Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

#16

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 24 May 2021, 19:29

historygeek2021 wrote:
24 May 2021, 07:31
... Stalin would be reluctant to fight a ground war against Germany alone while France sat behind the Maginot Line. The French would see it as fruitless to attack into the narrow corridor between Luxembourg and the Rhine, which was fortified by the Siegried Line, so they would be content to cripple Germany's economy through blockade. Eventually, Britain and France would realize that Germany was able to survive and maintain a defensive posture indefinitely by conducting trade through the Soviet Union. ...
I'd think a really serious look at the actual long term French plans is necessary before drawing conclusions about which way the French leadership decides 1941-1942. Economically & politically France, and Britain for that matter had some strong incentives not to allow a economically strong Germany to continue. Some sort of active offensive action vs Germany was a solution. This does not necessarily mean they were thinking in terms of bloody ground offensives. Projections for Allied air strength in late 1941 are 'large, which might be dismissed except OTL 1941 British aircraft production alone rivaled Germany. The French had sacrificed a lot of early production 1938-1939 in order to reform their aircraft industry. Their goals for 1940-1942 were ambitious. Then there was the growth of US production, which in 1940 had explosive growth, mostly for Allied purchases.

Another question is how effective a Allied perhiphrial strategy would be absent German offensive operations. Allied political and military pressure on Norway & Sweden absent any German counter action would be a easy gain. Without German aggressive success Mussolini has disincentives to act on Germanies behalf. In the longer term in this situation its in Italics interest to cooperate with the Allies vis the Blockade. Ditto for the Balkan states & Turkey. Germany on the defense loses influence in many directions. When nations like Sweden, Turkey, & Rumania find they can embargo
Germany their products & still sell at a profit elsewhere a passive German war plan is in trouble. At the end of the day Soviet resources are not a Pancea & there is no guarantee the Allies will not find a combination of incentives in that direction.

Again to judge the success of a German 'passive' strategy we need to have a much clearer understanding of French intent & examine how viable that was.

historygeek2021
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 17 Dec 2020, 07:23
Location: Australia

Re: Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

#17

Post by historygeek2021 » 25 May 2021, 04:13

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
24 May 2021, 19:29


I'd think a really serious look at the actual long term French plans is necessary before drawing conclusions about which way the French leadership decides 1941-1942.
I don't even know where to look for that. All of the sources I have describe Allied planning in 1939 and early 1940 in terms of countering the expected Germany offensive into Belgium. I have never heard of any contingency plans by the Allies in case Germany remained permanently on the defensive.

The British were definitely preparing to bomb Germany into oblivion. They started the war with 2,520 bombers and only 832 fighters. But the British abandoned bombing after the disaster at Heligoland Bight in 1939. It wasn't until Churchill became PM that the British began night-time bombing, but in this ATL it's not clear that Churchill would ever become PM.

I seriously doubt the British and French would ever consider a major ground offensive into the Rhineland. They would know it would be an extremely bloody affair costing hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives. Likewise, the Allies would be afraid of initiating an air war (unless Churchill took over). The war would be purely economic through blockade, which would depend on diplomatic maneuvering with neutral countries in Europe in order to squeeze Germany sufficiently. With Göring in charge, who was able to charm neutrals to some extent, it's doubtful Germany would ever be truly isolated.

The Allies were also fearful of Stalin, so they wouldn't want to allow the war to go on for too long and allow him to take over Eastern Europe.

