What would have happened if France had held the Meuse in 1940?

Actually between the Polish and French campaign German army considerably increased in numbers - few dozens new infantry divisions were raised.

Number of fast units (armored and motorized), on the other hand, did not increase considerably - as it sometimes claimed. Thus German army which invaded France had much larger percent of infantry divisions compared to fast divisions than that German army which invaded Poland one year earlier.

In September-October 1939 against Poland Germans had some 60 - 65 divisions of which 15 were armored or motorized.

In May-June 1940 against the West (France, Low Countries, BEF, etc.) they had some 120 - 136 divisions of which 16 were armored or motorized.

==================================

Edit:

Check also my posts on the previous page because I see that it switched this post to 2nd page.

It was never finished, inadequately manned

It was mannned (the Siegfried Line) by some 1 million men (just estimating at a glance, counting number of divisions + taking into account that there were also some non-divisional units - but if you want I can count more precisely) - including those in reserves & behind the main front of course - yet on 9-10 September. Of course you can argue that between 3 and 9-10 September France had 6 days to attack before Germans had 1 million men at the Siegfried Line. :) But the point is that France also needed time to mobilize. And as it turned out - it needed more time to mobilize than Germany (maybe their mobilization was badly organized, sloppy, etc.). Germans also left considerable part of Luftwaffe (but mainly fighters - as nearly all bombers were over Poland) in West & North Germany.

Even though Germans sent majority of their forces and best part of their army against Poland, they still had in West Germany - by the end of the first decade of September - an army bigger than entire Polish army, facing the German borders with France, Belgium, Luxemburg & Holland.

They also had more artillery in the West alone, than entire Polish army had (even though they sent majority of their artillery to invade Poland).

You cannot say that a German army bigger than entire Polish army is something France could deal easily with.

And Siegfried Line - even if still incomplete - was anyway much more powerful than anything Poland had, when it comes to fortifications...

And German mobilization was still in progress, new divisions were being formed.

Just throughout September / October they formed at least 8 new divisions...

===========================================

It is a myth that Germany was weak in the West in September 1939. It was created by Nazi war criminals during the Nuremberg Trials (it was then when they testified that Germany had allegedly just several divisions to defend against French offensive, and that invading Poland was a gamble). By doing so, those Nazi war criminals wanted to put the blame for the fact that WW2 did not finish and Germany did not collapse yet in 1939 on France and Britain.
 
I see many ideias and facts wrong here:
- First - Hitler had all the information he needed on russian troops, formations and tank designs, he personally sent troops and top ranking officers along with engineers before the war to study, work and develop tanks WITH the USSR between 1933 and 1938, in fact the first german tank, a training unit callled "Tractors" WAS developed in conjunction with soviet engineers, there were also participation of german knowledge in the construction of the first factories of Ekaterimburg, in fact the German Barbarossa plan final destination WAS not Moscow or Leningrad, but the Urals factories, more in particular Smolensk, so Hilter was very aware of this menace, but he counted on time to deal with it.

Hitler WAS aware of the T-34 tanks, in fact the first T-34 tanks and KV series were taken into account when the Panzer 4 series and Stug anti tank variatns were comissioned, Hitler KNEW that Russia would only begin to produce this units in the Winter of 1941, so he planned the invasion for Spring 1941, and with 6-8 months of good weather, including almost no mud in that timeframe, we could have probably suceed.

In fact, there are videos and documents of training sessions to german panzer teams on how to defeat a KV tank, and if a T-34 group would appear they were told their numbers were few, so if they spoted many of them, it could only mean that the soviets concentrated all of them in one spot, and Dive Bombers with special antitank munitions were waiting on call to take on that task.

What happened in fact, was that Hitlers armies were at the door of Moscow right at the moment the first divisions of T-34s were trained, assembled and ready to fight, and that, along with the weather and the return of Zukhov with more tanks and veteran troops from the battle with Japan in MAnchuria WAS the fact that turned the war.

Indeed, many mistakes: Nazi Germany had no knowledge of the T-34 development program. (For obvious reasons; if the Germans had been aware of the fact that Russia had started production of a superior medium tank, they might have thought twice about invading. In fact, it wasn´t until 1943 that the German could put their Tigers and Panthers in the field in the battle of Kurks - and their performance was rather poor, as the production was hurried through in midwar.)° Smolensk is in Byelorussia, not behind the Ural mountains. The movement of some 1,900 Soviet factories to behind the Ural mountains was not known to Germany; it was an emergency measure taken in sight of the vast losses of men, materiel, and land in the West.

The 1st T-34s were encountered around Kiev, I believe. The fact that their presence had less impact than they might have was because of the toal breakdown of communications during the initial stages of Barbarossa, the fact that most units acted individually (unlike the German tanks they lacked radios at that time), and the total lack of air support. If, as you claim, the real war aim was the Ural mountain range - actually a fantasy Hitler uttered during the initial stages of Barbarossa, when all still seemed to go as expected -, then the Wehrmacht should have bypassed all major cities and headed staright beyond Moscow. No plans to this effect existed, however, as is already obvious from the directions of the three invading army groups; Army Group North was headed straight for Leningrad (and remained there for most of the war, as they were unable to encircle it), Army Group Center advanced towards Smolensk-Moscow, and Army Group South advanced towards the Don and the Wolga (with the ultimate goal of the Caucasian oil fields, which they however never reached in the 1942 campaign).

As for Malta, Hitler also wrongly relied on Mussonlini to secure the channel from Sicily to Tunisia as was expected, with all the might of italian surface fleet, to defeat the english fleet of the mediterrenean, which did not came to happen.

Hilter was deply troubled by the constant failure of italian forces when facing english troops, and had he placed less confidence in Mussonlini, things could have been diferent, hopefully they weren´t.

