Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-12-2016, 09:37 AM
 
28,896 posts, read 53,983,212 times
Reputation: 46662

Advertisements

In truth, had Britain and France had any kind of vigorous response in the days following the Nazi invasion of Poland, it would have been a disaster for Hitler. The German General staff collectively held its breath, praying that the French wouldn't roll across the frontier in force, chiefly because it was virtually undefended.

To me, that's the real 'what if' scenario of September, 1939.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2016, 10:00 AM
 
13,626 posts, read 20,684,914 times
Reputation: 7630
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223 View Post
In truth, had Britain and France had any kind of vigorous response in the days following the Nazi invasion of Poland, it would have been a disaster for Hitler. The German General staff collectively held its breath, praying that the French wouldn't roll across the frontier in force, chiefly because it was virtually undefended.

To me, that's the real 'what if' scenario of September, 1939.
They did not really want to fight. Nobody wanted to fight. Except the Germans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 12:00 PM
 
28,896 posts, read 53,983,212 times
Reputation: 46662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
They did not really want to fight. Nobody wanted to fight. Except the Germans.
That's why it's a "What if." In truth, the French had committed 40 divisions to an offensive as part of their pre-war agreement with the Poles. But the French came nowhere close to honoring their commitment to the Poles. The offensive, such as it was, was met with very weak resistance, given that the Germans had fewer than 100 artillery pieces on the entire front.

Had the French lived up to their agreement and had Gamelin not halted even the half-hearted offensive after a week, I feel the French would have driven all the way to the Rhine. Then the Germans would have faced a thorny issue of the French occupying large portions of their with a large river barrier standing in the way of its recapture. Given how much credibility Hitler invested in militarizing the Saar just three years, earlier, that would have been huge.

To me, this would have spelled trouble for Hitler, chiefly because there were elements of the German General staff that were considering a coup in the event of such a contingency. During the Sudetenland crisis several German generals put out feelers to the British begging for their intervention, essentially making the same guarantee.

In other words, craven leadership was at fault.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Independent Republic of Ballard
8,062 posts, read 8,301,816 times
Reputation: 6218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
Invading Poland did not trap Hitler into the scenario he sought to avoid. It was invading the USSR later on.

People- especially the Russian Fan Club here- always forget the invasion of Poland was a joint German-Soviet invasion with a bifurcated Poland the result. After 3 weeks, the soon to be Eastern Front was quiet.

But the USSR (Russian for Lebensraum) was the big prize. Invading them, failing to subdue the UK, and inviting the USA to join the fight is the Trifecta that doomed him. Man has got to know his limitations.
Except defeating and occupying at least European Russia, as well as destroying Bolshevism, was his main objective. Defeating/neutralizing France and Britain was simply a necessary prerequisite if he wished to avoid a two-front war.

He was going to attack Russia, it was just a matter of when. The question is whether delaying the start of the war could have increased his chances of achieving his war aims, and if so, how.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 03:49 PM
 
28,896 posts, read 53,983,212 times
Reputation: 46662
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey View Post
Except defeating and occupying at least European Russia, as well as destroying Bolshevism, was his main objective. Defeating/neutralizing France and Britain was simply a necessary prerequisite if he wished to avoid a two-front war.

He was going to attack Russia, it was just a matter of when. The question is whether delaying the start of the war could have increased his chances of achieving his war aims, and if so, how.
I would offer that delay would have made his chances even less than what they were. After the brutal purge of the officer corps in the late 30s, Russia faced a severely depleted leadership that had a corresponding effect on the Red Army's fighting ability in the early days of Barbarossa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Independent Republic of Ballard
8,062 posts, read 8,301,816 times
Reputation: 6218
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223 View Post
I would offer that delay would have made his chances even less than what they were. After the brutal purge of the officer corps in the late 30s, Russia faced a severely depleted leadership that had a corresponding effect on the Red Army's fighting ability in the early days of Barbarossa.
That's certainly a possibility. However, if delaying the war would have increased their chances of defeating France and at least neutralizing Britain, that could allow them then to turn their force entirely against the Soviets.

