Author Topic: Battle of France (1940)  (Read 1932 times)

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Re: Battle of France (1940)
« Reply #60 on: February 28, 2010, 08:37:52 AM »
I have also read Korda's book.  IMO, He would have you believe that Dowding stood alone on the cliffs of Dover, shaking his fists at Hitler in defiance for Queen and Country.  I feel that Korda missed the point of Churchill's famous "the Few" speech.  There were many nations that came to the aid of Britain during the BoB.  Korda would have you believe that it was just the British and their unshaken resolve who defeated the Germans in 1940.  
People often forget that up to that time Britain was the largest and wealthiest colonial empire in the past 200 years. "Britain" was effectively also Canada, Australia and a whole bunch of other colonies that rushed to her aid, not to mention the remains of the armies from every occupied country in Europe. A quick look at the RAF aces list and the fraction of Canadian / Australian/ Polish / French aces gives a rough idea. Germany did not attack a poor small island nation off the coast of Europe, they attacked what most people believed to be the world's dominant empire.

In regards to the OP, this just goes to show that Britain and France were completely unprepared for this war. They underestimated the threat, lagged in force buildup and equipment and clearly did not have proper "drawer plans" made. The speed of the German advance was a calculated gamble that counted on leaving too little time for France and Britain to gather their true potential force. I does not matter how many regiments France and Britain had if they were not deployed in the right places and ready (both in equipment and mentally) for war.
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Battle of France (1940)
« Reply #61 on: February 28, 2010, 11:25:03 AM »
Britain also was about bankrupt in 1940, and rationing was already on before the BoB, - something the Germans started in 1943 (?)
Indeed Britain was the commonwealth, - for instance the pre-payment for the lend-lease deal with the USA was picked up by a U.S. cruiser, - from S-Africa.
Germany also had a good back-up in the time of the BoB, a deal with the USSR (oil and other raw materials), parters and subjects like Hungary, Austria, Romania, Italy, heck, even Spain for a bit, as well as the illgotten gains from the recently occupied countries of W-Europe and Poland before.
So, basically you could say that Dowding had every reason to worry.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline oakranger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8380
      • http://www.slybirds.com/
Re: Battle of France (1940)
« Reply #62 on: February 28, 2010, 12:21:55 PM »
The allies did outnumber the Germans in 1940 and they where prepared.  They did have a plan but they are thinking 1914 invasion and underestimate the Arden forest that could not be passable.   but but that did not matter.  France and U.K where thinking 1914 not 1940.
Oaktree

56th Fighter group

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23888
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Battle of France (1940)
« Reply #63 on: February 28, 2010, 12:26:21 PM »
Britain also was about bankrupt in 1940, and rationing was already on before the BoB, - something the Germans started in 1943 (?)

In Germany, food ration stamps were introduced August 28th 1939, followed by coupons for clothing short time later.
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline RufusLeaking

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1056
Re: Battle of France (1940)
« Reply #64 on: February 28, 2010, 01:48:26 PM »
 :salute all in this substantive thread.

The Iron Curtain would not have moved west at all, as the Soviets most likely would have lost the war if not for the allies creating the second front.
They would have most unlikely lost the war. The turning point in the east was late 42/ early 43, in summer 43 the Wehrmacht lost completely the initiative to the Soviets, and they were advancing ever since - long before D-Day. d It just would have taken longer for them to get to Berlin.
The fall of Britain, or more accurately, Britain coming to terms with the Nazis, would have unforeseen consequences on the Russian campaign.  Lend Lease aid to Russia would have been more difficult.  North Africa would not have been a distraction.  Iraq would be under German influence.   Who knows what else.

But, it is my opinion that eventually, Russia would defeat Germany regardless.  It is a matter of scale.

Japan’s decision to strike in the Pacific was tied to the ease at which the Germans were racking up victories in 1940.  How would Britain, at terms with Hitler, behave in the defense of Singapore in 1941?  Some things are just too entangled to make a fair guess.

I have also read Korda's book.  IMO, He would have you believe that Dowding stood alone on the cliffs of Dover, shaking his fists at Hitler in defiance for Queen and Country. 