As for German army beeing vastly inferior to Allied troops, that´s just plain brainwashing, the german military at the time of the invasion of France, surpassed in number and quality the French and English army. French generals also accused England of not sending enough armor and trained Infantry to the front they were designated to defend, in fact, England kept its most trained and skilled troops defending the mother island.

The german luftwaffe was superior in all ways to the french and english aviation at the time of invasion, a english former air minister visited Germany before the war and submited a full report on the new models of German Messerchmits and their high maneuverability and speed compared to english and french designs, IT was this man who SAVED England, he also comissed the creation of a new and revolutionary plane The Spitfire that could take on the new and faster german planes. The same report was sent to France, but their selfish and confused Generals blinded by petty diferences ignored it.

More errors here: the German Luftwaffe did not have overall numerical superiority against the French and British air fleets; as you correctly remark, the British held the majority on their isles. What they consequently did achieve, however, is local air superiority. Nor did the Wehrmacht outnumber the Allied troops; however, most French troops were bogged down around the Maginot line, and the invasion of Holland and Belgium drew the expected Allied troops north; the resulting gap was exploited by the Ardennes offensive. Allied armor was superior to the light Panzers I and II that made up most of the Panzer component, but, as already mentioned, these were employed in an outdated infantry support role, seriously reducing their effectiveness.

And the majority of planes used by the RAF weren´t Spitfires, by the way, they were just the best known.

The whole reasoning behind the Blitzkrieg concept was that Germany needed quick victories - in the long run she could not hope to win the war, given the Allied resources (as the war on the Eastern front demonstrated, where the hoped-for Blitzkrieg victory turned into a 4 year war of attrition).

° There´s an audio recording in which Hitler admits that had he known the extent of the Red Army number of tanks, he might have thought twice about invading. (At that point some 20,000 Soviet tanks were considered destroyed, he mentions.) Link to this posted in the Did Hitler ever admit he was wrong? thread.
 
@ Lord Baal
I'd think that the UK was incapable of staging a land invasion of German occupied territory. So how would the UK beat Germany on its own? By a mere war of attrition? I don't see it, Germany had half of Europe to draw resources from.
Of course, in reality, the SU would probably eventually attack, or at least the USA, but assuming they wouldn't...
Germany's economy was absolute horsecrap. It would be lucky to last until 1950, even with the USSR as an ally and dominating Europe. Many of Germany's actions in the lead-up to war were actually predicated on economic problems in Germany itself. The original idea for a second attempt at the Anschluss was Hermann Goering's as he'd recently been put in charge of the German steel industry and recognised that Germany needed Austrian and/ or Czech iron ore supplies in order to function at even the basic level required for the German armaments industry. This is ignoring consumer products, which are necessary for any economy. Most other industries were actually in worse shape. Economics was one of the hardest-hit areas of tertiary education under the Nazis as well (only Medicine and Engineering did well under the Nazis) which meant that most high-ranking officials weren't even aware of how close to collapse the German economy was. A few of the more intelligent bureaucrats, like Goering and Albert Speer, understood Germany's economic situation, but Hitler himself had no knowledge of economics - his concepts of economics don't make sense according to even outdated theories at the time - and neither did the only alternative power structure, the army. Germany would have collapsed on its own without Britain firing a shot.

Of course, Britain would have fired a shot. I once made a post here on CFC, based on research that I did at university which showed that the British Empire was actually capable of defeating the entire Axis (yes, even Japan) all by itself, with no assistance from the USSR, US or even France. It would have been a long, bloody, world-shattering war - far more so that OTL WWII was - but it was possible.

I've made this argument before here in CFC, with references, so I might have to track down where I did it. It was likely not even last year, but the year before. Maybe even as far back as '09, when I was still in uni. It's not like Hitler and WWII threads are uncommon, and I seem to be the go-to-guy for events in Germany from 1933-40. But suffice it to say that the UK was far stronger than even the British realised. In many ways, it was similar to the American belief that they were the weaker party for a large portion of the Cold War, when in actuality their NATO partners were probably strong enough to resist the Soviets without them by sometime in the 1960s, and the US was ridiculously stronger than the USSR before that.

I don´t think it´s realistic to assume that the UK could have defeated Germany singlehandedly; Churchill´s eagerness to get the US involved in the war had a very sound reasoning behind it, and the U-boats came close to bringing Britain to its knees, even without an invasion.
The U-boats were never as effective as people think. They performed as well as they did more due to British inexperience than any real threat they posed. Once the British had learnt how to deal with them - destroyers, convoys, air patrols, etc. - they were capable of handling them quite nicely, without US assistance.

It is true that the UK never had more than six weeks worth of supplies in the British Isles at any one time. People hear that and think; "wow, the British were really close to starving!" What they don't realise is that, historically, having only six weeks worth of supplies on an island that imported the majority of its foodstuffs was actually not that problematic. It not like Germany was ever capable of shutting off the imports from the British Empire. They were mostly only good for attacking ships bringing materiel from the US and Canada. And British ship production (not to mention technological innovation) outstripped German ship and submarine production, meaning that the UK actually grew more and more able to defend itself from German - and Italian and Japanese - depredations as time went by. The same went for aircraft, which will be important to know later.

Also, it wasn´t necessary for the Luftwaffe to destroy all Britsih airfields (this wasn´t the plan, actually), but to destroy enough airfields in the south to make an invasion at least feasible. Lastly, considering that the BAF was very much outnumbered during the Battle of Britain - not so much in planes, as in trained pilots, who can´t be as easily replaced - makes its performance a feat to remember. Though ofcourse, the decisive act was to shift from bombing the strategic airfields to bombing cities - a fatal error.
Unfortunately, this is all another popular historical myth. Even if the luftwaffe had destroyed every single airfield and plane and anti-aircraft weapon and every radar tower in Southern England - which is obviously ridiculous, as any flat piece of land can serve as an airfield and the RAF was producing aircraft faster than Germany was, with superior firepower, speed, durability, distance and climbing ability - the planes and airfields to the north and west, outside the range of German bombers, would have been more than adequate to either bomb the crap out of a German invasion fleet, or bomb the crap out of any troops lucky enough to actually reach England. And they could do it with cover from fighters the whole time, less distance to travel for re-fueling, the ability to recover downed pilots - a British airmen who crashed over Britain could be taken to hospital and put back in the pilot's seat whereas a German who crashed on a mission to Britain would be either captured or drowned - and the huge morale boost that comes from defending your homeland. Operation;Sealion was never feasible. The British and German armies actually tested it with a very elaborate wargame in the '90s, and discovered that Britain could have destroyed an invasion force three times before it even landed on British shores, and that was assuming the best-case-scenario for the Germans.

