Britain, 1939 -1940 And Its Alliances

[DougRichards]

As an extendion of the MeK thread:

 

France did nothing, when it had the chance, to prevent Germany from remilitarising the Rhineland in 1936.

 

Then , then after the declaration of war by France and Britain in Sepember 1939, followed with no more action by the European partner of the Franco-Britain alliance until Germany took the initiative in May 1940.

 

Should Britain have seen the inevitable and withdrawn from the alliance in January or February 1940 and left France and Germany to fight it out?

 

This would have left Britain in a much stronger military position, and except for Churchill, would have been in a better position to reach an agreement to leave Europe to Germany? The result would have been that the European Union would simply have come about twenty or thirty years sooner. Nazism may have eventually fallen over in the same way that Comunism did in the early 1990s?

 

Did Britain lose more than it had a hope to gain by supporting France?

 

Along the same vein:

 

Did think that Britain expect the French Empire to act in the same way that the British Empire would have acted, that is, that if Britain had fallen, then the British Empire would have continued to fight as best as it could?

 

Or was the French Empire tied too closely to Metropolitan France for its own good?

 

Weren't the French Fleet and other colonial assets meant to continue the war with a view to the eventual liberation of France?

Edited February 13, 2005 by DougRichards

[gewing]

The very IDEA that letting Hitler conquer Europe would in any way be in Britain's interest and would "simply amount to the European Union 20 or 30 years earlier"

Is so mind boggling to me that I have to wonder...

 

 

 

 

 

As an extendion of the MeK thread:

 

France did nothing, when it had the chance, to prevent Germany from remilitarising the Rhineland in 1936.

 

Then , then after the declaration of war by France and Britain in Sepember 1939, followed with no more action by the European partner of the Franco-Britain alliance until Germany took the initiative in May 1940.

 

Should Britain have seen the inevitable and withdrawn from the alliance in January or February 1940 and left France and Germany to fight it out?

 

This would have left Britain in a much stronger military position, and except for Churchill, would have been in a better position to reach an agreement to leave Europe to Germany?  The result would have been that the European Union would simply have come about twenty or thirty years sooner.  Nazism may have eventually fallen over in the same way that Comunism did in the early 1990s?

 

Did Britain lose more than it had a hope to gain by supporting France? 

 

Along the same vein:

 

Did think that Britain expect the French Empire to act in the same way that the British Empire would have acted, that is, that if Britain had fallen, then the British Empire would have continued to fight as best as it could?

 

Or was the French Empire tied too closely to Metropolitan France for its own good?

 

Weren't the French Fleet and other colonial assets meant to continue the war with a view to the eventual liberation of France?

144861[/snapback]

[Argus]

Britains historical position was always to prevent a hegemon in Europe, letting the Germans win the continent would have been counter to ~300 years of historical precedent, what ever the more current factors at play.

 

I think Britain might have been physically better off if it had avoided the phony war period, but then it would have sacrificed the moral high ground in the process.

 

shane

[DougRichards]

A few extracts from a college essay from 2001, with a few references to historians, full quotes are available if required. I would argue that both the Kaisers War and Hitlers war had the same aim, the creation of a European Union, not dissimilar to what we see today:

 

 

 

Fischer, in “Germany’s Aims in The First World War” contends that Germany’s initial war aims were apparent in 1912, when Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg agreed to a suggestion by the industrialist Walther Rathenau that German policy should aim for the establishment of a central European customs union. Fischer further claims that Germany went to war in 1914 to create a ‘Mitteleuropa’ that is, a Central European empire . This empire was to consist of parts of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, Ukraine, parts of Russia, the Caucasus, parts of North Africa and influence over Mesopotamia and Turkey. The remainder of France and the Netherlands would form part of the German customs union . That the present day European Union resembles this empire is of interest. It should also be noted that the European Union and its predecessors the Common Market and the European Iron and Coal Community, have been more successful at maintaining peace than the Treaty of Versailles.

