Hitler uses his huge forces more constantly and efficiently

OTL Japan admired Poland for defeating the USSR in 1921. Japan and Poland were allies. They shared intelligence about Soviet codes, forces, etc, If Poland joins Germany, Romania, Finland, etc, against the USSR, Japan is more likely to attack the USSR than if the Polish army is wiped out and Germany invades only with weaker allies.
Especially if Germany also includes Japan, China, India, Indochina, etc, in the Soviet sphere of influence in the secret protocol and then leaks it to Japan.

 

There is an argument for Germany using their forces more efficiently, but not one for using it more constantly.

The Wehrmacht was designed to be used sparingly and for short duration engagements and not prolonged attrition like conflicts. Once committed to a attritional battle her fate was essentially sealed. .

 

Where is the attrition in using an idle army to invade Lithuania, Hollland, Luxemburg and Denmark in April 1939, Sweden and Norway a little later. There are fewer losses invading those weak countries in 1939 than attacking Holland simultaneously with 3 other countries or fighting Soviet forces in Lthuania simultaneously with strong forces in Belorussia, Ukraine, Murmansk, etc, Those invasions provide better training than boot camp and the troops are earning their wages and sustenance.

 

Absolutely no.

Once again, you fail to understand the politics of the situation. It was vital for the democracies after the debacle of the Great War, not to go to war trivially. Czechoslavakia does not threaten the existence or independence of the UK. Germany possessing the ports of the Low Countries does. You don't want to see this, and admit you are wrong because it doesn't fit your "plan". No serious researcher of the period would suggest this as an alternative.


The internal politics of pre-war Poland would never agree to an alliance with Germany. Never. You may just as well have France and the UK joining the Nazi-Communist Alliance, and sing "Kumbaya".

 

Again. How does the occupation of Poland threaten the existence or independence of the UK any more than the occupation of Czech. does? Britain simply could not afford war in April 1939 and especially with Holland already occupied. Britain and France declared war only because they had a pact and because hey thought that Germany would take a while to defeat Poland, so Germany presented no immediate threat to the UK or France.
Precisely because Holland, Denmark and Luxemburg are so important for Britain and France, once the former are rapidly occupied, it is too late to declare war (they have been outmaneuvered)- All they can do is hope that Germany will gave them some time to prepare for war, before it invades France. Declaring war only presses Germany to attack sooner, rather than later.

OTL Poland was caught between the hammer and the anvil and had no options, both Germany and the USSR threatened it for years. France and Britain could do nothing to help it against a joint German Soviet invasion. Ideology or principles are trumped by survival (which is why Hitler and Stalin signed a pact). Given the choice between being promptly anhilated by two giants and joining one of the giants against the other (pretty much the same choice Finland, Hungary and Romania had to make), no country would chose prompt anihilation. Joining Germany (the more competent giant) against the USSR provides time and weakens both giants, so that Poland may survive or even gain some territory (the Poles knew how incompetent a strategist Stalin was and the USSR was too large for Germany to rule alone). Fighting both Germany and the USSR iin Polish soil is suicidal, joining Germany to fight the USSR in Soviet soil is by far the lesser of two evils. The Poles had just seen how Stalin starved millions of Ukrainians, etc, in order to export grain in 1932, how he murdered or sent to prison millions during the purges, etc, in 1939 Hitler is an altarboy, compared to Stalin.

 

"Any reason why you say this (other than "they were even less prepared than in 1940")? Surely you consulted literature and primary source documents to make such a specific claim? Please share -- I'd like to know."

Still waiting for an answer.....

All your plans take the same form: you hand-wave a novel strategic plan, throw in some specific references to locales and ill-founded references to commanders, tank/aircraft models, etc, but don't explain how to accomplish any of it. When asked or questioned you throw up "logic", vague numbers, tell others to do their "research" and insult all those who question you. However, this is NOT a way to have a constructive debate. To give you credit -- your plans are interesting, but they operate on the assumption that you win wars solely by outmaneuvering the enemy. Please try to take the execution of the plan into account rather than saying (in short) "unit X advances to Y and then Z, operation is a success and much better than OTL".

 

The occupation of Poland does not threaten the UK; but, and this is where you are also going to disconnect; by that time, after the piecemeal consumption of Czechoslavakia, Hitler was no longer credible in the eyes of the UK as "just" seeking to unite German speakers. Which was the argument originally made for Sudetenland, at which time, Hitler promised he had no further demands. By invading Poland, it was apparent he had greater aspirations.

This all ties into public opinions at the time on the unjustness Versailles, further the perception that Czechoslavakia was another mishmash of ethnic groups that weren't going to get along. Hitler exploited this.

Invading a whole bunch of other small near homogenic countries, with almost no native German speakers, would only aggravate the other powers earlier.

Seriously, Holland?!?