You are correct that British airmen were poorly trained compared to their Continental counterparts; many of the better performers on the British side were actually French, Polish and Czech airmen that had enlisted in the RAF when their nations fell. But they tended to survive to learn from their mistakes, gaining valuable experience in very short order. The Germans didn't. You are incorrect in the assumption that the RAF was outnumbered badly; while I think the luftwaffe was technically larger by this point, it would have required sending almost the entire luftwaffe - including ridiculously obsolete aircraft - to attack Britain simultaneously for the Germans to achieve even temporary local air superiority. And since the Germans had to return to the Continent to re-fuel, the window in which they could damage the British was ridiculously short. Many missions had to turn back after less than an hour over Britain, especially at night, where navigation difficulties required extra fuel.

May be because the strategic goals were unrealistic ? I can't call the events in the Estern front from 1941 other than smasgin the soviet army. Providing that it had significant advantage in strenght, they were driven back without beeing able to organaise adequat ressistance. Also 4 months earlier the soviets were definetly less ready. In those final months before the invasion the Soviet union reorganised(or tried to) their tank force, pulled their armies from the far eastern military districts and significantly increased the number of troops in the western military districts.
Actually, increasing the numbers of men in the western districts worked against the Soviets. Their deployment was so awful that they were sitting ducks for the German attack. In fact, their deployment was far more effective for an attack on Germany than to defend against a German attack, which has long been the beef-and-potatoes of conspiracy theorists claiming that Operation: Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike. In practice, the USSR believed war would break out with Germany in 1944, not 1941, and their offensive deployment was designed as a bluff. It backfired on them pretty badly. If the Germans had invaded four months earlier -which they were never capable of, nor had any intention of, doing - they'd have actually destroyed fewer Soviet divisions, though their advance may have been similar.

One point, taking Malta would certainly not cut off Egypt. Egypt was supplied through the Suez Canal, from shipping around the Cape, and it is a supply line far beyond German ability to interdict. Malta was a symbol and a useful base to interdict Axis shipping across the Med, but it's not clear whether it was a net positive or not for the Allies. One the one hand, it made Rommel's supply situation worse, but on the other hand, the British suffered extremely heavy losses pushing convoys through the Med to supply it, the only convoys forced to go through air and water generally dominated by the Axis.
Of course taking Malta wouldn't have cut off Egypt completely. But it would have hampered their efforts somewhat. The bigger issue is that Malta was a stumbling block for supplies getting to Rommel from Italy, something which I should have been clearer on in my post. But I was in rant mode by then.

The problem is that even if they force the RAF to withdraw temporarily (and it would only be temporarily as the BCATP is kicking into gear), they have no way of holding the Channel against the Royal Navy. Short of forcing a negotiated peace due to the British fear of an invasion, the Germans had no chance of winning against Britain.

One thing I would add to Baal's comments on the delay of Barbarossa is that it wasn't winter that bogged down the German Army it was the wet autumn weather turning the country to muck (in fact they had some success early in winter once the ground started to solidify) and an invasion any earlier would have run into the same wet muddy terrain and slowed them down out of the gate giving time for the Soviets to regroup and potentially avoid some of the disasters that occurred.

As far as Britain winning, of course they can't do it themselves, but it just has to wait until the US joins them, the Soviets attack, or the German economy collapses. All of which are almost certainly going to occur.
Agree with this post except for the last bit. Has no-one hera read the posts I and others have made in the past regarding the German economy, at least?

That never happened though. Allied bombings were far more effective in terms of civilian deaths than in sabotaging the German war economy, which was churning out materiel right until they were overrun by the advancing Allies.
The German economy was based off of pillaging conquered territories. This was evident even as far back as the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, which provided a boost to the already lagging German economy in 1936. It was very inefficient -as illustrated by the fact that when Albert Speer took command of it, he actually improved its output despite Germany losing territory and suffering bombing at the time - and was purely militant in nature. An economy based solely around war cannot survive, for obvious reasons. The lack of consumer goods leads to dissatisfaction among the general populace, a thriving black market, crime, corruption at all levels and eventually, even dissatisfaction among the military itself. This can be seen in the collapse, during the early-90s, of the economies of both Cuba and North Korea, both of which relied on Soviet subsidies. The USSR, while concentrating too much on war materiel, actually produced a huge amount of consumer products, albeit inferior in quality to American products and not very successful as exports.

Germany in the 1940s had no viable trading partners - Italy had very little worth trading for, Romania was a vassal which survived solely by giving Germany oil at raped-at-gunpoint rates, Hungary, Slovakia and Croatia had nothing to offer Germany and the UK successfully blockaded the Continent very effectively. Spain's economy was broken from the recent civil war. Only Vichy France and the USSR had any potential as trading partners; Vichy could barely control its own territory and had to fight Charles De Gaulle's increasingly successful insurgency and Petain's economic ideas were almost as short-sighted and damaging as Hitler's whereas Stalin only assisted the German economy when it actually helped the Soviet economy more, thereby increasing the USSR's already significant lead over Germany in arms race. Sooner or later, Germany would be unable to avoid the USSR's price, and would end up either collapsing outright, or becoming to Russia what Romania had become to it.