This ATL might be revealing that the tens of millions of deaths in World War 2 were the result of an irrational lunatic at the helm of a world power (Hitler), rather than a result of historical determinism.


historygeek2021
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 17 Dec 2020, 07:23
Location: Australia

Re: Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

#18

Post by historygeek2021 » 25 May 2021, 05:51

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
24 May 2021, 10:20

What if, as seems clear from the historical record, there is no earthly pressure that can force Stalin to form a democracy?
I was thinking farther ahead to after Stalin's death. There was a thaw in the OTL under Krushchev, I imagine it would have been an even bigger thaw if the world had survived Hitler and Stalin without a major conflagration and the United States were not in a position to surround the Soviet Union from all sides.
What happens regarding the SU's post-MR Pact acquisitions? Do the Allies condone a war against the SU to free these territories, a war conducted primarily by a Germany that is still basically Nazi? Do countries that assisted and encouraged an authoritarian slaughter of ~1mil in Indonesia - all in the name of anti-communism - balk from using (post-treaty) Nazis as the sword of anti-communism? What's our tolerance limit for mass-slaughter in the ensuing campaign? A million murdered Indonesians was super-great (yay Democracy!) but maybe 2 million murdered Soviets is too far?
I think it was in the interests of Britain and France to have Germany and the Soviet Union destroy each other, which is basically what happened in the OTL. If Göring becomes Chancellor and everyone sits on their hands instead of fighting, Britain and France have to look for another way to get Germany and the USSR to go to war with each other, but I'm not seeing any way that could immediately happen. Maybe the Allies try to lure Stalin into attacking Germany by promising to open an offensive in the Rhineland if Stalin attacks first, but Stalin would never make that sort of deal with the Allies. He did not trust them at all.
If/When Japan leaves China, do the democracies also use authoritarian Japan as its eastern anti-communist sword in China and/or Russia? History is clear that the Cold War West valued anti-communism 100x more than democracy so it's unlikely we push out Japan's ruling military clique. Or do we launch an Operation Japanese Freedom to depose the military clique? Plutonium-flavored freedom?
If the international community successfully pressures Japan into negotiating a peace with Chiang Kai-shek, I don't think there would be any interest in the west in trying to change Japan's form of government. I don't think the west really cared what type of government a country had as long as it was amenable to the profit interests of western capitalists. The long-term problem facing the world in this ATL is that the world is still effectively divided into economic spheres (the dollar bloc, pound bloc, yen bloc) with high tariffs making trade almost impossible, so the forces of historical determinism would be working very hard to create a conflagration that would allow the strongest economic bloc (the United States) to prevail. I'm just having a hard time imagining what the spark would be that ignites this conflagration.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

#19

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 25 May 2021, 06:22

historygeek2021 wrote:the strongest economic bloc (the United States)
Actually I think it's an interesting question whether that's meaningfully true in, say, 1960, if Japan keeps its 1936 empire. Japan, Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan were all growing rapidly up to 1944. A economically liberal peace settlement might push those territories into an early 2000's China-style growth trajectory and Hirohito's domains might rival America. Population would be higher than America's on the OTL pre-'37 trajectory; we'd probably see large-scale migration from China into booming Manchuria and Taiwan. There was negligible resistance to Japanese rule in those territories; it's hard to see them breaking off especially under conditions of prosperity that would be framed as Japan-caused. Liberalized trade with China would favor Japan, given mid-century pre-container shipping logistics, so Japan is the big winner (besides China) if order prevails in the Middle Kingdom.

The peaceful economic trajectory of the Empire of Japan is one of the greatest What If's foreclosed by WW2...

Anyway, I still don't find any of this feasible because I don't think any personality, no matter how peace-loving a Nazi we're talking about, could have held the Heer's reins without getting bucked off.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

historygeek2021
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 17 Dec 2020, 07:23
Location: Australia

Re: Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

#20

Post by historygeek2021 » 25 May 2021, 07:55

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
25 May 2021, 06:22

Anyway, I still don't find any of this feasible because I don't think any personality, no matter how peace-loving a Nazi we're talking about, could have held the Heer's reins without getting bucked off.
Who in the Heer was clamoring to attack? The only senior officer who was optimistic in 1939 was Brauchitsch, and he had a weak personality and wouldn't have stood up to Göring or anyone. Most of the Heer generals thought the war was a lost cause and wanted to kill Hitler. They would have been grateful for Göring to get them out of this mess through diplomatic means.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

#21

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 25 May 2021, 09:32

History Learner wrote:I highly, highly recommend you get Stalin's War by Sean McMeekin.
So far I don't recommend it, though I still appreciate the reminder. The book is one long anti-Stalin polemic, which is no more interesting or useful than the stream of anti-Hitler polemics. Yeah, both were bad dudes. We got it.