 

This ‘September Plan’ required France to cede to Germany a major length of coastline and the resource rich areas of Brierly and to destroy the forts that protected the French / German border. Flanders and the Channel ports would be incorporated into an expanded Belgium, which was to become a vassal state to Germany. It should be noted that this area was not dissimilar (but certainly not identical) to the area of France occupied by Germany after 1940. The level of French collaboration with the German effort in 1940 to 1943 demonstrates that the incorporation of parts of France into the German Empire was not beyond possibility.

 

Overall, Hitler’s war aims of 1935 to 1945 were simple and contained many similarities to those of the Kaiser in 1914. They involved revenge for Versailles, the creation of a German Empire over continental Europe and the exclusion of the Anglo-Saxon powers from European affairs. Keegan has described this as ‘a clear cut if overly ambitious strategy.’ To enable this strategy to work Germany would need to harness the industries and the people of each country that was conquered. From 1914 to 1918 Germany had fought from a point of disadvantage, with the support of an agricultural Austro-Hungarian Empire and burdened by an Ottoman Empire, which needed more support from Germany than it could return.

 

From 1938 with the take over of Austria and Czechoslovakia, Germany incorporated the arms production capacity of captured states into its own war machine. The acquisition of Czechoslovakia provided Germany with the Skoda arms plant at Pilsen , which manufactured artillery for Germany. The Bohemia-Moravia Machine Works of Prague built tanks and armoured vehicles for the German army. At the time of the German attack on France in May 1940, Czechoslovak tanks formed 10% of German armoured strength. Later, 25% of the German armoured forces involved in the invasion of Russia comprised Czech built tanks . The final version (the J) of the Panzer IV tank, the mainstay of German Panzer forces from 1940 to 1944, was built exclusively by Nibelungenwerke in Austria. French built tanks, modified for German service, were used on the Russia Front and against invading Anglo-American forces in 1944. French engines powered Luftwaffe aircraft. Conscript and slave labour was obtained from conquered territories. 650,000 workers were conscripted from France between 1942 and 1944 under the Saukel Actions. Another 1,500,000 French prisoners of war were similarly used to feed the German war machine . These are just a few examples of Germany using her 1938 – 1940 acquisitions to enable further campaigns of conquest.

 

The entry of France and Britain into the conflict in September 1939 in support of Poland had temporarily changed the focus of German war aims from Central and Eastern Europe to the West. By June 1940 Hitler’s forces had defeated the French and soon incorporated the industrial and agricultural sectors of France into the German military / industrial complex. Hitler had taken control of Western Europe. His forces had succeeded where the Kaiser’s had failed in 1914. One of the major war aims of Germany’s attempt to control the whole of the Eurasian continent had been achieved.

 

Keegan considers that once France was incorporated into the Reich, Hitler, as the new German ‘Emperor’, had to choose between two war aims, two directions of advance, west against Britain or east into the expanse of Russia. Germany could not be overcome by an isolated and weakened Britain, but an invasion of Britain would be costly and not guaranteed of success . Conquering Britain would not necessarily bring a political or economic advantage to Germany, as the British Empire, the source of much of Britain’s wealth, would still remain outside Germany’s influence, regardless of the increasing size of the German navy. Therefore Hitler turned his main attentions eastward to Bolshevik Russia.

[KingSargent]

After doing nothing about the Rhineland, doing nothing about Mussolini's action in Ethiopia, doing nothing about Austria, and abandoning Czechoslovakia, Britain was pretty much out of diplomatic credit. If she had abandoned Poland to German attack, she would have been out of credit. Nobody would ever believe a promise of Britain's to protect them. Getting run out of Norway and France in a few weeks demonstrated (or seemed to) just how militarily bankrupt she was.

 

If Britain wanted to retain her role as a World Power, she had to finally stand up to Hitler. If she had not, I cannot envisage her ever getting the Allies (or even Commonwealth support) she needed to eventually triumph.

