More powerful than it was, or more powerful than Germany?

More powerful than Germany. At the start of the Battle of France the French had more men under arms than Germany. They had more tanks and the French Char B was the most powerful tank in the world.

The French Navy was far more powerful than Germany’s (and it remained the only real leverage Vichy France had when it came to negotiating German demands later).

The obvious weakness though was the Armée de l’Air. The Germans defintely had the advantage in both numbers and modernity of aircraft.

You are reading too much into an alt history. It was impossible, just not inconceivable – if that makes any sense. That is what alt histories are about – the very fact that it didn’t happen as an alt history describes, means it couldn’t have been that likely.

It would make a lot more sense, were we to expand the alt history story. Alt histories assume that very small, but significant details came out differently, thus causing a cascade effect of changes. It is far more conceivable, when you can follow the chain of changes – less so when you are looking at it in a concise macrocosm.

Take one simple detail to start with – the French are actually aware that they are likely to get their asses kicked. For whatever reason, intelligence – whatever, they are aware that things could go very badly for them. Assume that the British are also aware.

Then let the cascade of changes begin.

Even better – there are supernatural creatures, coming out of Germany that make things even more obviously fucked for the French…Because the very best alt histories include magical, mystical forces. After all, if you are going to pretend something different about history, you might as well make it really fucking cool…

More powerful than it was, or more powerful than Germany?

Clearly from the comments here alongside Greg, DuWayne actually does think this is a reasonable alternate history. Which suggests others (Jewish or not) could presumably follow exactly the same line of thought.

Even though I think knowledge of the actual historical record shows it profoundly unlikely. (DuWayne – Short reasons why – the british and french economies were bigger than the german one. Germany still had a large proportion of peasant farmers and was an autarchy. Hitler WANTED a fight with france. British leaders thought France was more powerful.)

The argument that seems to be in process here really is one of denial. The fact that The Exodus could have happened AFTER the liberation is astonishing. Given that Britain does not seem to have had any kind of acknowledgement of it’s sometimes quite negative role in the Jewish plight in Europe and the Middle East (as the Germans had by force of the history they created!) I suppose it is not that surprising to see denialism and avoidance of the issue.

Facepalm. I keep saying that Im not arguing that there wasn’t/isnt antisemtism in Britain. Therefore I find it hard to work out why you think this is denialism of antisemitism in Britain.

My argument isnt even about whether a Jew would feel completely safe in Britain now let alone the 30s. My argument is that looking back there are reasons for relief over what did happen vs what could have happened but I dont think that any reasonable reading of history would make you think that Britain would have allied with Germany. And thats not an argument from Britains virtue.

I think its you who are looking at the events leading up to and the start of WWII with hindsight. With hindsight you see the fall of France and see this event as having been inevitable and therefore a reason that Britain might have allied itself to Germany instead.

Without hindsight I dont think there is any reason why Britain would have abandoned its major and longstanding continental ally.

The Germans took a huge gamble in its plan of battle when attacking france and it payed off. But dont make the mistake of thinking that just because France was defeated that it was inevitable or even considered likely by those at the time. When the germans attacked, the bulk of british and french forces marched north in response to army group B’s feint attack through the netherlands. Had they left a reserve then Army group As pincer would have been in a whole world of trouble. The Germans lost 30% of their aircraft by the end of May and hadn’t held any panzer formations in reserve. A counterattack to Army Group As pincer would have been the prelude to Germany losing the war.

That’s the scale of the gamble taken by Germany and the Germans needed to take this gamble because across the entire line they were outnumbered and had to concencentrate to achieve local superiority to overcome their overall inferiority. Moreover time was against them – Britain and France had far larger economies so in a long war could expect to outlast Germany.

Therefore before the war Britain and France felt they were being dragged into a war they had little to gain from but they felt confident of winning. Like I said where was the incentive for Britain to abandon France and ally with Germany?

None of this suggests that Britain entered the war because it was sympathetic to the plight of the jews in europe. If that were the case they’d have accepted more refugees in the preceding years.

However I can’t think of any documents suggesting that british political leaders thought about using its Jewish population as some kind of bargaining chip with Germany.

So why would a British Jew look back and think “that was way too close” when there was never any sign of an alliance between the two countries? Even in the light of centuries of persecution and current levels of antisemitism I’m not convinced that that line of thinking would be pursued by more than a handful of British Jews since there was never any indication that Britain would have allied itself to Germany.

If anything the more obvious point to breathe a sigh of relief over is that Germany didnt win.