• m0darn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    if Germany had proceeded with operation Sealion - invasion of Britain- and succeeded

    But they didn’t because it wouldn’t have worked.

    • SquiffSquiff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The battle of Britain was a very close thing and if the Germans had used a slightly different strategy, they could have won. Given that America was not yet in the war and there was an alliance with the Soviet Union, could you explain why the Germans could not have proceeded with operation sealion bearing in mind that the allies did essentially the reverse 4 years later?

      • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Germany didn’t have the manpower or the economy for a protracted war. Hence the early reliance on “Blitzkreig” when taking France/Poland/etc…

        The moment that first push petered out and it became a slog instead of a blitz, they had already lost. It was just a matter of time.

        As someone already mentioned, the Nazi state’s entire strategy relied on getting access to Russia’s oil reserves before their own ran out. They were on a ticking clock until they could make that happen (which ultimately they didn’t).

        As for operation Sea Lion giving them British Empire oil, why would you think that taking the island of Britain meant that they automatically take all the colonies of Britain? Conquering an island doesn’t mean they get Canada and India (for example). That’s not how war works.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Wasn’t oil the reason for the North Africa campaign? What if Barbarossa resources went to North Africa instead?

          • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Hitler very much didn’t want a third front in the war. If Barbarossa had shifted to North Africa, it would mean fewer troops to deal with the soviets when they inevitably invaded (which Hitler was sure they would do). As it was, North Africa was (at first) an inconvenience to them. Mussolini had invaded North Africa to get his “empire”, and when they started taking heavy losses there, it became clear that the Allies could take advantage of it to come up into Europe through Italy and the Mediterranean (which is ultimately what they did). Germany had to deploy Rommel and the Africa Corp. to help the Italians or face fighting a war on three fronts.

            In short, Italy was supposed to be Hitler’s protection against invasion from the south. But Mussolini was an idiot.

            Edited to add: You must remember that at this point in time, North African oil reserves were for the most part undeveloped. As far as Hitler was concerned, it was just a bunch of sand.