 

Suppose she sat out the war from 1939 to 1943 (1943 being about the earliest time rearmament would bear fruit). She would then have a revitalized British military, and no Allies.

[DougRichards]

After doing nothing about the Rhineland, doing nothing about Mussolini's action in Ethiopia, doing nothing about Austria, and abandoning Czechoslovakia, Britain was pretty much out of diplomatic credit. If she had abandoned Poland to German attack, she would have been out of credit. Nobody would ever believe a promise of Britain's to protect them. Getting run out of Norway and France in a few weeks demonstrated (or seemed to) just how militarily bankrupt she was.

 

If Britain wanted to retain her role as a World Power, she had to finally stand up to Hitler. If she had not, I cannot envisage her ever getting the Allies (or even Commonwealth support) she needed to eventually triumph.

 

Suppose she sat out the war from 1939 to 1943 (1943 being about the earliest time rearmament would bear fruit). She would then have a revitalized British military, and no Allies.

144896[/snapback]

 

France was in a much better position to do something about the Rhineland, after all, for the Brits to do something about it they would have to have crossed French soil, because the French didn't want to do anything about it themselves.

 

As for Austria, it would have happenned earlier if Mussolini hadn't supported Austrian indepenence.

 

I agree with you about Czechoslovakia and Poland, but the opening was available for France, with reinforcements from Britain, to immediately take action against Germany by attacking in the west as soon as German forces attacked in Poland. France had the largest army in that part of Europe at the time, as disorganised as it was, and Germany's forces were pretty much involved, and not necessarily having a very easy time of it, in Poland. It should also be remembered that the soviet Union got itself involved in Poland as well at the time.

[GdG]

Sorry Doug, but this thread is worthless, as it is based on an interpretation of History from (your) modern political perspective. I'm afraid it's going to turn into a big flamewar soon. And BTW, read books about the diplomatical talks between UK & France reguarding the 1936 events to have a more objective point of view.

[KingSargent]

Granted that France also did nothing constructive, the thread is about Britain. But anyway....

France was in a much better position to do something about the Rhineland, after all, for the Brits to do something about it they would have to have crossed French soil, because the French didn't want to do anything about it themselves.

I think the French might have done something about the Rhineland if Britain had backed them. And when Britain was poised to do something about Italian aggression in Africa, France backed out of supporting the UK.

As for Austria, it would have happenned earlier if Mussolini hadn't supported Austrian indepenence.

Very likely. I'll take your word for it.

I agree with you about Czechoslovakia and Poland, but the opening was available for France, with reinforcements from Britain, to immediately take action against Germany by attacking in the west as soon as German forces attacked in Poland.

The problem here is that Britain had no reinforcements to send. Neither the BEF nor the RAF was ready to go. What happened to them eight months later shows that.

France had the largest army in that part of Europe at the time, as disorganised as it was, and Germany's forces were pretty much involved, and not necessarily having a very easy time of it, in Poland.  It should also be remembered that the soviet Union got itself involved in Poland as well at the time.

144908[/snapback]

The biggest risk of the Polish campaign and covering the West, as the German Staff saw it, was that there was very little artillery ammunition (or any other sort, but shells were especially scarce). Knowing that NOW we can say that Britain and France could have done something - provided of course their staffs could get their acts together, which I very much doubt. I see nothing to indicate that the Allied armies could have performed better in 1939 than when they were beaten in 1940.

 

There is also the problem of where to attack in the West. Without the Allies violating Belgium's neutrality, they have a narrow front in poor terrain without much of importance immediately behind it.

[UN-Interested Observer]

D.R."France did nothing, when it had the chance, to prevent Germany from remilitarising the Rhineland in 1936."

