The German campaign of conquering Britain
mmarsh
Active member
Lets say Germany invaded the USSR with 4 Million men in 1940. That includes the extra German Divisons made available, but it also subtracts some of allies such as the Norwegians, that it really did have in 1941. Thats an extra 1 Million men. -Thats probably too generous but we will use it for sake of argument.
You are forgetting the sheer size of the USSR. In order to pacify the country the Germans would have had to have left at least half that number in order to control it. Put it to you this way, During one point of the Vietnam war, the US had 500,000 men in an area the size of Israel (just to deal with Guerrillas). Furthermore, the Germans even if they had won, they would have taken very heavy losses, probably irreplaceable.
The idea to use 2nd Echelon troops didn't work during the occupation of France, I cannot see how it would have worked in the USSR. In almost every front they were stationed (including quiet ones) they proved ineffective -usually having to be bailed out by German units. The Partisan war in Russia would have required the use of German troops and lots of them.
In short, Even if victorious, The Germans would have had to taken a long breather to rebuild its strength before it could contemplate a push west.
In the meantime, the allies would have been taking precautions...
Already in 1940 the French Army was better than the German one except in organization and leadership. They outnumbered the Germans (over 200 Divisions) and they were better equipped. The French already had a Heavy Tank in production, the Char I-Bis. It also had the S-35 Somua. These were better than the Pz I-III and early versions of the IV. I agree that that the Germans would have had Tigers but not Panthers (they came later). But its fair to assume that the French-British would not have compensated for this by building a 'Tiger'-Killer of their own. They certainly would have had the time to do so.
The Blitzkrieg of Russia would have illustrated the weakness of the Ardennes and the French would have extended the Maginot line to it. I have visited the Maginot Line, the idea was sound (just not the location). Its system of concrete bunkers and retractable Heavy Gun emplacements plus its underground train system allowing troops and supplies to be moved up and down the line would have made a frontal assault like Blitzkrieg a very dangerous affair especially, as you said, they were expected.
The Germans would have had the advantage in experience and they would be better led. Air superiority would be a test. The Germans better pilots, the allies better planes and more of them. That would slightly help the Germans, but it would be close. The French and RAF pilots were not the green pilots the Germans would have faced in Russia.
You are forgetting the sheer size of the USSR. In order to pacify the country the Germans would have had to have left at least half that number in order to control it. Put it to you this way, During one point of the Vietnam war, the US had 500,000 men in an area the size of Israel (just to deal with Guerrillas). Furthermore, the Germans even if they had won, they would have taken very heavy losses, probably irreplaceable.
The idea to use 2nd Echelon troops didn't work during the occupation of France, I cannot see how it would have worked in the USSR. In almost every front they were stationed (including quiet ones) they proved ineffective -usually having to be bailed out by German units. The Partisan war in Russia would have required the use of German troops and lots of them.
In short, Even if victorious, The Germans would have had to taken a long breather to rebuild its strength before it could contemplate a push west.
In the meantime, the allies would have been taking precautions...
Already in 1940 the French Army was better than the German one except in organization and leadership. They outnumbered the Germans (over 200 Divisions) and they were better equipped. The French already had a Heavy Tank in production, the Char I-Bis. It also had the S-35 Somua. These were better than the Pz I-III and early versions of the IV. I agree that that the Germans would have had Tigers but not Panthers (they came later). But its fair to assume that the French-British would not have compensated for this by building a 'Tiger'-Killer of their own. They certainly would have had the time to do so.
The Blitzkrieg of Russia would have illustrated the weakness of the Ardennes and the French would have extended the Maginot line to it. I have visited the Maginot Line, the idea was sound (just not the location). Its system of concrete bunkers and retractable Heavy Gun emplacements plus its underground train system allowing troops and supplies to be moved up and down the line would have made a frontal assault like Blitzkrieg a very dangerous affair especially, as you said, they were expected.
The Germans would have had the advantage in experience and they would be better led. Air superiority would be a test. The Germans better pilots, the allies better planes and more of them. That would slightly help the Germans, but it would be close. The French and RAF pilots were not the green pilots the Germans would have faced in Russia.
Ollie Garchy
Active member
In response to MMarsh:
(1) USSR Size: The defeat of the Red Army would have severely demoralized the Partisan forces. And who would have supported the Partisan forces with military equipment once the Soviet factories stopped pumping out armaments? Still, the German occupation force would have been large under all circumstances.