If you want to read a few books on the BoB, I would recommend these:

"Duel of Eagles" by Peter Townsend.
[urlhttp://www.amazon.com/Duel-Eagles-Peter-Townsend/dp/0891414320][/url]

"The Few" by Alex Kershaw
http://thefewbook.com/home.html

"The Forgotten Few: The Polish Air Force in WWII" by Adam Zamoyski
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forgotten-Few-Polish-Force-World/dp/1848841965/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257243463&sr=1-9

Here is the website for the BoB Historical Society suggested reading list:
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/bobhsoc/books.html
Korda seems to be trying to clear Dowding’s name.  I was unaware of the internal conflicts within the Royal Air Force regarding his defensive strategy.  I do not know the source of Korda’s agenda.

Being one of those nerds with a library card, I will look up the books you have recommended when I get done with a Toland book I am reading now.

Churchill would rather foolishly be seen to keep a commitment at the expense of a larger picture, ie Fighter squadrons in France, moving troops from Africa to Greece etc

I'd recommend Len Deighton's Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain and Blitzkrieg: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk

 Tronsky
So many books, so little time.

Thanks for the recommendations.

 :salute
GameID: RufLeak
Claim Jumpers

Offline RufusLeaking

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1056
Re: Battle of France (1940)
« Reply #65 on: February 28, 2010, 01:57:11 PM »
Also Hitler did a non-aggression pact with the soviets so why would he attack his new friends first?  Betrayal much?  i've always wondered where the phrase keep your friends close but your enemies closer comes from  :noid

I believe if he had achieved peace with Britain he wouldn't have attacked Russia straight away.  Maybe sit a couple of years and get everything in place for the Final Battle...  Operation Barbarossa was rushed like an NOE horde grab but they failed to bring more than one goon.....
First and foremost, Hitler was a crazy S.O.B. 

I believe it was the poor performance of the Red Army vs. the Finns that gave him the impression that Russia would fall easily.  Stalin, another certifiable crazy, helped him by purging the Red Army in 1937.

Regarding the what-if timing of the invasion of Russia, it might have actually happened earlier without the distractions of Greece and Yugoslavia.  Hitler would go after Communism eventually based on ideology.

The alternate history game is fun, but the web of events gets tangled quickly.
GameID: RufLeak
Claim Jumpers

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23888
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Battle of France (1940)
« Reply #66 on: February 28, 2010, 02:12:49 PM »
The fall of Britain, or more accurately, Britain coming to terms with the Nazis, would have unforeseen consequences on the Russian campaign. 

Just to make clear: I was not referring to the BoB, but the Second Front: D-Day in Normandy.

On BoB, Operation Sea Lion and the fall of Britain: There was no way for the Germans to pull that thing off in 40/41.
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Re: Battle of France (1940)
« Reply #67 on: February 28, 2010, 03:49:38 PM »
On BoB, Operation Sea Lion and the fall of Britain: There was no way for the Germans to pull that thing off in 40/41.
One can look at this with 20/20 hindsight and declare it so.  The thing is, the British did not really have the same confidence at the time.  Had the RAF been dealt a more serious blow, allowing the Germans to launch an airborne assault and a seaborne invasion that had at least a modicum of success initially, there is the chance the Brits would have failed on a "psychological" basis and capitulated before it became clear to them that the German invasion was not sustainable.

Admittedly a very big "what if", but not outside the realm of possibility.
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline pipz

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4899
Re: Battle of France (1940)
« Reply #68 on: February 28, 2010, 03:51:06 PM »
 
I believe if he had achieved peace with Britain he wouldn't have attacked Russia straight away.  Maybe sit a couple of years and get everything in place for the Final Battle...  Operation Barbarossa was rushed like an NOE horde grab but they failed to bring more than one goon.....

From what I have read the Germans had the opinion that they had to rush the attack on Russia.Time was on the Russians side.The longer the Germans waited the stronger the Russians would become compared to theyre own forces.The Germans felt that theyre strength at the time was going to be as good as it was going to get and the ratio would only get worse with time.
Silence tells me secretly everything.
                                                                     
Montreal! Free the Pitt Bulls!!!!!