What happened in fact, was that Hitlers armies were at the door of Moscow right at the moment the first divisions of T-34s were trained, assembled and ready to fight, and that, along with the weather and the return of Zukhov with more tanks and veteran troops from the battle with Japan in MAnchuria WAS the fact that turned the war.
You are aware that the Battle of Khalkin Gol occurred two years before the Germans were turned away from Moscow, right? :lmao:

Also, I've already pointed out that the Russians had turned the Germans back before the weather turned. This was also before the reinforcements from Siberia had arrived.

As for German army beeing vastly inferior to Allied troops, that´s just plain brainwashing, the german military at the time of the invasion of France, surpassed in number and quality the French and English army.
:lmao:

I'd link you to Wiki to point out all the problems with THAT comment, but I hear it's down for 24 hours.

The german luftwaffe was superior in all ways to the french and english aviation at the time of invasion (2 german to 1 allie plan in number), a english former air minister visited Germany before the war and submited a full report on the new models of German Messerchmits and their high maneuverability and speed compared to english and french designs, IT was this man who SAVED England, he also comissed the creation of a new and revolutionary plane The Spitfire that could take on the new and faster german planes. The same report was sent to France, but their selfish and confused Generals blinded by petty diferences ignored it.[/quote]
It just keeps getting funnier. The British airman in control of the RAF before the war was fanatical about strategic bombing, which was exactly the wrong thing to be fanatical about. The luftwaffe was outnumbered by the Allied air force, featured almost entirely obsolete planes - the Stuka and Junkers, especially.

It was mannned (the Siegfried Line) by some 1 million men (just estimating at a glance, counting number of divisions + taking into account that there were also some non-divisional units - but if you want I can count more precisely) - including those in reserves & behind the main front of course - yet on 9-10 September. Of course you can argue that between 3 and 9-10 September France had 6 days to attack before Germans had 1 million men at the Siegfried Line. :) But the point is that France also needed time to mobilize. And as it turned out - it needed more time to mobilize than Germany (maybe their mobilization was badly organized, sloppy, etc.). Germans also left considerable part of Luftwaffe (but mainly fighters - as nearly all bombers were over Poland) in West & North Germany.

Even though Germans sent majority of their forces and best part of their army against Poland, they still had in West Germany - by the end of the first decade of September - an army bigger than entire Polish army, facing the German borders with France, Belgium, Luxemburg & Holland.

They also had more artillery in the West alone, than entire Polish army had (even though they sent majority of their artillery to invade Poland).

You cannot say that a German army bigger than entire Polish army is something France could deal easily with.

And Siegfried Line - even if still incomplete - was anyway much more powerful than anything Poland had, when it comes to fortifications...

And German mobilization was still in progress, new divisions were being formed.

Just throughout September / October they formed at least 8 new divisions...

===========================================

It is a myth that Germany was weak in the West in September 1939. It was created by Nazi war criminals during the Nuremberg Trials (it was then when they testified that Germany had allegedly just several divisions to defend against French offensive, and that invading Poland was a gamble). By doing so, those Nazi war criminals wanted to put the blame for the fact that WW2 did not finish and Germany did not collapse yet in 1939 on France and Britain.
You'll have to find me a reference for all of that. I'm not aware of any source that places German numbers in the west at greater than those in the east.
 
not an attempt to assasinate the thread , as ı was feeling kinda empty to watch the inaction in this part of the CFC but a slight addition to my first post in this thread in the first page .

was a favourite , long running and naturally pointless "lecture topic" of mine , that the German generals were fools to believe they could control the Nazis as a convenient cover to rearm to reassert the "natural rights" of Germany and they quickly lost the game . Was directly relevant to current transformation of my country which must be touched upon inside the spoilers :


Spoiler :


now sometime back in the last years of the last century , some brilliant guys in the good old useless US came up a naturally brilliant idea . That's not surprising in itself , people of such capacity [in every country] come up with such genious things as frequently as ı have to empty my bowels . Only because the Hashashi (the followers of Hasan Sabbah) had once paid tribute to those knights . ı forgot which one , either Hospitaliers or Templars . You know those guys never die and the think tanks wink and wink and still wink they are actually this or that or whatever . Anyhow yet another co-operation would be possible ; if Iran gave up its influence in the Middle East it would be allowed to have nuclear weapons to compensate , while rabid supporters of Palestine would be re-arranged to have a "peace" the US Lawmakers would not lose their seats by promoting and the all important oil producing Gulf countries would be made happy with new conquests . Yeeeahhhh , heaven on Earth . And of course Turkey was to be the key , we would infiltrate the Iranosphere , Turkish soft power would slowly erode the influence of Teheran , replace hostility to the West with a success story of combining our traditions with the best of the West .

it was possible only though if we were also transformed . Our Islamists freshly in power were in the traditional funded by the Saudi Rial mode , hence no good . They were removed by the hand of the military , and ı rarely hesitate to call them generals idiots whenever the opportunity presents itself . In the first place those Saudi types were also invented by the hand of the military of two decades ago , to follow the commands of their masters in Washington to contribute to the famous Green Belt , and justified to their subordinates with the need to divide the votes of Centre Right ...

america has not the slightest right to complain about extremisms of this country , mechanisms of governance would not dare push Mein Kampf and made a craze out of it in 2005 if Uncle Sam's wise guys had not decided the recipe needed a strong dose of that anti- thing that goes on with an S . Now that ı had once worked there a day and a half , the owner of that bookstore will not be angry with me for reminding that he had to remove the A4 printouts that mentioned "We don't sell Kavgam" and literally arrange tall pillars of the glorious book in multiple places in that quite large shop .