To believe the author, Stalin bamboozled FDR into giving him Lend Lease that America could have used better. Doing what, he doesn't say. Somebody needed to actually fight the Nazis, that was 90% Soviet Union.

He also has an almost Wehrabooish take on the Eastern Front. Here's his discussion of Kursk, for example:
it was clear that the
Germans had recovered from Stalingrad and regained the upper hand on the
eastern front... y July 11, the Red Army was in serious trouble.
Hitler’s halting of Operation Citadel to counter the Allied move into Sicily
was the greatest possible gift to Stalin. It allowed the Soviets to claim a decisive
victory in a battle they had been losing,
Seriously? Kursk wasn't even close; RKKA had massive reserves they didn't even need to commit. You'd think someone writing a book on Stalin's War would know this... And the idea that Sicily stopped the Kursk offensive is a thoroughly debunked myth stemming from Manstein being too thick to realize that Hitler was lying to him to avoid bickering.

The author does mention recent(ish) finds from the Soviet archives but most of his cites are to secondary sources and most of these, unfortunately, are in Russian. I'll probably read some more of this but the polemic and bias-induced errors are really annoying.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

History Learner
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 19 Jan 2019, 10:39
Location: United States

Re: Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

#22

Post by History Learner » 25 May 2021, 21:10

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
25 May 2021, 09:32
So far I don't recommend it, though I still appreciate the reminder. The book is one long anti-Stalin polemic, which is no more interesting or useful than the stream of anti-Hitler polemics. Yeah, both were bad dudes. We got it.
I think that is unfair and is to miss the point of the author; it's Anti-Stalin precisely because the author takes that for granted in explaining his overall thrust, which is the centrality of Stalin in bringing about the wider conflagration that was WWII. Case in point is him revealing Soviet overtures as early as 1938 to split Poland with Germany or what, exactly, Stalin's strategic goals in 1940-1942 were to be.
To believe the author, Stalin bamboozled FDR into giving him Lend Lease that America could have used better. Doing what, he doesn't say. Somebody needed to actually fight the Nazis, that was 90% Soviet Union.
To be fair, that is the take of roughly 90% of those who argue with you concerning the importance of the USSR into the overall War effort, so I find it understandable to a certain degree; i.e. resources for Lend Lease could be directed elsewhere. Say, more American divisions or foreign ones, as well or the like. Not saying I agree with said take, but you have to take into context he's not a military historian so much as he is a political/diplomatic historian the same way someone like Tooze is solely an economic one while Glantz is a military one; there is going to be shortcomings in their analysis given their specializations.

As for the 90% USSR take, and this is admittedly just a quibble, I don't agree with it. In blood costs, sure, but I'd highly recommend you read Dennis Havlat's articles on Lend Lease and Western Allied military intervention.
He also has an almost Wehrabooish take on the Eastern Front. Here's his discussion of Kursk, for example:
it was clear that the
Germans had recovered from Stalingrad and regained the upper hand on the
eastern front... y July 11, the Red Army was in serious trouble.
Hitler’s halting of Operation Citadel to counter the Allied move into Sicily
was the greatest possible gift to Stalin. It allowed the Soviets to claim a decisive
victory in a battle they had been losing,
Seriously? Kursk wasn't even close; RKKA had massive reserves they didn't even need to commit. You'd think someone writing a book on Stalin's War would know this... And the idea that Sicily stopped the Kursk offensive is a thoroughly debunked myth stemming from Manstein being too thick to realize that Hitler was lying to him to avoid bickering.
Admittedly I haven't got to that portion of the book yet, but I think that again sounds like excessive rhetorical flourish, of which many contemporary authors (David Stahel and the aforementioned Tooze come to mind) are guilty of. Specifically concerning Manstein and Citadel, I think your views are seriously outdated there, however; there has been a lot of ground breaking research in the past year that has fundamentally changed how the Manstein Hypothesis must be viewed. Specifically, he wasn't talking about Citadel as a whole but rather the proposed Operation Roland to destroy Soviet operational reserves, and certainly II SS Panzer Korps had the strength to do so when Hitler made the decision to cancel the operation.
The author does mention recent(ish) finds from the Soviet archives but most of his cites are to secondary sources and most of these, unfortunately, are in Russian. I'll probably read some more of this but the polemic and bias-induced errors are really annoying.
Basically, David Glantz before the Berlin Wall came down. Glancing at the bibliography, I think you're unfairly underselling the amount of research undertaken.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