(2) German Losses: German losses were high in all military operations (ok, not the "occupation" of Denmark). But you are probably right, MMarsh. A successful campaign in Russia would have placed significant manpower, economic, industrial, military and social pressures on Germany.
(3) Allied "Precautions": The Allied precautions were ongoing throughout the 1920s and 1930s. The French army, as you correctly point out, was stronger on paper than the Wehrmacht. Even their basic doctrine was sound. The only major French (and British) problem rested with command, control and communications (C3). The Germans were able to penetrate the Allied Observe, Orient, Decide and Act (OODA) loop and they basically paralyzed the Allied leadership. German units reacted so fast, and the Luftwaffe hit so many deep battle targets, that the Allied leadership had problems figuring out what the Germans were doing and dispatching reserves correctly.
(4) Doppleganger's Views: Because the Germans would have gained even more experience, refining their concepts of junior officer flexibility and the concept of joint operations, they would have reduced their C3 frictions even more. Even with better equipment and more men, the French would have been in serious trouble. German operational doctrine was light years ahead of the Allies...and the reason why it was copied in the postwar. (The Americans ultimately even copied the German helmets).
My point: German operational effectiveness made the Wehrmacht look bigger than it was...even with "Ultra". German units in 1939-1942 popped up everywhere with frightening speed. And, in order to explain defeat, the French and British leaned heavily on the myth that
(1) they had been unprepared for war in 1939,
(2) and that the Germans had armed themselves to the teeth.
These ideas formed a core of the later appeasement fantasy, the Hitler remilitarization myth and the world conspiracy illusion. They also helped rationalize the initial decision for a preventive war. And all of this fed a curious dynamic that was used by Churchill to bamboozle his own countrymen in 1939 and 1940.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop
(1) USSR Size: The defeat of the Red Army would have severely demoralized the Partisan forces. And who would have supported the Partisan forces with military equipment once the Soviet factories stopped pumping out armaments? Still, the German occupation force would have been large under all circumstances.
(2) German Losses: German losses were high in all military operations (ok, not the "occupation" of Denmark). But you are probably right, MMarsh. A successful campaign in Russia would have placed significant manpower, economic, industrial, military and social pressures on Germany.
(3) Allied "Precautions": The Allied precautions were ongoing throughout the 1920s and 1930s. The French army, as you correctly point out, was stronger on paper than the Wehrmacht. Even their basic doctrine was sound. The only major French (and British) problem rested with command, control and communications (C3). The Germans were able to penetrate the Allied Observe, Orient, Decide and Act (OODA) loop and they basically paralyzed the Allied leadership. German units reacted so fast, and the Luftwaffe hit so many deep battle targets, that the Allied leadership had problems figuring out what the Germans were doing and dispatching reserves correctly.
(4) Doppleganger's Views: Because the Germans would have gained even more experience, refining their concepts of junior officer flexibility and the concept of joint operations, they would have reduced their C3 frictions even more. Even with better equipment and more men, the French would have been in serious trouble. German operational doctrine was light years ahead of the Allies...and the reason why it was copied in the postwar. (The Americans ultimately even copied the German helmets).
My point: German operational effectiveness made the Wehrmacht look bigger than it was...even with "Ultra". German units in 1939-1942 popped up everywhere with frightening speed. And, in order to explain defeat, the French and British leaned heavily on the myth that
(1) they had been unprepared for war in 1939,
(2) and that the Germans had armed themselves to the teeth.
These ideas formed a core of the later appeasement fantasy, the Hitler remilitarization myth and the world conspiracy illusion. They also helped rationalize the initial decision for a preventive war. And all of this fed a curious dynamic that was used by Churchill to bamboozle his own countrymen in 1939 and 1940.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop
Doppleganger
Active member
1940 is probably too early. More realistic would be some kind of 'phoney war' where Germany and France/Britain decide what might happen next. Hitler and the vast majority of his generals were vastly fearful of being involved in a 2 front war which the Imperial Germany Army found itself in WWI. I don't think any move on Russia would happen unless Hitler was absolutely sure that France or Britain would move against his western flank. There is also the possible issue of a Soviet pre-emptive strike but that won't happen until 1941 and more likely 1942. Finally, the Germans are going to take some time to properly process their post victory plans.
