Sorry but you have no idea about national socialism whatsoever. It had nothing in common with old-fashioned racial thinking.
You probably confuse the so called neo-nazism with historical national socialism
- 2
The alt-history scenarios in this game are fantasy scenarios, where is the actual alt-history
- Thread starter fuser312
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Sorry but you have no idea about national socialism whatsoever. It had nothing in common with old-fashioned racial thinking.
You probably confuse the so called neo-nazism with historical national socialism
So, from what I understood from what you said earlier, you had said that the French during the siege of Dunkirk still represented a threat.
Taking into account what you speak now, you say that France was a threat that couldn't be evaluated and you claim that a contained scholarship was no longer a threat. I disagree with you at this point, although they were surrounded, that was a considerable enemy force that needed to be neutralized, as long as they were not destroyed or captured they still represented a threat.
Think about it, if the Russians hadn't captured the Germans they had surrounded and instead had let them escape, they would have been shooting themselves in the foot, extremely experienced soldiers who have a very broad knowledge of the enemy's tactics would have been relocated in new units to defend Germany and would have caused a lot of damages beyond those they had already caused up to that moment. So, the correct thing is to do as the Russians did, to destroy the enemy until there are no more left or to capture him, only then these will no longer represent a threat.
I don't remember well where I read it, but one or more generals complained with Hitler for letting the enemy escape, if I remember well it would have been Rommel, the same one who later would know from his own experience where the landings of these same soldiers Hitler would let escape.
The pocket wasn't a threat in the way the Allies couldn't mount a counterattack from there and at that given time this was of the essence. The Germans couldn't know though the extent of forces still in France, whether there are still e.g. Allied armoured forces there capable to mount a counterattack or even maybe a counter-encirclement, the later being the biggest threat from German perspective.
Of course if France had already been dealt with then there was without a question the logical move to take as many Allied troops in Dunkerque prisoner as possible. But this was not the case and securing France had immensely higher priority than capturing the Dunkerque troops.
All the reasoning that Hitler has deliberately stopped the advance on Dunkerque to show gesture towards the British is logically very weak as you can show gesture or demand in a much better position having those troops actually captured compared to having them only encircled.
Much of this myth might originate from British themselves at Dunkerque as it might actually seemed to them this way, not having much information about the general war situation outside of the pocket.
- 3
You know that it's all pure pro-Axis fantasy, right?
Don't get me wrong, paratroopers are cool and all but you don't conquer a many millions island with paratroopers. How you're going to supply them after all? As the naval supremacy of the British were uncontested.
I agree, paratroopers would not be enough, supplying these soldiers would be a logistical nightmare. Remember Goring's speech about Stalingrad who never left the paper, he had guaranteed that he would deliver the 700 tons a day needed to supply the troops of the sixth army that were surrounded in Stalingrad. He only managed to deliver a small fraction of what he had guaranteed.
Last edited:
- 1
They would have had their psychological effect, perhaps too many underestimate the psychological effect. Having Germans at home, bypassing your "maginot" is devastating especially in a UK with no (or almost) defenses. In case of lasting resistance would they lose? Yes. But in the event of a governmental debacle "Oh my God the Germans have landed" who panic like the French who bypass the maginot from the ardennes would send the entire military command into chaos that would hardly understand what to do. already a landing near a port and a bigger one in London would already make Churchill and the king sweat cold. Especially if during the chaos one of the two (or both) is captured and / or killed!The psychological factor is very important: Example Crassus lost because he lost his son, fell into depression and then commanded badly. The psychological factor of the head of state can lead to triumph or ruin a nation. Panicking because the enemy is at the gates and giving wrong (or contradictory) orders leads to defeat against numerically small armies.Imagine if a group of paratroopers surround Downing street 10 or Buckingpalace. In any case, with the capture of the two members of the "government", forced negotiations are entered into or it all ends in a bloodbath and the loss of one of them, it would in any case be an enormous show of strength for Germany. Please do not underestimate the pshycological effect as I have often seen done on the forum.
It's based on the general war situation in May 1940 after encircling the Dunkerque pocket but more knowledgeable people than myself here can certainly cite sources as well. Most of my sources are non-English so wouldn't help.
- 1
Again it seems like you're basing your assumptions on fantasy rather than history. Any major historical paratrooper operation that i know of like e.g. Crete or Market Garden didn't have that magical psychology effect. The resistance against them were rather stiff everywhere and their losses were rather high.
Moreover in these historical cases the attacker had air supremacy which the Germans never had over England. Temporary local air superiority yes but lasting air supremacy not so even air supply to the paratroopers is rather questionable and naval supply is out of question completely. You'd rather send your well-trained forces to almost certain death or capture as it seems. The Germans didn't do this historically for a reason.
- 3
- 2
May bay you not understand the "prequel" Dunkirk captured/killed troops. It this is true is possible make it i think
- 1
I think people fail to realize who the main demographic for this game is. It's not super serious 40-50 year old WW2 enthusiasts. It's younger people who watch content creators like isorrowproductions, tommykay, and other meme oriented youtubers. Literally almost every POPULAR HOI4 content creator bases their channel around ridiculous alt history and memes. It's what the people like and the focus trees Paradox develops reflects this. I personally enjoy the alt history. It keeps the game fresh when you have so many absurd possibilities.
