Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Appeasement continues

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Phebe View Post
    In this country it's a woman's name.............................

    My husband has a 6'2" black woman in his department named Michele, so I was going by that. Very big lady......elegant, though. [:-)
    His name is the Italian version of Michael, and pronounced Mi-kel-le. Michelle is the feminine form of Michel, which is the French version of Michael. It all gets very confusing.

    Comment


    • #32
      IF, and it is a ruddy big IF, Hitler, had had the opportunity to take on the USSR entirely free of strategic worries from the likes of France and Britain etc., and could delay in his mind revenge for the German signing of the WWI Armistice treaty in that 'darn railway coach'; then I feel the German forces could and would have won out against the Soviets.

      The Luftwaffe would have been much stronger than after the ravages of the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain, as would their Army assets have been.

      I am particularly mindful that if the US had stayed largely isolationist and had been less supportive regarding supplies to the USSR, and the UK and Commonwealth etc. also didn't make convoy runs to Murmansk and Archangel, that the USSR military and indeed their internal politics would not have held together as well as they did.

      IF the US didn't apply sanctions to the Japanese fighting in Manchuria and thus the Kremlin did not get confirmation that their Eastern territories were not threatened, and that Japan was instead looking over its shoulder and assessing what to do regarding the US; then probably Zhukov's Eastern armies, including the tank units would not have been as free as they were to commit to taking on Hitler's assaulting forces. That assistance from the Eastern armies would have likely been more piecemeal, less well equipped, and thus less effective.

      What would happen after any beating of the Soviet forces would then become very much open to the on going politics of the time and the possible/probable growing partisan activities within Hitler's new found lebensraum.
      Last edited by Wooden Wonder; 29 May 14, 06:08.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Michele View Post
        Really? And Britain's and France's reaction to the Soviet Union siding with Germany was, what? Trying not to antagonize further the still technically neutral SU, so that it wouldn't end up as a fearsome additional enemy? Hell no. They planned to bomb Baku. They put together a landing force to go help the Finns (and along the road, to capture the Swedish iron ore mines).
        No kidding? If you had read my first post, you'd see I already mentioned that France and UK were planning to help the Finns. You missed my point, which was that France and UK were not at all prepared to be fighting BOTH Germany and the USSR, as the Non-Aggression Pact seemed to indicate. Never mind that the two ideologies are diametrically opposed - with the Soviets in Poland, for all the French and British knew there was full cooperation between Germany and the USSR at every level.
        Last edited by asterix; 29 May 14, 07:23.
        You'll live, only the best get killed.

        -General Charles de Gaulle

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by asterix View Post
          No kidding? If you had read my first post, you'd see I already mentioned that France and UK were planning to help the Finns. You missed my point, which was that France and UK were not at all prepared to be fighting BOTH Germany and the USSR, as the Non-Aggression Pact seemed to indicate.
          So what is your point about? It is one thing to say that, on the basis of what we know now, objectively it would have been a tall order for France and Britain to fight a solid German-Soviet alliance. I agree with that.

          But you claimed that the Soviet Union instilled "genuine fear" - at the time. That's not about a historical judgement about the actual balance of forces with all the advantage of hindsight, it's an assessment of the perceptions of French and British decision makers. And it clashes with the not overly worried way with which they went about planning a bombing raid on Baku, and almost found themselves at war with the Soviet Union in Finland.
          Michele

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Phebe View Post
            Okay, you are saying this is not a plausible what-if because Germany could not afford to have Britain and France snarling at it's back while it was fighting Russia in a one-front war to the East, and besides, Russia was providing good stuff and being friendly, so use that.

            It is true that although Britain and France did declare war, this was an illusion because they did not attack: Germany attacked, suddenly, after eight months. In fact, Britain and France were using EXACTLY the same protocol they used before WWI: always let Germany attack first! Stay well away from the frontiers, let all the onus fall on Germany. It looks better, to get other countries into the war as allies and the various colonies' citizens and even the United States. I suspect Britain and France would NEVER have "come to the rescue" of Poland and attacked Germany: not unless Germany did break itself on Russia first.

            So the point is not who declared war, since it was indeed a phony war that didn't matter, and it could have gone on till 1973 if Germany hadn't attacked anyone else. The point is that Britain at least was rearming frantically and getting all their systems and their colonies and their loans and whatever they would need all lined up. God knows what France was doing, since they collapsed inside six weeks of the German attack May 10. That was certainly a gift to Hitler: no one could have expected that to happen, certainly not Hitler, but somehow it did.
            Several things missing here.
            - The French did attack, only it was a very small advance,
            - The Allies did not keep away from the frontiers, actually a tiny part of Germany was in French hands,
            - The key element of the Allied strategy is entirely missing. It wasn't just only to let the Germans attack and bleed themselves white with the obviously higher casualties the attacker always incurs in; the point is that Germany was expected to be not economically sustainable thanks to the trade blockade. That is the actual reason why the Molotov-Ribbentrop had been a master's stroke; it made it possible to largely bypass the enemy blockade. Even so, time was on the allies' side, so no, they would not have waited until 1973,
            - As to the notion that the standard Allied policy in WWI was to let the Germans attack, that's just not true.

