If Britain and France hadn't declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, would Hitler have forgone an invasion to the west and simply invaded the Soviet Union earlier, or would he have still felt sufficiently threatened by France to warrant a campaign on that front? An even more interesting scenario for me is that I think Hitler could have invaded the Soviet Union without first dealing with France. If he had turned his attention elsewhere the French would probably have maintained a defensive posture and continued their campaign of lip-service against German aggression. Britain might have been more willing to put up a fight, but neither Britain or France really had the means to mount a serious offensive campaign. And I can't think that France and Britain would choose to form an alliance with Russia after Russian intentions were made clear by their invasion of both Finland and Poland.
When the Winter War was being fought, France and Britain were planning to send troops to aid Finland. The Winter War finished before they could be sent. Now, imagine if the USSR was fighting French, British and Finnish troops then Hitler decided to launch Barbarossa in 1940. How different it would all be.
To redefine a bit, What if France had attacked Germany while most of the German equipment was still in Poland? Most likely, a very short war with a quick German loss. Although, the French would have been blooded.
To redefine a bit, What if France had attacked Germany while most of the German equipment was still in Poland? Most likely, a very short war with a quick German loss. Although, the French would have been blooded. If only!
To redefine a bit, What if France had attacked Germany while most of the German equipment was still in Poland? Most likely, a very short war with a quick German loss. Although, the French would have been blooded. Hahaha do you really though that could happan? Germans are not so stuped to let the border open.And with what france could attack? They have some trashcans that they usualy call tanks. Mates...sometimes i could see that you really...how could i say you dont aprove the heroism,bavery,profesionalism and the discipline of the german soldiers it is a clear fact that the germans had THE BEST and highly trained soldiers.The Prusian's know how to fight and how to win a war it is in there blood. I have one advice for you "Respect your enemy ,like you respect your ally".
Although, the French would have been blooded. I have a feeling that due to their procedures and their outdated command and battle theory, they would have been blooded all right. Blooded, Bloodied and dead.
After war was officially declared it took a further nine months for Hitler to turn his attentions towards France. During this period, the Allies defensive policy would suggest that everyone was still secretly hoping for peace; what with the memories of the Great War still being very fresh. So; even if they (France & Britain) had been in a position to attack Germany (which was doubtful), I don't think they would have. I think Hitler realised this too. The days of positive French aggression had beeen sadly lacking since the death of Napoleon!! Millsy (who is now not so busy at work and has also unpacked most of his boxes after moving house!!! )
After war was officially declared it took a further nine months for Hitler to turn his attentions towards France. During this period, the Allies defensive policy would suggest that everyone was still secretly hoping for peace; what with the memories of the Great War still being very fresh. So; even if they (France & Britain) had been in a position to attack Germany (which was doubtful), I don't think they would have. I think Hitler realised this too. The days of positive French aggression had beeen sadly lacking since the death of Napoleon!! Millsy (who is now not so busy at work and has also unpacked most of his boxes after moving house!!! ) Really good post Millsy thank you.I want also to add that after the attack of Poland,England declared war to Germany.And this mean that Germans were ready for a posible advance of French and English troops.
The days of positive French aggression had beeen sadly lacking since the death of Napoleon!! Thank Goodness ! I assume you mean Bonaparte. Napoleon 111 was later regarded as a significant threat by the British. Still, the tension left us with some nice defensive architecture. Britain, of course probably had very little say in whether to attack Germany in 1939 /40 as French permission and Command would have been needed and apart from units rotated on the Saar front were not near the German border. I am not certain that the Saarland could not have been succesfully retaken and even a small incursion into Germany would have seriously hampered the build up to Blitzkreig. There are accounts of German transport columns stretching back to Köln and any Allied presence there would have made a clean start to a surprise attack very difficult. The end result may well have been, as with so many possible scenarios in 1940, that a long drawn out static war developed or worse still that the whole force would have been outflanked and cut-off with no chance of withdrawal. It may well have been for the best that the BEF was forced out so quickly and with such a relatively light loss of manpower.
The only legitimate threat to Germany may have been a French/British invasion of Norway to cut off the supply of iron-ore to Germany. With that being the only Allied front they could have poured troops into the region and Germany would have had little chance to resist while fighting the Soviet Union in the East. Germany might have been able to prevent an Allied landing in Norway by concentrating their naval and a portion of their air force in the region, but it would have been tricky.
The only legitimate threat to Germany may have been a French/British invasion of Norway to cut off the supply of iron-ore to Germany. With that being the only Allied front they could have poured troops into the region and Germany would have had little chance to resist while fighting the Soviet Union in the East. Germany might have been able to prevent an Allied landing in Norway by concentrating their naval and a portion of their air force in the region, but it would have been tricky. Churchill wanted to do that in 1942 but his Generals told him was a totally and utterly hopeless plan. Alanbrooke was the most vocal opponent of a landing in Norway. Churchill then leaned on Andy MacNaughton, the Canadian General, to devise a plan. He asked for AT LEAST five divisions, 20 squadrons and a large fleet. see Alanbrooke's Diaries for further info. We had already been kicked out of Norway in 1940.
