"Operation Sea Lion a-go-go" Topic

The attitudes of France and Britain are interesting, both were colonial powers, the German army heads for Paris and the French cave in.

The whole of the south of France was still undefeated as were their colonies yet they did not fight on.

I don't think that the loss of London would have caused a British surrender, perhaps it is because there are so many cities that are legitimate seats of power such as Edinburgh.

There was also a plan for the king and remaining government to use Canada as a base for the Empire's continued fight.

Of course the Germans would have a puppet government and they even had a sympathetic pupet king in Edward 8!

>Re the French navy, didn't the German army
>use masses of French army equipment,
>tanks trucks etc.

Captured material before armistice or handed
over under armistice terms.
Vichy forces weren't allowed tanks on continental
France by armistice terms.

>So when the Germans needed the French ships…………

The French blowed them out right before their
eyes in Toulon, November 1942…

>The whole of the south of France was still
>undefeated

See armistice terms and allowance for Vichy
forces strength in Southern France.
The reason behind begging for an armistice (Vichy not
yet existing in late June 1940) was precisely
to keep an independant military force on
continental France, while surrender couldn't.

>as were their colonies yet they did not fight on.

Not sure if British colonies would have carried on
with the Svatiska flag over London and 65% of the UK
territory and population (notwithstanding 90% of
industrial areas)
Yet, few French colonies did fight on, see Dakar
expedition and free french in Tchad.

>I don't think that the loss of London would have
>caused a British surrender, perhaps it is because
>there are so many cities that are legitimate seats
>of power such as Edinburgh.

IMHO, guess the problem isn't to find a city
large enough to seat statemen and have them
talk about resistance, the problem is to have
a large enough industrial and demographic potential,
notwithstanding the need of a strong enough
defensive line.
In 1941, the Russians had enough space and a
good Autumn-Winter season to do this.
On the other hand, 1918 Germans begged for an
armistice without a single inch of the territory
occupied by allies.
An armistice isn't a peace treaty, nor a cooperation
treaty, it's a suspension of arms, under acceptance
of the enemy provisional conditions.

>There was also a plan for the king and remaining >government to use Canada as a base for the Empire's >continued fight.

Not sure, being alone in the fight, that the British
would have done much harm to the Germans from Canada,
at least for 1940-1943.
From there, there would have been some sort of 'free
British' willing to keep on the fight certainly, but
without much ground effectiveness untill the later
years.
The RN, being in comparison with the French navy
as large as were 1940 French ground forces in
comparison with 1940 British ground forces, would have accounted for a fair part of this 'free British' army
thus undoubtly keeping a high degree of effectiveness
on seas.

With regards to this 'free British' option, you end up
pretty near from what free French forces have done
in 1943-1945.

20th century conflicts have shown IMHO that a highly industrialized country with a large body of water
around its borders enjoy a fair deal of strategic superiority.
See Japan as an interesting example for this.
French most populated and industrialized areas are
hardly 200-300 km from the Franco-German borders.
And its mostly flat ground all the way…

A side note for French forces evacuated from
Dunkirk :
When ordered back to France, there was NO Vichy
state and the plan was to have them be available for
a predicted armistice force to be created.
The Germans had then 2.000.000 French POWs in hand.

The Old Fox:

The attitudes of France and Britain are interesting, both were colonial powers, the German army heads for Paris and the French cave in.

The whole of the south of France was still undefeated as were their colonies yet they did not fight on.

Contrary to the myth that the war in France was over after Dunkirk, it did actually continue afterwards and indeed after the fall of Paris. The Germans were forced to fight as far south as Bordeaux and Lyon, Kleist's Panzer group reached the Spanish Border before the armistice. Hardly a case of throwing in the towel once Paris fell.

The French Government fell before France surrendered. Prime-minister Reynaud was forced to resign as he wished to fight on.

The Best of the French Colonial Forces had been deployed to France, once they were gone, there was little to replace them with. The French Army was wholly committed and, except for two army groups and the corps that faced the Italians (who also invaded) had been destroyed as a fighting force.

In all the French did the best they could under the circumstances.

It is also true that the French troops evacuated from Dunkirk did return to France. Their units were in some cases reformed and took part in the defence against the German Somme Offensive. The same can hardly be said of the British after Dunkirk.

I don't think that the loss of London would have caused a British surrender, perhaps it is because there are so many cities that are legitimate seats of power such as Edinburgh.

Being a much smaller country than France, the loss of the financial and commercial heart of the nation would have been a fatal blow. If this was combined with the loss of the manufacturing facilities of the South and Midlands, then the War would be essentially over.

As marcpa points out, there would have been an exile governnment in Canada, but effectively Britain would have been finished.

After September 1940, the realisation that Germany couldn't succesfully invade Britain was realised. In fact, it was hoped for. Germany would have been dealt a bloody nose. Which would have held gold dust good stead with others on the fringe of the conflict.

As been said before, all Nazi efforts were polarised towards the atlantic after then.

There is mention of a Sealion in 41 here. The thing to bear in mind for that is that while the Germans may have better anti naval forces the British would have been busy re-arming over the winter and the Luftwaffe would either have had to maintain air superiority over southern England (Difficult) or re-obtain it (also very difficult).

There is mention of a Sealion in 41 here. The thing to bear in mind for that is that while the Germans may have better anti naval forces the British would have been busy re-arming over the winter and the Luftwaffe would either have had to maintain air superiority over southern England

That works both ways of course. The Germans would have had plenty of time to expand and equip the Luftwaffe. '41 sees the introduction of the FW-190 something the Brits would have struggled to cope with.

The problem with 1941 in regards to the German invasion is the fact that Hitler had lost intrest in the scheme. The U-boats are doing well enough from June 1940 to Febuary 1941,and are sinking large amounts of tonnage. Hitler would easily be persuaded that this option rather than invasion is more realistic, after all his attention is on the East, he really wants to take on Russia before they grow any stronger.
Hitler may have been a gambler but to risk invasion for a man who thought of himself as a great general but he knew nothing of naval warfare.