World War II (1 Viewer)

[Ozymandias]

The Dunkirk Debate

Most historians believe that Adolf Hitler's order to halt Guderian's armor from entering Dunkirk was his first great mistake of the war, and which contributed heavily to his eventual downfall. By allowing the British forces to escape, England was able to use them later on as the spearhead of their eventual victory over the Nazis. There are three reasons usually given for Hitler's decision:

Hitler wanted to make peace with the British. According to this argument, Hitler's halting of the armor was meant as an olive branch in order to make a peace with England. This theory was expressed earlier in this thread by Christo, and has support among a number of historians. I find it extremely implausible, because of the way the escape took place. Even without Guderian, the BEF had to execute a fighting escape, defeat the Luftwaffe, and then evacuate from the beach using hundreds of pleasure vessels. It's ridiculous to assume that Hitler foresaw all of this when he halted the armor. If he really wanted them to escape, why not call off the Luftwaffe and infantry too? Like most conspiracy theories, this one makes very little sense to me.

Hitler wanted Goering and the Luftwaffe to have the victory. This theory was put forward by an angry Guderian after the war. He believed that Goering was jealous of the Wehrmacht, and wanted to share in the glory. So Hitler gave him the chance to destroy the British, and Goering failed. My problem with this theory is that Hitler never before or since removed troops or halted them in order to give one particular person the glory. Though certainly Goering was the sort who cared about such things, Hitler never did. I believe this story was spread as a result of Guderian's resentmnent. Throughout the war he felt hamstrung by Hitler, and this would be even more evident during the Russian campaign.

Hitler simply panicked, afraid of a counter attack. Personally, I think this is the most likely answer. Hitler had demonstrated during the Norway campaign a tendency to panic in tight situations, and he would do this with increasing frequency as the war progressed. I think Hitler himself was stunned at the ease of the victory about to be his- he did not trust reports that there were no strategic reserve, and was terrified that there were French troops just waiting to pounce on him and destroy his great moment. So he halted the tanks because he was afraid this might happen.

In the end, there is no proof one way or the other, and historians have argued this ever since and probably always will. I have expressed my opinion, but I'm sure others here will differ.

I side with you. It had gone too easily, and I suspect even the German General Staff might have felt that they had outrun their supply lines, and their backup. The principle behind Blitzkrieg was that armor would punch a hole through the defenses, and then speedily get behind the front line troops, causing them to fall back in retreat and disorganization. Which is basically what happened. But when you push the enemy to the wall, he has nowhere else to go, and so he can turn and face you. That wall was the English Channel.A total of 340,000 troops were evacuated from Dunkirk. There were probably another 50,000 French troops which formed the rearguard. They had tanks and artillery, and I very much doubt the Germans outnumbered them in the immediate area. Yes, the Germans would have prevailed if it had been a set piece battle, but it wouldn't have been an easy task.

 

[robaroo86]

The German Attack Plan

The German General Staff was perhaps the finest group of military strategists in all of history. They easily defeated the French in 1870, and this influenced their thinking about France ever since. In the 1890's, Count Alfred von Schlieffen designed a plan for a quick conquest of France in the event of a two front war. It called for an invasion through Belgium and the Netherlands and a then a sweep of forces quickly towards Paris. Schlieffen, however, thought it was extremely important to the success of this plan to invade both Belgium AND Holland- otherwise the foe could circle around northwards and attack the right flank. His actual dying words were supposedly "Guard the right flank!"

His successor, Von Moltke, dismissed this idea as too costly, preferring the speed of only going through Belgium. He modified the plan to exclude Holland, and therefore the plan that was actually used in 1914 should have been called "The Von Moltke Plan". It very nearly succeeded.

Actually, according the Tuchman's "The Guns of August," Schlieffen's dying words were, "Only make the right wing strong," the idea being that any man not on the right was wasted. Schlieffen dreamed of a complete envelopment of the French and any French allies, with his extreme right brushing the Channel and circling behind Paris. He was willing to risk the loss of German territory in the center and on the left to make this happen. Moltke the Younger lacked his nerve for an all-or-nothing punch and, in addition to other changes, pulled troops from the right to strengthen the German forces in Alsace and Lorraine.

Normally I'm just a lurker, but this thread's too good to just read.

 

[timschochet]

The Fall of France Part One

"Sauve Qui Peut!" in French means, "Run for your lives!" or "Every man for himself!" This became the battle cry of the French army in late May and early June of 1940. The Germans easily broke through the Weygand Line, and the armor had split again, moving towards the Seine and Paris, and for the Swiss Frontier.

The French were completely demoralized and fleeing at this point. Everywhere they were dropping their equipment and leaving it behind. Hans Habe was a young Hungarian novelist who volunteered for the French army. From his memoirs:

The road offered an amazing spectacle. Everywhere I saw guns, knapsacks, tins of food, cartridge cases in the ditch. Equipment worth hundreds of thousands of francs was strewn across the road. No one thought of picking it up.

I came to a house where these two Black colonials were smoking. They looked terrified. One of them, a Corporal, kept saying, "Hitler no come Senegal. I no come Germany. I and Hitler no enemy." A German shell exploded nearby, and then another one. I saw this man's back torn open, I will never forget the look of horror in his face as he died.

Hundreds of thousands of terrified civilians from the north now clogged the roads to Paris. They were starving, covered with mud from flinging themselves into it everytime there were overhead planes. People pushed their household goods with them, beds, pots and pans, bottles of wine (always the most important item!) All along the road villages were burning. As Habe describes it, it was complete armageddon, the end of civilization itself. Inside Paris itself, the French government decided to flee south, and the citizens also fled as fast as they could. The Poles of Warsaw had determined to defend their city as long as they could against assault. Later on in the war, the citizens of Leningrad would prove their bravery, and even later the men and women of Berlin would sustain a ferocious onslaught before giving in.

Not so the Parisians. They apparently had no interest in defending the famed City of Light.

It was at this point that Mussolini declared war on France and England and attacked. As he told his son in law, Ciano, "I need a few thousand dead so as to be able to attend the peace conference." Italy sent several divisions to invade southern France, which had been stripped of almost all forces to fight in the North. To Il Duce's great embarrassment, his troops were unable to dislodge a few French battalions they easily outnumbered. In fact, at the first sign of a counterattack, the Italian regiments fled back into Italy. This was the first instance of what would become a continual pattern for the Italian military, as we shall see.

 

[Ozymandias]

The Fall of France Part One

"Sauve Qui Peut!" in French means, "Run for your lives!" or "Every man for himself!" This became the battle cry of the French army in late May and early June of 1940. The Germans easily broke through the Weygand Line, and the armor had split again, moving towards the Seine and Paris, and for the Swiss Frontier.

The French were completely demoralized and fleeing at this point. Everywhere they were dropping their equipment and leaving it behind. Hans Habe was a young Hungarian novelist who volunteered for the French army. From his memoirs:

The road offered an amazing spectacle. Everywhere I saw guns, knapsacks, tins of food, cartridge cases in the ditch. Equipment worth hundreds of thousands of francs was strewn across the road. No one thought of picking it up.

I came to a house where these two Black colonials were smoking. They looked terrified. One of them, a Corporal, kept saying, "Hitler no come Senegal. I no come Germany. I and Hitler no enemy." A German shell exploded nearby, and then another one. I saw this man's back torn open, I will never forget the look of horror in his face as he died.

