[layman]

I would be really curious if anyone knows of any solid soviet plan on this. My understanding is that it was a wait an see policy. Wait til Germany was pinned down and weakened before stabbing them in the back and making a massive land grab.

If there was any written plan I kind of think I would have heard of it already. It was probably all just in Stalins head.

[fuser]

From what I know, no. There is no concrete evidence for any such plan, that argument depends on assumptions.

[Smilin' Dave]

It was my impression that even if Operation Barbarossa hadn't occurred in 1941, the Soviet Union would have "betrayed" Germany anyway in 1942/1943/1944. Is this not the case?

I don't think any concrete plan for an attack has ever been located. About the most you'll get is from Stalin's alleged speech of August 1939 and a later (confirmed I think?) one to graduating Red Army officers on 5th May 1941 both with general themes of 'war is inevitable' and 'we will need to take the offensive'. The former speech goes further than suggesting a planned pre-emptive strike but as I say its existence is a bit sketchy.

I think it likely from 1942 onwards if there had been no Barbarossa a Soviet attack might have been in the cards. But then again it is strange no practical groundwork was apparently being laid for it other than the general reorganisation of the Red Army in 1941, which could just as easily have been the result of the embarassments against Finland and lessons learnt from Germany's campaigns in 1940.

[fuser]

It might had been more on cards provided Germany was engaged with France in ww1 esque warfare not while most of the German Division was free to be deployed against Red Army, me thinks.

[starman2003]

If the Soviets planned to attack Germany in the event of favorable circumstances, their big chance was in June 1940. There were maybe 7 German divisions in the East, as virtually everything was committed against France and the low countries. Shirer wrote that if Stalin had attacked in June 1940, "he could've gotten as far as Berlin before any effective resistance was organized." Obviously he didn't.

[fuser]

This is just some "out of context" crap.

Germany had 15 divisons in Poland facing Red Army in May and 29 divisons in Germany i.e. 44 divisons that could had been available to react against Soviet invasion. The number decreased in June only because there was absolutely no hint regarding Red Army's movement in east if there had been those divisons would had stayed there.

So, Germany had 44 divisons where as in september 39 after almost three weeks of preparation USSR managed to mobilize 50 divisons against Poland. A more large scale commitment would had required more time, which USSR didn't had as France was collapsing rapidly neither did USSR possesed divisons in numbers that was available to her in 1941 (because it was more than doubled since 1939).

Sources :

1.David Porter "Order of Battle The Red Army in WWII"
2. Number of German divisions by front in World War II

[Wittmann]

I suggest if you are really serious, set up a PBEM (play by email) game. I can think of a few titles for this purpose.

Done and done, come on in and let's settle this
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=153207&p=14318050#p14318050

[John Grady Cole]

I just joined to hop in on this thread and get some opinions because I have thought about this before. I think sea-lion, or really any take and hold amphibious assault of England was never feasible, really at any point under any situation. But there are some interesting what ifs about what Sea Lion could have been-- a more limited campaign to defeat them. I'm thinking about a few crucial shifts

Nazis attack Gibraltar overland, through Spain. Compared to fighting anywhere in North Africa, any sort of attack on CCCP, or any amphibious assault, this seems like it is the most devastating for the least risk. I can't imagine the US or USSR throwing their hat in the ring over Spain and the Wermacht could have rolled over any (unlikely) resistance from the Spaniards. Franco kinda bluffed and delayed Hitler until reducing Gibralter was a less attractive strategic objective but as an immediate followup to the fall of France, this would have been devastating, sealing off the Med. I get that Gibraltar is a hard target (the RM have it on their caps for a reason) but so was Singapore...

The Vichy fleet in Algeria is preserved. For this, the Nazis have to make the repercussions of scuttling the ships much more clear and painful before the fact. As it was the attempt to take them over at the eleventh hour just reeks of amateur hour shenanigans. I don't think Hitler realized how valuable that fleet was, as it was the most technologically advanced surface force in Europe at the time. The germans sweeping into Spain, surrounding and ultimately reducing Gibraltar, and then inheriting the most powerful surface action group in the now- sealed Med is a bad, bad, bad turn of events for the Admiralty.