            All right, so it was a good decision to attack the West first, and had Hitler not made that incredible error of stopping the tanks outside Dunkirk, he'd have won the West immediately and could have gone on to Russia. That's a what-if so obvious that 90% of these type of novels are based on the British losing their army at Dunkirk: the amazing thing is that it didn't happen.
            This assumes
            a) that the BEF equates with the BCE armies, and
            b) that all of the BEF was at Dunkerque. 198,000 British troops were evacuated from that pocket, yes - and another 145,000 from elsewhere.
            The troops in the Dunkerque pocket were the cream of the army, thos ebest trained and most experienced, and leaving aside the other 145k, they were most of what was available straight away that year to the British. Losing all of them, plus the French and Belgians that also made it out of there, would have been a whopping blow.
            But it would not have meant that there was no longer a British Army, not even in 1940, let alone in the years to come.
            Michele

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Wooden Wonder View Post
              The Luftwaffe would have been much stronger than after the ravages of the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain, as would their Army assets have been.
              The Luftwaffe would have been much stronger, right.
              The Heer would have been way less motorized. Starting with the 5. Welle, infantry divisions got French trucks.
              And both would have not had the immense strategic fuel reserves of France, Holland and Belgium to fill up their fuel tanks with.

              There also is the interesting situation of German armor. If I don't get this wrong, you are suggesting that the Soviet Union is attacked in 1940, in place of the attack in the West. That means throwing East just 10 Panzerdivisionen, which have 2,610 tanks; of these, 580 are Pz Is and 940 are Pz IIs.
              Last edited by Michele; 29 May 14, 13:03.
              Michele

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Wooden Wonder View Post
                IF, and it is a ruddy big IF, Hitler, had had the opportunity to take on the USSR entirely free of strategic worries from the likes of France and Britain etc., and could delay in his mind revenge for the German signing of the WWI Armistice treaty in that 'darn railway coach'; then I feel the German forces could and would have won out against the Soviets.
                That is extremely unlikely. Michele pointed out that the Wehrmacht depended on captured French trucks for its motorization. They also used French tanks as combat units in Barbarrosa. More importantly they used French tanks as training units. Pz regiments 202, 203 and 204 trained on French equipment. They also used French planes.

                The lack of motorization for the Wehrmacht means that more Red army men escape the early pockets as the German infantry is farther behind and that the Wehrmacht's logistical system breaks down sooner. This sets up a situation where the Red Army ends up stronger and loses less territory. The ammunition crisis of late 1941 does not happen as the Germans do not overrun the munition plants in the Donbas area.

                Furthermore the Germans are required to maintain bigger combat forces in the West than historical result. Historically they used mostly training and garrison units (13, 14 welle infantry divisions). The first class combat infantry divisions that were in France soon went East. In this case they'll need to keep a bigger Garrison in the West of better units. All the while the French military is rapidly modernizing.

                The historical Germans failed to beat the Red Army in 1941. It is extremely unlikely that a weaker, slower German army would prevail.

                Comment


                • #38
                  If appeasement continues, it will end about mid-1941. There are strong economic reasons for this: neither Czechoslovakia nor Poland had large Anglo-French investments or strategic mineral reserves, Yugoslavia and Romania do. Without France beaten, Germany cannot exert overwhelming economic pressure on the south Balkan states, and without the distraction of an Anglo-German war, Stalin cannot pressure Romania into adjusting the border. Even Bulgaria is unlikely to jump on the Axis bandwagon. Without Romania, Operation Barbarossa is unplannable, and without Romania Hungary stays out too. Hitler faces the same dilemma that the Germans faced in 1914: picking the right time to start a war with Russia.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                    If appeasement continues, it will end about mid-1941. There are strong economic reasons for this: neither Czechoslovakia nor Poland had large Anglo-French investments or strategic mineral reserves, Yugoslavia and Romania do. Without France beaten, Germany cannot exert overwhelming economic pressure on the south Balkan states, and without the distraction of an Anglo-German war, Stalin cannot pressure Romania into adjusting the border. Even Bulgaria is unlikely to jump on the Axis bandwagon. Without Romania, Operation Barbarossa is unplannable, and without Romania Hungary stays out too. Hitler faces the same dilemma that the Germans faced in 1914: picking the right time to start a war with Russia.
                    Well said, would rep you if I could.
                    Michele

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X