Hundreds of thousands of terrified civilians from the north now clogged the roads to Paris. They were starving, covered with mud from flinging themselves into it everytime there were overhead planes. People pushed their household goods with them, beds, pots and pans, bottles of wine (always the most important item!) All along the road villages were burning. As Habe describes it, it was complete armageddon, the end of civilization itself. Inside Paris itself, the French government decided to flee south, and the citizens also fled as fast as they could. The Poles of Warsaw had determined to defend their city as long as they could against assault. Later on in the war, the citizens of Leningrad would prove their bravery, and even later the men and women of Berlin would sustain a ferocious onslaught before giving in.

Not so the Parisians. They apparently had no interest in defending the famed City of Light.

It was at this point that Mussolini declared war on France and England and attacked. As he told his son in law, Ciano, "I need a few thousand dead so as to be able to attend the peace conference." Italy sent several divisions to invade southern France, which had been stripped of almost all forces to fight in the North. To Il Duce's great embarrassment, his troops were unable to dislodge a few French battalions they easily outnumbered. In fact, at the first sign of a counterattack, the Italian regiments fled back into Italy. This was the first instance of what would become a continual pattern for the Italian military, as we shall see.

That's what happens when you build your tanks with one forward gear, and four reverse gears.

 

[timschochet]

That's what happens when you build your tanks with one forward gear, and four reverse gears.

Not sure what you're referring to here. The Italian tanks? Is that actually true?

 

[Ozymandias]

That's what happens when you build your tanks with one forward gear, and four reverse gears.

Not sure what you're referring to here. The Italian tanks? Is that actually true?

No. It was a WW2 joke, referring to the fact that the Italians tended to retreat at the first sign of trouble.

 

[timschochet]

That's what happens when you build your tanks with one forward gear, and four reverse gears.

Not sure what you're referring to here. The Italian tanks? Is that actually true?

No. It was a WW2 joke, referring to the fact that the Italians tended to retreat at the first sign of trouble.

Well, they certainly did. Wait until we get to North Africa late in 1940. That has to be the most stunning military debacle in all of history.

 

[shut it down]

Near the end of this thread, I will be happy to step in and discuss the incident where Hitler was banned from FBG. As many know, I am one of the more well-known scholars on this subject.

 

[glvsav37]

I've never really followed the events of that war but I have been listening to a great podcast that spend a crazy amount of time and detail on this stuff

Dan Carlin's Hardcore History

I highly recommend it, he just finished the 3rd part (of 4 I think) of the Nazi/Russian part of the war, this one centered around the invasion of Stallengrad [sp]

he also does another one called "Common Sense" that deals with current events. THey come out a bit too slow fro me, but the amount of info in there (at least to me) is fascinating

 

[DCThunder]

Of all the things which happened in the early days of WW2, the total collapse of France must have been the most shocking. This was a country which had been one of the victors in WW1, and yet they were overrun in just a few weeks.

Sure France "won" The Great War, but the psychological toll that the horrendus losses of men and material suffered by France cannot be overestimated. Yes, the British and Germans lost huge numbers of men too, but the war was not fought in Britian or Germany, but in France. There was certainly unwarranted arrogance amongst the French leadership about what a great Army they were and how "tough" they were, but but the average poilu did not ever want to fight another war again. And why should he? French soldiers were treated like dirt and considered to be totally expendable.Marshall Petain may have been the victor at Verdun, but a million Frenchmen died for that "victory" and there was an unspoken "never again" attitude in the ranks of the inter-war army.

 

[Ozymandias]

Of all the things which happened in the early days of WW2, the total collapse of France must have been the most shocking. This was a country which had been one of the victors in WW1, and yet they were overrun in just a few weeks.

Sure France "won" The Great War, but the psychological toll that the horrendus losses of men and material suffered by France cannot be overestimated. Yes, the British and Germans lost huge numbers of men too, but the war was not fought in Britian or Germany, but in France. There was certainly unwarranted arrogance amongst the French leadership about what a great Army they were and how "tough" they were, but but the average poilu did not ever want to fight another war again. And why should he? French soldiers were treated like dirt and considered to be totally expendable.Marshall Petain may have been the victor at Verdun, but a million Frenchmen died for that "victory" and there was an unspoken "never again" attitude in the ranks of the inter-war army.

I think that's true. In addition, the birth rate had plummeted in France, so the available pool of men had shrunk drastically. Nevertheless, the Germans had lost more in deaths than the French (1.7 million in France, and 2.5 million in Germany--about 1 million for Britain). The collapse of France was still shocking.

 

[SofaKings]

Of all the things which happened in the early days of WW2, the total collapse of France must have been the most shocking. This was a country which had been one of the victors in WW1, and yet they were overrun in just a few weeks.

Sure France "won" The Great War, but the psychological toll that the horrendus losses of men and material suffered by France cannot be overestimated. Yes, the British and Germans lost huge numbers of men too, but the war was not fought in Britian or Germany, but in France. There was certainly unwarranted arrogance amongst the French leadership about what a great Army they were and how "tough" they were, but but the average poilu did not ever want to fight another war again. And why should he? French soldiers were treated like dirt and considered to be totally expendable.Marshall Petain may have been the victor at Verdun, but a million Frenchmen died for that "victory" and there was an unspoken "never again" attitude in the ranks of the inter-war army.

You really have to take into account the French will to fight against Germany. The psyche was crushed. You can trace it all the way back to the French Army mutiny in WWI.

 

[timschochet]

The Fall of France Part Two

On June 11, Churchill received a message from Reynaud- the cabinet wanted an armistice, and he could not hold it together. Churchill flew over again. The government was on the run, and he met them at Briare near Orleans. Reynaud, supported by a tall military officer named De Gaulle who impressed Churchill very much, were still defiant and for fighting on. But Petain was outspoken for an armistice, and in this he was supported by a growing number of ministers. Weygand again insisted that England throw in her remaining 25 RAF squadrons, citing the old military maxim that this was the decisive moment, and you should throw all your forces into the decisive moment. Churchill said this was not the decisive moment.

Churchill also met with Admiral Darlan, the commander of the French navy. "Whatever happens," Churchill said, "You cannot surrender the French fleet to the Germans." Darlan swore on his honor that this would never happen. Churchill flew back to England; in his memoirs he writes that he knew the French would surrender.

Two days later he returned to France with one last extraordinary gamble. Churchill proposed that England and France unite as one country, forming an Anglo-French Union. There would be a common citizenship for all citizens of both countries. The government would be in London until this war was over. It would allow France not to surrender. All resources would be pooled. It is fascinating to consider how the future might have been altered if this proposal had been accepted. Reynaud was enthusiastically in favor, but the rest of the cabinet thought it ridiculous. In a fierce debate at Bordeaux (now the site of the government) Laval stated he would "rather die than become a British colony." Reynaud shot back, "But you would rather be a German colony?"

Petain scoffed that any such union would be a "fusion with a corpse." He predicted that "in three weeks, England will have her neck wrung like a chicken." Another cabinet member, Jean Ybarnegaray, expressed a fear of Communism all of these men had, and argued that it was far better to "work" with the Nazis.

Meanwhile, Churchill, sensing the defeat of his plan, secretly met with De Gaulle and offered him transport to England. Churchill had in mind that De Gaulle could be the leader and spokesmen for the "Free French" in the event the government capitulated, which he now presumed would happen. De Gaulle agreed, but had so many conditions that it almost didn't come off. The Frenchman arrived at the airport with over 20 pieces of luggage, two servants, his wife, his children, and his mistress (who was apparently on good terms with his wife!) Once in England, De Gualle went on the BBC and shortwave radio and castigated the French government.

