Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your fantasy of the Allies stopping the Germans relies on too many "what If's".
The Germans had no advantages over the allies. They should have stopped the German advance with the far larger military they had. There was no reason not to stop them.
The Germans could not have taken Dunkirk? The Gerrmans were "defeated" there?
The Germans could not have taken Dunkirk, they would have been badly beaten. The Luftwaffe was defeated over Dunkirk by mainly the RAF.
The British were retreating after the French collapsed - a programme already in motion. All armies retreat when the need is there. There happened to be a body of water in the line of the retreat. The Germans could not have taken Dunkirk if they attacked. You need to do some reading on this and not go by poor history channel documentaries. The British even won the air battle over Dunkirk. The Brits had air superiority over the Dunkirk pocket with British planes operating for longer periods from England while German planes had only a few minutes over Dunkirk as they had to come in from Germany. There was also adequate AA guns on the ground. More German than allied planes were destroyed.
Only six warships were sunk at Dunkirk by the Germans as the Luftwaffe was kept at bay and the retreat operation was carried out as planned. All bridges to Dunkirk were destroyed by the allies. The first defeat of the Nazis in WW2 was in the air by the Brits over Dunkirk. Germany was consolidating their remaining armour and the important resupply from Germany for an expected attack from the south. They had no option but to stop.
The British counter at Arras was with outdated Matilda 1 tanks, which only had machine guns, and a few of the new Matilda 2. The Germans fled in droves. The Germans countered with superior numbers then pushed back the Brits. In desperation the Germans turned a 88mm AA gun horizontal and it worked against the Matilda 2 - their conventional anti-tank weapons and tanks could not penetrate the tank. Rommel thought he had been hit by a force three times the size, which made them stop and think. The British resolve and the new Matilda 2 made the Germans sit up and think about a street fight in Dunkirk against a consolidated force with its weapons and the new Matilda 2 - the 88mm would be useless in Dunkirk streets while the Matilda 2 would be in its element. The Germans were expecting the Matilda 2 to be shipped over in numbers. A Dunkirk street fight was a fight the German troops were untrained and unequipped for.
German preoccupation rightly was with an expected attack from the forces in the south not Dunkirk which was a too much a formidable obstacle. The German column had Allied troops to each side. If German forces had engaged in a street battle for Dunkirk, they would be vulnerable on their weak flank from the south. In short any German forces attacking Dunkirk would have been wiped out.
Do not go by myth.
BTW, there was a British plan to break out of the Dunkirk Pocket using British and French forces which was abandoned. All military school studies since have show it would have been a success.
The Germans had no advantages over the allies. They should have stopped the German advance with the far larger military they had. There was no reason not to stop them.
And they didn't because the Eastern soldiers severally outclassed the West. IE D-day (pointless) and how long it took the Allies to reach Germany.
And they didn't because the Eastern soldiers severally outclassed the West. IE D-day (pointless) and how long it took the Allies to reach Germany.
D-Day was pointless? At D-Day plus 90 the were far ahead of the plan. The success in the west was so good it looked like the war would be over by Christmas 1944. Initially they expected the war to go into 1946.
Does anyone know if Britain and France ever formulated a list of their war aims during World War II in 1939-1940 (before the fall of France), similar to Germany's World War I Septemberprogramm (sp?)? If so, then what exactly were Britain's and France's war aims in 1939-1940 (in terms of territorial changes/territorial gains, the post-war peace, reparations, et cetera)?
This is a bit of a misconception. France was too smart to fall per se, part of France supported the axis, while another part of France spent a few years touring England supporting the allies. Thus the Vichy French won if Axis won, the Free French won if the Allies won.
The Brits likely didn't want a German Europe, and the French wanted to be on the winning side. Overall the French were better at diplomacy imo, they played both sides.
England was in a tight spot as their monarchy was German (House of Hanover, well really the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Hanover branch, renamed to Windsor in 1917. The royals even started to speak in English instead of German. House of Hanover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's tough to fight Germans, when your monarchs are German, in fact a British king had to resign due to his support of Germany.
The ins and outs of how Europeans kill and war with each other over time is interesting, but they have been at it for a very long time and are much better at intrigue than we are.
The French had whole tank units- I gave the references.
The Germans did not have a 2:1 aircraft advantage in 1939 - I gave the reference.
The Manstein Plan was not brilliant it was a massive gamble - I gave references.
Lets start with Wikipedia.
1. The French had whole tank units- I gave the references.
"The main tool of the German land forces was combined arms combat. In contrast to the Allies, they relied on highly mobile offensive units, with balanced numbers of well trained artillery, infantry, engineer and tank formations, all integrated into Panzer divisions."
"French tactical deployment and the use of mobile units operationally was also inferior to that of the Germans.[78] Tactically, armour was spread thinly along the French line; French infantry divisions were supported by tank battalions of about 100 tanks, which prevented them from being a strong, independent operational force. Making matters worse, only a handful of French tanks in each unit had radios installed, and the radios themselves were often unreliable, thus hampering communication.[78] French tanks were also very slow in speed in comparison to the Panzers (except for the SOMUA S35), as they were designed as infantry support, enabling German tanks to offset their disadvantages by out-manoeuvering the French on the battlefield. In 1940, French military theoreticians still considered tanks as infantry support. As a consequence, at various points in the campaign, the French were not able to react as quickly as German armour.[78]"
2. The Germans did not have a 2:1 aircraft advantage in 1939 - I gave the reference.
From Wikipedia:
"One of the German strengths was the Luftwaffe. It divided its forces into two groups. In total, 1,815 combat, 487 transport and 50 glider aircraft were deployed to support Army Group B, while a further 3,286 combat aircraft were deployed to support Army Groups A and C.["
The Germans had no advantages over the allies. They should have stopped the German advance with the far larger military they had. There was no reason not to stop them.
What? No advantages?
From Wikipedia, these are the numbers in May, 1940:
Yeah, big advantage for the Allies there. Yep, they had a "far larger military".
Also from Wikipedia:
"Germany had mobilised 4,200,000 men of the Heer, 1,000,000 of the Luftwaffe, 180,000 of the Kriegsmarine, and 100,000 of the Waffen-SS. When consideration is made for those in Poland, Denmark and Norway, the Army had 3,000,000 men available for the offensive on 10 May 1940.[58] These manpower reserves were formed into 157 divisions. Of these, 135 were earmarked for the offensive, including 42 reserve divisions.[59]
"Due to a low birthrate, however, which had declined during the First World War and the Great Depression, and was exacerbated by the numbers of men who had been killed in the war, France had a severe manpower shortage relative to its total population, which was barely half that of Germany. To compensate, France had mobilised about one-third of the male population between the ages of 20 and 45, bringing the strength of its armed forces to 5,000,000.[78] Only 2,240,000 of these served in army units in the north. The British contributed a total strength of 897,000 men in 1939, rising to 1,650,000 by June 1940. In May, it numbered only 500,000 men, including reserves. Dutch and Belgian manpower reserves amounted to 400,000 and 650,000 respectively.[58] "
"The real trump card for the Germans was the radio.[67] The Panzers all had radios that allowed voice communication with other units. This enabled German armour to respond rapidly to a constantly changing battlefield situation."
So, the Germans apparently had major advantages in airplanes, radio communications, mobility, combined arms tactics, and were relatively equal in troop numbers. The only Allied advantages were in numbers of tanks, artillery, and a slight troop advantage. In virtually every other category, the Germans were superior.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