Smarter allocation of resources in procurement. The Nazis never really seemed to grasp the importance of maritime patrol aircraft in the larger context of a naval campaign. The Condor had great success, especially compared to the outlay, but it could have been so much more effective. Focus production on single engine fighters and a large, multi engine utility aircraft (like the condor) for maritime patrol, carrying airborne troops, and as a testbed for more radical technologies. A strong maritime patrol fleet ranging out thousands of miles from the coast makes shipping a nightmare for the British, who now have to ship goods around Africa and all the way up the coast of Nazi occupied Europe.

At this point, I think the British would be contained and no sort of threat for the remainder of the war, and the offensive focus could move against the Soviet Union. Excepting the shift to production of more maritime patrol aircraft, reducing Gibraltar and capturing the French fleet could have been accomplished while not compromising the timeline for Barbarossa.

If there absolutely have to be German troops on British soil, and you don't count the Channel Islands, I'm surprised I haven't seen someone float the idea of an airborne attack on Ireland yet. Although in hindsight it appears the Irish would not have welcomed the Germans with open arms, the excesses of the British in their treatment of the Irish made it an obvious weak spot. I don't love the plan, because it's basically a suicide mission. There is no way that the British would allow Ireland to be held by a division or two of German paratroops. That said, reconquering Ireland, especially if the Germans had focused even slightly on their unconventional warfare abilities, would be a nightmare. It's a given that even if the attacks were successful (not a foregone conclusion) that the vital shipyards at Belfast, the most efficient in the world, would have been a total loss. The entire city of Belfast would probably be trashed. The preponderance of weapons and ammunition awash in the country and possibly even issued to Irish paramilitaries would make a massive internal security threat even if the island was reconquered. Still, the Germans would almost certainly loose their entire airborne force for what would be a serious, but not lethal blow to the English. I think it's better just to reduce Gibralter, grab the French fleet, and if you are feeling really salty let the Italian frogmen try their luck off of U-boats snooping around the Scarpa Flow. my 2c

[pugsville]

How exactly is seizing the french fleet really going to change things?

It would have massively discredited the French Vichy regime, could well have thrown the entire french colonies straight over to the Allied camp.

It's not going to give the Germans any sort of naval superiority? The French ships didnt really add that much, it wasnt going to challenge the Royal Navy directly, and would be in the Mediterrain , any attempt to leave would lead to the Royal Navy opposing this, and with the Royal Navy carrier force and general superiority would have a fair chance to destroying significant portion of the force well before it managed to get anywhere near Britain.

Without well trained crews how are they going to be effective. Without direct willing french help training crews would be extra difficult, training naval officers is not exactly quick and easy. It make it what a year to really have some sort of half decent crews.

Any sort of Alliance with Franco's Spain had real problems, in the Franco was totally dependent of imports from America to keep the economy going, the Allies kept franco's imports particular Oil on a very short leash to stop him building up any reserves. Franco wanted a lot of resources 'up front' to counter this as well as a lot of military equipment. This would have a substainal import on the German war economy and readiness.

[John Grady Cole]

You can't see any value to having a fleet that can dominate the Med? I mean, consider how any sort of North African campaign goes down if nothing but Axis steel is floating on the Med. Extending the Allied SLOC by 6,000 miles or so is a pretty major achievement. As for manning the ships, the Italians could contribute heavily taking command of the escorts and a few cruisers. There are still plenty of veteran Germans who can be pulled from retirement to serve as officers in 1940 and for the ratings, they can use conscripts just like every single other navy in the war. The idea that only the French can train someone how to con a ship so you have to have them onboard doesn't hold up.

The idea that the Germans and Italians can't round up enough sailors and officers to fit out one, admittedly large, squadron of warships strains credulity. We are talking about virtually taking sea lift off the table as a realistic logistical option for the allies operating anywhere in the med basin. That's huge. Keep in mind, they aren't moving against the Home Squadron with this fleet, they are just dominating the med. Very much within the ability of the French + Italian fleet in 1940 with Gibraltar closed. If you can move supplies freely around the med, if your oil problem doesn't disappear it at least gets way, way less problematic. Thats not even getting into the entire 'fleet in being' argument, which the British (and Americans) heavily bought into.

I think I misunderstand your second point. Discredited more than say, them sinking all their own ships? Discredited them in the eyes of whom, the Germans? Or the French? If they have a ton of cred with the French, but it's for disobeying the Germans, I don't see how that helps the Nazis any... It's a mutiny. Plain and Simple. No good comes out of that at all, zero, and out of seizing the ships, you get an extremely modern and effective surface force with which to decimate the allies in the Med.