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Battle of France (1940)
« Reply #69 on: February 28, 2010, 06:37:10 PM »
The Germans turned their eyes to the maps of Russia in the autumn of 1940. It was not delayed much by the BoB, but to Hitler's disappointment, the British would not come to some sort of an agreement.
It was tried to get the Spanish to co-operate in order to catch Gibraltar from land and thereby open up the shipping route from the Atlantic to the Med, and thereby hopefully to the Black Sea. There was the only part of the USSR which could be struck much sooner that from Poland, due to the latitude and difference in climate. Would have made some odd 2 months of a difference. But Franco did not co-operate, so Germany had to attack from the more northern perimeter.
Now, Russia is big, and the industrial output was getting on to a good pace. But the resources of Germany cannot be underestimated. They had under their boot more manpower than the USSR, as well as vast resources and booty.
So, in short, the British put a load to the failiure of Barbarossa in some of the following lines:
- Refusing the access to the Black Sea
- Tying up some dozens of divisions on the W Europe fronts.
- Keeping a living fight going on in N-Africa.
- Tying up HALF of the LW available on the W-Front
- Drawing a lot of LW's finest blood during the BoB and after.

- goes on forever. I think it would definately have brought the Nazi warmachine much futher and perhaps to Victory had there been peace with the UK. After all, the Generals were looking atthe towers of
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline oakranger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8380
      • http://www.slybirds.com/
Re: Battle of France (1940)
« Reply #70 on: February 28, 2010, 11:38:47 PM »
The Germans turned their eyes to the maps of Russia in the autumn of 1940. It was not delayed much by the BoB, but to Hitler's disappointment, the British would not come to some sort of an agreement.
It was tried to get the Spanish to co-operate in order to catch Gibraltar from land and thereby open up the shipping route from the Atlantic to the Med, and thereby hopefully to the Black Sea. There was the only part of the USSR which could be struck much sooner that from Poland, due to the latitude and difference in climate. Would have made some odd 2 months of a difference. But Franco did not co-operate, so Germany had to attack from the more northern perimeter.
Now, Russia is big, and the industrial output was getting on to a good pace. But the resources of Germany cannot be underestimated. They had under their boot more manpower than the USSR, as well as vast resources and booty.
So, in short, the British put a load to the failiure of Barbarossa in some of the following lines:
- Refusing the access to the Black Sea
- Tying up some dozens of divisions on the W Europe fronts.
- Keeping a living fight going on in N-Africa.
- Tying up HALF of the LW available on the W-Front
- Drawing a lot of LW's finest blood during the BoB and after.

- goes on forever. I think it would definately have brought the Nazi warmachine much futher and perhaps to Victory had there been peace with the UK. After all, the Generals were looking atthe towers of

Yep, the Brits did a lot to hold up the German war machine to the east until the U.S. finally jumped in the twister game. 
Oaktree

56th Fighter group

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Battle of France (1940)
« Reply #71 on: March 01, 2010, 04:24:31 AM »
And once the US was in the game, the outcoma was predictable. As for the dismayed German Generals standing at the gates of Moscow and learning that Hitler had declared war on the USA, - well they did not think it was very smart. I should be able to find the exact wording.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline oakranger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8380
      • http://www.slybirds.com/
Re: Battle of France (1940)
« Reply #72 on: March 01, 2010, 08:21:36 AM »
And once the US was in the game, the outcoma was predictable. As for the dismayed German Generals standing at the gates of Moscow and learning that Hitler had declared war on the USA, - well they did not think it was very smart. I should be able to find the exact wording.

I bet some of German upper rank staff felt the same way too. 
Oaktree

56th Fighter group

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Battle of France (1940)
« Reply #73 on: March 01, 2010, 10:09:09 AM »
But they were scared of that....thing with a beard :D
Honestly though, the system around Hitler was quite strong. Well demonstrated after the Stauffenberg bomb issue.
Protest and die....
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline oakranger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8380
      • http://www.slybirds.com/
Re: Battle of France (1940)
« Reply #74 on: March 01, 2010, 11:35:37 AM »
But they were scared of that....thing with a beard :D
Honestly though, the system around Hitler was quite strong. Well demonstrated after the Stauffenberg bomb issue.
Protest and die....

Yea, that is why he got into power and German people afraid to do anything to protest the war.
Oaktree

56th Fighter group