They would still have had the tactical advantage at the start of the war, with Blitzkrieg yet to be unveiled, but with better armored and more fully mechanized forces, more robust supply lines, and much larger fuel stocks, plus, potentially, a longer air reach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 05:52 PM
 
7,573 posts, read 5,289,438 times
Reputation: 9436
Are we discussing the same war?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey View Post
if delaying the war would have increased their chances of defeating France and at least neutralizing Britain, that could allow them then to turn their force entirely against the Soviets.
That is exactly what happened?!?!?

France was defeated and Britain was effectively neutralize well as neutralized and Germany could ever neutralize the Royal Navy. It was only after Hitler accomplished that did he turn his attention to the Soviet Union.

Quote:
They would still have had the tactical advantage at the start of the war, with Blitzkrieg yet to be unveiled, but with better armored and more fully mechanized forces, more robust supply lines, and much larger fuel stocks, plus, potentially, a longer air reach.
Even with the Blitzkrieg fully exposed it didn't matter one bit on the eastern front as Hitler's forces blitzkrieged their behinds to the gates of Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad. As for German armor, nothing on either side was a match for German tanks during the onset of the war.

As for more robust supply lines, and stockpiles of fuel... well you can't have robust supply lines until you've sent your army into combat and established those supply lines as it advanced. That really isn't something that you can do before hand. You have the same problem with fuel stockpiles, you can't stockpile that which you don't have to begin with. It wasn't for the lack of armor, mechanization or air cover that stopped the Germans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 07:41 PM
 
Location: Independent Republic of Ballard
8,062 posts, read 8,301,816 times
Reputation: 6218
They hardly neutralized Britain. That could only have happened if they had managed to bring Britain to terms, that involved at least some degree of disarmament. As it was, Germany remained vulnerable to raids, strategic bombing, and invasion from Britain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 08:09 PM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,545 posts, read 16,622,216 times
Reputation: 29705
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller View Post
Yes, if Hitler hadn't overreached, he might've built a sustainable 3rd Reich. If he hadn't abused the Jews America might not have finished the atomic bomb before Germany, and Nazi Germany might've been the first country in space. But of course, if Hitler didn't do those things, he wouldn't have been Hitler.
That's the nub of the problem with ahistorical assumptions. You nailed it.

I repped this post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 09:41 PM
 
28,896 posts, read 53,983,212 times
Reputation: 46662
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino View Post
Are we discussing the same war?



That is exactly what happened?!?!?

France was defeated and Britain was effectively neutralize well as neutralized and Germany could ever neutralize the Royal Navy. It was only after Hitler accomplished that did he turn his attention to the Soviet Union.



Even with the Blitzkrieg fully exposed it didn't matter one bit on the eastern front as Hitler's forces blitzkrieged their behinds to the gates of Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad. As for German armor, nothing on either side was a match for German tanks during the onset of the war.

As for more robust supply lines, and stockpiles of fuel... well you can't have robust supply lines until you've sent your army into combat and established those supply lines as it advanced. That really isn't something that you can do before hand. You have the same problem with fuel stockpiles, you can't stockpile that which you don't have to begin with. It wasn't for the lack of armor, mechanization or air cover that stopped the Germans.
That just shows that you know squat. Heinz Guderian himself stated that the T-34 was vastly superior to any German armor during the early stages of the war. By far, the most numerous German tank during the first two years of the Eastern Front was the Panzer III with 37mm and 50mm guns -- No match for the T-34's 76mm. It wasn't until the Mark IVs were fitted with a 75mm gun was that tank able enjoy consistent success against the T-34.

You are equally off base when it comes to the Western Front, for the very large majority of tanks in the campaign in France were Panzer Is, IIs and IIIs, and these were absolutely no match for heavier French tanks such as the Char B or the British Matilda. Instead the reason the German armor was so successful was due to superior tactics and organization. As one example, French doctrine absolutely forbid the equipping of tanks with radios, viewing armor strictly as infantry support. So German armor prevailed because it bypassed French positions in classic exploitation tactics, rather than duking it out with enemy tanks.

As to your other points, the early German successes in France and in Barbarossa can be attributed far more to the inept leadership of the French, as well as the Red Army due to a purged officer corps and Stalin's willful disbelief that a German invasion as imminent. When war began for the Soviets, almost ever army commander, 50 of 57 corps commanders, and 154 out of 186 division commanders were purged, essentially decapitating the leadership of the Red Army, not to mention the incomparable theorist Tukhachevsky.

Last edited by cpg35223; 01-12-2016 at 10:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top