Churchill bitterly regretted his decision to rescue De Gaulle throughout the rest of the war. De Gaulle always behaved like he was the leader of an equal power to England and America, and insisted on an equal voice in all war councils. He was also said to be haughty and abrasive, and many of the American and British leaders detested him personally. But the Free French adored him.

 

[DCThunder]

The Fall of France Part Two

Two days later he returned to France with one last extraordinary gamble. Churchill proposed that England and France unite as one country, forming an Anglo-French Union. There would be a common citizenship for all citizens of both countries. The government would be in London until this war was over. It would allow France not to surrender. All resources would be pooled. It is fascinating to consider how the future might have been altered if this proposal had been accepted. Reynaud was enthusiastically in favor, but the rest of the cabinet thought it ridiculous. In a fierce debate at Bordeaux (now the site of the government) Laval stated he would "rather die than become a British colony." Reynaud shot back, "But you would rather be a German colony?"

Petain scoffed that any such union would be a "fusion with a corpse." He predicted that "in three weeks, England will have her neck wrung like a chicken." Another cabinet member, Jean Ybarnegaray, expressed a fear of Communism all of these men had, and argued that it was far better to "work" with the Nazis.

I've never heard of this plan. What's the source of this? This is something that the Commons and the King had agreed to in 2 days? That's sort of preposterous.

 

[Ozymandias]

The Fall of France Part Two

On June 11, Churchill received a message from Reynaud- the cabinet wanted an armistice, and he could not hold it together. Churchill flew over again. The government was on the run, and he met them at Briare near Orleans. Reynaud, supported by a tall military officer named De Gaulle who impressed Churchill very much, were still defiant and for fighting on. But Petain was outspoken for an armistice, and in this he was supported by a growing number of ministers. Weygand again insisted that England throw in her remaining 25 RAF squadrons, citing the old military maxim that this was the decisive moment, and you should throw all your forces into the decisive moment. Churchill said this was not the decisive moment.

Churchill also met with Admiral Darlan, the commander of the French navy. "Whatever happens," Churchill said, "You cannot surrender the French fleet to the Germans." Darlan swore on his honor that this would never happen. Churchill flew back to England; in his memoirs he writes that he knew the French would surrender.

Two days later he returned to France with one last extraordinary gamble. Churchill proposed that England and France unite as one country, forming an Anglo-French Union. There would be a common citizenship for all citizens of both countries. The government would be in London until this war was over. It would allow France not to surrender. All resources would be pooled. It is fascinating to consider how the future might have been altered if this proposal had been accepted. Reynaud was enthusiastically in favor, but the rest of the cabinet thought it ridiculous. In a fierce debate at Bordeaux (now the site of the government) Laval stated he would "rather die than become a British colony." Reynaud shot back, "But you would rather be a German colony?"

Petain scoffed that any such union would be a "fusion with a corpse." He predicted that "in three weeks, England will have her neck wrung like a chicken." Another cabinet member, Jean Ybarnegaray, expressed a fear of Communism all of these men had, and argued that it was far better to "work" with the Nazis.

Meanwhile, Churchill, sensing the defeat of his plan, secretly met with De Gaulle and offered him transport to England. Churchill had in mind that De Gaulle could be the leader and spokesmen for the "Free French" in the event the government capitulated, which he now presumed would happen. De Gaulle agreed, but had so many conditions that it almost didn't come off. The Frenchman arrived at the airport with over 20 pieces of luggage, two servants, his wife, his children, and his mistress (who was apparently on good terms with his wife!) Once in England, De Gualle went on the BBC and shortwave radio and castigated the French government.

Churchill bitterly regretted his decision to rescue De Gaulle throughout the rest of the war. De Gaulle always behaved like he was the leader of an equal power to England and America, and insisted on an equal voice in all war councils. He was also said to be haughty and abrasive, and many of the American and British leaders detested him personally. But the Free French adored him.

The Free French adopted the Cross of Lorraine as their symbol, as did De Gaulle. The cross was a heraldic double cross, and was a remembrance of the province of Lorraine, which had gone back and forth between the Germans and the French.Hence Churchill's quip, when he was asked what was the heaviest cross he had to bear during the war, he answered: "The cross of Lorraine."

 

[Ozymandias]

The Fall of France Part Two

Two days later he returned to France with one last extraordinary gamble. Churchill proposed that England and France unite as one country, forming an Anglo-French Union. There would be a common citizenship for all citizens of both countries. The government would be in London until this war was over. It would allow France not to surrender. All resources would be pooled. It is fascinating to consider how the future might have been altered if this proposal had been accepted. Reynaud was enthusiastically in favor, but the rest of the cabinet thought it ridiculous. In a fierce debate at Bordeaux (now the site of the government) Laval stated he would "rather die than become a British colony." Reynaud shot back, "But you would rather be a German colony?"

Petain scoffed that any such union would be a "fusion with a corpse." He predicted that "in three weeks, England will have her neck wrung like a chicken." Another cabinet member, Jean Ybarnegaray, expressed a fear of Communism all of these men had, and argued that it was far better to "work" with the Nazis.

I've never heard of this plan. What's the source of this? This is something that the Commons and the King had agreed to in 2 days? That's sort of preposterous.

Yes it was. But Churchill was grasping at straws, trying to keep the French from capitulating.

 

[timschochet]

The Fall of France Part Three

Reynaud angrily insisted on a vote, and threatened he would resign if the council voted against him. This is what happened. The vote was 14-10 to seek an armistice. Reynaud then went to Alfred Lebrun, the weak President of France, and offered his resignation. Now it was up to Lebrun as to what would happen next. The heads of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate advised Lebrun to refuse to accept the resignation, and to fire Petain instead. If this had happened, France would have fought on in the war. This basically meant the final decision for France rested with this one weak man, Alfred Lebrun, who despite his title had never had to make a single decision of importance in the past. He spent the day weeping on his couch. He kept saying he only wanted to save lives.

"In that case," Reynaud told him contemptuously, "I can't form a government. If you want such a policy, go and ask Marshall Petain." Lebrun did, and the die was cast. Petain immediately asked the Germans for an armistice without requesting terms.

For Adolf Hitler this was the greatest triumph of his life. The foe which could not be defeated throughout four years of bitter fighting between 1914-1918 had now been vanquished in a matter of weeks. He was a greater conqueror than Napoleon: Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Luxemborg, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, and France were all now part of the New Order.

Hitler's terms for the French were harsh: Germany would occupy the northern part of the country, including Paris. All French POWs would remain in prison camps until the war was over (which Hitler figured might only be a few weeks.) The French were, for the time being, allowed to keep their navy. Other conditions would follow.

To their everlasting shame the government at Vichy under Petain and Laval not only agreed to all of these conditions but also immediately enacted a number of anti-Semitic laws; by doing so, they hoped to ingratiate themselves to their new German allies. In fact, throughout the rest of the war, the Germans treated these men with well-deserved contempt; they behaved as lapdogs, always eager to gain German favor all the while calling themselves "neutral".

In a brilliant move of symbolism, Hitler insisted that the actual armistice be signed at the famous railroad car in Compiegne in which Germany had surrendered in 1918. After this occurred, he then ordered the train and monument destroyed. Hitler at once went to Paris, where he was given a tour of the famous city. Returning to Berlin, there were parades as if the war was over. Hitler thought it was. He gave a speech to the Reichstag offering very reasonable terms: England had only to recognize the German gains, and return Germany's colonies lost after World War I, and there would be peace. In anticipation, he waited for the British reply.

