What huge numerical advantage did Germans have ?
This is a British propaganda myth now discredited by their own historians
WWII: German Victory in Battle of Britain, could USSR win alone?
- Thread starter Sphinx
- Start date
This is a British propaganda myth now discredited by their own historians
It’s nothing short of a miracle that Germany won against France
Uk and ussr are way too strong for Germans to take on even individually
A massive amount of German artillery was diverted to Germany to protect the homeland from bombing. Without Germany getting bombed by Britain, most of that ordnance is moving east.
WWII: The War of Numbers” versus The War in Numbers
22 June 1941–9 May 1945: Dedicated to Soviet Russia’s men and women in arms who died in Second World War to save their own peoples and the…
savkinoleg583.medium.com
No, the point is to remember that the USSR might have fudged numbers here and there. Hell, I don't blame them, morale was critically low and saying claiming more people than they actually had at a desperate time would not be the worst idea. But simply taking any totalitarian government at its word is usually not a good idea.
Perhaps the problems with France included but were not limited to a Maginot mentality, a lack of communciations gear in vehicles, and an air power disadvantage. No one expected an attack through the Ardennes, and once the Maginot line was pierced the leadership began a self-fulfilling belief that their war was lost.
TDM
Kicked
I'm not sure how that link refutes the numbers I posted?WWII: The War of Numbers” versus The War in Numbers
22 June 1941–9 May 1945: Dedicated to Soviet Russia’s men and women in arms who died in Second World War to save their own peoples and the…
No, the point is to remember that the USSR might have fudged numbers here and there. Hell, I don't blame them, morale was critically low and saying claiming more people than they actually had at a desperate time would not be the worst idea. But simply taking any totalitarian government at its word is usually not a good idea.
Either way if we're worrying about fudged numbers a "Division" especially a reconstituted one could famously mean very different things at different times in terms of actually active troop numbers!
Last edited:
True but it’s unthinkable that Uk will be neutral while Russia and Germany fight
Nazi goals were self-defeating in the East. They wanted to occupy the entirety of western Russia, while conducting a genocide of the inhabitants, and fighting a forever war against the Soviets beyond the Urals. It was an impossible objective, no matter how many tactical or strategic victories were won.
Germans are never going to win in any scenario against UK alone or USA alone
It’s pure fantasy
Well, given enough time Nazi Germany might be able to force the British Commonwealth and Empire to seek a compromise peace. BUT only if the US does not lend financial and material support, which is close to ASB.
And by then the USSR will have completed at least one Five Year Plan to build up its infrastructure, industrial capacity and the Red Army. To the extent that the Nazis cannot invade it successfully and are more likely to be invaded by it.
Let's give the OP the benefit of the doubt that he knows this, and please proceed with actually discussing the scenario he proposes.
Was it an out and out lie or just a mistake? Do you know? I could see it either way. The Brits weren't (nor anyone else for that matter) above lying when it suited them but it wasn't like they had the number of planes in the LW on a spreadsheet in front of them either.
Instead of the UK being occupied or surrendering how about they take a 24-to-36 month respite and focus on mobilization/ redeployment/rebuilding their army until a reason comes along for them to get back into the fight? Ironically this may avoid the Blitz but suppose their departure from the war is not conclusive?
Probably wartime overestimation initially ,which later became postwar victors propaganda and seared in popular imagination so much so that it is an article of faith now.
It was mostly an intelligence failure on both sides. The British overestimated the German forces, the Germans underestimated the British forces. Which meant that during the battle the Germans were consistently thinking they were closer to winning than they really were, while the British were thinking they were closer to loosing than they really were.
Somehow after the war those two at first didn't combine to get a better picture, but merged into the wartime view that the British were heavily outnumbered.
The British were on the defensive, and thus had to spread their fighters over the whole country, whereas the Germans could - and did - concentrate almost all their fighters on the Channel coast. Thus, over South-East England, where the battle was won and lost, the RAF fighters were outnumbered by between 2:1 and 3:1 by the Bf109's alone. Obviously, if you include squadrons based in Northern England and Scotland the numbers are much closer to 1:1.
Garrison
Donor
But when the scenario is close to impossible how are we supposed to take it seriously? For that matter why didn't the OP just put this in ASB where he could have the Space Bats click their fingers and have the British surrender and absolutely not interfere in the war? That would remove all the questions of plausibility.
Why ?
[it's not hard to POD this ... instead of keeping their Pact secret, Hitler and Stalin leaks their deal over Poland ... France & Britain step back from the 'guarantee' to Poland when faced with declaring war on BOTH Hitler and Stalin ...
EDIT why both ? because Hitlers and Stalins forces invade simultaneously ..
Then Hitler, instead of stopping and turning west, just rolls on through Poland and straight over the Red Army in October 1939 ....
Britain would, I suggest, be only too happy to watch the Nazi's and Communists bleed each other dry .... ]
SO - what happens then ?
Given how the RedArmy performed in Finland, before the winter stops play, the Nazi's would be half way to Moscow (advance limited only by their logistics) .... Why Moscow ? because the Nazi attack consists of a single thrust through Poland ....
Nazi success in France (which came DESPITE the 6 month 'phony war' during which defensive preperations would have been made) suggest that the early war Blitzkrieg success would work just as well against the Soviets ....
In the spring of 1940, the Nazi's advance will continue but still be slowed by logistics problems (and consolidating their gains) ==
If the Brits (& French) are sitting this out, they might be willing to sell arms to Stalin (or even Hitler) under 'cash and carry' terms, but this takes time to get going (and even longer to feed into the front lines). As does the preperation of defences .... (OTL 6 months of 'phony war' defensive preperations didn't make much difference to the speed at which the Panzers reached Paris - the Soviets would have maybe 2-3 months and that only in winter)
Is it ASB to suggest the Panzers could be in Moscow by end of 1940 ??? (instead of Paris ?)
Plus, if they do, would Stalin come to terms ??
Last edited: