How would you make the Germans lose ww2 as early as possible?

and planes.*

D520 (first version) had a K/D of 2.5, but only needed the build time of a Hurricane... Shame only 18 were out in May.

Killing Hitler would NOT end the war, someone else (probably Goering) would assume the leadership and the determination of the Germs to wage war would be increased 100 fold.

If the West had backed the Czechs over the Treaty of Munich, Germany would either have been forced to back down, or it would have started a war it couldn't win. Either way, the myth of Hitler's infallibility would be lost and much of the subsequent foolishness would have been avoided.

**The French goes into civil war over disjointed govt**

Nah, it might have destabilized France even further but it wouldn't have lead to civil war. Fact is it did France more harm in damage to their international standing than it did them good in showing the French people that the treaty was being enforced.

Fully reform the French military pre-war such that there isn't an effective enormous quality divide between them and the Wehrmacht.

> as early as possible?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Józef_Piłsudski

"After Adolf Hitler came to power in January 1933, Piłsudski is rumored to have proposed to France a preventive war against Germany. It has been argued that Piłsudski may have been sounding out France regarding possible joint military action against Germany. Lack of French interest may have been a reason why Poland signed the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of January 1934."

french military was generally better equipped than German, what they lacked was the will to fight after the horrors of WW1, coupled with an overly inflexible defensive posture. Defense was the only option for them, tho, since the demographic devastation of WW1 meant they had too few young men to put in uniforms to make a decent offensive. But "defense in depth" would have been superior to the plan they went with, here they could have benefited from a change in thinking, abandoning "not an inch of land shall be occupied" in favor of "if they come, we will bleed them dry and sweep them back out"

Support Czechs in 1938.

Don't be a fucking pussy as the brits and invade hannover as poland was being blitzed

why would we want the good guys to lose?

>Germans
>good guys
>ever
I wonder who's behind this post.

Brits had no capacity for such a thing in 1939, they were legitimately concerned about being invaded themselves at the time. Britain's military power was almost all naval, and the land forces they had were all in India and Africa keeping """order""", it took time to assemble the kinds of forces needed to invade and by then Germany had fortified the Atlantic coastline. Given hindsight it might have made sense for Britain to bring home her land forces before the war, but of course they couldn't predict when or even if the war would start and as mentioned those troops were needed to keep order in the colonies. It would also have been a pretty huge signal to Germany that Britain was serious, which ironically might have delayed or aborted the war and left the British with nothing but massive unrest in their colonies and a huge shipping bill for their trouble.

>They really had things going when it came to artillery and tanks.
Can you give me some good models? I have no idea about French military engineering.

Not that fag but the Frogs were highly technophilic and had many advanced features in their tanks such as rangefinders and radios. Of course they also had terrible flaws such as single-person turrets, but they were expected to fight purely on defense so that would have been less of a problem than it might seem.

So tired of these ridiculous "allies couldve win if they just did this" post. Alliedboos are just as annoying as wehrboos

But the alliedboos won in the end. Also...
What if Belgium followed with their side of the maginot deal?
What if Denmark allowed Britain to use it as a staging point for an north invasion of germany?

>pic related in 1940

wuzzat

>What if Belgium followed with their side of the maginot deal?
You'd get a repeat of WW1 which is what the Germans were preparing for and thought was going to happen. This probably would've made the war last longer than it did

>What if Denmark allowed Britain to use it as a staging point for an north invasion of Germany?
This was already addressed in another thread but you basically moved Normandy to Schleswig-Holstein. What beneficial difference would landing in Denmark even do? You're just moving your forces closer to theirs

The only way the Allies could've won the war sooner was strictly bombing German factories like user suggested but this is something the British couldn't have done, their shitty bombers relied heavy on stealth and didn't even dedicated bombing sights, Their only option was to bomb huge cities like Cologne at first and then when air superiority was achieved they bomb smaller cities and towns leaving the Americans to bomb relevant war targets. You should check out the United States Strategic Bombing Survey. In it the Allies after the war determine the war could've been shorter had they hit vital German plants that weren't even defended by AAA.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey

There's also this, something to do with a Congress hearing on the Military conduct of the War and address what I was talking about

books.google.com/books?id=5XnsAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1102&lpg=PA1102&dq=tetraethyl german plants&source=bl&ots=hAHIu4l0tF&sig=u9y61l6NGRqccOBkY2qD-SXu2iw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix26XzvcHXAhVLlVQKHTTkB8wQ6AEIOjAE#v=onepage&q=tetraethyl german plants&f=false

...