And I think you misunderstand my point about Franco. He flirted with both sides-- the play would just be give him one chance, right after the fall of France, then if he doesn't allow the Germans free passage to Gibraltar, you go anyway. Franco's government didn't have the coherency, motive and certainly not the military strength to resist a drive to Gibraltar. Just drive in and take it. How is he going to avoid getting hung out to dry by his brass when he floats the idea of fighting the Wehrmacht to back up the British? Never happen.

[pugsville]

the British generally ran their convoys around Africa anyway. so you do not in any way extend the allied SLOC by 6,000 miles. net effect on allied shipping routes = ZERO.

when the Germans were trying to organize their sea lion barges they could not find enough crews with any seagoing experience at all, let alone experienced officers. there was not some untapped reserve of experienced seamen and officers. likewise the Italians. naval officers took a lot of training, warships are complex systems and trained crews are necessary to make them effective. the u boat crews effectiveness nose dived after the supply of pre war well trained crews was tapped. without french help it's extra hard as you have to know how the various systems work, while some things are fairly similar there are all sorts of details the are not. unfamiliar strange ship,s poorly trained crews.i'd question how effective they could be.

you also have to get french munitions.

the royal navy would still have an edge in numbers and quality. they still had the only effective carriers in europe, which they used quite successfully against the Italians on a number of occasions.

Franco. you cannot just surprise Franco moving large forces up to the pryeness is going to announce quite openly to everyone what you are going to do. i'm sure the allies would offer to intervene to help Franco. Franco knew that his economy was stuffed the moment the allies truned off the oil and other imports. those mountains are not that easy run a blitzkrieg through. the germans ae going to need a lareg force, which the build up of which is going to be very very clear to everyone. at the very least they would be allied troops landed around Gibraltar.


if the Vichy government lost the fleet to the Germans thet would lose a lot of credibility with the general french public, if they cooperated with the Germans it might well mean the colonies refute the Vichy regime and join the free french., and they had all sorts of plans to scuttle the ships as happened later in toulon, so any seizure is hardly a certain thing.

[John Grady Cole]

Definitely some good points here, especially about the convoy distance and the switching over to French munitions, which would be a hassle. For some reason since the dawn of war Higher HQ has underestimated how much ammunition navy ships go through. It seems like it's one of those lessons that's just never learned!

I still don't buy a shortage of officers and petty officers would keep the fleet docked though. For the simple matter of scale. Think about how many landing craft you are talking about for Sea Lion to go off-- thousands. Here we are talking about two battleships, seven cruisers, and thirty destroyers. Figure 70 officers each for the battleships. 30-40 for the cruisers, and 15 for the destroyers. Those are manageable numbers from a human capital perspective, whereas the mindboggling needs for an amphibious assault are just impossible to meet really under any circumstances I can imagine. You control ALL of continental Europe essentially and you can't round up 140 old salts to fill out a couple Battleships wardrooms? Unlikely. I can't buy it. It's less than a 1000 officers, total. They had easily enough vets to handle that and even if somehow they are all deleted off the face of the earth for arguments sake, look how fast they could make 1000 pilots- which has a considerably longer upfront training period, with a much higher washout rate. Not in any way insurmountable. The munitions I can buy being a problem, sure, and limiting for the short term. But there isn't an officer crunch large enough, that early in the war, to keep those ships pierside.

Additionally-- a submarine is completely different than a battleship in terms of the individual importance of each sailor. On a BB of CL one squared away sailor can pull a lot of dead weight until the lubbers get their sea legs. On a submarine each man is so critical that practically every sailor is a single point of failure. Naval officers take SOME training, but not as much as you might think. The stuff the average division officer needs to know about fighting the ship and navigating can be taught in just over a month. I know because it happened to me, on a warship with systems far, far more complex than anything floating around in 1940.

The RN would have an edge in TOTAL numbers, sure. A huge edge. A huge, irrelevant edge. Local superiority is all that matters. Like if I get mugged on the subway, it doesn't really matter how many guns I have in a safe at home, you know? If the Axis have 2-3x numerical superiority in the Med, they control the med. Especially as attrition in the allied units can't be replaced after Gibraltar is closed.

