence Churchills drunken "we will fight them in the streets" speech.

Had they taken Stalingrad, then the Caucusus would've been vulnerable, and seizing the land beneath would've been a cake walk, thus severing a vital region for oil. The Soviets had no worthy allies in Asia, and expansive Japan holds a huge influence in East Asia, denying them further access.

why're you asking Sup Forums

Ridiculous.

Hitler wasn't competing with English production. he was competing with American production.

The UK was the conveyor belt moving US bombs to Germany.

If he took the UK, then English production would have been his.

There was a massive natsoc movement in the UK he could have placed in power.

>wartime propaganda

The Germans fell for there own propaganda. German military high command assumed Soviets placed 75% of their war industry in European Russia, which was an oversight on their part. In fact, the Soviet Industry grew tremendously compared to Tsarist Russia. During this rapod grow in the 30's most of the new factories and Industry were located in Central Asia, contrary to what German high command believed.

See: michaeltfassbender.com/nonfiction/the-world-wars/big-picture/the-transfer-of-soviet-factories-during-world-war-ii/

And

forum.axishistory.com//viewtopic.php?t=22442

And

history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-21/cmhPub_104-21.pdf

>Stalin loved Hitler

Lol, no. Stalin did not believe Hitler was stupid enough to break their alliance, since Germany relied on the USSR for certain goods. Moreover, Stalin thought that Hitler was not dumb enough to strike the USSR when it would be to Hitlers' detriment. Stalin was rationally calculating.

And so what if you can not move the buildings from Moscow? Soviets did not need red square to win. They only needed to move population, Generals, documents, and more industry.

Anyway, the Germans never took Moscow in the first place, and even if they did, what makes you think the Soviets could not just retake it?

It's kind of hard debating history when there is Reddit tier rules set up in order to protect (((certain))) members.

Would you rather have some dumb fucking bait thread shithead? Besides, I put my eggs in many baskets. Already posted there.

After the partition of poland, the russians started focusing on getting ready for the inevitable war. If hitler had waited to invade russia they would have had time to fortify. He should have just taken stalingrad and the oilfields, left russia to grind to a halt, then focus on britain, then finish off the commies. If he had let the commies build their army they would have definitely zerg rushed him but he made a mistake in his assault on Leningrad and moscow

I don't really see any downside to this plan.

Germans had a numerical and tactical advantage. If Hitler had simply focused on bombing British airfields and ships instead of waging a ground war against the vast expanse of Russia, they would have almost certainly held a competitive advantage.

It also seems a complete waste to have spent so much time and resources fighting British airplanes in the Battle of Britain for very little reward. Why give up halfway? Classic Sun Tzu: cut off the head of the snake and the body dies. The chances of the United States entering the war after the loss of Britain would have been drastically reduced. Also, don't forget Britain lost much of its military equipment (guns, explosives, anti-tank guns, vehicles) during the retreat at Dunkirk, another huge military advantage of the germans in the event of a guerrilla war/ground invasion.

Defending Germany's own border from Russian advances later in the war would have been much easier from a defensive and strategic standpoint than invading Russia, and at the cost of fighting on two fronts.

The strength of the British defence has been greatly exaggerated for the most part when compared to the expanse of the USSR

>And so what if you can not move the buildings from Moscow? Soviets did not need red square to win. They only needed to move population, Generals, documents, and more industry.

You must be one of those Seattle communists or someone who never heard of logistics.

Its pointless to even argue with someone who just repeats the same shit.

Thanks.

It's like, I do not really give a fuck about Germany. I am not even German. I just like playing with strats and what ifs.

Even after Germans successfully invade Britain, I still know this is only delaying the inevitable fate for Germany, when Uncle Sam comes along with an industry superior to both Germany and the Soviet Union.

Greenland to Iceland to UK

>USA invades Britain

Mounting an invasion across the English Channel was already a challenge, how the hell do you think they could pull off an invasion across the Atlantic?

The carpet bombing of Germany from the UK is what lost them the war. It killed millions of Germans and destroyed the factories.

If he had not invaded USSR (first) he could have prevented the massive saturation bombing and incorporated the English people/industry.

The German Army could have held off the Soviets indefinitely, but were not capable of conquering it with a two-front war.

>Greenland to Iceland to UK

Greenland and Iceland had fuck all in the way of infrastructure, not to mention that in this scenario the USA would be faced with the combined power of the Royal Navy and the Kriegsmarine.