At the begining the allied wanted to see if Russia could resist the germans.But they were really disapointed when they understand that the Germans are in Moscow already. Rich Payne i balive that the problem of the British troops wasnt french permision to fight on there land.The British army maybe wasn't ready so soon after the great war.Dont forget how cold is in Norway and how hard it would be to fight there ,not only for the british but also for the germans.But the Germans were well prepered.And the German navy and U-boats were really well based around Norway ,a lot of British ships would have been sink befor they manige even to close Norway. The war couldn't end so easy as you think.Germans arnt some damn amatures ,they know how to fight in war for sure and there soldiers are the best and there comand is good too.
Britain began moving the BEF into France in September 1939 in a defensive rôle as a result of both countries declaring war on Germany. I do not know if there were ideas of also sending a force to other locations. The subsequent deployment of the NWEF to Norway was also purely defensive and could not have been the basis for an attack on Germany. The fact remains that the BEF were under the control of the French High Command and it was the French who allocated the British their place in the Defensive line along the Belgian border. It is not surprising that French troops continued garrisoning the Maginot positions. My point was simply that a pro-active strike to regain the Saarland and perhaps deeper into Germany could well have been successful in disrupting the preparations for Fall gelb. I am aware that it could have led to a long drawn out conflict that may have resulted in ultimate defeat. It would have meant, I think, that the Blitzkreig in the west would not have occured in the same manner. Bearing in mind that it is inconceivable that the BEF would have attacked Germany via neutral Belgium and The Netherlands, I stand by my assertion that the British were entirely dependent on French co-operation and "permission" even to start planning such an adventure. Germany and Russia are examples of states that were prepared to use treaties and non-aggression pacts to achieve their own aims. Whilst the French may have subsequently been disappointed by British actions in 1940, I don't think that either of them would have damaged their alliance by this sort of unilateral action.
Ok Rich but one question remain.. Do you think the british could had defeat the German army at maybe 1940 ?? Dont forget how much coutry didn't. What makes you think the british could had beat the profesionalism of the german army? If the british atacked this would had been a total mistake.I want to remamber you that the defence is far more easy then the attack ,the british and the french troops failed to defend the "great" France what would happan if they attacked. But why im explaining those things ? The diference betwen my opinion (east europen opinion) is really diferent of your (west europen opinion). In my coutry we aleys respect our enemy ,we dont make movies like Alo,Alo.We dont make fun of Hitler and the Germans ,and we dont make fun of the Ottomans.We simply respect them.The German soldiers are people like me like you and like everbody but for one or another reasons they are on the outher side of the frontlines.The german profesionalism,discipline,planes and brevery earn our respect.
Dani, No way could the British beat the Germans in 1940, that was understood. High Command thought they and the French could hold up the Germans and look to victory in 1942/43, if I remember correctly. It very soon became clear France would fall so Gort decided to get out via Dunkirk. As for making fun of people, that is a British thing, we make fun of ourselves too.
A simple answer to the first question. No, I don't think that the British could have defeated Germany in 1940 but it is interesting to ponder if they could have made it less easy for the Germans to roll into France and Belgium. I am fully aware that the result could have been a long drawn out continental land war or a bloody defeat. The Allies sitting back and allowing the build up must have contributed to the subsequent speed of the German success though. I am not convinced that a surprise attack on a limited scale is always more difficult than the defence of a huge front by an overstressed force. It is a little unfair of you to accuse me of not respecting the professionalism of the German forces. On the contrary, I grew up hearing just how efficient they were. My Father who is happily still around landed in Normandy with the Royal Signals and was in Germany until 1947. My Grandfather was in France in 1940, fought the Vichy French in Madagascar and saw action on Sicily, at Anzio and on the Garigliano. Sunday lunchtime (How frightfully British, I know) discussions were frequently over how quickly the Germans could zero mortar fire in and how accurate they were. I never heard them discussed with anything other than respect and I suspect that I have retained that point of view. I've just seen Owen's post and would second what he says. Mickey-taking is a way of life in Britain. One couldn't survive the school system without learning to ignore it and we perhaps sometimes forget that not everyone thinks the same. Humour is a defence mechanism and if you are laughing at your enemy, he is not winning the psychological war. Anyway, if Hitler hadn't wanted to be laughed at, he wouldn't have carried on wearing that Charlie Chaplin moustache, would he ? (Oh Gawd, there I go again!) I would mention that I actually find 'allo 'allo rather unfunny and condescending. I much prefer the earlier "Dad's Army" from the same writers. It mocked some clearly recognisable "types" from British society without ever belittling what they were standing up for.
Payne sorry if i said that exactly you dont have respect.I mean that many people in the forum dont. I think that a defence is easyer then atack because its harder for the ataking force to take bunkers to pass mines and so on. Germany and Bulgaria are two coutrys that shere same history.Bulgaria never fought agaist the Germans (if we dont count the last year of ww2) since the Holy Roman Empare.My father was a pilot in ww2 he fight with and agaist the germans.He aweys told me that they were the perfect soldiers that ever exist ,and from him i learn not to balive on the Holywood movies about ww2 ,movies that make people to balive that the germans were weak.He was a man that meet almost any of the best german officers and highly trained german pilots.