Quality wise I disagree too. Well, material quality. Professional knowledge the edge in surface warfare has to go to the British due to their institutional experience. But the French ships, especially the battleships, were qualitatively the best ships in the world, after the South Dakota class battleships in the US, which were so well designed that even at the end of the war they could solo pretty much anything thrown at them, except maybe an Iowa which were just brakeless rape trains.

Franco would be boned. Sure he can see you mass on the Pyrenees. So what? Even if you telegraph the punch he's not going to try and fight the Wermacht when they aren't forcing him too. It's ridiculous for him to do so. And your argument here is that the British could assemble enough landing craft and men and equipment to effect an amphibious reinforcement of Gibraltar before the Germans can just drive there. That's not realistic. Plus, think about that politically for a second. How are you going to sell an amphibious operation of that magnitude, with that slim of chances of success, to the British people not 3-4 weeks after the disaster at Dunkirk? Or hell, the British Army itself? You'd have a considerable risk of mutiny at that point and then you've lost the entire war.

There is just a zero percent chance of them being able to pull that off, politically or militarily. The British were seriously spooked after Dunkirk and throwing away what scraps they had left on a forlorn reinforcement of Gibraltar was not reasonable when the average Brit expected to see German landing craft on the horizon within the next few months. You say the allies... but at this point there really aren't any allies. It's the Brits. The Americans aren't going to show up with their at that time nonexistent amphibious landing forces. The French have just been annihilated and the Soviets are still sidelined.

I still think I just don't understand something about your wording of the Vichy thing. I mean, they already agreed to give the Germans the ships. That was already in ink, everybody knew about it. They had already lost the face or whatever. It was the individual ship captains that scuttled the vessels, no one to do with the Vichy government. The only thing that would not discredit them was to successfully turn them over, forcefully if need be. At least they then have some semblance of being in control. Maybe you can state it in a different way or something because that's just not clicking for me.

[pugsville]

timing, 3 weeks after Dunkirk is the french surrender nothing can be even started till then,most of the German army especially the armor needed a refit after the campaign, even a rush job it's going to 8 weeks after Dunkirk.( which was a German daistater not a British one)

the British only lost 65,000 men killed, wounded or taken prisoner. less than 1/7th of those committed, which was not even most of the British army while a lot of equipment was was lost we're talking much less than 10% of British army manpower. while the army had lost equipment the air force and only committed modest forces. the overall loses in France were no shattering.

there was no agreement to hand over french ships, the french clung to that as a matter of honor. a quick betrayal of that would have repercussions, the Germans quickly trearing up the the treaty with the ink still wet could have a lot of Frenchmen reconsidering the decision to not fight on, 100,000 french troops in north Africa could be used in Spain,

there was never a chance to get the french fleet in Algeria, Churchill and operation catapult made sure of that. the ships a toulon could have been seized but a German incursion into Vichy would be very serious politically, and the french may of simply sailed off and joined the British or scuttled the ships.

crewing while a lot of the crew could make do, the Germans had no reserve at all of naval personnel, there were no vets to enlist, the first world war was too long ago. it had undergone a rapid expansion, and the french fleet at toulon though not big 2 battleships 7 cruisers, 13 destroyers was effectively the same size as the entire German fleet, doubling the fleet overnight controlling vast amounts of Europe gives you nothing, the Germans could not find 4,000 odd crews with even some sea experience for the river barges they were going to use in sea lion. whatever experienced crew that could be obtained could only come at the expensive of existing ships ( the Italians had to find wartime crews, the peace time crew being very under strength) reading signals, laying the guns requires skill as does handling the ships individually and as a fleet, and the french ships would be unfamiliar systems, ( for experienced crew there was)

why should Franco co-operate? the allies and going to cut off his oil, his economy is going to just break, the Germans are trashing him, if he gets a chance to stick to the Germans he would after that. without active cooperation the Germans have no supply lines, must man the railways ( the Spanish railways were crap and most likely would be a pretty poor logistical asset even if the Spanish helped
0 and deploy garrisons to ensure supplies. 1,000 km is a long supply line.

the British just drive from Gibraltar, they are defending Spain, Franco lets them in,


i see don't see what the whole episode achieves for the axis. sure they can now land supplies in north Africa more easily, but they landed most of those pretty well on the whole anyway, their logistical difficulties where much greater than shipping, ports and trucks, long supply lines on bad roads. it would a negligible effect on the amount of forces they could support in north Africa, have little effect on allied supply, and the britsh could always send more ships to the eastern med via the seuz.