we were to be popular with the Arab street and we became so . Our secular traditions had be removed so that we could be popular with the Islamists , no doubt to tame them in the name of "still" secular Washington and the said traditions are removed one by one or at least the perception is so .This year students will not celebrate Kemal's landing on the Blacksea coast to start the Liberation movement because the preparations take place in open weather and the said students catch cold . The children's day when the National Assembly was opened in Ankara had already been liberated by the 22 year old moustached kids presiding in the preceding years . Last year the victory day against the Greeks in 1922 was not celebrated by the help of various devices . Because you can call Kemal a dictator if you want to , and disparage his reforms as alienation and seperation from our historical roots but nationalist tendencies still support he saved the country in battle . Meaning he done one good thing which then implies his system was not totally bad ... As such it will be interesting to the any Greek who reads this that the battle in 1922 did not take place because the new elites of my country say all our cemeteries are fakes .

yeah , ı told you so already , the Greeks were driven out by Martian tripods .

recently Rauf Denktaş died . A guy who was in the forefront of Turkish Cypriots , ı saw him only once . When he came to the museum where ı was a guide , to make a brief tour . I was in the basement and still wonder whether ı should have stopped all those 15 guys getting into that little lift meant for 400 kg max ; if ı remember both numbers correctly . Just as one could predict the lift was stuck for maybe 10 minutes with the doors closed , luckily for me he didn't have a heartattack or anything there in the lift . Everybody in Turkey knows what is best anywhere anytime and nobody dares to remain out of sight of great people and using the stairs are only for sissies . And knowing best never dies . Denktaş fell into disfavour in the early days of the reformation when military had to be spanked . There was this Annan plan that promised great stuff and military opposed it because they were terrorists who were into fomenting chaos in country and brainless idiotic nationalists who are enemies of our neighbours out of the country . Denktaş was in the opposition in the island in those days , had he been governing he would been slightly more amenable to destroy the accords from within , just in the way he had torpedoed dozens of its kind before . Anyhow there is this news channel of the newly elites and a guest counted all the sins of Denktaş and to maintain his academic reputation he started to talk good . Trust me , it wasn't surprising at all that the phone connection died . The anchor didn't move an eyelid .

must not blame them . They are working hard to keep their ball running while the next step in this game is taking shape . The leading newly elites are discovering the foreigners have not totally given up the old elites , more international condemnation and informal chit chat are paving the way for eventual relief of those "oppressed" and release from jails without charged in true full terms . As yours idiotic truly remarked years ago that it would be so . No , it doesn't take a crystal ball or even an IQ above 85 . West likes to play the weaker against the stronger and the oldies have been so useful ... One "proffessional revolutionary" in jail already declared soon they would be out ; on a different tack tomorrow it is the fifth anniversary of the murder of that Armenian journalist , yesterday the state handler with many others was cleared of guilt . Comes in perfect timing with Daddy Sarkozy about to push his anti-defamation laws down our throat . No need to worry though , New Turkey will rise in the Middle East with dazzling speed as soon as the anchors that limit it to a timid existance are cut off . Which is bound to happen by July as the Greek Cypriots take the helm of EU . Those who wouldn't believe in the proposition are a pain in the belly for the newly elites .

because they believe in what they are doing and get angry whenever they are compared to Nazis or the Germany of 1930s . They think , just like the Germans did at the time , all that happens is because they make it happen .They babbled for years that Syria was all good , a friend . When the time came to reap the benefits , the evil Syria refused to accept we were brothers and all the demands from Ankara , now they are bloody murderers . Iran practically got its nuke and , no surprise , does not give up Iranosphere . And they have started the saberrattling . And the Foreign Minister talks of powers who want to start a regional cold war , with a smirk . What the people are talking is a global nuclear war . Hence the Europeans and Americans will hesitate to go far against a capable Iran and we will end up alone . Fighting Iran and all its proxies to the tunes of Bravo Capitano from the Gulf and Western capitals . Clearing the path for scavengers to get rid of our carcass in the aftermath . Persia ? Yeah , they paid tribute to knights once ... Let Ankara hear that nobody on the planet actually desires a Turkish Empire , and they are in self delusion , though am the perfect idiot myself


luckily ı have the Klingon Star Empire under my command and have studied Mtzensk / the T-34 shock in sufficient detail . The place where Germans were horrified to find out that one must not bite far too much , only because the spineless West had turned the other cheek that long because scavenging the dead is so easy . Anyone reading this post has every right to scoff at it , but we live and see what might have happened in Germany everyday

Spoiler :
hence my thanks to candidate for Republican nomination Rick Perry for making my point with his declaration that Turkey has no place in NATO .
 
Germany's economy was absolute horsecrap.

Who was arguing it wasn´t?

Of course, Britain would have fired a shot. I once made a post here on CFC, based on research that I did at university which showed that the British Empire was actually capable of defeating the entire Axis (yes, even Japan) all by itself, with no assistance from the USSR, US or even France. It would have been a long, bloody, world-shattering war - far more so that OTL WWII was - but it was possible.

So you´ve proved it was theoretically possible.

The U-boats were never as effective as people think. They performed as well as they did more due to British inexperience than any real threat they posed. Once the British had learnt how to deal with them - destroyers, convoys, air patrols, etc. - they were capable of handling them quite nicely, without US assistance.

It is true that the UK never had more than six weeks worth of supplies in the British Isles at any one time. People hear that and think; "wow, the British were really close to starving!" What they don't realise is that, historically, having only six weeks worth of supplies on an island that imported the majority of its foodstuffs was actually not that problematic. It not like Germany was ever capable of shutting off the imports from the British Empire. They were mostly only good for attacking ships bringing materiel from the US and Canada. And British ship production (not to mention technological innovation) outstripped German ship and submarine production, meaning that the UK actually grew more and more able to defend itself from German - and Italian and Japanese - depredations as time went by.

Obviously there was a turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic, but in 1941 U-boats were sinking more tonnage than British and US were able to rebuild together. That times were dear was also obvious from the fact that rationing became critical (only to be abolished at war´s end).