#23

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 26 May 2021, 03:20

historygeek2021 wrote:
25 May 2021, 04:13
Carl Schwamberger wrote:
24 May 2021, 19:29


I'd think a really serious look at the actual long term French plans is necessary before drawing conclusions about which way the French leadership decides 1941-1942.
I don't even know where to look for that.
Probably in France LoL
historygeek2021 wrote:
25 May 2021, 04:13
All of the sources I have describe Allied planning in 1939 and early 1940 in terms of countering the expected Germany offensive into Belgium. I have never heard of any contingency plans by the Allies in case Germany remained permanently on the defensive.
There was a the assumption the Germans would attack at some point. The expectation was the attack would fail & then a slow shift in strength.
historygeek2021 wrote:
25 May 2021, 04:13
The British were definitely preparing to bomb Germany into oblivion. They started the war with 2,520 bombers and only 832 fighters. But the British abandoned bombing after the disaster at Heligoland Bight in 1939. It wasn't until Churchill became PM that the British began night-time bombing, but in this ATL it's not clear that Churchill would ever become PM.
Gamelin was opposed "to a bombing war", but he was past his 'Use By Date' & Reynaud had completed the preparations to retire him in early May 1940.
historygeek2021 wrote:
25 May 2021, 04:13
I seriously doubt the British and French would ever consider a major ground offensive into the Rhineland. They would know it would be an extremely bloody affair costing hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives. Likewise, the Allies would be afraid of initiating an air war (unless Churchill took over). The war would be purely economic through blockade, which would depend on diplomatic maneuvering with neutral countries in Europe in order to squeeze Germany sufficiently. With Göring in charge, who was able to charm neutrals to some extent, it's doubtful Germany would ever be truly isolated.
The French intent was to bury the Germans underneath cannon shells and bombs. Artillery, mortars, tanks, aircraft, & anything else would be used instead of infantry. Essentially the same philosophy the Brits & Yanks took.

historygeek2021
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 17 Dec 2020, 07:23
Location: Australia

Re: Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

#24

Post by historygeek2021 » 26 May 2021, 04:47

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
26 May 2021, 03:20

Gamelin was opposed "to a bombing war", but he was past his 'Use By Date' & Reynaud had completed the preparations to retire him in early May 1940.
It's not clear that Reynaud would be become premier in this ATL. With Göring in charge and Germany remaining passive, Daladier might stay premier and work on a compromise peace.
The French intent was to bury the Germans underneath cannon shells and bombs. Artillery, mortars, tanks, aircraft, & anything else would be used instead of infantry. Essentially the same philosophy the Brits & Yanks took.
That would still result in hundreds of thousands of dead Frenchmen if France tried a ground invasion. I don't think the French would have the stomach for it after the First World War.

