I am still wondering what Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg did to get counter attacked?
In any case the Curtiss Hawk 75 is claimed to be the 2nd most numerical fighter in French service at the beginning of May, 1940 Which basically means the French had no surplus of fighters to equip any American expeditionary force with.
The French had managed to assemble up to 64 Douglas DB-7s in North Africa before the Capitulation and 2-3 squadrons (or more?) had flown to mainland France to help with the defense. How many were still in crates is debatable. Perhaps 80-90 sorties were flown by DB-7s against the Germans?
223 Martin Marylands had arrived in Casablanca by the time of the Surrender but only about 180 had been fully assembled. Marylands operating in France had flown just over 400 sorties.
While not large numbers in the overall scheme of things it also shows that the French had no great numbers of up to date bombers of their own to equip an American force with in 1939/40.
for instance the DB-7s were replacing Bloch 210s in several squadrons.
A plane that could barely reach 200mph.
The more modern French bombers were desperately needed by the French to replace out-dated bombers in all too many units.
The Germans also had outdated bombers. I give you the Do 11,13 and 23. They weren't secretly developing an air force disguised as airliners, they used airliners and mail planes because their bombers failed. The Ju 86 was a little better. I give you the Do 23 which was an improvement on the Do 11,13
Why did France fail to gets its aircraft production in order. It had 7 months of phoney war. German bombers were actually worse but they rapidly improved up to a point. The reason may just have to do with the organizational ability and skill of that German Government of the time.
Norway was attacked because:
1 it couldn't or rather the particular Government of Norway wouldn't defend its neutrality. Although playing neutral the Norwegian cabinet had decided secretly to join Britain in secret if Britain landed. Unfortunately there were no secrets from German intelligence which functioned well in Norway.
2 Britain under the pretext of helping Finland decided to land an invasion force near Narvick Norway, this was a disguised plan to cut of the critical Iron Ore Swedish Iron ore supplies (from Kiruna Swedden 1.5 hours by rail from Narvick) which were shipped by the port of Narvick. I'm not being sarcastic, Britain wasn't helping Finland. Vidkun Quisling had desperatly tried to form a Scandinvian front. Germany was dependent on this Swedish iron that passed through Norway. Hitler had warned that any attempt at this would be met by a ferocious response. It wasn't a secret. Germany pretty much lost WW1 because of Iron ore shortages. That's why there was no German tank mass production despite some excellent designs and why their helmets sheet stampings thinned out. In a masterpiece of propaganda the British operation was called "Wilfred' to trivialize its nefarious nature. The British invasion fleet left on 5 May, Royal Navy mining operations in support began in 8th May but the German preemptive invasion began on the 9th May a few hours before the British invasion was scheduled. US meddling in the Gulf over oil and its 'interests' has no less justification.
German paratroops and naval forces cut of British forces, they were hampered by the short range of the Ju 52 many of which were abandoned on the lakes near Kiruna (where Bomber command latter mustered to attack the Tirpitz)
As far as Holland goes. It was an unpopular invasion with Germans as Holland had been neutral and benign with Germans in WW1. The German ambassador was in tears over the injustice of it towards a friendly people. However Holland's ruling elite had their own ideas. RAF aircraft were overflying Holland and being let fly with a token response while similar Luftwaffe incursions were met with force. Despite haughty British propaganda it seemed likely they would have another "Wilfred" on Holland and Holland would be a beachhead for Britain. Churchill was openly calling on Holland to side against Germany, which didn't help neutrality any.
As far as Poland goes you are aware of the large losses of territory and German population from ancient homelands they had lived in 3 times longer than the USA has existed. You should be aware of the ethnic cleansing of Germans (about 4000 murdered, appropriation of land, discrimination in education and public service) that occurred against German minorities (who weren't minorities where they lived). Although exaggerated by Goebell's (claimed about 50,000) the discrimination, land seizures are well documented by the League of Nations. 200-400 racially motivated murders year do tend to get noticed. Check Maurice de Zayas "A Terrible Revenge" if you want credible proof.
The Polish dictator, Beck, was a pretty lascivious character. Your rather have tee totaling and prudent Hitler as a guest in your house. I'll let you research him. Beck declined an offer of peace, with an anti Soviet allegiance in return for a mere rail corridor to the German city of Danzig (now Gdansk) which had been isolated by the treaty of Versailles but remained ethnically German and was close to the heart of Germans. The city would be killed by this. Hence rejected, seeing the great city fall on hard times and feeling threatened Hitler and Stalin made an Pact with the USSR before Poland and the USSR could make one with each other. Thanks to Britain's badly and foolish communicated 'guarantee' Beck was rash, uncompromising, imprudent, impractical. Russia had significant territorial and ethnic strife with Poland and Both German and Russia, both due to boycotts against them, had trade synergies with each other.
Belgium was exploited as France's buffer state, France hid behind Belgium.
Last edited:
