When do you think Jean Bart would have been completed?

@SeaYa

I’ll check these films out when I have time (probably when I’m retired).

Some World War 2 related reads I mentioned here in the past:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/41385/great-leyte-gulf-alternate-timeline-article

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37506/an-interesting-book-i-read

All the sites I find for the book Europa w przededniu wojny only ship in Poland. If you ship to the US, please let me know:

https://lubimyczytac.pl/ksiazka/4984764/europa-w-przededniu-wojny

@Panther Looks cool! Thanks for sharing!

I’ve been researching France in World War 2 recently, and I stumbled upon this article on JSTOR:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/286380?casa_token=HrDISj647xoAAAAA%3A4r0lrbG6dLMbOFV1mHpvWIxLmi5kgJmFmZ_TYY5Ct12HpfBVa87FyqGvcP00vs2G1JuM3ol2qcQ

Unfortunately, my regular free JSTOR account cannot access this.

Please let me know if you have access to this article in any way. Thank you!

@Lancasterlaw1175

I think your hypothesis is broadly correct.

But I think on a technical and logistical level (not sure about political), it seems to me that it was perfectly possible for the French to mobilize and brings the guns to the front much earlier, before September. This would’ve allowed them to begin attacking almost immediately and shatter the German lines. In retrospect, the French should be at fault for not mobilizing (and preventing the Poles from doing so).

The vast majority of Army Group C divisions were undersized (or even just command headquarters), while only about half of the French ones were deficient in some way (Nafziger’s book also lists the condition of French divisions in September-October 193o).

I got the book online here:

https://www.amazon.com/French-Order-Battle-World-1939-1945/dp/1585450189

@crusaderiv if they could take them so easily, then why couldn’t the spanish take it back? a mid atlantic post for the kreigmarine would’ve been invaluable. also, the uboats didn’t need to operate there if Sea Lion had happened, which would have if spain had joined, due to the increased pressure on England. why would they be there? there’s no basis for this argument.

Patton is one of the most interesting characters in WW2.

First of all look at how the Germans feared him. They were terrified of the man. Secondly a good many of Patton’s strategic and tactical viewpoints came to pass about both the 2nd World War and the Cold War. The man also had a sense of justice. He forced German civilians that tried to ignore the existence of the concentration camps to walk through the horrors there. As a tactician and commander I doubt we had anyone better than Patton.

The man had his faults certainly. The two incidents of slapping a soldier (he discharged a firearm in at least one of those, not sure about the second), he always seemed to have trouble managing his supply lines, and he always had trouble keeping his opinions quiet. He blundered severely sending troops to liberate a POW camp that happened to have his son in law as a prisoner. Patton never believed in shell shock, “battle fatigue”.

I really enjoyed Rick Atkinson’s first two books (Army at Dawn and Day of Battle). Patton is a major player in Army At Dawn (focused on North Africa). In the second book Patton is involved briefly but you learn many of his predictions about the fight in Italy prove to be correct. I look forward to third which focuses from D-day to the end of the war. I was disappointed in the amount of time Jeff Shaara devoted to Patton in “No Less Than Victory”. True a wealth of information is already recorded about Patton but writing any WW@ novel without Patton would be like writing about the Shenandoah Valley without mentioning Stonewall Jackson.

I believe that some authors portray Patton with a bias and marginalize Patton (most notably alternative writer Harry Turtledove). Part of this is because Patton offers so much stuff to criticize in his character. Part of it also comes from the fact it is popular to criticize anyone that could be considered conservative today.

@Subotai:

until now, war that Europeans have been fighting since before 500 B.C.  Reasons have never changed, explanations and propaganda have changed quite a lot.

I like the “larger picture” viewpoint expressed here. It’s almost more philosophical than anything else. We as humans, are a conquering species, constantly at war for one anothers resources and territory. We collectively at base instinct, in my opinion, are insatiable, selfish and greedy. Hence wherever man is gathered you will find curruption to these degrees. It cracks me up when people say there’s so much blood on the hands of “the government” or “organized religion”. Try wherever mankind gathers in masses. There you will find these things. It’s what we are.

Now on a smaller more specific scale, I believe the Treaty of Versailles caused WW2. Hands down. Our US delegate, (I don’t feel like looking up his name to remember) would not sign that treaty and said something to the degree of “I see 21 wars in this treaty.” …or something to that degree (sorry if I misquoted)

That treaty was drawn up and then carried out in the manner of revenge and the poverty stricken and vastly anti sematic climate was ripe for a national socialist movement to become a solution to Germany’s woes. The Allies were demmanding that Germany, in addition to paying astronomical restitutions on many levels were also demmanding the army hand over thousands of veterans to become prisoners. Hate was in the air and I believe this treaty ultimately, was the match that lit the proverbial kindling.