...

...

...

Set the timer on Elser's bomb back another 30 minutes

>bombing factories when you spill aryan blood

>eneral Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks."[15]

Literally all the Alllies had to do is GO TO WAR. That's it. WWII is probably the most retarded war in history.

God, that looks so unaesthetic. I don't give a shit if I get turned into swiss cheese by spalling but boxy tanks will always have superior looks

>during the occupation of the Rhineland the Germans only used 19 battalions
The French would've probably reached Berlin in less than three days

>french military was generally better equipped than German,
Equipment is not the sole means of military quality.

>what they lacked was the will to fight after the horrors of WW1
user, they were completely overrun. Pic related. This is not akin to the American loss in Vietnam.

> Defense was the only option for them, tho, since the demographic devastation of WW1 meant they had too few young men to put in uniforms to make a decent offensive. But "defense in depth" would have been superior to the plan they went with, here they could have benefited from a change in thinking, abandoning "not an inch of land shall be occupied" in favor of "if they come, we will bleed them dry and sweep them back out"
The problem is more fundamental than this. They drew precisely the wrong lessons from the battle in Poland; and had a view that if any breach was made, the application of air power and rapid motorized/mechanized advance made reaction with reserves to the breach point useless. This, combined with their artillery heavy doctrines, meant things like while they had more tanks, they wouldn't use them in their natural battlefield role as a mobile reserve.

Due to lack of proper tactics and operational theory, the French army was hamstrung. No amount of better equipment would have necessarily solved that problem, they needed better ideas, and they didn't have them. If they did, the French offensive would have sputtered out in 1940 and even if Hitler isn't removed in a palace coup, the German economy is likely to grind to a halt without fresh conquests.

Completely rework allied bombing campaign strategy, also generally act more reserved and making realistic goals unlike that fucking retard Montgomery.
Ill admit he was still a brilliant strategist, but half of the deep doo doo he got in towards the end of the war (which was mostly him either being greedy or too careless) was so fucking avoidable it makes me cringe.

I still don't know what the name of it is, nigger.

Joint coordinated effort by Czechoslovakia, Poland, France and Yugoslavia, after rejecting the Munich treaty.
Brits and Romanians would probably give some support.

Or just interveene in 1935 when germans started creating wermacht,
Just like treaty of versailles was telling to do.
Maybe even poles would help.

ally with the germans against russia. once their forces are deeply committed inside the soviet union. you bring up your forces and sack their capital.

not robbing them after WW1

>This level of delusion

Go to war as soon as they remilitarize the rhineland
ones armed forces being in disarray isn't so bad when the other army is even more in disarray

Fully back Czechoslovakia. Hitler's generals were willing and prepared to depose him if Czechoslovakia was militarily invaded. So not only would Germany be facing French-British arms in the west and Czech arms in the south, but a major insurgency in the generalship. Would've destroyed the country.

>french military was generally better equipped than German,
Nope, air force was 4 months behind (at French production levels, so 1 year behind in British time).

It seems that you have a rather American point of vue on the matter. However, the French had great tactics. And strategically were not retards. They did suffer from the equipment gap (yes.).

The main issue imo was the corruption in French politics and high command, both before and during the war. Beyond Pétain that wanted to be a dictator, air force superior officers dismissed reports of their reckon pilot's telling them they saw tank lines going through the Ardennes. Why did they dismiss them? Why did French industrials supplied large quantities of steel to the German industry in the 30s instead of pursuing the Maginot line? Why?

Finally, I hope you realize that if Germany had not won in 2 months, it would not have won in 2 years. (meaning that there was a snowball effect making things look terrible, while it was not so far from being "ok") :)

Hmm....

Sorry my writing style is not so great :D

Tactics were good, as seen in Hannut, Lille, Dunkirk, later Bir Hakeim. What fucked up is the large scale rather than the small one, isn't it?

>implying even daylight bombing raids were accurate enough to hit individual buildings
if a bomb fell within a mile of it's intended target it was a miracle

>implying the British were keeping order in the Empire by using military force
There were never large numbers of British troops in India. Order was kept by cooperation and consensus with local elites, which is why it collapsed so soon when those elites no longer played along

And? The Allies still destroyed their intended targets eventually so what's your point?