He did not have to wait very long. He was stunned by Churchill's speech. Was the man truly crazy? He couldn't believe anyone could be so foolish. Here is what Churchill said:

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour.

 

[timschochet]

The Fall of France Part Two

Two days later he returned to France with one last extraordinary gamble. Churchill proposed that England and France unite as one country, forming an Anglo-French Union. There would be a common citizenship for all citizens of both countries. The government would be in London until this war was over. It would allow France not to surrender. All resources would be pooled. It is fascinating to consider how the future might have been altered if this proposal had been accepted. Reynaud was enthusiastically in favor, but the rest of the cabinet thought it ridiculous. In a fierce debate at Bordeaux (now the site of the government) Laval stated he would "rather die than become a British colony." Reynaud shot back, "But you would rather be a German colony?"

Petain scoffed that any such union would be a "fusion with a corpse." He predicted that "in three weeks, England will have her neck wrung like a chicken." Another cabinet member, Jean Ybarnegaray, expressed a fear of Communism all of these men had, and argued that it was far better to "work" with the Nazis.

I've never heard of this plan. What's the source of this? This is something that the Commons and the King had agreed to in 2 days? That's sort of preposterous.

There are several accounts of this plan, including Churchill's memoirs. As far as the King and the House of Commons agreeing, I don't know.

 

[Joseph]

not to derail the narrative up to this point, but did the Allies have any real inkling about the true depths of the Nazis at this point in the war? My limited understanding has always been that the real evil behind the nazi regime wasn't fully known until after the war when the allies had uncovered the concentration camps and nazi records.

Churchill's speech above "lights of perverted science" seem to indicate they had some idea of what was going on behind it all. How much was known in the early years of the war about how evil the Nazis truly were?

 

[Ozymandias]

The Fall of France Part Three

Reynaud angrily insisted on a vote, and threatened he would resign if the council voted against him. This is what happened. The vote was 14-10 to seek an armistice. Reynaud then went to Alfred Lebrun, the weak President of France, and offered his resignation. Now it was up to Lebrun as to what would happen next. The heads of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate advised Lebrun to refuse to accept the resignation, and to fire Petain instead. If this had happened, France would have fought on in the war. This basically meant the final decision for France rested with this one weak man, Alfred Lebrun, who despite his title had never had to make a single decision of importance in the past. He spent the day weeping on his couch. He kept saying he only wanted to save lives.

"In that case," Reynaud told him contemptuously, "I can't form a government. If you want such a policy, go and ask Marshall Petain." Lebrun did, and the die was cast. Petain immediately asked the Germans for an armistice without requesting terms.

For Adolf Hitler this was the greatest triumph of his life. The foe which could not be defeated throughout four years of bitter fighting between 1914-1918 had now been vanquished in a matter of weeks. He was a greater conqueror than Napoleon: Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Luxemborg, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, and France were all now part of the New Order.

Hitler's terms for the French were harsh: Germany would occupy the northern part of the country, including Paris. All French POWs would remain in prison camps until the war was over (which Hitler figured might only be a few weeks.) The French were, for the time being, allowed to keep their navy. Other conditions would follow.

To their everlasting shame the government at Vichy under Petain and Laval not only agreed to all of these conditions but also immediately enacted a number of anti-Semitic laws; by doing so, they hoped to ingratiate themselves to their new German allies. In fact, throughout the rest of the war, the Germans treated these men with well-deserved contempt; they behaved as lapdogs, always eager to gain German favor all the while calling themselves "neutral".

In a brilliant move of symbolism, Hitler insisted that the actual armistice be signed at the famous railroad car in Compiegne in which Germany had surrendered in 1918. After this occurred, he then ordered the train and monument destroyed. Hitler at once went to Paris, where he was given a tour of the famous city. Returning to Berlin, there were parades as if the war was over. Hitler thought it was. He gave a speech to the Reichstag offering very reasonable terms: England had only to recognize the German gains, and return Germany's colonies lost after World War I, and there would be peace. In anticipation, he waited for the British reply.

He did not have to wait very long. He was stunned by Churchill's speech. Was the man truly crazy? He couldn't believe anyone could be so foolish. Here is what Churchill said:

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour.

Thomas Carlyle said that "The history of mankind is but the biography of great men."In Churchill, the man and the moment had arrived; by his indomitable will, he rallied the nation and in essence, saved the world from a descent into Nazism.

 

[timschochet]

not to derail the narrative up to this point, but did the Allies have any real inkling about the true depths of the Nazis at this point in the war? My limited understanding has always been that the real evil behind the nazi regime wasn't fully known until after the war when the allies had uncovered the concentration camps and nazi records. Churchill's speech above "lights of perverted science" seem to indicate they had some idea of what was going on behind it all. How much was known in the early years of the war about how evil the Nazis truly were?

Great question. I'm going to try to return to this theme later on, regarding what the allies knew, and what they did about what they knew. Remember, though, that at this point in the war (Summer 1940) there were as yet no extermination camps. No final decision had been made about what to do with the Jews- that would come later. Most of Poland's walled in ghettoes were not formed until the fall of 1940. I think in his speech Churchill was referring to the previous public actions of the Germans, and the threat of dictatorship, all of which was bad enough.

 

[timschochet]

The Fall of France Part Three

Reynaud angrily insisted on a vote, and threatened he would resign if the council voted against him. This is what happened. The vote was 14-10 to seek an armistice. Reynaud then went to Alfred Lebrun, the weak President of France, and offered his resignation. Now it was up to Lebrun as to what would happen next. The heads of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate advised Lebrun to refuse to accept the resignation, and to fire Petain instead. If this had happened, France would have fought on in the war. This basically meant the final decision for France rested with this one weak man, Alfred Lebrun, who despite his title had never had to make a single decision of importance in the past. He spent the day weeping on his couch. He kept saying he only wanted to save lives.

"In that case," Reynaud told him contemptuously, "I can't form a government. If you want such a policy, go and ask Marshall Petain." Lebrun did, and the die was cast. Petain immediately asked the Germans for an armistice without requesting terms.

For Adolf Hitler this was the greatest triumph of his life. The foe which could not be defeated throughout four years of bitter fighting between 1914-1918 had now been vanquished in a matter of weeks. He was a greater conqueror than Napoleon: Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Luxemborg, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, and France were all now part of the New Order.

Hitler's terms for the French were harsh: Germany would occupy the northern part of the country, including Paris. All French POWs would remain in prison camps until the war was over (which Hitler figured might only be a few weeks.) The French were, for the time being, allowed to keep their navy. Other conditions would follow.

To their everlasting shame the government at Vichy under Petain and Laval not only agreed to all of these conditions but also immediately enacted a number of anti-Semitic laws; by doing so, they hoped to ingratiate themselves to their new German allies. In fact, throughout the rest of the war, the Germans treated these men with well-deserved contempt; they behaved as lapdogs, always eager to gain German favor all the while calling themselves "neutral".

In a brilliant move of symbolism, Hitler insisted that the actual armistice be signed at the famous railroad car in Compiegne in which Germany had surrendered in 1918. After this occurred, he then ordered the train and monument destroyed. Hitler at once went to Paris, where he was given a tour of the famous city. Returning to Berlin, there were parades as if the war was over. Hitler thought it was. He gave a speech to the Reichstag offering very reasonable terms: England had only to recognize the German gains, and return Germany's colonies lost after World War I, and there would be peace. In anticipation, he waited for the British reply.

He did not have to wait very long. He was stunned by Churchill's speech. Was the man truly crazy? He couldn't believe anyone could be so foolish. Here is what Churchill said:

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour.

