Nazi Invasion of France fails?

LNSS

LNSS

What would be the consequences in the war if the German Invasion of France in 1940 fails? The french forces are able to mount an effective defense in Belgium, and the germans get halted just outside Brussels. Summer 1940 passes and France is still in the fight, Italy isn't by contrast.

I find interesting that everyone in Germany was expecting something like this:

ranz Halder presented the first plan for Fall Gelb ("Case Yellow") on 19 October. This was the pre-war codename of plans for a campaign in the Low Countries: the Aufmarschanweisung N°1, Fall Gelb ("Deployment Instruction No. 1, Case Yellow"). Halder's plan has often been compared to the Schlieffen Plan, which the Germans attempted to execute in 1914 in the opening phase of the First World War. It was similar in that both plans entailed an advance through the middle of Belgium, but while the intention of the Schlieffen Plan was to gain a decisive victory by executing a rapid encirclement of the French Army, Aufmarschanweisung N°1 envisioned a frontal attack, sacrificing a projected half million German soldiers to attain the limited goal of throwing the Allies back to the River Somme. Germany's strength for 1940 would then be spent; only in 1942 could the main attack against France begin.
Click to expand...
 

lycan

I'm guessing this calculation was based on something like a costly battle at Dunkirk, which never materialized.
 

Kaiser K

Yeah, literally not a single person expected France to fall so quickly, not even Hitler and the Nazi's, France's fall was a giant shocker to everyone, everything fit right into place for the Reich in the Battle of France it was like clockwork, however the outcome is very easy to change, the Nazi's getting bogged down in France probably means no Barbarossa due to resources being tied up in the West, drastically changing the course of the war.
 

JamesHunter

Well the Allies planned to stand on the defensive, then attack in 1941, so if they managed to hold up the German's without to big a cost they might have a chance to go on the offensive before Germany can rebuild. The best best would be for them to realise the Ardennes can be passed by tanks, and to have forces ready for the real attack rather than being lured out of position in Belgium. The Germans cannot encircle most of the allied armies and it becomes a head on contest which the German's eventually lose after taking some French and Belgium territory.

The Allies finish building up first, push the German's out of French and Belgium, and cross the German border. A coup removes Hitler and Germany sues for an armistice. Don't know about treaty terms but having had to give Germany a kicking for the second time in twenty-five years the Allies may not be feeling very charitable.
 

Kaiser K

I could imagine the Rhineland falling under French control in such a peace, Poland likely gets Danzig and East Prussia.
 

Captain Jack

JamesHunter said:
Well the Allies planned to stand on the defensive, then attack in 1941, so if they managed to hold up the German's without to big a cost they might have a chance to go on the offensive before Germany can rebuild. The best best would be for them to realise the Ardennes can be passed by tanks, and to have forces ready for the real attack rather than being lured out of position in Belgium. The Germans cannot encircle most of the allied armies and it becomes a head on contest which the German's eventually lose after taking some French and Belgium territory.

The Allies finish building up first, push the German's out of French and Belgium, and cross the German border. A coup removes Hitler and Germany sues for an armistice. Don't know about treaty terms but having had to give Germany a kicking for the second time in twenty-five years the Allies may not be feeling very charitable.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Allies would be so quick to accept an armistice from Germany. As far as they were concerned they were at war with Germany and the Prussian militarism, not just Hitler or the Nazi government. If they accept an armistice offered by a coup government it will, rom the Allies perspective, set them up for a repeat of the aftermath of WW1. There isn't going to be a peace agreement until the French and British are satisfied that Germany has been well and truly beaten and, most importantly, the Germans know it.
 

JamesHunter

Captain Jack said:
I don't think the Allies would be so quick to accept an armistice from Germany. As far as they were concerned they were at war with Germany and the Prussian militarism, not just Hitler or the Nazi government. If they accept an armistice offered by a coup government it will, rom the Allies perspective, set them up for a repeat of the aftermath of WW1. There isn't going to be a peace agreement until the French and British are satisfied that Germany has been well and truly beaten and, most importantly, the Germans know it.
Click to expand...

That as the case may be, but there is what the Allies want and what they are in a position to get. Without America actually fighting Allied resources are alot more limited. They may simply not be in a position to crush Germany totally. On the other hand whatever agreements the Allies force on the Germans this time will be enforced, Germany has cross the line once to often, and needs it's teeth pulled, the question is do the Allies have the ability to do the pulling?
 
Beedok

Beedok

JamesHunter said:
That as the case may be, but there is what the Allies want and what they are in a position to get. Without America actually fighting Allied resources are alot more limited. They may simply not be in a position to crush Germany totally. On the other hand whatever agreements the Allies force on the Germans this time will be enforced, Germany has cross the line once to often, and needs it's teeth pulled, the question is do the Allies have the ability to do the pulling?
Click to expand...

