(Drazen Kramaric) wrote in message ...
On 28 Oct 2003 10:15:27 -0800, (Stuart Wilkes)
wrote:


France surrendered because it had no more manpower nor space to continue
the war so all their remaining soldiers went to POW camps.

And the Soviet government did not surrender

Correct. Unlike French government, it still had the territory,
manpower and industrial resources to continue the fight with. However,
just like French government, Soviet government tried to negotiate a
cease fire.

The Soviets discussed it, with the Bulgarian Ambassador in Moscow.
When and to whom was the offer actually made?

The difference is that Hitler rebuffed Soviet approach,
but accepted the French (contrary to the wishes of some senior German
generals). Had Hitler refused Petain's request for the cease fire,
French government would probably left metropolitan France and settled
in Algeria. It would still leave Germans as masters of France.

nor did it fail to employ its air force

You will be well advised to check the number of aircraft (+1500)
Germans lost in the Battle for France.

"The French fighter force had available to it during the battle more
than 2900 modern aircraft. At no time did it have more than one-fifth
of these deployed against the Germans. The operational rate of the
fighter force was 0.9 sorties per aircraft per day at the height of
the battle. (German fighter units flew up to four sorties per aircraft
per day.) Yet in spite of committing only a minor portion of its
resources at a low usage rate, the fighter force accounted for between
600 and 1000 of the 1439 German aircraft destroyed during the battle."

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a.../kirkland.html

One wonders at the possible result if they had fought with more
committment.

nor did it fly a suprisingly intact air force to North Africa.

It wasn't intact and was definitely defeated.

Really.

"By 15 June, the French and German air forces were at approximate
parity with about 2400 aircraft each, but the French were operating
from their own turf, and they had the support of the RAF. Mastery of
the air was there for the seizing, but on 17 June the French air staff
began to order its units to fly to North Africa. The justification put
forth by the air staff was that the army was destroyed and could not
protect the airfields.

An examination of which units were ordered to North Africa and which
were left behind reveals much about the motivation behind the
evacuation. The units flown to North Africa were those regular air
force squadrons with the most modern and effective aircraft--all of
the squadrons equipped with the Curtiss 75A (10), Dewoitine 520 (10),
Amiot 354 (8), Bloch 174 (18), Farman 222 (4), Douglas DB-7 (8), and
Martin 167 (10), plus most of those with the Lioré et Olivier 451 (12
of 18). Those left behind included all of the air force reserve
units--47 observation squadrons and 12 fighter squadrons--and all of
the units closely connected with the army (the observation squadrons,
the 10 assault bomber squadrons, and 7 night fighter squadrons
converted to the ground assault role)."

Same link as above

Luftwaffe also had
hundreds if not thousands of aircraft scattered on the airfields in
Germany on May 8th, 1945. So what? They still lost the war.

A difference being that the French could import AvGas?

Why? If the French government left assets unemployed and surrendered
them, why should that count against the Soviets?

It refutes the story you are trying to sell.

Nonsense.

Did the French leave large assets unemployed, only to surreneder them?

but would represent argument against your thesis, that
Red Army represented the most efficient enemy realistically possible.

Did I say efficient? Nope. More determined and more effective at
killing German troops? Sure.

First, there were much more Germans and their allies deployed on the
front line in 1941 than in 1940.

I don't doubt it.

Check the figures. Second, the ratio
of losses was appaling as well as the territory lost.

I never said that the Soviets didn't take appalling losses in 1941. I
said that they fought back better than the West did in the Battle of
France.

The only reason
Soviet Union did not surrender is that it was big enough and by that I
don't mean on this tiny strip of Polish and Rumanian territory stolen
in 1939 and 1940.

And I never said that that 150km was decisive. I've said that Soviet
margins were thin in 1941, and that extra territory did impact the
1941 campaign in a way that reduced German success.

I see this as a Good Thing.

You are representing this as 3,000,000 German soldiers appeared out of
nowehere next to the Soviet border.

Was it a sneak attack, or not Drax?

Hey, few message ago you were writing about the defensive measures
Stalin adopted and were using that as a proof that he wasn't surprised
and that he expected German attack in 1941.

I wrote nothing so absurd.

Make up your mind, either
Stalin was wise by making treaty with Hitler and made all the
necessary preparations for the inevitable German attack in 1941 or he
took Hitler by his word and left the country unprepared for the
invasion announced as early as first edition of "Mein Kampf".

My mind is perfectly clear on it.

Stalin believed there was a risk of German attack in 1941, that risk
growing to a near-certainty in 1942. While he believed Germany would
not attack while at war with Great Britain, he mobilized reserves in
case he was wrong.

The primary person responsible for Red Army been caught napping

He took a calculated risk on being able to delay a German attack until
1942.

By pretending that attack was not going to happen? Again, make up your
mind.

I'm quite clear on it.

You wrote how Stalin had a directive for Barbarossa,

For preparations, yes.

we all know
British were bombarding Stalin with reports about German preparations,

Including during a time that British intelligence believed that the
German preparations for Barbarossa were really intended to pressure
the Soviets into a closer relationship with Germany.

the concentration of Wehrmach in Poland was impossible to hide,

Indeed. The GRU tracked the German buildup closely. What was unclear
was the political intention behind it.

is the man you feel was justified in invading Poland, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania and Finland under the pretext of "security in case of German
attack".

I do not believe that the attack on Finland was justified.

Was annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania justified when Soviet
Union already had military bases in the area?

Would 70k troops in a few bases have been enough in the event of a
German attack?

What I don't get is your eternal insistence on either the Germans
being given the opportunity to conquer all of Poland and occupy the
Baltic States.

No, my eternal insistence is on Stalin declaring war on Germany and
joining the existing anti-German coalition in field.

Where "in the field" were the Western elements of the anti-German
coalition fighting the German Army in September 1939? Why should the
Soviets shoulder the committment of hostilities on two fronts with no
guarantee of the Western Allies hitting Germany with any vigor?

Stuart Wilkes