Well, this is where we come to what might happen had Germany defeated the Soviet Union. The Nazi policy of Lebensraum raises its ugly head. The Germans had already started the setting up of Reichskommissariat territories when they entered the Ukraine and this would continue. The sheer scale of displacing millions of people would probably keep Germany busy for years. They might never get around to warring with France because of this and also because they'd have achieved one of Hitler's fundamental pre-war aims.
In a country as huge as the Soviet Union it would be impossible to police it all. East of the AA line the Germans would likely just hold major ports, rail hubs etc manned although policing the sheer length of the Trans-Siberian railway would be a huge undertaking. You wouldn't need front line German divisions for that job. It's only out in the field where you'd really need troops equipped with heavy weapons. Another thing to consider is that with Moscow captured and Stalin likely dead would the Russian people rise up against the Nazi invader? Many of them would simply begin the process of establishing independence as we saw happen after the fall of communism. Then the Germans would have to decide whether it's really worth embroiling themselves in a dozen new civil wars. Again, another reason for Germany not to start any wars in the west.
The question is though would the Allies take any offensive action? The French Army was geared for the defensive in almost every way.
The Char I-B's were certainly better protected but that is only one aspect of tank design. You're right though, the French Army and BEF were stronger on paper in most aspects. However, with no direct experience of modern tank warfare there's nothing to suggest that they would have came up with a 'Tiger'-killer as such. An evolution of the Char 1-B was more likely with all that tank's emphasis on defence. In essence a defensive tank with poor mobility.
Which makes a German pre-emptive strike against France less likely again, given that the Germans will be busy in the East. The question is whether the Western Allies would declare war over the Soviet Union. That, I think, is a key question.
The Germans would have better leadership, veteran experience, better operational organisation and tactics. Their Luftwaffe pilots would find providing tactical support to the Germany Army 2nd nature. If the Luftwaffe can establish air superiority that would be a huge plus in Germany's favour. Neither the French nor the British would have anything like the degree of close cooperation that existed at the time between the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe. So the key is air superiority, which is likely to be difficult to achieve and only achievable on a temporary basis, at least at first.
Last edited:
Missileer
Active member
Folks, just when I start to get interested in the facts and better quality arguments here ( honest statement) I see someone posting artwork of questionable quality and calling names. I feel that I am living between a Kindergarten and a University. Don't get so personal and the thread will enjoy the longevity it deserves.
Doppleganger
Active member
Churchill's work for peace? Don't me make me laugh. Churchill was only slightly less bloodthirsty than Genghis Khan. At least the Great Khan was more honest about his intentions. Churchill aspired to be a great military leader but often cloaked his intentions with the veil of the politician.
Ollie Garchy
Active member
I am assuming that you posted in response to my little piece. After being called a nazi a million times, being ridiculed and defamed in the worst manner, and after having everything that I write rejected out of hand, do you not think that a little tolerance for poor Ollie is in order? Poor, poor Ollie.
you obviously are unable to read and absorb TRUTH.
I present more recorded Historical FACT in repudiation of your ridiculous and ignorant denigration of a great man compared to whom you and Hitler were not worthy to lick his boots.
READ AND LEARN A LITTLE ABOUT PEACE:-
Here is another of Churchill’s pleas for peace. Please read this and tell me how any man of sensibility can claim that Churchill was not working to avoid war?
Those who do so, aim to re-write history in order to blame Churchill and Britain for the horrors wrought on Europe by the monster Hitler.
24 SEPTEMBER 1936.- ( RECORDED HISTORICAL FACT.)
“ GOOD DEFENCES ALONE WOULD NEVER ENABLE US BY THEMSELVES to survive in the modern grim gigantic world. There must be added to those defences the sovereign power of generous motives and of high ideals, in fact, that cause of freedom, moral and intellectual, which I have endeavoured to describe. We must trust something to the power of enlightened ideas. We must trust much to our resolve not to be impatient or quarrelsome or arrogant. We seek peace. We long for peace. We pray for peace. We seek no territory. We aim at no invidious monopoly of raw materials. Our hearts are clean. We have no old scores to repay. We submit ourselves wholeheartedly, nay proudly, to the Covenant of the League of Nations. We desire faithfully and fairly to bear our part in building up a true collective security which shall not only lighten the burden of the toiling millions, but also provide the means by which the grievances of great dissatisfied nations, if well-founded, can be peacefully adjusted.