If we consider

A) -that the entire developed world was extremely afraid of war and very pacifistic,

-Germany was very successful garnering support across the world, especially in the USA, where they received many large loans which had the side-effect of motivating the lenders to perform public relations tasks for Germany

C) -World opinion was (partly because of of the notion that the Versailles treaty was extremely unjust and that Germany alone was not to blame for WW1

D) -France was condemned as agressive by world opinion when it occupied Geman coal-producing areas with troops to enforce the reparations it legitimately deserved

E) WW1 took place in France, not Britain or America, the country devastated was France. France did not neglect their defence spending, they analysed the lessons of WW1 and found that defensive works were the way to go. That they were not clairvoyant as to the nature of the next war is poor criticism.

 

 

"Did Britain lose more than it had a hope to gain by supporting France?"

I'd say the 'symbolic' defence of Hong Kong, the symbolic aid of Greece, the delay to implementing the convoy system, the persistence in strategic bombing, and other blunders in the pacific cost them more.

 

 

"French engines powered Luftwaffe aircraft."

Well, George Bush's grand-daddy was supplying the NAZI's with chemicals they desperately needed to produce airplane-fuel. Businessmen are businessmen, though at least France had the excuse of being under NAZI control.

 

 

"The result would have been that the European Union would simply have come about twenty or thirty years sooner. Nazism may have eventually fallen over in the same way that Comunism did in the early 1990s?"

 

NAZI was an acronym for a policital party, national socialisy worker's party, iirc. It was not some story-book evil, it did not come from another dimension, and it would not disappear into thin air of its own volition. If you break it down you have A) a Totalitarian government Irredentist claims. Every totalitarian government will turn on it's people, it happens that annihilating Jews and other untermensch was prominent in the Party Policy. It is hard to find an example of any totalitarian government that does not decry some demographic segment 'enemy of the state' and take action against them. The way the NAZIs focused on indoctrinating children I doubt that they could have 'fallen' on their own, ever.

 

I get the impression that you have something against the European Union, and that's your beef, but you really should provide some evidence as to how they equate to NAZI Germany.

 

I'm sorry if that sounds too harsh, perhaps I simply am reading too much into what you wrote. If that is the case, I apologize for being brusque.

[KingSargent]

I get the impression that you have something against the European Union, and that's your beef, but you really should provide some evidence as to how they equate to NAZI Germany.

 

I'm sorry if that sounds too harsh, perhaps I simply am reading too much into what you wrote. If that is the case, I apologize for being brusque.

144924[/snapback]

 

You are absolutely right about our (at least my) feelings about the EU, but that is hardly germane to the issue, which concern historical options of the 1930s.

 

You have excellent points (although what Bush's grandaddy has to do with it puzzles me) about the diplomatic situation at the time. It is very easy to understand why "Doing Nozzink!" seemed a good idea at the time. And as you say, France would be taking the risks. Intervening at the time of Ethiopia would have left France as the only ally with a border with Italy, and the largest airforce in the world at the time just across that border. Guess who takes the brunt of intervention? France was not prepared to "Defend England to the last Frenchman," and Britain had very little to offer to assist France in the mid-30s except the RN, which would be of problematical assistance in a Continental war (at least short-term).

[Tony Williams]

I spent some time considering this issue when I wrote my alternative WW2 novel, 'The Foresight War'. In this instance the starting point is when a modern British historian wakes up to find himself in 1934. So, once he had established his credentials, what would he have advised the British to do? And more to the point, what would the British authorities have done with his information and advice?

 

The conclusion I came to (you can read this in detail - the first chapter is available on-line from my website) is that the Brits would have decided that:

 

1. War with Hitler was inevitable

 

2. Trying to stop the forthcoming German invasion of France was too risky.

 

So the Brits carefully avoid giving that guarantee to Poland, and thereby declaring war in 1939. They wait until 1940, so that when France is invaded it's too late to send much help. Then they play a long game, supporting the USSR in order to grind down German power and tidying up the other theatres so that they are well prepared for D-day.

 

I've no idea if that's what would have happened, of course, but then neither has anyone else

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

[hojutsuka]

SNIP

 

  NAZI was an acronym for a policital party, national socialisy worker's party, iirc.