Unfortunately, this is all another popular historical myth. Even if the luftwaffe had destroyed every single airfield and plane and anti-aircraft weapon and every radar tower in Southern England - which is obviously ridiculous, as any flat piece of land can serve as an airfield and the RAF was producing aircraft faster than Germany was, with superior firepower, speed, durability, distance and climbing ability - the planes and airfields to the north and west, outside the range of German bombers, would have been more than adequate to either bomb the crap out of a German invasion fleet, or bomb the crap out of any troops lucky enough to actually reach England. And they could do it with cover from fighters the whole time, less distance to travel for re-fueling, the ability to recover downed pilots - a British airmen who crashed over Britain could be taken to hospital and put back in the pilot's seat whereas a German who crashed on a mission to Britain would be either captured or drowned - and the huge morale boost that comes from defending your homeland. Operation;Sealion was never feasible. The British and German armies actually tested it with a very elaborate wargame in the '90s, and discovered that Britain could have destroyed an invasion force three times before it even landed on British shores, and that was assuming the best-case-scenario for the Germans.

I wasn´t arguing Operation Sealion was ever feasible, I believe.

I'd link you to Wiki to point out all the problems with THAT comment, but I hear it's down for 24 hours.

You are quoting the wrong person here - those aren´t my words.
 
I´m not even going to coment furthe ron any of the allegations i see here, recorded hitler conversasions on YouTube, ROFLMAO, like i would ever consider that as a historical prouf of any sort loololol cmon, be serious, Junkers and Stukas were obsolete??? ROFLMAO, hilarious at least.

The Battle of Khalkin Gol didn happened some time before the invasion, but the invasion was planned to late February, early March of 1941, at the time Zhukov was still in Vladivostok and replenneshing his losses, Hitler had intel that he would not be ready to engage his forces until November/December 1941, at that time, the war would have been finished.

Hitler sent and build in a german-soviet cooperation many tank designs before the actual war, he KNEW about the T34 possible menace, he also knew about the KV series beeing the best Soveits had to face him in March 1941 (Stalingrad WAS the home of the KV1, not just a leader name city) and he knew exactly HOW they fought and HOW they employed them, why do you think the germans penetrated so far in so little time before winter descended? Why do you think the Stug series was created? to knock out enemy machine gun nests alone? in fact, colectively stug series tanks destroyed more enemy tanks in the war than any other axis weapon.

So why did he attacked? Because he had to, he was delaying it for almost 4 months, he thought he could reach the industrial basin from Moscow to Kubyishev before November/December 1941, of course when the Wermarcht reached Moscow, winter settled in, and the panzer engines freezed and haulted without antifreezing cooling, Stalin, who was ready to abbandon city saw an opportunity and within two months prepared a counter offensive with Zukhov in comand.

There are in fact records of his generals saying the he was furious when the italian invasion of greece failed and the jugoslavians revolted, he never intended to divert tank divisions at that point to southern europe. The plan for Hitler was hitting Stalin before he had all of his T34s which he could have suceeded had he not been delayed 4 months in 1941. The truth is that, it was Stalin that was surprised when the Barbarossa camed at that particular point, he thought he had more time and was not nearly ready for all the brutal and size of the german offensive. Thank God things came to be like they did.

I never said the majority of the english airplanes, where Spitfire, instead if you read the post again i clearly say that Spitfires were STIL beeing built and the few that were built was allocated to defend the home island.

The luftwaffe HAD almost 6,000 modern, fast and technologically superior planes to any of the 3,000 ish allied planes. In fact the allies had no chance at all in the air.

The German divisions totalized almost and more than 240 divisions, and i´m not even counting with reserves here, while the allies didn´t reach half tht number with English and French combined, if we add the 300,000 italian waiting to attack on the south, the difference is even greater.

I´m sorry but the French and English GREATLY underestimated the German forces and ignored oficial reports of their actual strenght, tech advances, superior tactics and superior speed and training, and that costed the initial war.

The german crap industry spent in only six years more than England, France and US together.

I understand that trying to rewrite history is common practice these days, because afterall, history is written by the winners, but statements like "England and France were the most advanced militaries and could have gone straight to Berlin with good leadership is just plain pride speaking out loud", in reality things proved the other way around, i really wonder why?
 
You'll have to find me a reference for all of that. I'm not aware of any source that places German numbers in the west at greater than those in the east.

I didn't place German numbers in the west at greater than those in the east. Check posts #18 and #20:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11197423&postcount=18

The German divisions totalized almost and more than 240 divisions

When & where do you claim Germans had 240 divisions? In the invasion of France and the Low Countries they had half this number only.
 
Who was arguing it wasn´t?
That was in response to SiLL's comment about Germany outlasting Britain in a war of attrition. Wars of attrition only work if you can pay for them, which Germany could not.

So you´ve proved it was theoretically possible.
Yep. Now, obviously, morale has an effect on whether or not Britain could survive. But I honestly think the UK was more likely to cut a deal with Japan, which was not a threat to the home islands themselves, than with Germany, an obvious and immediate threat. Even those in the British government who proposed cutting a deal with Germany all wanted provisions which I don't think Germany would have been willing to agree to, such as a withdrawal from France and Scandinavia.

Obviously there was a turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic, but in 1941 U-boats were sinking more tonnage than British and US were able to rebuild together. That times were dear was also obvious from the fact that rationing became critical (only to be abolished at war´s end).
Actually, rationing wasn't abolished until some time after the war. I'm not sure of the exact date, unfortunately, but I believe it was late-1945. Now, it took the British far longer to adopt to submarine warfare than it should have, but they'd adapted before American entry into the war.

I wasn´t arguing Operation Sealion was ever feasible, I believe.
You argued that bombing airfields in Southern England was what was needed to make an invasion feasible.

You are quoting the wrong person here - those aren´t my words.
Apologiers. That was directed at RickFGS. I didn't notice that I'd c&p'ed the wrong name.