[anondragon2012]

I have not read the 5 pages of thread but will do so now.

Here is my take on it.

First...Operation Sealion was infeasible in 1940. This is why the Fuhrer cancelled it.

The main focus on the argument in my opinion is not the invasion of Britain.
It is the Soviet Union. More precisely, if there was no Barbarossa and a Germany full engaged with Britain in Africa and elsewhere, What would Stalin do?

Basically, we can talk all day about the slugging match between Germany and the Axis with the UK.
Pages can be written about who would win this and how long it would take (1947-1950).
There is also of course the scenario of USA entry in the war (potentially unavoidable) and the development of nukes and nuking Germany (I think most likely would have happened).

But set this aside for a moment. Just imagine a war until 1950 and beyond between Germany & UK/USA with no way to predict who will win.
The wild card here is the USSR. Because if they invade Germany then its all over.

To me...Per Stalin statements and much research...Its clear USSR was planning to attack Nazi Germany. The question is when.
I am not exactly sure if Stalin waited for collapse of "Capitalist Imperialist countries" aka collapse of UK/USA to backstab Germany, or if he would just engage Germany in 1942 or later during the war.

But again this is the wild card. It defines Germany's existence.
1. USSR No intervention (highly unlikely) = Germany has 50/50 chance to win war.
2. USSR Intervention = Germany would have lost without barbarossa even before 1945 (probably 1942).

Again if you look purely on the German/USA/UK war then it can take pages to debate who would win and its not clear cut.
- Sealion unfeasible yes. But how about in 1942 or 1943? How about a Commando Airborne operation (yes I know about Creta but who knows?)? How about a Rommel victory in Africa? How about Vichy France maybe joining fight against UK?
- Really this is a repeat of WW1. Finish the UK before USA can come in and invade Europe.

CAN GERMANY FINISH UK BEFORE USA COMES IN ?
I personally think that....In 1940 Hitler did not see power of Uboots. He did not anticipate Doenitz being brilliant as he was.
I think with full engagement of Uboots against England the Royal Navy is neutralized (before Uboots become useless by end of war).

I think with a daring Airborne attack something can be done. Yes not entire UK can be captured. But imagine a huge force of Germans in London or capturing key points. It can be done.

I can also see the Luftwaffe being improved after Battle of Britain (instead of being focused on Eastern Front).
I can see it neutralizing the RAF.
The Luftwaffe in long run when you see the advancement was more advanced than RAF. I think in long run also with missile technology RAF could have been beaten.

But again all this depends on USSR sitting on its *** whilst Germany fights UK. Is this realistic ask yourself that?

[fuser]

You really need to read all the five pages then. Also see this thread

Germany would had most definitely lost even without Barbarossa, Uboats role are grossly exaggerated, they never threatened anything. In all less than 3% of merchant shipping was sunk by U boats and only two months in entire war when more merchant shipping was destroyed than produced by allies.

Airborne attacks require air superiority which Germany utterly failed to achieve. Luftwaffe was not more advanced that RAF, every major country had developed their own jet planes but they were sane enough not to mass produce it at the level of Germany as it required more resources.

Also what research led you to believe USSR was planning to attack Germany other than victor shit suvorov, there is simply no evidence except for Zhukhov once saying that which was discarded completely by political leadership and other personnel in military.

[anondragon2012]

You really need to read all the five pages then. Also see this thread

Germany would had most definitely lost even without Barbarossa, Uboats role are grossly exaggerated, they never threatened anything. In all less than 3% of merchant shipping was sunk by U boats and only two months in entire war when more merchant shipping was destroyed than produced by allies.

Airborne attacks require air superiority which Germany utterly failed to achieve. Luftwaffe was not more advanced that RAF, every major country had developed their own jet planes but they were sane enough not to mass produce it at the level of Germany as it required more resources.

Also what research led you to believe USSR was planning to attack Germany other than victor shit suvorov, there is simply no evidence except for Zhukhov once saying that which was discarded completely by political leadership and other personnel in military.