Thomas Carlyle said that "The history of mankind is but the biography of great men."In Churchill, the man and the moment had arrived; by his indomitable will, he rallied the nation and in essence, saved the world from a descent into Nazism.

This is even more true if you study Churchill's long life leading up to this moment, which we simply can't detail here. For anyone that is interested, both volumes of The Last Lion are about as good a source as any.

 

[DCThunder]

Let's play alternative history for a moment.

Suppose the British had accepted Hitler's terms, recognize the territorial gains, and give back German colonies. What would have happened then? Obviously, Germany would have gone ahead with Barbarossa and attacked Russia, but without the losses to the Luftwaffe that were caused by the Battle of Britian. There would have been no Allied bombing campaign against Germany so resources wouldn't have been destroyed. Given that, could the Wehrmacht have beaten the Red Army? And what would the USA have done? Isolationist sentiments would indicate that we wouldn't go over there and try to fight. Would Pearl Harbor still have occured and the Pacific War? And if it did, would the US have defeated the Japanese faster?

Lots of speculative questions and ideas flow off that one decision.

 

[Harry Manback]

The Fall of France Part Three

Reynaud angrily insisted on a vote, and threatened he would resign if the council voted against him. This is what happened. The vote was 14-10 to seek an armistice. Reynaud then went to Alfred Lebrun, the weak President of France, and offered his resignation. Now it was up to Lebrun as to what would happen next. The heads of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate advised Lebrun to refuse to accept the resignation, and to fire Petain instead. If this had happened, France would have fought on in the war. This basically meant the final decision for France rested with this one weak man, Alfred Lebrun, who despite his title had never had to make a single decision of importance in the past. He spent the day weeping on his couch. He kept saying he only wanted to save lives.

"In that case," Reynaud told him contemptuously, "I can't form a government. If you want such a policy, go and ask Marshall Petain." Lebrun did, and the die was cast. Petain immediately asked the Germans for an armistice without requesting terms.

For Adolf Hitler this was the greatest triumph of his life. The foe which could not be defeated throughout four years of bitter fighting between 1914-1918 had now been vanquished in a matter of weeks. He was a greater conqueror than Napoleon: Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Luxemborg, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, and France were all now part of the New Order.

Hitler's terms for the French were harsh: Germany would occupy the northern part of the country, including Paris. All French POWs would remain in prison camps until the war was over (which Hitler figured might only be a few weeks.) The French were, for the time being, allowed to keep their navy. Other conditions would follow.

To their everlasting shame the government at Vichy under Petain and Laval not only agreed to all of these conditions but also immediately enacted a number of anti-Semitic laws; by doing so, they hoped to ingratiate themselves to their new German allies. In fact, throughout the rest of the war, the Germans treated these men with well-deserved contempt; they behaved as lapdogs, always eager to gain German favor all the while calling themselves "neutral".

In a brilliant move of symbolism, Hitler insisted that the actual armistice be signed at the famous railroad car in Compiegne in which Germany had surrendered in 1918. After this occurred, he then ordered the train and monument destroyed. Hitler at once went to Paris, where he was given a tour of the famous city. Returning to Berlin, there were parades as if the war was over. Hitler thought it was. He gave a speech to the Reichstag offering very reasonable terms: England had only to recognize the German gains, and return Germany's colonies lost after World War I, and there would be peace. In anticipation, he waited for the British reply.

He did not have to wait very long. He was stunned by Churchill's speech. Was the man truly crazy? He couldn't believe anyone could be so foolish. Here is what Churchill said:

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour.

Churchill was the f'n man.

 

[timschochet]

Let's play alternative history for a moment.Suppose the British had accepted Hitler's terms, recognize the territorial gains, and give back German colonies. What would have happened then? Obviously, Germany would have gone ahead with Barbarossa and attacked Russia, but without the losses to the Luftwaffe that were caused by the Battle of Britian. There would have been no Allied bombing campaign against Germany so resources wouldn't have been destroyed. Given that, could the Wehrmacht have beaten the Red Army? And what would the USA have done? Isolationist sentiments would indicate that we wouldn't go over there and try to fight. Would Pearl Harbor still have occured and the Pacific War? And if it did, would the US have defeated the Japanese faster?Lots of speculative questions and ideas flow off that one decision.

Fascinating question which leads to all kinds of speculation. One immediate thought: Pearl Harbor would not have occured. The Japanese plan to move south was a result in large part of the British lack of strength in the Pacific. If Britain can still effectively defend Singapore and her far eastern colonies, Japan probably moves in a different direction.

 

[DCThunder]

Let's play alternative history for a moment.Suppose the British had accepted Hitler's terms, recognize the territorial gains, and give back German colonies. What would have happened then? Obviously, Germany would have gone ahead with Barbarossa and attacked Russia, but without the losses to the Luftwaffe that were caused by the Battle of Britian. There would have been no Allied bombing campaign against Germany so resources wouldn't have been destroyed. Given that, could the Wehrmacht have beaten the Red Army? And what would the USA have done? Isolationist sentiments would indicate that we wouldn't go over there and try to fight. Would Pearl Harbor still have occured and the Pacific War? And if it did, would the US have defeated the Japanese faster?Lots of speculative questions and ideas flow off that one decision.

Fascinating question which leads to all kinds of speculation. One immediate thought: Pearl Harbor would not have occured. The Japanese plan to move south was a result in large part of the British lack of strength in the Pacific. If Britain can still effectively defend Singapore and her far eastern colonies, Japan probably moves in a different direction.

Like what direction would that be? The Japanese were already fighting in China, and taking over the French colonies in Indochina without going to Singapore would ahve been possible and probable. Even invading what's now Indonesia wouldn't necessarially have come in conflict with Britian. But back to Europe, if Britian were "at peace" with Germany, and Germany attacked Russia, would that break the peace? And suppose Britian or the US found out about the concentration camps and later extermination camps, would that be a reason to go to war in the 1940s? Genocide in Rwanda or Cambodia isn't cause for war now, why should it have been back in less "enlightened" times?

 

[Redwes25]

The German Attack Plan

The German General Staff was perhaps the finest group of military strategists in all of history. They easily defeated the French in 1870, and this influenced their thinking about France ever since. In the 1890's, Count Alfred von Schlieffen designed a plan for a quick conquest of France in the event of a two front war. It called for an invasion through Belgium and the Netherlands and a then a sweep of forces quickly towards Paris. Schlieffen, however, thought it was extremely important to the success of this plan to invade both Belgium AND Holland- otherwise the foe could circle around northwards and attack the right flank. His actual dying words were supposedly "Guard the right flank!"

His successor, Von Moltke, dismissed this idea as too costly, preferring the speed of only going through Belgium. He modified the plan to exclude Holland, and therefore the plan that was actually used in 1914 should have been called "The Von Moltke Plan". It very nearly succeeded.

Actually, according the Tuchman's "The Guns of August," Schlieffen's dying words were, "Only make the right wing strong," the idea being that any man not on the right was wasted. Schlieffen dreamed of a complete envelopment of the French and any French allies, with his extreme right brushing the Channel and circling behind Paris. He was willing to risk the loss of German territory in the center and on the left to make this happen. Moltke the Younger lacked his nerve for an all-or-nothing punch and, in addition to other changes, pulled troops from the right to strengthen the German forces in Alsace and Lorraine.

Normally I'm just a lurker, but this thread's too good to just read.

Exactly, Schlieffen actually was prepared to have German forces in the south fall back into Germany making them get trapped from behind. Von Molke actually dreamed off a double envolpment and put more forces to try to push through the center.