Another Great War would extinguish what is left of the civilization of the world, and the glory of Europe would sink for uncounted generations into the dark abyss. We wish to prevent this war.”
COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.
Last edited:
That's what we have the "report post" button for!!After being called a nazi a million times, being ridiculed and defamed in the worst manner, and after having everything that I write rejected out of hand, do you not think that a little tolerance for poor Ollie is in order? Poor, poor Ollie.
This is the final warning we'll give in this thread!
One more off-topic, personal attack, flaming etc. post will result in infraction points being handed out..
Thanks for understanding, now please carry on(-topic)...
Doppleganger
Active member
And you clearly did not read anything that I posted previously regarding Churchill. Like I said, there's no use in just quoting what Churchill said. What someone says and what someone wants are often two entirely different things.
Ollie Garchy
Active member
Delboy Quiz: "Who was acclaimed as the greatest electrical engineer in America at turn of the 19th/20th century"?
I am bored, so I will answer Delboy's pop quiz.
ANSWER: Nikola Tesla. And the rest of your questions are answered at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla.
As far as the Department of State is concerned, google would not spit out a floor plan of the Harry S. Truman Building. On second thought, I won't try again. I don't want the CIA showing up tomorrow.
None of this is intelligence, Delboy. And trivia has nothing to do with WWII origins. And Tesla had nothing to do with the start of war either. And please don't start talking about ray guns.
I am bored, so I will answer Delboy's pop quiz.
ANSWER: Nikola Tesla. And the rest of your questions are answered at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla.
As far as the Department of State is concerned, google would not spit out a floor plan of the Harry S. Truman Building. On second thought, I won't try again. I don't want the CIA showing up tomorrow.
None of this is intelligence, Delboy. And trivia has nothing to do with WWII origins. And Tesla had nothing to do with the start of war either. And please don't start talking about ray guns.
"
In the name of credibility, I cannot believe you actually made that statement. "Never mind the truth - hide the evidence!"
Are you really naive enough to believe that on this subject the historical recordings of Churchill's work are unimportant and irrelevant??
You quote Churchill and others whenever it suits your case, and so does Olliegarchy. Churchill leaves the most reliable line of information on the subject, all unimpeachable.
You accuse him of not seeking peace throughout the 1930s, but when irrefutable officially recorded historical evidence a'plenty is presented you try to disqualify it without consideration.
Who do you think you are, to decide which evidence should be allowed and which should not.
There is a large amount of such important evidence to the fact that Churchill fought hard for peace, and of course it is important that it is used in his defence.
I realise how inconvenient this is to your attempted re-writing of history, but truth will out.
I notice, of course, that you are never able to dispute the matter with Churchill, and he didn't have the benefit of retrospection.
The quotes so far have established the historically confirmed factual account of the seigfried wall's intent, and the evidencethat Churchill was, in fact, seeking to avoid war.
In the name of truth and reason - can you not read the plain English of his speeches. it is there in cold print, black and white. What part of truth can you not understand.
Denial is not enough. Why should Churchill not be heard? Why should the unjust accusations against him be allowed to stand unchallenged?
On this matter you act with dishonour. I really see no point in responding to your posts.
......................................................................
Command the future, conquer the past.
This was not a question of intelligence, olliegarchy, but of you and your outrider's continual disparaging of my education. I considered that I wished to see how you might compare with a simple example.
Of course, I knew that you would not be able to answer the question if that were not immediately available on Wiki, which in itself, used so widely by you, is not the most reliable of sources.
Your answer is nowhere close, a result I anticipated. We have to conclude that you would have found it hard to survive my education experience.
Never mind, but kindly in future refrain from ridiculing what you do not understand and have no knowledge of, when it pertains to personal matters such as these. From what I have perceived, you have no justification for demeaning others on the score of intellect.
For that reason, and because I also am bored, I will not honour you with the correct answers, as I would hate to make you as clever as me on that subject. LOL.
Now I would ask you to try to stay on topic and not use this thread for the benefit of what amounts to Nazi propaganda, of which unjust and abusive denigration of Churchill is an example. Thank you and goodnight.
Command the future, conquer the past.
Doppleganger
Active member
Really Del Boy you can be so melodramatic at times. It is so utterly obvious (and backed up by numerous sources) that Churchill was a man in his element when involved in war and wartime. This isn't slander of the man, simply what even the most ardent of supporters would admit. Why should a man like this seek peace when peace does not suit him?
