WI: France falls in 6 months to a year instead of 6 weeks

I agree on everything you wrote, but I'd like to mention that not having Italy in the war is an advantage for Germany. No distractions, and peaceful Balkans.
Naturally there are less distractions for the French, too. After Italy remains on the fence for a month or two, and the Germans advance, albeit slowly, the French will be forced to remove troops from the Alps and possibly from Tunisia. If Italy still doesn't jump down the fence, this will be good news for France and bad news for Germany.

Another significant knock-on is that a Germany that doesn't trash France in six weeks is less convincing when it comes to bully the Romanians, and the Romanians are the ones having the oil Germany needs desperately at this point.

Not having Italy in the war is a massive advantage for Britain! No North Africa, East Africa, Destabilised Middle east, Greek expeditions 'Verdun of the Med' etc not to mention the Med is open for bussiness!
 
The allied strategy was to hide behind the Maginot line for two years
Uuuuh. No. This is where you show that you don't really know much about French strategy in WW2.

The Maginot Line was not made to fight a German offensive head-on: it was made to force a very specific offensive vector on the German side, which is through Belgium and from the north. No one thought the Germans would just attack the line - as they didn't, because they weren't suicidal - and that was the entire point of the fortifications: being able to use a small part of the army to interdict a whole flank, so as to make the direction of the German attack predictable.

It didn't entirely work, as we know well, but the margin of error is way smaller than the "HIDING BEHIND THE MAGINOT LINE!" rhetoric would point at.
 
Heck no. …
be used as slaves in the Nazi mindset, but again the concept goes way back before 1941.

The utter puzzlement at what to do with Soviet POWs, combined with the failure of more craft techniques of genocide in the police battalions and action groups led to the industrialisation of work to death camps, make work death camps and extermination camps.

There's a qualitative change between Polish actions and ghettoisation, and early attempts at systematic population extermination, and the system developed out of the Heers criminal incapacity to sustain POWs.

yours,
Sam R.
 
The utter puzzlement at what to do with Soviet POWs, combined with the failure of more craft techniques of genocide in the police battalions and action groups led to the industrialisation of work to death camps, make work death camps and extermination camps.

There's a qualitative change between Polish actions and ghettoisation, and early attempts at systematic population extermination, and the system developed out of the Heers criminal incapacity to sustain POWs.

I don't disagree with the above, but the above is different from claiming that the "conceptions" of "lebensunwertes Leben" and "Untermenschen" might arise only in 1941, and let alone that they might "fundamentally" do so. It's especially surprising that "lebensunwertes Leben" should be considered to be a reaction to events in 1941, when it's in the title of a book published in 1920.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Certainly by mid to late war that might have been true. However until then troop/army morale held allowing regiments to be gutted in battle and still be rebuilt within months to the same standards . They had faith in 'win the battles/campaigns and the rest will fall into place'.
Surely the Germans can rebuilt, but so can French and British - so could be in the mid to late war scenario very quickly. But at the very very least a long battle of France menas that the Germans do not win the way they did IOTL and there is a good chance that they'll loose in a similar way as WWI.
 
I don't disagree with the above, but the above is different from claiming that the "conceptions" of "lebensunwertes Leben" and "Untermenschen" might arise only in 1941, and let alone that they might "fundamentally" do so. It's especially surprising that "lebensunwertes Leben" should be considered to be a reaction to events in 1941, when it's in the title of a book published in 1920.
I've just chased up my original claim and realised that I should have put a whopping great big "transformed" in my claim. For which I apologise. My interest is the spread of the concepts to general acceptance as the basis for low level policy and popular policy enactment.

Regarding intellectual history, which I'm not an expert in, I've seen in practiced with an eye not only for origination of concepts but their spread acceptance and generalisation.

Again a mea culpa: the claim I wrote was not the one I intended and the claim written was an is incorrect.

Thanks Michele.

Sam
 
This is an alternate history site.

You asked a question.

You have been given a response to your question and a link to an excellently researched timeline that tells the story of your question in massive detail and with discussions as to the events both alternate and real.

You see how this works?

Yes I see its a big waste of my time. If there is a post or two worth reading I will read it if you post it.


"Excellent research" claim is doubtful at best - since its spread over hundreds of posts.
 
Surely the Germans can rebuilt, but so can French and British - so could be in the mid to late war scenario very quickly. But at the very very least a long battle of France menas that the Germans do not win the way they did IOTL and there is a good chance that they'll loose in a similar way as WWI.

The German moral issue will take years to resolve but the battle for France will not. Further WALLIE morale will not last years since America will not enter such a war as long as American public opinion prevents them.
 
I don't see how this logic follows? An army is only as good as its training & doctrine -not its equipment? Even if the French had twice as much gear than historical, they still would have lost. French doctrine was mostly defensive ANCHORED on the Maginot line. The allied strategy was to hide behind the Maginot line for two years
Funny how Germany was only able to beat them when they dared wage a forward defence in Belgium.

- while they mobilised there forces and the combined allied bomber forces - bombed the Nazi back to the stone age? Only wishful thinking -based on WW-I experience-could expect such a strategy to work.
Worked pretty well for the UK in WWII.