OTL I believe Britain outproduced Germany, throw France into the mix and the Germans are pretty badly outmatched. The benefited substantially from capturing France OTL. The German's best bet is to kick Hitler and the more hardline Nazis out and then beg Stalin for mercy and supplies.
 

JamesHunter

Beedok said:
OTL I believe Britain outproduced Germany, throw France into the mix and the Germans are pretty badly outmatched. The benefited substantially from capturing France OTL. The German's best bet is to kick Hitler and the more hardline Nazis out and then beg Stalin for mercy and supplies.
Click to expand...

Well alot of their supplies were coming from the SU in 1940-41, so without France I guess the economy might implode before the Allies get round to attacking. I think the German economy had actually been in trouble since about 1938, and only a constant stream of resources from Conquered territory kept it going until Speer et al finally started sorting out the mess in 1942. Even then it never worked as well as the Western Allies economies (and depended on slave labour and theft, like that "loan" from Greece in '41). Probably the miracle was that they kept going for three years after the tide turned (not a very nice miracle of course).
 

ObssesedNuker

An important point: once it is obvious Germany is in a state of free-fall (so 1942 at the latest), then Stalin is going to come knocking on Germany's eastern borders.
 

Carl Schwamberger

JamesHunter said:
Well alot of their supplies were coming from the SU in 1940-41, so without France I guess the economy might implode before the Allies get round to attacking.
Click to expand...

That was the French favored strategy. They expected to have completed remarmament and training by late 1941 and to undertaken decisive offensive operations in 1942. By that time the French economists were predicting German food riots, price inflation, raw materials cut off and reserves used up, industry collapsing....
 

MattII

Well if the Germans screw up at Eben Emael and the fortress is left at least partially intact (say one of the gliders lands wrong and the mixed racket of splintering wood and screams alerts the Belgians, allowing them to overcome the Germans), then Belgium will hold out a lot longer, possibly allowing the British and French to do a proper job of defeating the German offensives in their sector.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

Arcvalons said:
What would be the consequences in the war if the German Invasion of France in 1940 fails? The french forces are able to mount an effective defense in Belgium, and the germans get halted just outside Brussels. Summer 1940 passes and France is still in the fight, Italy isn't by contrast.

I find interesting that everyone in Germany was expecting something like this:
Click to expand...
See
A Blunted Sickle (
multipage.gif
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... Last Page) pdf27
which is on-going
 

CthulhuFhtagn

Banned
This is probably a minor divergence, but France would probably have a much better reputation in America. Rather than "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", we'd probably remember them as the badasses that stomped the Germans twice, despite having a much smaller population both times.
 
GarethC

GarethC

CthulhuFhtagn said:
This is probably a minor divergence, but France would probably have a much better reputation in America. Rather than "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", we'd probably remember them as the badasses that stomped the Germans twice, despite having a much smaller population both times.
Click to expand...
And by comparison, Britain will no longer be the "plucky little island that stood alone against the Blitz", but will be "the world-spanning empire upon which the sun never sets".

I suspect that it's not so much a butterfly as Mothra the Giant Moth, because the French remaining on the field, and no North African campaign, and no Lend-Lease to the USSR, mean that Malaya will have a few hundred more aircraft and a hundred more tanks in December 1941, while French Indochina remains French, and Japanese bombers are not based there.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
CthulhuFhtagn said:
This is probably a minor divergence, but France would probably have a much better reputation in America. Rather than "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", we'd probably remember them as the badasses that stomped the Germans twice, despite having a much smaller population both times.
Click to expand...
Germans - Sauerkraut-eating invasion monkeys?
 

Carl Schwamberger

GarethC said:
And by comparison, Britain will no longer be the "plucky little island that stood alone against the Blitz", but will be "the world-spanning empire upon which the sun never sets".
Click to expand...

Tho the sun might have a uncomfortable late afternoon apperance. Economically and politically the Brit Empire was showing some structural faults. How those might have developed post after a German defeat 1940-41 is a interesting question

GarethC said:
I suspect that it's not so much a butterfly as Mothra the Giant Moth, because the French remaining on the field, and no North African campaign, and no Lend-Lease to the USSR, mean that Malaya will have a few hundred more aircraft and a hundred more tanks in December 1941, while French Indochina remains French, and Japanese bombers are not based there.
Click to expand...

The course of events in the Pacific would be very different with the French navy still a viable force, and the British far less distracted. Neither would the US be ramping up aid to Britain & the USSR at the expense of preparing Pacific defenses.

The US would still get a shot of European cash for war material, but without the destruction of European industry and economy & the accompanying loss of European markets though the 1940s. This creates a very different context for the US post Depression economic revival. We can also expect Roosevelt would not continue in the Presidency after 1944.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top