Ollie Garchy
Active member
Here we have a classic example of Delboy in action. He presents a weird deflection that has nothing to do with the thread and then complains when I answer it. As always, he then returns to the old Nazi gambit.
In terms of answering Doppleganger, he did not even understand what D. wrote. In any case, all critical analysis of Churchill or the UK automatically becomes pro-Nazi or a lie. Nationalism as Churchillism.
But Delboy, really. Do you honestly believe that (1) Tesla is "nowhere close" or (2) that I only quote Wiki? Of all the people in this forum, I probably try to employ the widest range of sources possible -- from actual documents to the books and articles of prominent historians.
In any case, attacking me for using "Nazi propaganda" could get you in trouble with the moderators. Or did you dismiss their warnings as you dismiss everyone else?
senojekips
Active member
Fer F*ck sake get over it and heed the Administrators advice. Shoulder some responsibility for once in your life.
Yeah,... I'm sorry, I'm not an administrator and this is off topic too. I'm just sick of the bleating.
Yeah,... I'm sorry, I'm not an administrator and this is off topic too. I'm just sick of the bleating.
Last edited:
Stop repeating same lie. All the real, factual evidence of the time, whenseperated from idle gossip and the revisionist, apologist propaganda which has been constantly levelled against him, clearly establishes the fact that he saw what was coming, warned against the aggressive nature of the Hitler regime, appealed throughout the 1930s for peace, and pointing out that this could only be achieved by preparedness and negotiating from a position of ,at least , equality in order to discourage aggressive policies of Hitler. If he had been paid sufficient attention earlier, this strategy may well have diverted Hitler from WW11.
He is recorded continually stating this position. His speeches reveal this. I have displayed many here, all irrefutable evidence.
On the other hand your only evidence is nothing, because it involves
hoping that no-one will read the speeches which prove me correct .
Look, all the real evidence establishes that only Hitler brought about WW11, this despite Churchill's constant warnings and appeals for real peace, as against the lies , broken promises and threats from Hitler, which so marked the dishonouring of Germany at the time.
Turn it upside down, inside out, stretch it, shrink it - you still come back to the same result in the 1930s' situation; the genuine facts confirm, Churchill very, very good, certainly strongly for peace; Hitler, very, very bad, a Mussolini wannabe, but fanatically aggressive, and grandiose power ambitions, and very nasty social habits.
Germany deserved better.
ref:-
24 SEPTEMBER 1936.- ( RECORDED HISTORICAL FACT)
“ GOOD DEFENCES ALONE WOULD NEVER ENABLE US BY THEMSELVES to survive in the modern grim gigantic world. There must be added to those defences the sovereign power of generous motives and of high ideals, in fact, that cause of freedom, moral and intellectual, which I have endeavoured to describe. We must trust something to the power of enlightened ideas. We must trust much to our resolve not to be impatient or quarrelsome or arrogant. We seek peace. We long for peace. We pray for peace. We seek no territory. We aim at no invidious monopoly of raw materials. Our hearts are clean. We have no old scores to repay. We submit ourselves wholeheartedly, nay proudly, to the Covenant of the League of Nations. We desire faithfully and fairly to bear our part in building up a true collective security which shall not only lighten the burden of the toiling millions, but also provide the means by which the grievances of great dissatisfied nations, if well-founded, can be peacefully adjusted.
Another Great War would extinguish what is left of the civilization of the world, and the glory of Europe would sink for uncounted generations into the darl abyss. We wish to prevent this war.”
COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.
Doppleganger
Active member
I assume this is another quotation of Churchill's, taken from an official speech. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that Churchill said this but in any case, it's completely beside the point. Churchill was a politician at the time. Of course he is going to say that he wants peace and so forth but this does not change the character of the man nor his ulterior motives! Look, politicians make false promises (and sometimes utter outright lies) all the time. A good example is George Bush and Tony Blair both saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before they launched 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' in 2003.
Geez, I can go find a quote where Bill Clinton said he never had sex with that woman, or when George Bush Senior said; "read my lips, no new taxes". Do you see my point. Are you really that naive?
senojekips
Active member
By that reckoning, I guess it means that the German attack on the Radio station at Gliewitz was just verification of Hitler's earnest desire for peace with Poland.
Yes, politicians can tell lies, but it in no way implies that everything they say is untrue.
Yes, politicians can tell lies, but it in no way implies that everything they say is untrue.