 

[Ozymandias]

Let's play alternative history for a moment.Suppose the British had accepted Hitler's terms, recognize the territorial gains, and give back German colonies. What would have happened then? Obviously, Germany would have gone ahead with Barbarossa and attacked Russia, but without the losses to the Luftwaffe that were caused by the Battle of Britian. There would have been no Allied bombing campaign against Germany so resources wouldn't have been destroyed. Given that, could the Wehrmacht have beaten the Red Army? And what would the USA have done? Isolationist sentiments would indicate that we wouldn't go over there and try to fight. Would Pearl Harbor still have occured and the Pacific War? And if it did, would the US have defeated the Japanese faster?Lots of speculative questions and ideas flow off that one decision.

Fascinating question which leads to all kinds of speculation. One immediate thought: Pearl Harbor would not have occured. The Japanese plan to move south was a result in large part of the British lack of strength in the Pacific. If Britain can still effectively defend Singapore and her far eastern colonies, Japan probably moves in a different direction.

Certainly, without Britain, the US would not have become involved in the war in Europe. The battle in Russia might have gone differently. Without Lend Lease, Russia would have been weaker. Without having to worry about the Western Front, and able to devote all her resources and productive capacity (which as was said above, would not have been affected by Allied bombing), Germany might have prevailed. Possibly an armistice, allowing Germany to keep a big chunk of Russia. But if the USSR would have prevailed, they would probably have gone all the way to the English Channel. All of Europe would have fallen under the boot of Communism.

 

[Redwes25]

Let's play alternative history for a moment.Suppose the British had accepted Hitler's terms, recognize the territorial gains, and give back German colonies. What would have happened then? Obviously, Germany would have gone ahead with Barbarossa and attacked Russia, but without the losses to the Luftwaffe that were caused by the Battle of Britian. There would have been no Allied bombing campaign against Germany so resources wouldn't have been destroyed. Given that, could the Wehrmacht have beaten the Red Army? And what would the USA have done? Isolationist sentiments would indicate that we wouldn't go over there and try to fight. Would Pearl Harbor still have occured and the Pacific War? And if it did, would the US have defeated the Japanese faster?Lots of speculative questions and ideas flow off that one decision.

Fascinating question which leads to all kinds of speculation. One immediate thought: Pearl Harbor would not have occured. The Japanese plan to move south was a result in large part of the British lack of strength in the Pacific. If Britain can still effectively defend Singapore and her far eastern colonies, Japan probably moves in a different direction.

Certainly, without Britain, the US would not have become involved in the war in Europe. The battle in Russia might have gone differently. Without Lend Lease, Russia would have been weaker. Without having to worry about the Western Front, and able to devote all her resources and productive capacity (which as was said above, would not have been affected by Allied bombing), Germany might have prevailed. Possibly an armistice, allowing Germany to keep a big chunk of Russia. But if the USSR would have prevailed, they would probably have gone all the way to the English Channel. All of Europe would have fallen under the boot of Communism.

I plan to cover the Eastern front and Russia in depth and I think Russia still wins as the impact of Lend-Lease is greatly overstated in most studies of the war prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, which much U.S. thinking about. Also, I think we lend aid to Russia even with Britain out. I think FDR knows that he can't allow the only balancing force against Germany to also collapse if Britain has surrendered.

 

[DCThunder]

Let's play alternative history for a moment.Suppose the British had accepted Hitler's terms, recognize the territorial gains, and give back German colonies. What would have happened then? Obviously, Germany would have gone ahead with Barbarossa and attacked Russia, but without the losses to the Luftwaffe that were caused by the Battle of Britian. There would have been no Allied bombing campaign against Germany so resources wouldn't have been destroyed. Given that, could the Wehrmacht have beaten the Red Army? And what would the USA have done? Isolationist sentiments would indicate that we wouldn't go over there and try to fight. Would Pearl Harbor still have occured and the Pacific War? And if it did, would the US have defeated the Japanese faster?Lots of speculative questions and ideas flow off that one decision.

Fascinating question which leads to all kinds of speculation. One immediate thought: Pearl Harbor would not have occured. The Japanese plan to move south was a result in large part of the British lack of strength in the Pacific. If Britain can still effectively defend Singapore and her far eastern colonies, Japan probably moves in a different direction.

Certainly, without Britain, the US would not have become involved in the war in Europe. The battle in Russia might have gone differently. Without Lend Lease, Russia would have been weaker. Without having to worry about the Western Front, and able to devote all her resources and productive capacity (which as was said above, would not have been affected by Allied bombing), Germany might have prevailed. Possibly an armistice, allowing Germany to keep a big chunk of Russia. But if the USSR would have prevailed, they would probably have gone all the way to the English Channel. All of Europe would have fallen under the boot of Communism.

I plan to cover the Eastern front and Russia in depth and I think Russia still wins as the impact of Lend-Lease is greatly overstated in most studies of the war prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, which much U.S. thinking about. Also, I think we lend aid to Russia even with Britain out. I think FDR knows that he can't allow the only balancing force against Germany to also collapse if Britain has surrendered.

The famous convoys to Murmansk that delivered Lend Lease all left from Scotland and Iceland, so a neutral Britian wouldn't have been a staging base or have contributed any escorts. Would the U-boats have attacked the convoys if Britian were not in the war, but the US was trying to trade with Russia? A lot of Lend-Lease came via Valdivostok and across Siberia, but still roughly 50% came in via Murmansk and Arkangel.

 

[Redwes25]

Let's play alternative history for a moment.Suppose the British had accepted Hitler's terms, recognize the territorial gains, and give back German colonies. What would have happened then? Obviously, Germany would have gone ahead with Barbarossa and attacked Russia, but without the losses to the Luftwaffe that were caused by the Battle of Britian. There would have been no Allied bombing campaign against Germany so resources wouldn't have been destroyed. Given that, could the Wehrmacht have beaten the Red Army? And what would the USA have done? Isolationist sentiments would indicate that we wouldn't go over there and try to fight. Would Pearl Harbor still have occured and the Pacific War? And if it did, would the US have defeated the Japanese faster?Lots of speculative questions and ideas flow off that one decision.

Fascinating question which leads to all kinds of speculation. One immediate thought: Pearl Harbor would not have occured. The Japanese plan to move south was a result in large part of the British lack of strength in the Pacific. If Britain can still effectively defend Singapore and her far eastern colonies, Japan probably moves in a different direction.

Certainly, without Britain, the US would not have become involved in the war in Europe. The battle in Russia might have gone differently. Without Lend Lease, Russia would have been weaker. Without having to worry about the Western Front, and able to devote all her resources and productive capacity (which as was said above, would not have been affected by Allied bombing), Germany might have prevailed. Possibly an armistice, allowing Germany to keep a big chunk of Russia. But if the USSR would have prevailed, they would probably have gone all the way to the English Channel. All of Europe would have fallen under the boot of Communism.

I plan to cover the Eastern front and Russia in depth and I think Russia still wins as the impact of Lend-Lease is greatly overstated in most studies of the war prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, which much U.S. thinking about. Also, I think we lend aid to Russia even with Britain out. I think FDR knows that he can't allow the only balancing force against Germany to also collapse if Britain has surrendered.

The famous convoys to Murmansk that delivered Lend Lease all left from Scotland and Iceland, so a neutral Britian wouldn't have been a staging base or have contributed any escorts. Would the U-boats have attacked the convoys if Britian were not in the war, but the US was trying to trade with Russia? A lot of Lend-Lease came via Valdivostok and across Siberia, but still roughly 50% came in via Murmansk and Arkangel.