I´m not even going to coment furthe ron any of the allegations i see here, recorded hitler conversasions on YouTube, ROFLMAO, like i would ever consider that as a historical prouf of any sort loololol
Well, the fact that you literally won't believe information coming from the horse's mouth itself proves what I've suspected for some time; you're not worth conversing with. I guess you can join the depressingly long list.
 
I'd like know more about this

Of course, Britain would have fired a shot. I once made a post here on CFC, based on research that I did at university which showed that the British Empire was actually capable of defeating the entire Axis (yes, even Japan) all by itself, with no assistance from the USSR, US or even France. It would have been a long, bloody, world-shattering war - far more so that OTL WWII was - but it was possible.
 
That was in response to SiLL's comment about Germany outlasting Britain in a war of attrition. Wars of attrition only work if you can pay for them, which Germany could not.

Last I checked, Britain probably couldn't either. Past 1941-1942, they were almost completely dependent on American credit were they not? An America not in the war likely would have put their foot down eventually.
 
I´m not even going to coment furthe ron any of the allegations i see here, recorded hitler conversasions on YouTube, ROFLMAO, like i would ever consider that as a historical prouf of any sort loololol cmon, be serious, Junkers and Stukas were obsolete??? ROFLMAO, hilarious at least.

So you are unwilling to see actual proof of one of your mistakes. Enough said.

Hitler sent and build in a german-soviet cooperation many tank designs before the actual war, he KNEW about the T34 possible menace, he also knew about the KV series beeing the best Soveits had to face him in March 1941 (Stalingrad WAS the home of the KV1, not just a leader name city) and he knew exactly HOW they fought and HOW they employed them, why do you think the germans penetrated so far in so little time before winter descended? Why do you think the Stug series was created? to knock out enemy machine gun nests alone? in fact, colectively stug series tanks destroyed more enemy tanks in the war than any other axis weapon.

You´re just continuing in the same vein, without supplying any proof or even sources... I guess Kershaw must have missed the ´fact´ that Germany already knew about the T-34s when entering the war in his Hitler biography... Quite remarkable your claim, considering that the T-34 program was still in development during the invasion; what the Wehrmacht encountered were early versions, and in relative small numbers, as production didn´t get into full swing until the 1942 campaign. Funny also that at Stalingrad Germany still didn´t have an answer to this supposedly long-known threat to their Panzers. (This is, in fact, were the Stugs came in: they could be produced in large numbers and be adapted to a tank destroyer role. Originally they were designed as propelled artillery.) And when Germany finally did had a Panzer equivalent to the T-34, it turned out to be an almost complete replica of it! (The Tiger didn´t have the sloped armour of the KVs and T-34s, as production for them had started earlier.)

So why did he attacked? Because he had to, he was delaying it for almost 4 months, he thought he could reach the industrial basin from Moscow to Kubyishev before November/December 1941, of course when the Wermarcht reached Moscow, winter settled in, and the panzer engines freezed and haulted without antifreezing cooling, Stalin, who was ready to abbandon city saw an opportunity and within two months prepared a counter offensive with Zukhov in comand.

More errors here: although the Soviet government evacuated Moscow, Stalin remained. He also thought the Caucasus offensive of 1942 was a diverting attack, and had first to be convinced there would be no further attack on Moscow before authorizing additional armor to enable Zhukovs encircling movement at Stalingrad.

The German divisions totalized almost and more than 240 divisions, and i´m not even counting with reserves here, while the allies didn´t reach half tht number with English and French combined, if we add the 300,000 italian waiting to attack on the south, the difference is even greater.

240 divisions on the Western Front in 1940? Really? And Italy only joined in when France was already beaten, so as to share in the spoils. That he wasn´t getting any, was actually one of the reasons Mussolini decided upon his ill-fated plan to invade Greec in 1941.

I´m not even going to coment furthe ron any of the allegations i see here, recorded hitler conversasions on YouTube, ROFLMAO, like i would ever consider that as a historical prouf of any sort loololol cmon, be serious, Junkers and Stukas were obsolete??? ROFLMAO, hilarious at least.

So you are unwilling to see actual proof of one of your mistakes. Enough said.

Hitler sent and build in a german-soviet cooperation many tank designs before the actual war, he KNEW about the T34 possible menace, he also knew about the KV series beeing the best Soveits had to face him in March 1941 (Stalingrad WAS the home of the KV1, not just a leader name city) and he knew exactly HOW they fought and HOW they employed them, why do you think the germans penetrated so far in so little time before winter descended? Why do you think the Stug series was created? to knock out enemy machine gun nests alone? in fact, colectively stug series tanks destroyed more enemy tanks in the war than any other axis weapon.

You´re just continuing in the same vein, without supplying any proof or even sources... I guess Kershaw must have missed the ´fact´ that Germany already knew about the T-34s when entering the war in his Hitler biography... Quite remarkable your claim, considering that the T-34 program was still in development during the invasion; what the Wehrmacht encountered were early version, and in relative small numbers, as production didn´t get into full swing until the 1942 campaign. Funny also that at Stalingrad Germany still didn´t have an answer to this supposedly long-known threat to their Panzers. (This is, in fact, were the Stugs came in: they could be produced in large numbers and be adapted to a tank destroyer role. Originally they were designed as propelled artillery.) And when Germany finally did had a Panzer equivalent to the T-34, it turned out to be an almost complete replica of it! (The Tiger didn´t have the sloped armour of the KVs and T-34s, as production for them had started earlier.)

So why did he attacked? Because he had to, he was delaying it for almost 4 months, he thought he could reach the industrial basin from Moscow to Kubyishev before November/December 1941, of course when the Wermarcht reached Moscow, winter settled in, and the panzer engines freezed and haulted without antifreezing cooling, Stalin, who was ready to abbandon city saw an opportunity and within two months prepared a counter offensive with Zukhov in comand.