 

SNIP

144924[/snapback]

Nazi is not an acronym. Hitler's political party (well, he didn't originate it, but he did end up heading it...) was the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers' Party). I understand that "Nazi" was originally just a shortened form of a man's first name ("Nathaniel"?) but got attached to the members of the NSDAP because it sounded like a contraction of nationalsozialist.

 

Hojutsuka

[Claudio_1]

The result would have been that the European Union would simply have come about twenty or thirty years sooner.  Nazism may have eventually fallen over in the same way that Comunism did in the early 1990s?

 

God!

 

 

You are comparing an Europe lead by the NSDAP and whoever the Leader might be at a given time with the European Union?

 

 

The Nazi dictatorship was not only about comquering other countries, looting, gaining resources and land, it was about making the lifes of millions miserable who did not want to live after their rules (yes millions of Germans too) or worse; killing millions, Jews, democrats, gipysy, handicapped, gays anyone who did not fit into their New Order.

 

 

I agree that communismn has its very bad sides too, but you cannot compare it with the NSDAP nightmare.

 

 

Besdies, why should GB stay neutral when Hitler broke each and every of his promises? I am happy that GB and Churchill have chosen not to "look the other way" and hope the Nazis would not bother them but to fight until the end whatever this end may be.

 

 

Claudio

[cdnsigop]

"The conclusion I came to (you can read this in detail - the first chapter is available on-line from my website) is that the Brits would have decided that:

 

1. War with Hitler was inevitable

 

2. Trying to stop the forthcoming German invasion of France was too risky."

 

Tony, I haven't read your book, but from what you listed here. You missed an few important points that Britian could of done before 1940.

 

First Germany was weak in when it marched troops in the Rhineland, the Brits could of done something at that point and it would stopped Hilter. Or in 1938 teh Czechs hasd a very powerful army and lost of tanks and it was ready to fight if support had of been there. If Britian had the knowladge that this Historian had then would known that it could stop war before it started. Or if it waited until France was invaded, it would known that the german victory was do luck in most part and surprise. without surprise the the germans couldn't have won as quickly if at all. The France had more tanks and more planes, and could planned for an attack. As it was the Germans were close to being stopped, if the attack had lasted a few weeks it would of run out gas and ammo.

Edited February 14, 2005 by cdnsigop

[UN-Interested Observer]

As it was the Germans were close to be stopped, if the attack had lasted a few weeks longer it would of run out gas and ammo.

145149[/snapback]

 

I read the except linked to on the 'guns...' webpage, and plan to download the entire book now. I have to say, for the purpose of entertainment the plot looks ideal. Sure, there may have been better strategic solutions, but they wouldn't have made as good a story!

 

Hoju: Danke, gut zu wissen!

 

Doug: I just realized that this must seem like we all seem to be coming down on you - sorry to stifle you in any way. Of course you should ponder and speculate, I regret if I interfere with this. It is just that the NAZIs did some horrible things, and the EU has diametric policies, afaik.

 

KingSarg: "although what Bush's grandaddy has to do with it puzzles me"

I only used that example for name recognition. I meant to illustrate that every nation had businessmen with more ambition than scruples, so French manufacture of war materiel could be viewed in a softer light.

[Guest aevans]

This seems to me like someone is desperately in search of a counterfactual that lets the British Empire continue in perpetuity. You know how it goes -- don't fight the Germans, be too strong for the Japanese, and the world will be wonderful, with all of the childish wogs under the wing of the Great White Emperor. No matter that Europe is under a despotism worse than pharonic -- that's not an Empire problem. Excuse me while I hurl.

Edited February 14, 2005 by aevans

[R011]

I agree that communismn has its very bad sides too, but you cannot compare it with the NSDAP nightmare.