Interesting questions that we will never know the answers to.

 

[Redwes25]

The Purges

I want to take a step back and discuss the Purges for a minute. While this is going backward in our timeline, to Russia in 1937-1939 I think it is critical to understanding of the first year of the war on the Eastern Front.

To start I pose the question of what country was the first to adopt combined arms tactics based on the use of tanks, mechanized infantry and aircraft to make deep penetrations behind enemy lines? The Soviet Union.

By 1936 these strategies were fully included in the Soviet Army’s Field Regulations. At this point, Guderian’s famous book “Acthung! Panzer!” had not been published. Britain, France and the US on the other hand would not even adopt these principals until after the war had begun. Given this you would think that Russia would have been prepared for the struggles of WWII but the Purges of 1937-1939 chopped off the head of the Russia Army.

The purges resulted in the imprisonment or execution of over 30,000 officers, which included 3 of 5 field marshals, all commanders of military districts, 14 of 16 army commanders, 60 of 67 corps commanders , 136 of 199 division commanders, 221 of 397 brigade commander and 50 percent of regimental commanders. Another 10,000 officers were forced to resign. The purges removed the cream of the Russia military including the architect of Russian strategy aptly named “Deep Operations” - Marshal Tukhachevsky. Tuchachevsky was executed in 1937 based on trumped up charges that he aided the Germans. Another impact of the purges was that all military officer’s were “shadowed” by political officers who were their superior officers and reported to the NKDV. Having watched over 30,000 colleagues die or be imprisoned imagine what it would have been like trying to lead your forces into battle with the men responsible for those actions watching over you?

Given the depth of what was done it is a miracle that the Russian military was able to recover at all during WWII. The shocking results of the Winter War made Stalin realize he had gone to far and while he could not replace the dead he did make the political officer’s subordinates of the military generals and began reorganizing the army in anticipation of future conflict.

It is of note that the great leaders of the Russian army in WWII were all disciples of Tukhachevsky including Marshal Zhukov who implemented the Deep Operations principals during Operation Bagration which has been described “the most calamitous defeat of all the German armed forces in World War II.”

 

[timschochet]

Redwes, wasn't there also an unofficial war between Russia and Japan in the summer of 1939? How did this affect the Russian military? Also, can you discuss the takeover of the Baltic states in May, 1940? (This would bring the timeline up to date.)

 

[timschochet]

Churchill's Resolve

In England, there were many in power who considered the situation hopeless. They were led by Lord Halifax, who openly questioned at a cabinet meeting whether or not they should consider trying to negotiate with Hitler. Here is Churchill's immortal reply:

I am convinced that every man of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.

 

[timschochet]

Oran

Churchill was very quickly given an opportunity to prove his resolve, making a decision that remains controversial and a source of discord between England and France even today:

The Port of Mers-el-Kabir just outside of Oran held a good chunk of the French Freet. I mentioned that Churchill had asked Darlan prior to the French surrender about the disposition of this fleet, and Darlan had promised they would not be surrendered to the Germans. However, Churchill had very little reason to trust Darlan, who was one of the defeatists at Vichy and pro-German.

In early July, Royal Navy ships surrounded the port and prevented French ships from leaving. They carried with them a letter from Churchill for the French commanders, in which he offered the following options:

1. Sail with us to England and join in the fight.

2. Sail to the United States

3. Scuttle your ships.

4. Make your decision in 6 hours; otherwise, we will have no choice but to destroy your ships.

The French commanders responded that they were under orders from Admiral Darlan if Germans came to take their ships, they were to flee to the United States. However, in the meantime they were to stay where they were, and if they were attacked, they would resist.

Churchill was told of this, and now the decision was his. He had been warned that the Vichy French were rushing troops to Oran. Churchill decided, and radioed the fleet: destroy the French navy.

Three battleships were sunk. The French lost over 1,200 sailors. One battleship and 5 destroyers escaped.

In justifying this action to Parliament, Churchill explained that, while he regretted the deaths, he could not risk the chance of these ships falling into the hands of the enemy. The House of Commons gave him a standing ovation, but in France the near unanimous response was anger and resentment.

Churchill's decision had a major impact on Hitler and the Germans, even more than his speeches. It was a ruthless, cold blooded act, and it convinced them that, for the time being at least, England was still in the fight. A consternated Hitler turned now to his military and instructed them to give him plans for the invasion of England.

 

[Joseph]

The Port of Mers-el-Kabir just outside of Oran held a good chunk of the French Freet. I mentioned that Churchill had asked Darlan prior to the French surrender about the disposition of this fleet, and Darlan had promised they would not be surrendered to the Germans. However, Churchill had very little reason to trust Darlan, who was one of the defeatists at Vichy and pro-German.

By pro-German, do you mean that he supported the german attack against his country, or that his actions (lack of a backbone, rolling over to the attack, surrendering) tended to be pro-German? There's a theme running through the appeasers of being at best, oblivious to the danger posed by Germany, and at worst, sympathetic to the German cause.

 

[timschochet]

The Port of Mers-el-Kabir just outside of Oran held a good chunk of the French Freet. I mentioned that Churchill had asked Darlan prior to the French surrender about the disposition of this fleet, and Darlan had promised they would not be surrendered to the Germans. However, Churchill had very little reason to trust Darlan, who was one of the defeatists at Vichy and pro-German.

By pro-German, do you mean that he supported the german attack against his country, or that his actions (lack of a backbone, rolling over to the attack, surrendering) tended to be pro-German? There's a theme running through the appeasers of being at best, oblivious to the danger posed by Germany, and at worst, sympathetic to the German cause.

Obviously Darlan did not support the German attack against France. But like so many other French conservatives, he was strongly anti-Communist, anti-Semitic, and throughout the 1930's approved of Nazi methods and favored a similar style dictatorship government in France. That's what I mean by being pro-German. It does not imply he wasn't a patriot.Darlan would reluctantly become very useful to the Allied cause during Torch.

 

[Redwes25]

Redwes, wasn't there also an unofficial war between Russia and Japan in the summer of 1939? How did this affect the Russian military? Also, can you discuss the takeover of the Baltic states in May, 1940? (This would bring the timeline up to date.)

I will touch on the Japanese war this evening as I don't have any sources with me and I want to check something.On the baltic states, I mentioned them in the Winter War summary but basically they were done in two parts and was just the Soviets taking the rest of the land given to them in the Non-agression pact with the German's. Shortly, after the invasion of Poland in September 1939 the Soviet's threatened the Baltic states and issued an ultimatuim to all three countries. The three countries had no choice but to accept the Soviet demands and by October 1939 had agreed to allow about 75,000 troops into the three countries (I believe the troops were pretty evenly divided between the countries). This situation lasted until June 1940 when with the World's attention on France Molotov issued a new ultimatuim to the countries when about 500,000 Soviet troops were amassed on the three countries borders. The three countires gave into these new round of concessions which included basically be annexing by the Soviet Union as they had no hope to fight the Soviets who already had troops in the country.The Soveits would also occupy Bessarabia in June 1940 after issuing an ultimatuim to Romania. Basically Stalin used the collapse of France to grab other areas promised in the German/Soviet pact. The result of all this is that Germany gained a couple of minor allies in Romania and Finland when the war with Russia began. I am not sure if this was part of Hitler's plan but it did not help the Russian cause that they began attacking all their neighbors.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Can Redwes, Tim, or anyone in the know recommend a good book on the eastern front?

 

[timschochet]

Can Redwes, Tim, or anyone in the know recommend a good book on the eastern front?