Even the notion of "blunted sickle", would never lead to allied victory & German defeat. German attacks would continue and grow in intensity .
Germany does not have unlimited resources or an unlimited supply of professional soldiers with experience from the Polish campaign. If the tip of the spear is broken Germany is basically left with just an crude copy of the army that lost WWI. It simply doesn't have the capability to implement its more modern tactics.
 
Funny how Germany was only able to beat them when they dared wage a forward defence in Belgium.


Worked pretty well for the UK in WWII.


Germany does not have unlimited resources or an unlimited supply of professional soldiers with experience from the Polish campaign. If the tip of the spear is broken Germany is basically left with just an crude copy of the army that lost WWI. It simply doesn't have the capability to implement its more modern tactics.


?????? It didn't work well for the Brits, it took them years to relearn how to fight.


As I tried to explain , the German Regimental system allowed them to sustain their tactics & Morale for years of war in spite of massive losses. It was really only the reversals of 1942/43 that started the crumbling and that was only because of the years of fighting on the Eastern Front.
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
So your saying there isn't a post that best explains you POV.....OK what about a page or two or three. You surely don't expect people to read hundreds of pages , just to understand a POV.

Firstly, this entire thread discusses the concept.

Secondly you have been directed to Blunted Sickle as it's a good story and well researched and on this topic. Not essential reading but y'know it's relevant to the discussion. Your opinion that it can't be well researched because it's hundreds of pages long is mind boggling.

Thirdly this will be our last interaction because you are now on my ignore list.
 
?????? It didn't work well for the Brits, it took them years to relearn how to fight.
British strategy following the fall of France was basically to continue following the long war strategy that you criticize. They turtled up on their side of the channel and focused on reducing German air, naval, and industrial power while mobilizing their industry and population to build a powerful land force. This strategy worked very well for the British.

As I tried to explain , the German Regimental system allowed them to sustain their tactics & Morale for years of war in spite of massive losses.
And what massive losses did they suffer durring 1939-early 1941?

It was really only the reversals of 1942/43 that started the crumbling and that was only because of the years of fighting on the Eastern Front.
Their capabilities began withering away in 1941 (see army Group South's inability to take Kiev without assistance from Army Group Central). Also averting the fall of France as it happened IOTL requires a 1942-esque reversal, so you're really not making a good case.
 
Even the notion of "blunted sickle", would never lead to allied victory & German defeat. German attacks would continue and grow in intensity .
Oh wow, I had missed this gem. No, German attacks would not continue and grow in intensity, because by 1940 the German economy was pretty much undergoing meltdown from lack of resources, foreign currency, and gold; only the loot from the Fall of France allowed them to keep going. Moreover, if France doesn't fall then Italy doesn't enter the war; if Italy doesn't enter the war, Britain is more or less free to deploy everything against the Germans. That's several more battleships, cruisers, carriers, and destroyers joining the Battle of the Atlantic, which means that the Kriegsmarine is shut down harder and earlier. And if Germany is less threatening, and less reliable in payments, nations like Sweden would probably stop dealing with both sides, and sell to the side with hard cash. Hell, they might have to transition to steel driving bands for their artillery shells waaay earlier, which is going to cut into their steel production significantly.

It all adds up to "Germany is using rifles as sticks a couple of years into the war".
 
didn't most French divisions have horse and wagon...in fact all armies in Europe had horse drawn armies. Britain seems to be the only exception.

For a specific example:. Approx 40 percent of the French artillery was motorized/mechanised. For the Germans the portion was 25 percent or less.
 
Oh wow, I had missed this gem. No, German attacks would not continue and grow in intensity, because by 1940 the German economy was pretty much undergoing meltdown from lack of resources, foreign currency, and gold; only the loot from the Fall of France allowed them to keep going. Moreover, if France doesn't fall then Italy doesn't enter the war; if Italy doesn't enter the war, Britain is more or less free to deploy everything against the Germans. That's several more battleships, cruisers, carriers, and destroyers joining the Battle of the Atlantic, which means that the Kriegsmarine is shut down harder and earlier. And if Germany is less threatening, and less reliable in payments, nations like Sweden would probably stop dealing with both sides, and sell to the side with hard cash. Hell, they might have to transition to steel driving bands for their artillery shells waaay earlier, which is going to cut into their steel production significantly.

It all adds up to "Germany is using rifles as sticks a couple of years into the war".
think you got the last part backwards
 
...I'm not quite sure what you mean.
"Using rifles as sticks" implies they have no shortage of rifles and the materials to make them, which seems to be the opposite of what you're suggesting. "Using sticks aa rifles" would imply a great shortage of basic resources, which seems to be the point of your post.
 
"Using rifles as sticks" implies they have no shortage of rifles and the materials to make them, which seems to be the opposite of what you're suggesting. "Using sticks aa rifles" would imply a great shortage of basic resources, which seems to be the point of your post.
I think it's more that the Germany built rifles before the war then doesn't have the ability to produce ammunition.
 
Top