1. Lost against whom first of all?
The UK alone or the USA? As this changes everything.

2. There are sources that indicate the RAF was on the brink of collapse in 1940.
Hitler shifted his attention to Barbarossa which gave the British the necessary breathing time.
To me its absolutely not clear cut that Germany vs. UK alone would have lost. And I have now read the 5 pages of this thread.

I am absolutely aware of the mathematics involved on paper about both German and UK military.
I know about the Raeder Z Plan and how the German Navy was nothing compared to the UK Navy.

But on paper strength vs. outcome of battle is completely different in reality, and the Battle of France showed this perfectly.
I fully acknowledge that Sealion in 1940 was unfeasible, as Hitler said himself.
My point is that the whole Germany vs. UK campaign is a big what if, because you absolutely do not know when a decisive victory can be done, regardless of the units on paper. Hitler himself said that the UK can be beaten without invading England.

Also in 1940 many Germans Wehrmacht troops were disappointed that they were shifted to Barbarossa & Balkans instead of invading England (most Wehrmacht Heer troops in France, in Dunkirk, expected this to swiftly happen after Dunkirk). There was a clear "now we can get England" and mood of invincibility, and Hitler was mocked by most German troops (I remember the common joke being that Hitler was a "Land rat" afraid to do amphibious operations).
My point is that in war...Often what matters is not paper strength, but will of commanders to succeed in operation which is always an unpredictable point in war.

3. What do I base my opinion of USSR on?
Multiple Soviet statements and Statements by Stalin.
Of course military reality on the ground (placement of troops) is more realistic I acknowledge this of course.
But intent of Holocaust for example is massively evidenced by Hitler or Himmler statements, so I believe using Stalin statements for me is not a massive stretch.

[fuser]

1. Lost against whom first of all?
The UK alone or the USA? As this changes everything.

Germany couldn't defeat either UK or USA, allied or otherwise.

There are sources that indicate the RAF was on the brink of collapse in 1940.

What sources?

But on paper strength vs. outcome of battle is completely different in reality, and the Battle of France showed this perfectly.

Germany had total air superiority over France with double the strength in air planes than allies.

Also in 1940 many Germans Wehrmacht troops were disappointed that they were shifted to Barbarossa & Balkans instead of invading England (most Wehrmacht Heer troops in France, in Dunkirk, expected this to swiftly happen after Dunkirk). There was a clear "now we can get England" and mood of invincibility, and Hitler was mocked by most German troops (I remember the common joke being that Hitler was a "Land rat" afraid to do amphibious operations).

This proves nothing, I am afraid.

What do I base my opinion of USSR on?
Multiple Soviet statements and Statements by Stalin.

Such as and source?

[anondragon2012]

Germany couldn't defeat either UK or USA, allied or otherwise.

So what happened in 1940 when entire British expeditionary force was routed and almost wiped off the planet?

What sources?

I have to find these sources (dont have them underhand at moment). But I remember clearly numerous military strategists/Historians from Britain say that the RAF was on the brink of collapse and that had the Luftwaffe pushed on with focusing on eradicating it (instead of shifting to revenge bombings of civilians), the RAF would have probably lost.

But again, the Battle of Britain in 1940 for me is not the key point.
The key point and the point of this whole thread, is had not Barbarossa happened and Germany Vs. UK battle alone, what scenarios happen.

Germany had total air superiority over France with double the strength in air planes than allies.

The battle of France is another battle like Battle of Britain which has been mythologised by biased historians as massive Blitzkrieg superiority of Germans over France.

The Luftwaffe was surely more advanced than French Airforce, but it was not the decisive factor in any warfare strategy in 1940.
You talk of Luftwaffe/Air force in 1940 as if it decides battles like in 1944 or 1945. Reality of airforce/Luftwaffe in battle is that at most it is psychological advantage not decisive military advantage.

On paper again, French Army was actually superior than German Army. The deciding factor here is the HEER or Land Army.
French tanks were massively superior than German tanks. Infantry was about equal, despite what you hear.

The reason the Germans won Battle of France against not only French but English, is because of daring and tactical genius by some commanders. Hitler's entire campaign was based on massive risk taking gambling vs. French conservative thinking. In general this is how you win in life aswell but this is other topic
Also French leaders did not believe in victory. This is same point I made before. If you want to win you must see yourself as victor. The Germans were ready to do anything to win, the French were reacting to German moves not taking initiatives.

But the French Army was superb as was its equipment, which later was much used by Germans who requisitioned it.