I'll defer to Redwes here, since most of the books I've been recommending are more all-encompassing rather than dealing with one front. Alan Bullock's Hitler and Stalin is excellent biographical material on Stalin, but that may not be what you're looking for.

 

[timschochet]

I'm going to begin discussing Operation Sea Lion and the Battle of Britain tonight. Right now I'm at work and don't have my source material here, and I don't want to rely on the Internet for this. I will say this: the problem of invading England in 1940 is still taught as war college material all over the world. Let's say you're Germany, here are the facts in a nutshell: you've got 2 million men in France. You've got a navy of transport ships, but your battleships and cruisers are inferior to the British. You've got nearly 100 UBoats, however. And you've got a Luftwaffe of over 2500 aircraft. The British have perhaps half that number of aircraft and a fine navy, but no army left to speak of. If you can simply place enough men ashore, England will be easy to conquer, as she has no natural defenses on land. The key is getting them ashore and keeping them there. What's your battle plan?

 

[timschochet]

Also, if someone more expert than me wants to touch on the different attributes of British and German fighter planes and bombers, now would be a good time.

 

[Redwes25]

Can Redwes, Tim, or anyone in the know recommend a good book on the eastern front?

I would recomend When Titans Clashed by Glantz - http://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-...s/dp/0700608990It can be a little dry but gives a very good summary from a Russian point of view of the war in only about 350 pages. I would of course recomend reading a good summary like Shirer's book which has its flaws.

 

[Joseph]

I'm going to begin discussing Operation Sea Lion and the Battle of Britain tonight. Right now I'm at work and don't have my source material here, and I don't want to rely on the Internet for this. I will say this: the problem of invading England in 1940 is still taught as war college material all over the world. Let's say you're Germany, here are the facts in a nutshell: you've got 2 million men in France. You've got a navy of transport ships, but your battleships and cruisers are inferior to the British. You've got nearly 100 UBoats, however. And you've got a Luftwaffe of over 2500 aircraft. The British have perhaps half that number of aircraft and a fine navy, but no army left to speak of. If you can simply place enough men ashore, England will be easy to conquer, as she has no natural defenses on land. The key is getting them ashore and keeping them there. What's your battle plan?

Well, to land troops, you either need to eliminate the navy, or avoid the navy. Since my U-boats have already shown to be a bit unreliable, and my navy can't stand up to theirs, I'd start with ensuring air superiority. Once my aircraft have essentially taken care of that, they can go to work on the navy. Combining the air attack with your weaker navy (now with support of the luftwaffe) and u-boats picking off opportune targets, you've got a pretty solid shot at causing enough damage to land your troops. Of course, that gives you only one shot at the invasion... if your navy is destroyed and the landing fails, you now are stuck with unarmed transports and no way to get them ashore without being sunk en-route...

 

[Ozymandias]

The whole key was airpower. To attempt to land thousands of troops and thousands of tons of material without air superiority was virtually impossible. Without airpower superiority, then Britain could bring her battleships, cruisers and destroyers in to wreak havoc amongst the transport landing craft. The U-boats would have had a very difficult time in confined waters. They are most effective in stealth operations, but once detected they tend to be somewhat easy prey for destroyers. There is a reason that the casualty rate for U boats was almost 80%.

The Allies had difficulty on D Day in spite of years of preparation, the development of specialized landing craft, overwhelming naval superiority and air superiority. For the Germans to have attempted the same without training exercises, and without all of the above, would have been suicidal.

Which is why they decided to go after the Royal Air Force. And they came close to succeeding, but they took so many losses that they eventually desisted. The 21 miles of the English Channel had kept Britain safe from invasion since 1066. It would do so again.

 

[RudiStein]

I haven't read the whole thread yet but have we got the part where Steamboat Willie kills Mellish yet?

 

[Copeman]

I haven't read the whole thread yet but have we got the part where Steamboat Willie kills Mellish yet?

While I can appreciate the humor here, in the movie (SPR), it was NOT Steamboat Willie that killed Mellish. Totally different guy.

 

[Ozymandias]

The aircraft which bore the brunt of the battle were essentially three fighters. There were the English Spitfire and Hurricane, and the German Messerschmitt 109. They were relatively equal, each having some slight advantage and some disadvantage over the others. The Germans, of course, were fighting an offensive battle, so they sent over bombers to go after airfields and aircraft factories, escorted by fighters. The British were primarily fighting a defensive battle, so it was primarily fighters. The British tended to send the Hurricanes after the bombers and the slightly nimbler Spitfire after the fighter formations. The Hurricane was actually responsible for more kills, but that may be because they tended to have the easier targets.

Losses in the Battle of Britain were approximately 1,023 for Britain, and 873 fighters and 1,214 bombers for Germany. it was a close run thing, but the British victory made the invasion impossible. It also had the effect of reversing the tide of public opinion in the USA. Prior to that, the assumption was that Germany would win. After the Battle of Britain, the US public, and more importantly, the government, began to believe that Britain could win.

 

[timschochet]

The aircraft which bore the brunt of the battle were essentially three fighters. There were the English Spitfire and Hurricane, and the German Messerschmitt 109. They were relatively equal, each having some slight advantage and some disadvantage over the others. The Germans, of course, were fighting an offensive battle, so they sent over bombers to go after airfields and aircraft factories, escorted by fighters. The British were primarily fighting a defensive battle, so it was primarily fighters. The British tended to send the Hurricanes after the bombers and the slightly nimbler Spitfire after the fighter formations. The Hurricane was actually responsible for more kills, but that may be because they tended to have the easier targets.

Losses in the Battle of Britain were approximately 1,023 for Britain, and 873 fighters and 1,214 bombers for Germany. it was a close run thing, but the British victory made the invasion impossible. It also had the effect of reversing the tide of public opinion in the USA. Prior to that, the assumption was that Germany would win. After the Battle of Britain, the US public, and more importantly, the government, began to believe that Britain could win.

I'm going to discuss this whole battle in more detail in a little while, but I wanted to point out that Ozymandius' numbers, while accurate, were unknown until after the war. Both sides believed they shot down much more aircraft, and their initial figures of the opponents' aircraft destroyed proved completely unreliable.

 

[timschochet]

Heydrich's Plan

As I have written, in his anger over Churchill's refusal to surrender, Hitler gave the order to his military to come up with a plan to conquer England. At the same time, he ordered his head of the SD, Reinhard Heydrich, to plan for the elimination of the British people once England had been occupied. Heydrich worked with Himmler and Dr. Frank Six of the Gestapo, and here is the plan they presented to Hitler:

The United Kingdom was to become a province of Germany. All British males between the ages of 17 and 45 would be deported to Germany as slave laborers. Younger ones would be trained in Heinrich Himmler's special schools for the "racially impure." :The aim of this school", Himmler explained in the report Hitler received, "should be to teach the pupil how to count to a maximum of 500, how to write his name, that it is God's command that he should be obedient to Germans, honest, industrial, and brave. I regard reading as unnecessary." All British intelligensia and Jews were to be liquidated. Better looking women, so long as there was no trace of Jewish ancestry, would mate with the SS to produce a sturdy Anglo-German race. Younger girls would be trained for this privilege, while older ones would be allowed to live until they were no longer useful.

Hitler was so enthused with this plan that he gave his approval for an unlimited budget for its implementation. It's an astonishing fact that the Allies, upon capturing the German secret papers in 1945, discovered that much more time, detail, and energy had been placed in this elaborate plan than in Operation Sea Lion itself, which I shall now turn to.