145067[/snapback]

Things were not much better for those under Soviet rule than they were under the Nazis. There were somewhat less likely to kill you on account of race, but being of the wrong class could be very bad. The Communists had more political prisoners than the Nazis, for instance, and treated then at least as badly.

Not to mention famines both deliberate and as a result of Marxist economics.

 

Stalin's collectivisation of the Ukraine and his purges, Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural rrevolution, and Pol Pot's killing fields are every bit as ghastly as anything the Nazis did.

[Guest aevans]

Things were not much better for those under Soviet rule than they were under the Nazis.  There were somewhat less likely to kill you on account of race, but being of the wrong class could be very bad.   The Communists had more political prisoners than the Nazis, for instance, and treated then at least as badly.

  Not to mention famines both deliberate and as a result of Marxist  economics.

 

Stalin's  collectivisation of the Ukraine and his purges, Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural rrevolution, and Pol Pot's killing fields are every bit as ghastly as anything the Nazis did.

145188[/snapback]

 

Then how about this -- can we agree that anyone who advocates any course of action that avoids opposing fascism or communism, for any reason, is not deserving of a civilized person's respect?

Edited February 14, 2005 by aevans

[richard g]

This seems to me like someone is desperately in search of a counterfactual that lets the British Empire continue in perpetuity. You know how it goes -- don't fight the Germans, be too strong for the Japanese, and the world will be wonderful, with all of the childish wogs under the wing of the Great White Emperor. No matter that Europe is under a despotism worse than pharonic -- that's not an Empire problem. Excuse me while I hurl.

145178[/snapback]

 

 

Not singling you out particularly Tony, seeing some others have a similar view, but what was the situation in the US concerning Hitler around 38-40? Why should'nt Great Britain adopt an isolationist policy, particularly given the immediate implications of doing otherwise?

 

Consider also France, and perhaps to a lesser degree Great Britain. There were diverse and powerful internal forces at work in favour of Hitler and against war with Germany, forces that went to the highest levels. That situation seems to be ignored here.

 

Another point concerns GB's financial situation, basically they were nearly broke and a war without aid from elsewhere would have quickly brought that about. Then there was the general feeling that after the carnage of WW1 war shold be avoided at all costs.

 

IIRC Australia at the time was against war with Germany, if GB went we basically were bound to do likewise. What did a war in Europe, another one, have to do with us? If the French and others didn't appear that keen to fight to protect themselves why should we be involved? As it turned out we ended up fighting the Vichy French at one stage, their way of showing gratitude for our assistance in WW1 perhaps.

 

I think that Doug has an arguable point, in case there was any doubt about that

[Sparviero]

The problem is that the British should not have done anything about Italian "agression" in Africa. Especially coming from a country who has a history of it, how much of the world was under British control at the time? I realize the Abyssinians were a member of the League of Nations however the fate of this nation was so much writing on the wall. The French were working towards an alliance with the Italians as can be a read about a bit in The Naval War in the Mediterranean 1940-1943 by Jack Greene & Alessandro Massignani. Forcing the Germans to defend more of their border territory and having the French free of all but minimal defensive obligations on their southern frontier would make for an interesting alteration.

 

The threat of war with the Italians over Austria is a major reason the Germans didn't move earlier on Austria. The Italians allying with the Germans was not a forgone conclusion until the British bumbling. Having the Germans have to account for possible retaliation from Britain, France and Italy would probably have kept the Germans aggression in check a bit more. Please remember before giving some answer about the Italians not being worth anything that the Germans would have been facing the Alpine divisions and the Army of the Po which were the best part of the Italian army and not 10th Army which was literally the last priority of the Italian army. Which is what most people base their opinion of the Italian army on.

 

It would really have been best if the British politicians of the time had recognized that Italian reconquest of the Libian colonies and construction of the AOI would have left her busy for years with internal issues. I imagine minimal behind the scenes effort could have been kept Italy as at least a neutral in the coming troubles with the Germans. Imagine the ships used in the Med freed up earlier for use in the Pacific and losses in men and material going into an expedition into Norway threatening the German's ore supply or increased concentration on the air war.