More errors here: although the Soviet government evacuated Moscow, Stalin remained. He also thought the Caucasus offensive of 1942 was a diverting attack, and had first to be convinced there would be no further attack on Moscow before authorizing additianol armor to Zhukovs encircling movement at Stalingrad.

The German divisions totalized almost and more than 240 divisions, and i´m not even counting with reserves here, while the allies didn´t reach half tht number with English and French combined, if we add the 300,000 italian waiting to attack on the south, the difference is even greater.

240 divisions on the Western Front in 1940? Really? And Italy only joined in when France was already beaten, so as to share in the spoils. That he wasn´t getting any, was actually one of the reasons Mussolini decided upon his ill-fated plan to invade Greec in 1941.

Actually, rationing wasn't abolished until some time after the war. I'm not sure of the exact date, unfortunately, but I believe it was late-1945. Now, it took the British far longer to adopt to submarine warfare than it should have, but they'd adapted before American entry into the war.

While that is technically correct, things like the Lend-Lease Act ensured Britain would survive long enough for the US to enter the war. Roosevelt would have been eager, but Congress would have none of it - until Pearl Harbor. I don´t really see how this supports your claim that England alone could survive: in reality, it did not. Britain lacked the ships and planes to cover the Atlantic from U-boat attacks until 1942 at least.

You argued that bombing airfields in Southern England was what was needed to make an invasion feasible.

Obviously without air superiority over South England any preparation for invasion would have been a complete waste; as it turns out, not even that was achieved.
 
Britain lacked the ... planes to cover the Atlantic from U-boat attacks until 1942 at least.
They didn't really have a lack the planes, it was just that anything useful went to Bomber Command and Coastal Command got whatever was left and the Pacific was given priority for American B-24s. It wasn't until 1943 that they started appearing in significant numbers, and never reached what was wanted.

If push came to shove, there was nothing stopping the RAF from transferring some Lancasters to Coastal Command which would have made an impact very quickly.
Along with various new tactics and technologies introduced in 1942 (i.e. Leigh Light, hedgehog, ever more advanced radar), this would likely have been enough to keep the supply lines opwn, especially since the Second Happy Time is unlikely to occur without US involvement (and was successful mostly because the US was not prepared for the submarine threat).
 
Last I checked, Britain probably couldn't either. Past 1941-1942, they were almost completely dependent on American credit were they not? An America not in the war likely would have put their foot down eventually.

Britain had access to the seas, which Germany had not. Britain's chances of outlasting Germany in a war of attrition were certainly better than vice versa, for that reason alone.
 
Britain had access to the seas, which Germany had not. Britain's chances of outlasting Germany in a war of attrition were certainly better than vice versa, for that reason alone.

Sure, but if the Soviets aren't in the war, then Germany has access to all the goods it needs through them. And while Germany wouldn't have been any better suited to building credit markets, they did manage to run from '41-'45 in RL, which is likely better than Britain could have done without US cooperation.
 
Thinking the UK could defeat the entire Axis by itself is absurd.

It could survive by coming to terms and then waiting for a possible collapse. That isn't 'defeating the axis.'
 
Of course, Britain would have fired a shot. I once made a post here on CFC, based on research that I did at university which showed that the British Empire was actually capable of defeating the entire Axis (yes, even Japan) all by itself, with no assistance from the USSR, US or even France.
Is that also without China? Because I'm going to disagree with you strongly there.
 
For reasons you won't elaborate on.

Inferior manpower. Inferior production. Inferior natural resources.

And lets not even get into the IJN vs. the Royal Navy which I'm sure will set off a **** storm in here.
 
They didn't really have a lack the planes, it was just that anything useful went to Bomber Command and Coastal Command got whatever was left and the Pacific was given priority for American B-24s. It wasn't until 1943 that they started appearing in significant numbers, and never reached what was wanted.

They lacked planes with sufficient range to cover the entire Atlantic. And that was just one part of the problem. (For instance, the convoy system couldn´t be implemented until sufficient escorting destroyers were available. As it was, the Royal Navy had to borrow some second hand junk from the US.)
 
ı surf at webcafes and reading full threads take so much time . So having read the posts until January 18 , here are a couple of things ı would like to say . Which are by no means corrections , rebuttals or any other kind of "negative" connotation . As usual many of my views are not shared by regular history and ı don't claim to know better . Nor ı intend to "dis" people who have dedicated themselves to the study of history in a professional or amateur capacity. Quotes will exist only to add some flow to my writings as ı tend to disperse my points around instead of concentrating . In any case my things have already been aired a couple times before .

first thing to do is of course to blame the Cold War . The Soviet Union was a monster behind the Iron Curtain biding its time to devour democracies and there had to be a balance between fear and hope . Fear was obvious , the dragon in the shape of the Red Army : Hope was some playing with history so that the knight in the shining armour could be trusted to do his work . As such the German Army was pushed to the fore as the greatest ever military , a ruthless group of professionals dedicated to command of merciless killing machines , all and even more than the Red Army could ever hope to be . Yet this mighty host was decisively beaten by the willing volunteer who rose up to the challenge . Saucily served with German glories where they moved rank after rank of Russian infantry down for minimal casualties and beaten by the Godless Commies only because there were more mujiks in Russian uniforms then there were bullets in German guns this boded well for the coming WW3 . Americans were still around to save the world . That they were unable to save the world until 1945 had to be explained though .

specifically the 1940 debacle of the older part of the Anglosaxons . This is where the undeniable failures of the French enter the picture . According to this it was the French who fell while the Brits stood firm in their tiny island until the yet unready America could wake up to the fact and prepare for the great test ahead . ı have already seen great accounts of the falsity of this proposition in CFC . Let me add a few things of my own before coming back to this thread.


would the allies act to save Poland?


a short examination of Panzers in two parts
 
Top Bottom