Stalin was gonna invade Europe after modernizing the army. That's why Barbarossa started because it was preemptive strike. Hitler knew that he couldn't stop soviet army if it attacked first. Stalin had moved his army near the front for attack, that's why Luftwaffe destroyed so many planes at the beginning.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy

Edvard Radzinsky's Stalin book is pretty good redpill. Stuff that marxist media will never report.

It's just so incredible.

Sealion was the key to victory.

Instead they were consumed with hatred for the (((bolsheviks))) which is understandable, but here we are today.

They lost Ragnarok and now Western civilization has fallen completely.

I thought Hitler didn't want to invade England????

POL BTFO

I misread, very tired.

Yeah they had way too many of their planes shot out of the sky, they took too many losses and couldn't recover from it quick enough. From what I read there was a massive campaign in England to collect all metal pans, pots/cutlery etc to melt down for new planes, sten guns that were made cheaply and sold in mainland Europe, given to women and children to kill anything that wasn't an ally. etc.

Possibly, the countryside areas were littered with bombs but his bombing campaign over London and Coventry was designed to break the spirit and cause submission, it almost worked. People think that Brits endured and were all tea and biscuits, that's a bit of a myth, many people grew tired and angry of the constant bombing, the morale of people was actually broken but they just carried on through it, anger keeping them going, not some spirit of a bulldog. Anger and rage at the fact the Germans had dared to come near us in such a manner. A rage that is still felt by the generations of children that grew up under it, the gas mask drills (called disney masks) the cages that were in their homes in case they got bombed and couldn't get to their shelters.

It's all very sad really.

Disappointing response, your text length did not even match mine. Not from Seattle. So you are wrong about two things now. Instead of criticizing my points you just say I am wrong.


I even gave you evidence. Other sources. Stalin did not give a shit and was a superior calculator than meth head twitchy stupid fucking retard Hitler.

Look pal, I know Hungary is salty it fought amd lost. But let me spell this out to you clearly, so sit down kiddo, and listen to how wars are really won:

Manpower
Industry
Willpower
Land

The Soviets had more of everything I listed than the Germans.

There was literally zero chance the Germans could have beat the USSR.

Do you know what proof is?

Because now we are talking about the United States.

I completely agree, fantasizing about this strategy boggles my mind it's just so incredible how in hindsight, Sealion was war-winning.

Do you know how to read? I do not want to repeat myself again. You should just start pointing out were I am wrong.

>the United States

Which was barely recovering from the Depression, and would also be preoccupied fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. I think you overestimate the strength of your country.

In retrospect good thinking

be hard to complete, Royal Navy was fortified in scrapa flow, far north. Roosevelt would have sent a few ships to London harbour to hit the mines to get casus

Can't do that until America enters the

>The English actually believed they were going to be invaded and possibly lose, hence Churchills drunken "we will fight them in the streets" speech.

It pains me to think how different (read: better) this world would turned out had Mosley been elected instead of Churchill. It's commonly accepted by historians that Churchill was a gambling addict and a drunkard who sided with the jewish oligarchy to pay off his gambling debts, which apparently exceeded £18,000 - not a small sum of money in those days

It pretty much sums up the whole war, really: Corrupt kike puppet takes bribe from jewish elites to fight war on behalf of said jewish elites, wrecking nation in the process and turning the world into a corrupt banking cartel

youtube.com/watch?v=8vMypCinkRk

Our navy was larger than GB by 1945.

We are an industrial powerhouse.

Oh yeah, if that part does not convince you, see nukes. Anyway, if UK fell USA would have intervened to Germanys loss.

I have no idea what Seattle has to do with anything. I live in Arizona. You're obviously a deranged faggot.

The Germans had to reassign much of their Eastern Army in order to compensate for losses (originating in the UK) in the West.

All the damage to German industry was caused by strategic bombing from the UK.

The US produced over 2.2 million tons of bombs that were dropped on Germany.

If the west had been alleviated, I believe the Germans could have indefinitely held off the bolsheviks in the East.

Napoleon took Moscow and look what happened. The Germans were terrified of recreating his mistakes

No, that was Hitlers' pretext for war. Stalin had no designs on Europe. He wanted to focus on just the Soviet Union, make it grow while the other countries fought and weakened themselves. Some speculate that Stalin was actually eyeballing Sinkiang, and Persia, rather than Europe.

Retard, I was responding to Hungarian flag. Idk how your post was linked. You should have clicked his, then you would know I was talking to Hungary flag.