Edit: typo
Last edited by historygeek2021 on 26 May 2021, 17:24, edited 1 time in total.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

#25

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 26 May 2021, 16:45

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
26 May 2021, 03:20

Gamelin was opposed "to a bombing war", but he was past his 'Use By Date' & Reynaud had completed the preparations to retire him in early May 1940.
historygeek2021 wrote:
26 May 2021, 04:47
It's not clear that Reynaud would be become premier in this ATL. With Göring in charge and Germany remaining passive, Gamelin might stay premier and work on a compromise peace.
Reynaud became Prime Minister In March 1940, replacing Daladier. The latter had previously rejected peace proposals in October 1939. His biographies indicate he saw the problem with Germany requiring more than a favor peace treaty. He saw as the French leaders of 1919 the need to cripple Germany economically for the long term to ensure Frances future. A loose translation of one of his remarks is 'Its more than just winning the war.' Reynaud had a similar view
historygeek2021 wrote:
26 May 2021, 04:47
... Gamelin might stay premier and work on a compromise peace.
Gamelin was never Premier. He was chief of the armed forces & within the ministery of Defense. In any case his support was fading & his replacement was seen as part of necessary larger scale replacement of senior leaders in the Army. Daladier had been a strong supporter of Gamelin in previous years, but by 1939 he saw the need to revitalize the senior army leadership. He just was not moving as fast as others would have. By 1939 Gamelins political influence was near gone.
The French intent was to bury the Germans underneath cannon shells and bombs. Artillery, mortars, tanks, aircraft, & anything else would be used instead of infantry. Essentially the same philosophy the Brits & Yanks took.
historygeek2021 wrote:
26 May 2021, 04:47
That would still result in hundreds of thousands of dead Frenchmen if France tried a ground invasion. I don't think the French would have the stomach for it after the First World War.
When the British and US armies applied massive firepower techniques they did not suffer 'hundreds of thousands of dead' defeating the Germans. I don't see why it would be different for the French army using the same techniques.

historygeek2021
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 17 Dec 2020, 07:23
Location: Australia

Re: Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

#26

Post by historygeek2021 » 26 May 2021, 17:22

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
26 May 2021, 16:45


Reynaud became Prime Minister In March 1940, replacing Daladier. The latter had previously rejected peace proposals in October 1939. His biographies indicate he saw the problem with Germany requiring more than a favor peace treaty. He saw as the French leaders of 1919 the need to cripple Germany economically for the long term to ensure Frances future. A loose translation of one of his remarks is 'Its more than just winning the war.' Reynaud had a similar view.
And in this ATL, Göring becomes Chancellor in November 1939, well before the time when Reynaud replaced Daladier. Daladier's biographies also state that he was reluctant to go to war, and his statements from the time indicated he wanted a lasting peace, not settlements that would have to be renegotiated every six months. He was also concerned about the buildup of the Soviet military. This indicates he would have been receptive to peace overtures from Göring.
Gamelin was never Premier. He was chief of the armed forces & within the ministery of Defense. In any case his support was fading & his replacement was seen as part of necessary larger scale replacement of senior leaders in the Army. Daladier had been a strong supporter of Gamelin in previous years, but by 1939 he saw the need to revitalize the senior army leadership. He just was not moving as fast as others would have. By 1939 Gamelins political influence was near gone.
That was obviously a typo. I meant Daladier. No need to talk down to me.

When the British and US armies applied massive firepower techniques they did not suffer 'hundreds of thousands of dead' defeating the Germans. I don't see why it would be different for the French army using the same techniques.
The United States lost hundreds of thousands of lives in the European theater, despite other countries bearing the brunt of the fighting. I seriously doubt the French looked into a crystal ball and saw a timeline where they launched a major ground invasion of German without suffering hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

#27

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 27 May 2021, 02:56

From the STATISTICAL AND ACCOUNTING BRANCH OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL (June 1, 1953) (Not my artithmetic)

Deaths in battle for the US military from Dec 1941 to May 1945 were 292,131. The breakout by service: Army 234,874, Navy/Marine Corps 56,684, and Coast Guard 574.

Of the US Army deaths 52,173 deaths were Army Air forces combat deaths. = 239,958 for the Army Ground Forces. Army Ground Forces deaths in the European Theatre 141,088, Army Air Forces 36,461.

