because with NO navy France could put them under blockade and even USSR could take naval actions against them
Both of the tasks require far smaller navy than Hitler planned and constructed OTL.
because with NO navy France could put them under blockade and even USSR could take naval actions against them
Both of the tasks require far smaller navy than Hitler planned and constructed OTL.
France could do that iotl, while the ussr is in no position to land at Kiel or whateverbecause with NO navy France could put them under blockade and even USSR could take naval actions against them
and there are several logical alternatives other than this which can yield the desired savings
France could do that iotl, while the ussr is in no position to land at Kiel or whatever
Soviet Union had in the Baltic in '41:yes, in the early 1930's France could have done so solely, but historically they were building a fleet to counter that.
for the USSR, and KM would have to consider them acting in unison or simultaneously with France, they are not building out enough to bottle their large submarine force in the Baltic (IMO), less likely but their cruisers might have ventured out if the German fleet was weak enough?