If the British were going to back down from a fight, merely because it was difficult, they wouldn't have gotten involved in WW2 in the first place. Selling war for the sake of Holland would've been far, far easier to the British and Commonwealth public, than Poland ever was. You really are misinterpreting British actions leading up to the war. Given your inability to understand Finland, and its situation, I can't say I'm surprised you have difficulty grasping the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

The devil is in the details, those details you like to gloss over and claim they are "illogical".

WRT Poland
Again, you are entirely missing Polish politics, Polish expectations, Polish history, and using hindsight to condemn politicians, based on information you have today, that they most certainly did not possess. There is so much wrong and incorrect in what you have written regarding the Polish situation, I can't really be bothered.

 

I wrote that Holland is less prepared in 1939 in peace time (as are Lithuania, Denmark and even Luxemburg which put up barriers to slow down the Germans after the war started). There are fewer troops and planes and few or no troops guarding airports, bridges (which are not set to blow up on command), canals, rivers, RR and road hubs, ports, fuel and munitions dumps, armories, telephone and telegraph lines, etc, furthermore in peacetime the KM can easily access parts of coastal Holland at night, passenger and cargo ships loaded with troops, etc, can dock at night in Rotterdam and other ports, Lufthansa planes loaded with troops can land in airports to capture them and allow military planes to land more troops, trains can also enter Holland with troops, etc, arrest costums officers checking documents with the train in motion and continue to advance, barges can carry hidden troops along the Rhine and canals and large numbers of young German tourists can enter the country one or two days before the invasion without raising concerns. Most importantly, because an invasion of Holland is certainly not expected at the beginning of the war, the polticians and military leaders are stunned by the rapid advance and cannot expect the allies to respond in time- They have no time to organize any meningfu resistance, so they have no choice but to capitulate
OTL in 1940 the Dutch fought only because they were ready and expected the already mobilized French and British armies to rush through Belgium to come to their aid. In April 1939 they are not ready and there is no large, mechanized, allied force in N France to come to their aid. The Belgians will be as surprised as the Dutch and certainly cannot deploy their small army to Holland and leave Belgium vulnerable.

OTL hundreds of Ju 52 and thousands of airborne troops were lost in Holland. Not only was this a major loss, it also hampered and delayed the invasion considerably. Had most of those troops and planes not been lost, several crucial airports and cities would have fallen and resistance collapsed sooner.

While OTL the KM had been trounced in Norway before the invasion of Holland, it was much stronger in 1939. Likewise, the LW had lost many planes in Poland and Norway (including seaplanes and Ju 52, which would help a lot in Holland), but it was intact in April 1939. Poland cost also 50,000 well traned men, a lot of Panzer I, trucks, etc, which are available for Holland. Paratroopers were also lost in Norway, which were available in April 1939.

OTL air support in Holland was relatively weak, because the bulk of the LW was supporting Kleist's force breaking through near Sedan. ATL there are at least 450 Ju 52 transporting troops and then supplies, 800 Bf 109, 120 Bf 110, 200 Stuka, 700 He 111 300 Do 17, 30 Hs 123 and 80 sea planes in small Holland, with a smaller LW in Lithuania, a much smaller LW in Denmark and none in Luxemburg. So the weak dutch defenses are completely overwhelmed. The airborne troops, Panzers, troops debarked at the ports, canals and along the Rhine or transported by train and thousands of German tourirists which receive weapons by plane or from the trains and ships are receiving awesome air support, resulting in the first Blitzkrieg invasion in a couple of days, which shocks the world (especially Belgium, Britain and France) even more than the rapid fall of distant Poland did OTL.

Although the British, Dutch and Americans expected a Japanese attack, the Japanese used well the surprise factor of starting WW II in the Pacific by striking in several places simultaneously. In contrast, Germany wasted the invaluable surprise factor of starting WW II in Europe attacking the only country which expected an attack: Poland (which was much stronger than small, unsuspectng, neutral countries, but provided Germany no great strategic advantages to start a war).

 

None of what you wrote is relevant in dealing with the fact, that the UK and Commonwealth declare war when Germany invades Holland. It doesn't matter that they can't prevent the collapse of the Dutch resistance. At that stage, it becomes very clear to everyone, that German aggression simply cannot be allowed to go on. On that date, German excuses are revealed for that are, and are publically reviled.

If there ever was a definitive line in the sand, beyond which Germany cannot go without the UK declaring war, invading the Low Countries is that line. Far moreso than Poland. Ignore at your peril.

 

Your suggestions that in your ATL that German invades Holland by "secretly" loading civilian ships, aircraft and trains with soldiers - along with a force of heavily armed "tourists" - is pure absurdity. This is something better suited to a 1980s low-budget action movie (the Chuck Norris classic "Invasion USA" comes to mind) than any sort of historical reality.

My brain hurts -- I'm done here. Carry on, gentlemen. I guess the "blind" like myself are just not capable of seeing the genius behind these plans.....