Atkinson 'Guns at Last Light' place US Army Ground Forces combat deaths from 6th June 1944 to 7 May 1945 at 110,400 in the ETO. 21 Army Group Atkinson placed as having 42,000 combat deaths & the French at 12,500 from August 1944 to 7 May 1945.

By none of these counts did the US Army suffer hundreds of thousands of combat deaths. Yet in eleven months they defeated the German armies facing them & advanced a straight line distance from Calvados Province France to the Elbe of 1000km. Yes other Armies suffered worse fighting Germany. Bad leaders, poor decisions, doctrine, & training will do that however heroic or motivated the soldiers are. I don't see any evidence the French intended to adopt the sort of methods the Japanese, Red Army, or Germans suffered under.

History Learner
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 19 Jan 2019, 10:39
Location: United States

Re: Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

#28

Post by History Learner » 27 May 2021, 05:29

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
25 May 2021, 06:22
historygeek2021 wrote:the strongest economic bloc (the United States)
Actually I think it's an interesting question whether that's meaningfully true in, say, 1960, if Japan keeps its 1936 empire. Japan, Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan were all growing rapidly up to 1944. A economically liberal peace settlement might push those territories into an early 2000's China-style growth trajectory and Hirohito's domains might rival America. Population would be higher than America's on the OTL pre-'37 trajectory; we'd probably see large-scale migration from China into booming Manchuria and Taiwan. There was negligible resistance to Japanese rule in those territories; it's hard to see them breaking off especially under conditions of prosperity that would be framed as Japan-caused. Liberalized trade with China would favor Japan, given mid-century pre-container shipping logistics, so Japan is the big winner (besides China) if order prevails in the Middle Kingdom.

The peaceful economic trajectory of the Empire of Japan is one of the greatest What If's foreclosed by WW2...

Anyway, I still don't find any of this feasible because I don't think any personality, no matter how peace-loving a Nazi we're talking about, could have held the Heer's reins without getting bucked off.
This is something I have thought about a lot and it's notable you picked 1960, which makes me think we've looked at the same sources lol. For those wondering what we mean, by the 1960s Japan was matching the U.S. not only in steel output, but also automobiles and ship tonnage produced. That Japan was limited at this time to the Home Islands alone and had to recover from the war years on top of that makes it all the more remarkable. Some quick back of envelopment calculations I did based on a "Core Empire" intact Japan (Manchuria, Korea, the Kurils, Southern Karafuto and Formosa) suggest a modern day China size economy by the 1980s or so, have a nominal GDP at or near the U.S. and with a GDP PPP surpassing it.

historygeek2021
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 17 Dec 2020, 07:23
Location: Australia

Re: Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

#29

Post by historygeek2021 » 27 May 2021, 07:38

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
27 May 2021, 02:56
From the STATISTICAL AND ACCOUNTING BRANCH OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL (June 1, 1953) (Not my artithmetic)

Deaths in battle for the US military from Dec 1941 to May 1945 were 292,131. The breakout by service: Army 234,874, Navy/Marine Corps 56,684, and Coast Guard 574.

Of the US Army deaths 52,173 deaths were Army Air forces combat deaths. = 239,958 for the Army Ground Forces. Army Ground Forces deaths in the European Theatre 141,088, Army Air Forces 36,461.

Atkinson 'Guns at Last Light' place US Army Ground Forces combat deaths from 6th June 1944 to 7 May 1945 at 110,400 in the ETO. 21 Army Group Atkinson placed as having 42,000 combat deaths & the French at 12,500 from August 1944 to 7 May 1945.