 

--

 

As far as Mr. Williams book, it is somewhat interesting yet irritating in the way it treats the Italians. If Mr. Williams had not been interest in using the Italians as some sort of disturbing comic relief for the book I'm fairly sure a more realistic interpretation would have been the Italians quietly staying out of the war. Or at the very least his German protagonist making sure the Italians are threatened with having their Romanian oil supplies cut off and any deals with the Soviets sabotaged if they try to join in the war. In the case of the Germans in his book not wanting their participation. Although I imagine the incredible pace of technilogical development would have been enough to keep Italy out of war in a serious approach at the subject. It's also interesting that his German antagonist didn't seem concerned about having the Lybian oil fields brought on line much earlier or having Italian industrialists influenced to try out German manufacturing methods and/or licensed equipment. I realize it was a very short book, more of a small script added to a very specific what if timeline of equipment.

 

----

 

However these are only my ultranationalistic opinions and since they fly in the face of the norm they will only be scoffed at. So please don't bust a gut laughing too hard.

[Tony Williams]

"The conclusion I came to (you can read this in detail - the first chapter is available on-line from my website) is that the Brits would have decided that:

 

1. War with Hitler was inevitable

 

2. Trying to stop the forthcoming German invasion of France was too risky."

 

Tony,  I haven't read your book, but from what you listed here.  You missed an few important points that Britian could of done before 1940.

 

First Germany was weak in when it marched troops in the Rhineland, the Brits could of done something at that point and it would stopped Hilter. Or in 1938 teh Czechs hasd a very powerful army and lost of tanks and it was ready to fight if support had of been there.  If Britian had the knowladge that this Historian had then would known that it could stop war before it started.  Or if it waited until France was invaded, it would known that the german victory was do luck in most part and surprise.  without surprise the the germans couldn't have won as quickly if at all. The France had more tanks and more planes, and could planned for an attack.  As it was the Germans were close to being stopped, if the attack had lasted a few weeks it would of run out gas and ammo.

 

Well, we could debate this at length! The first chapter (which you can read) does give the British thinking behind their choices. basically, they want to make as few changes to what actually occurred as they can, because the moment they start to depart radically from the historical time-line, they lose their advantage of 'foreknowledge' and will be groping in the dark like anyone else. So if they tried to stop Hitler in 1936 or 1938, no-one knows what the outcome would have been.

 

However, I am happy to concede that there were all sorts of possibilities. All I could do was choose some which were justifiable and internally consistent.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion

forum

[Tony Williams]

The problem is that the British should not have done anything about Italian "agression" in Africa. Especially coming from a country who has a history of it, how much of the world was under British control at the time? I realize the Abyssinians were a member of the League of Nations however the fate of this nation was so much writing on the wall.

 

Well it wasn't just the UK but the League of Nations which was against the invasion of Ethiopia/Abyssinia, leading to the Italian walk-out. And it wasn't the UK which declared war on Italy or launched the first attacks....

 

As far as Mr. Williams book, it is somewhat interesting yet irritating in the way it treats the Italians. If Mr. Williams had not been interest in using the Italians as some sort of disturbing comic relief for the book I'm fairly sure a more realistic interpretation would have been the Italians quietly staying out of the war. Or at the very least his German protagonist making sure the Italians are threatened with having their Romanian oil supplies cut off and any deals with the Soviets sabotaged if they try to join in the war. In the case of the Germans in his book not wanting their participation. Although I imagine the incredible pace of technilogical development would have been enough to keep Italy out of war in a serious approach at the subject. It's also interesting that his German antagonist didn't seem concerned about having the Lybian oil fields brought on line much earlier or having Italian industrialists influenced to try out German manufacturing methods and/or licensed equipment. I realize it was a very short book, more of a small script added to a very specific what if timeline of equipment.