 

Did not (even during wartime) Germany use cargo ships with hidden troops, weapons, munitions, etc, during Weserübung?
Did not (even during wartime) the Brandenburg division introduce men as civilians in Holland for the invasion?
Were there not thousands of Germans in Holland at any given time in April 1939?
Did not German trains enter Holland daily in April 1939, without being stopped and inspected at the border?
Did not Lufthansa have flights to Holland?
Were German barges and boats along the Rhine and canals inspected before docking?
Did not Holland order 120 105 mm guns and other materiel from Germany, which Germany can pretend to be delivering when it introduces them to Holland for the invasion?

Concealed and airborne forces represent a small, but important part of the invasion, since they can start far from the borders, where they are not expected.
Coventional forces advancing from the borders and coast with much heavier air support and mechanized units than OTL do the bulk of the work.

 

.
.
.
EDIT: Not worth my time

 

It's really funny how you conjure up facts in a hypothetical scenario,

Was it not glaringly obvious that German aggression had to be stopped when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, breaking all his promises and acquiring invaluable industry?
Yet, Britain, France or Poland did not declare because they needed time to expand and arm their forces.

With German planes, tanks, U and S-boats, etc, in Holland, not only is it not a fact, but it is quite unlikely that Britain, France, Belgium or Poland will rush into war, with completely inadequate air forces and with France clearly exposed to German invasion through central Belgium. Actually, if Germany proposes 3 year non aggression pacts with Belgium, Britain and France, they would probably jump at the chance to strengthen their forces and build a Maginot in Belgium

You simply fail to realize that it is completely different for France and Britain to declare war with the WM and LW engaged in Poland (where they expect the war to last many months and Germany to take heavy losses, since they ignored that the USSR is also going to invade Poland) and with Holland and Belgium intact (so that the Maginot is still guarding France and France and Britain have time to make planes and to buy them from the US) from declaring war with the WM, KM and LW beyond the Maginot and quite close to London.

 

As much hogwash and crapola you have thrown into this post, would've been easily avoided if you were really as well read as you like to pretend.

It is a matter of the German possession of Czechoslavakia was of course a lynchpin; however, it was not a direct threat, demanding an immediate response, in the way occupying Holland would ever be. This is simple fact you refuse to acknowledge, in spite of vast reams of readily available evidence, some of which has already been pointed out to you, merely because it proves your incredibly limited understanding, and completely undermines yet another of your hypothesis. As further evidence, I need point no further than the myriad of other threads you have blurted out your views.

 

Precisely because it is a direct and unsurmountable threat at France and Britain, they cannot afford to start the war from a weak position.
You do not start fighting when you're not armed and a person points a gun at you.

It is much the same thing as the Japanese invasion of Indochina (an attack on France and a direct threat at British Malaya and Borneo, Thailand, the DEI and American PI), which brought about sanctions, but no declaration of war at all. And Japan was weak, in relation to the coalition of China, Britain, the DEI and the US. In contrast, the LW is much stronger than RAF and l'armee de l'air together.

 

In your dreams it was.

Britain was armed, as was France. So your analogy is not just flawed, it is a quadriplegic trying to crawl out of a burning train wreck plunging off a bridge over a very steep canyon.

 

The biggest risk is that Belgium stops pretending it can remain neutral and starts cooperating with the allies in preparing Belgium for invasion. The other factor is Gamelin decided to use his 7th army and send it to Holland, since that is no longer needed it will be available as reserve and would be able to react to an Ardennes thrust.

 

This is 1 April 1939. Belgium, France, Holland and Britain are completely unprepared and Holland falls in a few days. Belgium finds itself facing a large force and its air force is even weaker than OTL. Eben Emael, etc, are moot. Belgium has these options

1) Remain neutral, mobilize the army, rapidly try to fortify the central N border and acquire more armament.
2) Join the allies, which are quite divided, since Britain knows that France and Belgium are doomed and it faces the LW in Holland, so Britain refuses to send any of its few modern fighters and an expeditionary force to France or Belgium, which makes France and Belgium feel abandonned and betrayed. The best that Belgium could hope for would be for France to send a large force into Belgium, which will at best result in years of heavy fighting and devastation and at worst in the defeat of France and Belgium, considerable devastation and German occupation anyway.
3) Forego its neutrality and grant right of passage to German forces immediately and continue trading with Germany, dooming France but avoiding destruction and securing its independence. Belgium knows that if it had done so in 1914, it would not have been destroyed, incurred heavy casualties, ruined its economy and starved and Germany would have rapidly defeated France, so WW I would have lasted much less and killed millions fewer.
4) Offering Germany a secret alliance to attack France together, with Belgium avoiding devastation, remaining independent, gaining some territory and helping Germany to achieve a rapid victory, minimizing devastation and losses in France.
5) Peaceful annexation by Germany.
3, 4 and 5 would probably result in the loss of mineral rich Belgian Congo, unless Germany defeats both France and Britain or unless Belgium can get the US to administer and secure it during the war (only possible with 3).

 

cancelled

 

cancelled