By none of these counts did the US Army suffer hundreds of thousands of combat deaths. Yet in eleven months they defeated the German armies facing them & advanced a straight line distance from Calvados Province France to the Elbe of 1000km. Yes other Armies suffered worse fighting Germany. Bad leaders, poor decisions, doctrine, & training will do that however heroic or motivated the soldiers are. I don't see any evidence the French intended to adopt the sort of methods the Japanese, Red Army, or Germans suffered under.
That is with the British, French and Russians having born most of the fighting for the previous 4 years, the Red Army occupying most of the German army on the eastern front and the U.S. air force crippling the German oil industry and transportation network by the time the U.S. army was engaged in large scale ground combat. And "deaths in battle" is clearly an attempt at mining the data to bolster your case, since over 400,000 Americans died in World War 2. Daladier wouldn't say, "Only 100,000 of our men will die in battle, it doesn't matter if 200,000 more die from their wounds and from illness."

It's also unrealistic to expect the French to reach the combat power and proficiency of the 1944 U.S. military without an economy anywhere close to that of the United States (lend-lease is unlikely if Göring stays on the defensive) and without the benefit of learning from watching all the other major powers duke it out for 4 years.

And it's ultimately just hindsight that doesn't help us in this ATL. Daladier did not possess a crystal ball allowing him to read the 1953 U.S. Statistical and Accounting Branch report. He and every other Frenchman were still in shock from the horrors of the First World War. None of them had any delusions about conquering Germany at the cost of a "mere" hundred thousand or so deaths. They knew it would be many times more than that, and that doing so would leave France and Germany without an army to stop Stalin from sweeping over Europe.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: Germany permanently stays on the defensive after conquering Poland

#30

Post by Peter89 » 27 May 2021, 17:15

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
24 May 2021, 19:29
historygeek2021 wrote:
24 May 2021, 07:31
... Stalin would be reluctant to fight a ground war against Germany alone while France sat behind the Maginot Line. The French would see it as fruitless to attack into the narrow corridor between Luxembourg and the Rhine, which was fortified by the Siegried Line, so they would be content to cripple Germany's economy through blockade. Eventually, Britain and France would realize that Germany was able to survive and maintain a defensive posture indefinitely by conducting trade through the Soviet Union. ...
I'd think a really serious look at the actual long term French plans is necessary before drawing conclusions about which way the French leadership decides 1941-1942. Economically & politically France, and Britain for that matter had some strong incentives not to allow a economically strong Germany to continue. Some sort of active offensive action vs Germany was a solution. This does not necessarily mean they were thinking in terms of bloody ground offensives. Projections for Allied air strength in late 1941 are 'large, which might be dismissed except OTL 1941 British aircraft production alone rivaled Germany. The French had sacrificed a lot of early production 1938-1939 in order to reform their aircraft industry. Their goals for 1940-1942 were ambitious. Then there was the growth of US production, which in 1940 had explosive growth, mostly for Allied purchases.

Another question is how effective a Allied perhiphrial strategy would be absent German offensive operations. Allied political and military pressure on Norway & Sweden absent any German counter action would be a easy gain. Without German aggressive success Mussolini has disincentives to act on Germanies behalf. In the longer term in this situation its in Italics interest to cooperate with the Allies vis the Blockade. Ditto for the Balkan states & Turkey. Germany on the defense loses influence in many directions. When nations like Sweden, Turkey, & Rumania find they can embargo
Germany their products & still sell at a profit elsewhere a passive German war plan is in trouble. At the end of the day Soviet resources are not a Pancea & there is no guarantee the Allies will not find a combination of incentives in that direction.

Again to judge the success of a German 'passive' strategy we need to have a much clearer understanding of French intent & examine how viable that was.
Exactly.

If the Germans don't pull off the successful campaigns in Scandinavia and Western Europe, the British-French economic blockade would be much, much more effective. The Italians might get just enough to get by through the navicert system, but definately not enough to export anything of value to Germany. Central Europe and the Balkans (Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria) would never surrender to German demands. Imports from the Iberian peninsula, Finland or Turkey would not be an option either.

In a few years, the British-French superiority would materialize in battlefield victories.

...or not. The British-French coalition knew that they just have to sit and starve Germany into submission.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

Post Reply

Return to “What if”