This proves nothing, I am afraid.

What it proves is that the German soldiers ON THE GROUND, the ones who knew best about REALITY OF BATTLE, thought they could win.
In Dunkirk for example, German soldiers wondered why they watched British escape when they knew they could annihilate them.
But again this is not my main point as isnt the battle of Britain.

This was just made to illustrate the reality of war, which is that the ones who win are imaginative and what is written on paper isn't what decides the battle. History has shown this so many times over.

Such as and source?

For example this statement by Stalin in 1939.
"A war is on between two groups of capitalist countries... for the redivision of the world, for the domination of the world! We see nothing wrong in their having a good hard fight and weakening each other... Hitler, without understanding it or desiring it, is shaking and undermining the capitalist system... We can manoeuvre, pit one side against the other to set them fighting with each other as fiercely as possible... The annihilation of Poland would mean one fewer bourgeois fascist state to contend with! What would be the harm if as a result of the rout of Poland we were to extend the socialist system onto new territories and populations?"

Also you seem to miss the entire purpose of Polish campaign from Soviet Side.
Soviet invade Poland to have more military appropriate border with Germany in case of Invasion. Really for both Germany & USSR, elimination of Poland was necessary to establish better defensive borders between the two states.

Otherwise Stalin would declare war on Germany with invasion of Poland and not sign pact dividing Poland.

[fuser]

So what happened in 1940 when entire British expeditionary force was routed and almost wiped off the planet?

Britain still fought the war alone and was not defeated

I have to find these sources (dont have them underhand at moment). But I remember clearly numerous military strategists/Historians from Britain say that the RAF was on the brink of collapse and that had the Luftwaffe pushed on with focusing on eradicating it (instead of shifting to revenge bombings of civilians), the RAF would have probably lost.

That's a myth.

From "The Most Dangerous Enemy by Stephen Bungay":

13 August

RAF fighter force = 579
Luftwaffe fighter force = 1042

7 September when the switch was made

RAF fighter force = 621
Luftwaffe fighter force = 770 i.e RAF is in much better shape compared to Luftwaffe at the time when switch was made.

The Luftwaffe was surely more advanced than French Airforce, but it was not the decisive factor in any warfare strategy in 1940.

Actually it was the deciding factor: Battle of Sedan

Arguably the most important battle of the campaign as crossing the meuse was of vital importance for the scissor cut to success and this was achieved by Luftwaffe only without Luftwaffe support German Infantry couldn't had succeeded.

On paper again, French Army was actually superior than German Army. The deciding factor here is the HEER or Land Army.
French tanks were massively superior than German tanks. Infantry was about equal, despite what you hear.

I don't hear anything else. I agree French Tanks were superior but Germans made up in that by their operational superiority.

What it proves is that the German soldiers ON THE GROUND, the ones who knew best about REALITY OF BATTLE, thought they could win.

Actually ground soldiers don't know about the strategic reality of war, as you yourself said they were waiting to cross the channel but strategically it was an impossibility.

For example this statement by Stalin in 1939.
"A war is on between two groups of capitalist countries... for the redivision of the world, for the domination of the world! We see nothing wrong in their having a good hard fight and weakening each other... Hitler, without understanding it or desiring it, is shaking and undermining the capitalist system... We can manoeuvre, pit one side against the other to set them fighting with each other as fiercely as possible... The annihilation of Poland would mean one fewer bourgeois fascist state to contend with! What would be the harm if as a result of the rout of Poland we were to extend the socialist system onto new territories and populations?"

Source? Also I fail to see any intent or military planning to actually invade Germany. This quote is a very flimsy evidence, I am afraid.

Also you seem to miss the entire purpose of Polish campaign from Soviet Side.
Soviet invade Poland to have more military appropriate border with Germany in case of Invasion

I don't see how I fail to see it considering that I agree with you here.

Otherwise Stalin would declare war on Germany with invasion of Poland and not sign pact dividing Poland

USSR was not in shape of an invasion of Germany in 1939. Just to give a hint, Red army almost tripled in size from September 1939 to June 1941.

Source : "David Porter, Order of Battle, The Red Army in WWII."

[KlassWar]

I don't think the Soviet Union would have launched an invasion before the completion of their Five-Year-Plan and the process of modernization and rearmament of the Red Army. The Soviets would have likely waited till 1944 to attack, if possible.