So be it with a swift counter-attack or a slow, bloody grind, what is the smallest change that could have resulted in an eventual Allied victory in the Battle of France? Had they been forced into a more static war of attrition, France and Britain would have had time to reorganise their military, with the support of their respective colonial empires and access to American industry - and the Axis may have not been in a better position to fight a new WWI than the Central Powers had been. Had their army been destroyed, there would not have been enough left to defend German territory. It worked this time, but had it not, they would have been in a dire situation. You may be reminded of the Schlieffen Plan in WWI. They sent more or less their entire army in a rush attack in order to secure a fast victory. The Battle of France was a big gamble for the Third Reich. The obvious WWII alternate history question is how could the Axis have won.
0 kommentar(er)
