Fall of France

[Chilperic]

Did France have any chance of not falling in 1939-1940? If so, how?

[juanml82]

A lot of people can elaborate further, but an interesting idea (with hindsight) could be to have France-UK attacking Germany while they were attacking Poland, or a little time after that, while the Germans were still repairing battle damage from that campaign and setting up everything for their offensive into France

[Markus]

Originally Posted by Chilperic

Did France have any chance of not falling in 1939-1940? If so, how?

Any? Many!

Attack in 39 and Germany is finished as the whole western border was ill defended.

Have Maj. Höhmanns and Rheinberger(?) not crash in Belgium or at least have them carry matches to burn the war plan for a WW1-style attack. The kind of attack the Allies were expecting and preparing for.

Have the Belgians(2 Div.) coordinate the defence of the Ardennes with the French(quick reaction force of 3 Div., 3 Bde.) and the German troops could never cross the Meuse four days after the offensive began. A 24hr delay is enough to ensure considerable reinforcements(4 Div., 1Bde.) will have arrived in the Sedan sector.

Have the CG of the 55. Inf. Div. defending Sedan put more emphasis on combat training.

Conduct counterattacks in a more timely fashion. Not as quick as the Germans, just less slow will suffice.

[karl2025]

I know the Maginot line was pretty ridiculous since there were just a lot of opportunities to go around it, but what if the Belgians hadn't declared neutrality and set up an equally impressive fort system? I mean the one they had was neat, but if it were better, could they have stalled a German offensive and prevented any massive breakthroughs?

[Markus]

Originally Posted by karl2025

I know the Maginot line was pretty ridiculous since there were just a lot of opportunities to go around it,

That was the point of it. Block one approach by forts and place your field army near the other.

but what if the Belgians hadn't declared neutrality and set up an equally impressive fort system? I mean the one they had was neat, but if it were better, could they have stalled a German offensive and prevented any massive breakthroughs?

No need for forts. All they need to do is let the Anglo-French forces into Belgium after the german plan for an attack on Belgium was captured. This way the command structures are all integrated and the fuckup in the Ardennes won´t happen.

[Derek Jackson]

I think I heard that the Ardennes plan was not the original one. Plans for a different attack, which the allies could probably have been blocked got discovered following an air crash.

Plus there are the variabilities of mechanical failure and weather.

I get the impression that Hitler had the luck of the devil from April to June 1940. Had the devil been busy elswhere and perhaps a sympathetic angel been watching our for the French and British...

[Kaiser Kris]

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

I think I heard that the Ardennes plan was not the original one. Plans for a different attack, which the allies could probably have been blocked got discovered following an air crash.

Plus there are the variabilities of mechanical failure and weather.

I get the impression that Hitler had the luck of the devil from April to June 1940. Had the devil been busy elswhere and perhaps a sympathetic angel been watching our for the French and British...

It wasn't, it was adopted pretty close to last-minute. The Ardennes plan was, in the greatest part, the brainchild of Erich von Manstein and was rejected by the top German brass. Von Manstein eventually got his plan accepted by presenting it directly to Hitler, which angered his superiors enough that he was stuck commanding an infantry divison during the actual campaign.

And Hitler had so much 'devil's luck' between 1933 and 1941 that it's positively eerie.

[MUC]

Wasn't there some sort of German plane landing in Belgium (or was it Holland) by mistake (I think it was a Storch), carrying the plans for the actual invasion plan and which the Allies then captured?
Didn't this lead to changing the plan?
I think the Allies thought at first that the plans they captured were fake and the whole "false landing" incident was orchistrated by the Germans.

[arctic warrior]

Originally Posted by MUC

Wasn't there some sort of German plane landing in Belgium (or was it Holland) by mistake (I think it was a Storch), carrying the plans for the actual invasion plan and which the Allies then captured?
Didn't this lead to changing the plan?
I think the Allies thought at first that the plans they captured were fake and the whole "false landing" incident was orchistrated by the Germans.

There was as Markus remarks in post 5.

The Storch was forced to land in Belgium in January 1940 and plans carried were not destroyed which had the OKW redraw the attack on France, which were when the Manstein plan came in handy for Hitler to produce to gain the upper hand on the OKW as some point to. Like "I have the needed plans ready! - what have you got?"

Of course such a remarkable incident of your enemy forcing his plans upon you must be looked at as a possible hoax.

[poster342002]

Perhaps if France had itlsef heavily militarised itself and built up it's defences following WW1 in case of such an occurance? It may have held out longer or - with the help of the allies - never been conquered by Germany in WW2.

[Markus]

Originally Posted by poster342002

Perhaps if France had itlsef heavily militarised itself and built up it's defences following WW1 in case of such an occurance?

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...10&postcount=6

[poster342002]

Originally Posted by Markus

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...10&postcount=6

Thanks!

[Tyr]

Belgium shouldn't require much in the way of forts if you hide behind the Meusse or later the Scheldt. Its pretty big in a lot of places.

