Comments

Well, the Germans couldn't have forced a classic cross-channel invasion without dominance of the air, but I have read accounts speculating that an improvised paratrooper invasion, no later later than early July, could've given them control of southern England before the British Expeditionary Force could've been effectively rearmed.

General Karl Student, Germany's leading paratrooper commander, proposed such an option to Adolf Hitler--but again, political considerations (the same ones that influenced the decision not to attack the B.E.F. on the beaches of Dunkirk) appear to have been paramount in Hitler's decision-making. He felt that, threatened by German air power, facing a U-boat blockade and standing without formal allies, the British government would make peace with him; AFAIK he never took invading Great Britain seriously, it was all bluff and bluster on his part.

Student's proposal was certainly risky, but I've read historical analyses that consider it plausible given the high competence and fighting spirit of the Wehrmacht at the time and the B.E.F.'s momentary disorganization and lack of heavy weaponry. Reinforcements and some material support could've been flown into southern England by the Luftwaffe assuming that German paratroopers could've captured a couple large airfields; sending in troops and heavy equpment by sea would only have been possible if/when the Germans controlled the shore batteries on both sides of the English Channel.

Of course, it would've been much simpler for the German panzers to have overrun the British forces on the beaches of Dunkirk in mid-June of 1940--but IMHO Hitler never truly desired a German conquest of Great Britain, he wanted an alliance (or at least an understanding of friendly neutrality) instead... --C.K.

Hitler certainly admired the British Empire and respected what he thought were the British qualities, but there are two ways of interpreting the failure to send in the panzers at Dunkirk, and the battle for air superiority later in 1940 seems wasteful if AT THAT STAGE he wasn't seriously thinking of an invasion.

On a lighter note, I remember a TV programme focussing on Hitler's attitude to the British which showed film of a load of German officers in the late 1930s starting on a foxhunt. The combination of Nazi uniforms and foxhunting somehow seemed hilarious.

On the British side, there was serious consideration of making peace with Germany in 1940. In some recently released papers Churchill seems to be giving it serious consideration, but these were papers shared with the War Cabinet and I suspect he was manoevring for the middle ground. The surprise (reflected in a recent play) is to find Chamberlain coming down against peace overtures, which isolated Halifax since the recently-added Labour members were dead against making peace. Then of course there was Hess's strange peace mission, certainly against Hitler's wishes: there is good reason to think that while Hess was slightly unhinged, he had made contact with some members of the British establishment though not of the government.

There's landing troops - but then there's keeping them supplied. They could have foraged for food and scrounged for petrol but ammo that would fit their guns? Air supply can only handle so much. The Germans would have need massive amounts of navel air so they could ship across the channel without the Royal Navy sinking their transports - and it's hard to have total dominance over Land and Sea.

Speaking of guns, it's hard to parachute in with big ones - and the British were getting museum pieces ready for battle while cranking out every gun they could. Lack of heavy guns, tanks, and limited supplies could have turned "German Occupied England" into a P.O.W. camp, costing the Germans some of their best troops.

Then again, if it had broken the back of the British then Germany would have had a one front war - but I can't see Germany getting enough troops there to conquer England, much less Wales and Scotland.

Goodgulf

History is much like fantasy, lots of ifs. buts, could have and would have's but nothing and nobody really knows until the end. Fortunately for all of us history proved to be on our side but slight changes here or there could have changed a lot of results.

The Japanese attack on Peril Harbour bringing the USA into the war was not planned on by Germany and likely caught them by surprise as well. The Allies now had a country that was no longer just supplying weapons but went into war mode and vastly increased production. How long the USA would have stayed isolated is a question if the Japanese had not attacked and may have changed the results.

It is like reading one of the stories in this Library, one never knows for sure if the author does not have a twist deep in the story changing everything.

I consider there to have only been 3 genuine all-rounders in the history of the game of cricket. Miller is one, Botham is the 2nd and Garfield Sobers is the best of them all. I supposes cases could now be made for Jacques Kallis and Shane Watson, but time will tell. Keith Miller is a sporting hero of mine and his view of cricket is part of the reason why, to him it was a game, and this view may have been formed by his experiences in the war.
CS' point about history being like fantasy is a well made one and many of our current great fantasists have drawn on history for their stories. Even Tolkien had his marvelous vision of Middleearth shaped by his experiences in the trenches during WW 1

One of the major problems the Germans faced in their Russian expedition was resupply and this was over captured land.
To me it beggars belief that an airborne invasion could have possibly held on for more than a few days.
It doesn't need fast fighters to strafe and bomb landed paras, so the spits and hurricanes would still have been available for air fighting while older planes harried the isolated paras.

We saw just how isolated paras could be at Arnheim, let alone 30mils from base over The English Channel controlled by the Royal Navy and without air supremacy.

IMO The only chance the Germans could have had was probably a landing on flat East Anglia and hope that the proximity to German seaports alloweed then to take on the Royal Navy.

The terrain over the East Anglia would have been ideal for an invading force, -flat, not many trees, intensively cultivated, and very few rivers. Ideal for tanks!

Imo a landing on the south coast would have been suicidal-the invaders immediiately faced the South Downs which are very hilly and woody and with small fields. The ideal terrain to defend, and extremely difficult for tanks.

Unfortunately the distance from Holland and Belgium to the Suffolk and Essex coasts, is considerably longer than France to Sussex.

I am of the opinion that even with the low morale and unpreparedness of England that an invasion in 1940 would have been suicidal, largely because of Naval supremacy.

Now if he had waited and prepared like the Allies did before D-Day and kept out of Russia and kept Stalin happy, and invaded in Summer 41 then he may well have had a chance, but England would have been prepared.

But it's all supposition, and Hitler's big mistake was the Russian campaign.

Here's one of the little known facts about that - the US never declared war on Germany. Instead Germany declared war on the US. Hitler thought that the "what we produce" statistics from the US were mere propaganda - that US couldn't really have that great of an output - and that he could beat then (as well as the Soviets).

If the Germans hadn't declared war, it's possible that the US wouldn't have gotten involved in that "foreign war" in Europe.

Of course, if Hitler had let the troops around Stalingrad rest and resupply - say left a screening force there while reorganising the main force - then Stalingrad might have fallen. Many of the "what if"s of WWII surround "what if Hitler hadn't been a madman" and actually listened to his generals at times. Him donig that - that would have been bad...

Goodgulf

So much more good-mannered than bottom air.

As a Yorkshireman I put a case in for Geoffrey Hirst (2000 runs and 200 wickets in one season) and the immortal Wilfred Rhodes. Also of course there were Trevor Bailey, C B Fry and Walter Hammond. Weren't there also two Australians called Richie Benaud and Alan Davidson?

No sorry! Botham was definitely the best of them all. Not only the best all rounder but the best for entertainment! Perhaps Australians enjoy less fond memories of the man!!

Oh yes and I nearly forgot! He played football for Scunthorpe!