- 8
- 1
If you mean by this is that the troops trapped at Dunkerque being captured would make such an effect there's also no backing in history of this as you probably know hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops were captured near to Kiev yet the Soviets did not capitulate and also hundreds of thousands of German and Axis troops were captured near to Stalingrad and yet Germany didn't capitulate.
germany and russia / ussr have a much larger manpower basin than the uk. Most of the divisions were from the colonies, only a part were British / British proper. The UK, like all "small" nations, has always suffered from this "little manpower" thing especially if you have a very large territory like the British Empire. Losing all those troops and not just the equipment (troops that like Germany you do not find yourself in front of) means either moving troops from other areas (and making them more vulnerable) or having to recruit newbies, which in the case of paratroopers, the aforementioned if they ate for breakfast! I'm not saying that 20/30 para divisions conquered every square meter of the island by themselves! But it was enough to take the two big targets (Churchill and the king) and the war was over. With a gamble it could be done. In addition, he thinks: the UK is a democracy, GER and the USSR are TOTALITARISMS! What the boss says is law! Having the enemy "land" in the capital of the soldiers who turn you upside down is quite demoralizing. Already after the fall of France, people took to the streets in protest (who says for peace, who against the concessions made to Hitler at that time, I favor the first, it is unlikely that people would get angry for concessions made over the years, is most likely for peace).
Exactly. They want it and are willing to pay for it. Most (of the "vocal" forum users) will ignore this and continue their asinine discussion/arguments.
Us old fart WWII enthusiasts will just continue to be grateful that we have something we can mod. And have are own "historical" arguments.
- 4
- 2
- 1
Airborne assault of London area, which I see you're suggesting (that's where Churchill and the King would be), is a wild fantasy
If you're trying to say that losing BEF would mean Britain had no troops to defend itself from a bunch of paratroopers, then consider that BEF numbered around 400k, while the whole British army in the summer of 1940 numbered around 1.5 mln. Moreover there was another 1.5 mln strong volunteer Home Guard armed by the end of June 1940.To your remark of German paratroopers eating newbies for breakfast - no paratroopers eat any enemy for breakfast just after drop. They're dispersed, disorganized and need time to get together. There's a reason why they're usually dropped BEHIND enemy lines in zones judged as SAFE, where there isn't much enemy activity and not much opposition is expected. Paratroopers usually are elite units and can be very formidable opponents, but in defense or attacking isolated and surprised enemy, not heavily defended capital city of a major European power. IT'S NOT AN ACCIDENT that airborne assaults of dense urban areas haven't been tried by ANYONE in history of warfare, even though instant attack at the heart of enemy and decapitating its government would definietly be an attractive option for everybody. The greater London area was saturated with AA defenses which would make minced meat of Airborne attackers. The ones who'd make it to the ground would be dispersed in unfavorable urban environment, find it impossible to form any cohesive unit, and under instant attack. At the end of the day the confused remnants would probably get arrested by London constabulary force
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
The question becomes: so how do you land in the UK? do you send a single man to kill churchill to cause despair in the enemy government? The problem is not how to land on hoi4. The question is how would the real germany land? In another post (on CK3) it was found that the fact that the UK has never been invaded since 1066 is false because it has undergone several successful marine invasions. The question is: how is it done?Airborne assault of London area, which I see you're suggesting (that's where Churchill and the King would be), is a wild fantasy
To your remark of German paratroopers eating newbies for breakfast - no paratroopers eat any enemy for breakfast just after drop. They're dispersed, disorganized and need time to get together. There's a reason why they're usually dropped BEHIND enemy lines in zones judged as SAFE, where there isn't much enemy activity and not much opposition is expected. Paratroopers usually are elite units and can be very formidable opponents, but in defense or attacking isolated and surprised enemy, not heavily defended capital city of a major European power. IT'S NOT AN ACCIDENT that airborne assaults of dense urban areas haven't been tried by ANYONE in history of warfare, even though instant attack at the heart of enemy and decapitating its government would definietly be an attractive option for everybody. The greater London area was saturated with AA defenses which would make minced meat of Airborne attackers. The ones who'd make it to the ground would be dispersed in unfavorable urban environment, find it impossible to form any cohesive unit, and under instant attack. At the end of the day the confused remnants would probably get arrested by London constabulary force
Either you play historical or you have to use the what-if Scenarios the Devs and officially Freelancers give you.
The what if scenarios are all only fantasy or such, which are oriented on the what if scenarios planed.
And before someone is crying that's or this isn’t correct is like Trump which is not clear in his brain.
No Game is 100 historical correct, you can only try to play it with not getting that or that. That’s named: DECISION from the Player.
The what if scenarios are all only fantasy or such, which are oriented on the what if scenarios planed.
And before someone is crying that's or this isn’t correct is like Trump which is not clear in his brain.
No Game is 100 historical correct, you can only try to play it with not getting that or that. That’s named: DECISION from the Player.
Well. It *has* been tried. By the german army. Paratroop landings near The Hague tried to capture the dutch government in 1940.
But the result was exactly as you describe. Utter failure for the german paratroopers.
- 3
- 1
- 1
There is certainly a way to imagine that happening but it required a serious buildup of the Kriegsmarine and also an expansion of the German merchant fleet i think. That would take years.
And there is still the issue of American nukes. Maybe more plausible scenario if Japan doesn't attack Pearl and the America First movement and general isolationist sentiment prohibits Roosevelt from entering the war directly.
- 2
Plus a bullet to the head for their general...Well. It *has* been tried. By the german army. Paratroop landings near The Hague tried to capture the dutch government in 1940.
But the result was exactly as you describe. Utter failure for the german paratroopers.
- 1
- Status