Better coordination is the way though. Both with the Belgians and between the English and French. Attacking would be clever too but perhaps a bit unfeasable without some major changes.

[DuQuense]

There are several major PODs from the Plans not being lost all the way up to Rommel and Guderian obeying orders and stopping after the Ardennes breakthru, to allow the Infantry and Artillery to catch up with them,

[Admiral Canaris]

Even if one ignores all earlier PODs, France needn't have surrendered as early as they did IOTL; the nation wasn't beaten when they gave up and installed Pétain, and Paris could have been defended, as could other lines if the will had been there. We're talking a war that's longer by months, at least. Remember, Germany still took 50,000 casualties in the French campaign; it was a curb-stomp, but the French weren't as utterly pathetic as Wehrmacht fanboys tend to assume.

[Markus]

Originally Posted by Admiral Canaris

Even if one ignores all earlier PODs, France needn't have surrendered as early as they did IOTL; the nation wasn't beaten when they gave up and installed Pétain, and Paris could have been defended, as could other lines if the will had been there.

The nation wasn´t beaten, but the war in France was over. Most of the french armny had been destroyed in the north and the rest could have just delayed the Wehrmacht a bit. And the defence of Paris would have resulted in the towns destruction and countlees civilan deaths.

We're talking a war that's longer by months, at least. Remember, Germany still took 50,000 casualties in the French campaign; it was a curb-stomp, but the French weren't as utterly pathetic as Wehrmacht fanboys tend to assume.

The french army had 66 divisions -and not the best- while the Germans had 109 in the line and 19 in reserve. And during the decisive phase the french army had been pathetic indeed. Last but not least the Wehrmacht suffered 150,000 casualties during the entire campaign. Compared to WW1 or the allied casualties that was less than nothing.

[CalBear]

How could France have prevailed? Let's count a few ways:

1. Attack the Germans on September 10, 1939 using its massive advantage in troops, mmobility and firepower (wait, that sounds like...)

2. Modernize a few months faster.

3. Allow your Generals to trade space for time (assuming you didn't follow # 1) and attack the German logistical tail from the flanks.

4. Realize you are defending an entire, large, country, not just Paris.

5. Regroup, reorganize and ATTACK. You have much better armor, and more of it, use it. You have sufficient air cover, especially with the RAF in the mix, use it to kill transportation assets.

6. Probably the most important: DO NOT PANIC.

[Kaiser Kris]

Originally Posted by Admiral Canaris

Even if one ignores all earlier PODs, France needn't have surrendered as early as they did IOTL; the nation wasn't beaten when they gave up and installed Pétain, and Paris could have been defended, as could other lines if the will had been there. We're talking a war that's longer by months, at least. Remember, Germany still took 50,000 casualties in the French campaign; it was a curb-stomp, but the French weren't as utterly pathetic as Wehrmacht fanboys tend to assume.

Hell, the Germans themselves regarded the French soldiers as brave soldiers and worthy adversaries. I don't have a citation, but I know that Rommel made some pretty complementary remarks about French troops, although I suspect not about their commanders.

The fall of France was the combination of an excellent German plan, very poor French and British strategic handling, grave communications and intelligence mistakes and a bit of luck on the ground. I'd argue that the fall of France was probably more like a 50/50 probability than a certainty, maybe even a little less than that.

[seraphim74]

French had a lot of time to find countertactics against German Blitzkrieg. Unfortunately, they ignored Polish informations about German campaign in Poland. Most of French commanders assumed, that since Polish Army had been defeated so quickly, any reports made by Polish officers were useless. General Maczek, commander of Polish only big motorized unit in 1939 wrote full analysis for his French partners about German tactics. During the fall of France he found his report - the envelope wasn't even opened. Had the French decided "hey, we helped to train those guys, perhaps they know what they're talking about" and had analized Polish reports they might have found countermeasures for Blitzkrieg.
Also, during campaign in 1940 Polish soldiers were often shocked by low morale od many of their French comrades in arms. They saw thousands of them running in panic without weapons, totally uninterested in continuing the fight. OTOH, soldiers of Polish 10th Armoured Cavalry Divison were impressed by French colonial troops, especially the riflemen from Senegal, who were seen trying to gather rifles thrown away by escaping French soldiers. Soon every tank in the brigade had one "adopted" Senegalian soldier, who traveled on tank and fought together with Poles.
Alltogether I agree, that if the French had attacked in September 1939, they would have succeed. But even if not, they could have easily won in 1940 - if they deigned to listen to the soldiers who had already faced Germans.

[Milarqui]

Maybe if they had followed De Gaulle's advice...

I'll explain myself: De Gaulle had said that the Maginot Line, in which France tended to put all its faith in case of war against Germany, was obsolete and would not work, so he suggested that the Army created a Mechanized Infantry unit to deal with attacks. His idea wasn't even discussed by the Army, and when Pétain was given full powers and formed Vichy France, he sentenced De Gaulle to death in contempt of court.

Maybe with the Mech Infantry things would have worked out better for the French...