fuser wrote: 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?
fuser wrote: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.
fuser wrote: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.
fuser wrote: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.
fuser wrote: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.