 

You are right that I could have had the Germans trying to stop Mussolini, although they wouldn't necessarily have succeeded; Mussolini was very proud and didn't want to be seen to be remaining on the sidelines while Germany was succeeding.

 

When faced with a subject as huge and diverse as WW2, it is necessary to be highly selective about what is covered. Other authors would certainly have made different choices, and are welcome to do so!

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion

forum

[Guest aevans]

I think that Doug has an arguable point, in case there was any doubt about that

145203[/snapback]

 

Sorry Richard, but there is no moral argument in favor of leaving the Nazis alone. That there were elements in both the US and Great Britain that supported an immoral course of action does not reflect on me or my position. The only practical argument revolves around preserving British wealth for the maintenance of the Empire -- and that has obvious moral implications as well, which I have pointed out, albeit somewhat sarcastically. That somebody at this late date can actually suggest that Hitler was merely an aggressive European unifier or devote a single second of thought to how to avoid fighting him literally makes my guts churn.

Edited February 14, 2005 by aevans

[cdnsigop]

"Well, we could debate this at length! The first chapter (which you can read) does give the British thinking behind their choices. basically, they want to make as few changes to what actually occurred as they can, because the moment they start to depart radically from the historical time-line, they lose their advantage of 'foreknowledge' and will be groping in the dark like anyone else. So if they tried to stop Hitler in 1936 or 1938, no-one knows what the outcome would have been."

 

Timelime... now your talking about Star trek. Just by knowing the history they are departing from the timeline. Britian and France were pretty good allies, and I if it was known that the Uk waited til after it was too late to save France... the world would not be looking at the UK as a very good allie and not one who could be trusted. And really there is no reason to wait till France if defeated to stop Hilter, as this lets him own Europe, and lets not forget that he can still deal with the Jew question... and kill of all the European Jews. Knowing what would happen, do you really think the UK would do nothing to stop this? Even leaving the timeline as it was, there was lots that UK could do stop Germany in 1940, there is Norway moving enough troops there in 1939 would of stopped its take over. Changing its use of tanks would helped stopped the German advance into France. Better use of the airpower that both France and UK had would made a mess of teh German tank forces.

 

Its your story, but I really think you need you re-write it. maybe have this historian wake up in 1939, then you could still get the story you want.

[KingSargent]

I'm not going to fault your views in the morality of the thing, but your "alternatives" could use some work.

Even leaving the timeline as it was, there was lots that UK could do stop Germany in 1940, there is Norway moving enough troops there in 1939 would of stopped its take over.

Excuse me, just WHAT troops are we talking about here? Do a little research; if you can find any spare British troops anywhere, let me know.

Even if they did have some, "moving into Norway" means invading a neutral nation. This is not a good idea, it makes people think you are as bad as Germany.

Changing its use of tanks would helped stopped the German advance into France.

Once more WHAT tanks? The UK had about half a battalion of combat-worthy tanks (A12 Matilda IIs) in May 1940. This is hardly enough to train troops to "change their use of tanks." They had even fewer in 1939. The British sent their only Armoured Division over, so understrength and undertrained that they didn't accomplish very much. Before you can "change the use of tanks" you really do need tanks and crews.

Better use of the airpower that both France and UK had would made a mess of teh German tank forces.

145267[/snapback]

This one is possible, but would require a major doctrinal change, especially by the RAF, and a change early enough to train personnel in the ways of Close Air Support. That was not going to happen unless most of the Air Staff were sacked.

France had very little in the way of operational attack planes (they had some on the way) and their bomber groups were just transitioning to new types, so they had the choice of flying deathtraps or planes they were not practiced in flying.

French fighters had decent 20mm guns that would be effective if strafing the German tanks of the time (and even better on the trucks), but again it would require a major shift in doctrine and training early enough to know what to.

 

And this would not be happening in a vacuum. Germany would surely note a doctrinal change to low-level attack and change her interceptor tactics and AA operations to counter.