>bring up your forces
This isnt starcraft you fagget

>Be Sweden
>Say lol no to exporting iron ore
>Nazi Germany collapses 3 month into the war

Most of the pre-1939 answers seem solid, but they all rely on the same fatal flaw, which is the ultimate reason the war was allowed to exist: Nobody was more afraid of fascism than of communism spreading throught Europe. If France and England could stop being scared shitless of Stalin for 2 seconds they could have supported the Czechs and got mad over the Rhineland, but alas, they were more concerned with having a nice little buffer between them and the big bad reds.

French tactics and operations were terrible, and this has nothing to do with an American-centric view.
spectrum.library.concordia.ca/977623/1/Parker_MA_F2013.pdf

>The main issue imo was the corruption in French politics and high command, both before and during the war.
Please demonstrate how "Corruption in French politics and high command" led to systematic intelligence failure, the adoption of a thoroughly outdated and useless system where mobility in operational warfare was ignored, and a highly rigid top down command system.

>Tactics were good, as seen in Hannut, Lille, Dunkirk, later Bir Hakeim.
Defense of isolated strongholds does not imply overall good tactical systems. You could say the same that the Soviets had good tactics in 1941, because it took a while to overrun Minsk, Smolensk, and Kiev.

By extending the Maginot line to Dunkirk and, if anything, let de Gaulle have a say in tank strategy.
Attrition war 2.0 yay

Let them do their stuff.
>no WWII at all

Not a good idea
There are cost concerns (not too large, the Maginot line was relatively cheap, but it still more than doubles the length of frontier to be defended - actually a lot more, since that is flat terrain, so it will require more fortifications than the Rhine and the Vosges mountains), and construction concerns at first. The region is difficult to build underground in due to the water table, which makes it hard to imitate the structure of the rest of the Maginot line where the fortifications are built underground with only a few turrets showing on top. There are also cities that cross the frontier, like Lille, so how do you deal with defending those, unless if you propose abandoning them?
Not insurmountable, but exceedingly difficult.

But then much more problematic is now you don't know where the Germans are going to hit you. The French by building the Maginot line knew that they would face a German attack in Belgium (they just guessed wrong, believing that the Germans would attack in the north rather than the south). That was its principal intention. Now, the Germans have a fortified front everywhere. Where are they going to attack? The certainty is removed.

In addition it loses the chance to save any part of Belgian industry, and gives a longer front line than moving into Belgium.

I don't see why the French didn't just have the Maginot line be a few dozen kilometers longer to prevent an Ardennes breakthrough though.

French tactical philosophy was fine though, the battles the other user mentioned were cases where French units met German equivalents and outfought them. Given an enemy in front of them and a straight up battle to fight, French troops generally put up a good display : even at Sedan, facing the best German tank units available, French forces in the counter-attack made the Germans really work for it before they were defeated. The problem was that this very tactical system of methodical battle inherently produced an excessively rigid and bad operational level of war. Ultimately operational > tactical, as the French (and later the Germans when the Russians steamrolled them later in the war) learned.

Cool link too, I added it to a post I made about the French army's problems in 1940 ( hubpages.com/education/The-Weaknesses-of-the-French-Army-in-1940 )

>French tactical philosophy was fine though, the battles the other user mentioned were cases where French units met German equivalents and outfought them.
They did not "outfight" the Germans. Each of the ones he mentioned were battles in which dug in French infantry forces held out for a while and inflicted damage before either being swallowed up or forced to abandon their position. It is not outfighting the Germans in any sense of the word.

> Given an enemy in front of them and a straight up battle to fight, French troops generally put up a good display : even at Sedan, facing the best German tank units available, French forces in the counter-attack made the Germans really work for it before they were defeated.
Again, I can say the same about the Soviets in Barbarossa. "They didn't collapse immediately under pressure" is hardly a ringing endorsement.

> The problem was that this very tactical system of methodical battle inherently produced an excessively rigid and bad operational level of war.
It was also bad tactics, as there was no attempt to actually break through at a specific point or guard against the same. Which means that as long as one sector fails (and that's likely), it doesn't matter how many sectors do well.

Put a pair of Hitler’s dirty underwear inside out on a flagpole. Then they would all go “Heil Shitler” instead.

Just agree to a military alliance between France, Britain, and USSR. Tell Hitler to fuck off.