190 WI: The French 7th Army is kept in reserve

Anaxagoras

Banned
IOTL, the French 7th Army, stationed on the far left of the Allied line, was initially intended to be held as a strategic reserve. In a rather foolish move, the Allies adjusted their plans and elected to send the 7th Army into southern Holland in order to assist the Dutch.

WI the Allies had held to their original ideas and kept the 7th Army in reserve rather than sending it off on a wild goose chase. Could it have been used as an effective counter attack force against the German bridgehead at Sedan? Could it have counter attacked the German right flank after the Sedan breakthrough?
 

Redbeard

Banned
IOTL, the French 7th Army, stationed on the far left of the Allied line, was initially intended to be held as a strategic reserve. In a rather foolish move, the Allies adjusted their plans and elected to send the 7th Army into southern Holland in order to assist the Dutch.

WI the Allies had held to their original ideas and kept the 7th Army in reserve rather than sending it off on a wild goose chase. Could it have been used as an effective counter attack force against the German bridgehead at Sedan? Could it have counter attacked the German right flank after the Sedan breakthrough?

We tend to see the 1940 French Army as hopeless and doomed - no matter what.

It indeed had some "handicaps", particulary a slow reacting command and communication system based on WWI operational speed and thus extremely vulnerable to Blitzkrieg, but it in no way was hopeless and doomed.

In OTL the allied decision to put the fokus (incl. 7th Army) in Belgium made that handicap fatal, as the German breakthrough at Sedan now had to be countered with whatever could be scraped together - which was too little and too late. That is why the French general staff on Churchill's question where the strategic reserve was had to answer: "There isn't any!"

The 7th Army would never have performed swift Blitzkrieg like counterattacks, but rather well prepared heavy blows at an attacker. Tactically the Germans were too superior to be ran over, but I'm as positive as you can be in AH, that an entire French Army counterattacking will be what is needed to have Hitler go into panic mode and order a general halt of the German advance (he was close in OTL). This will be too much for Guderian and Rommel to ignore (they did stop when Hitler ordered stop at Dunkirk), and the German offensive will bog down not far from where it bogged down in WWI - in place and circumstances.

In 1940 that would have the entire world say: "Here we go again, haven't those Germans learnt a thing?!" and the more insightful would know that the biggest diffrence to WWI is that the British and French this time soon will speed ahead of the Germans in expansion of armed forces.

In Germany Hitler will not be "the greatest general of all times", but just a simple corporal advanced way too high/far. It will not be a question of him being removed or not, but of whether it is the Army taking over alone or in a coalition with nazis ready to distance themselves with Hitler (which anyway will be problematic to nazism, it was a "Hitler-movement").

After this I doubt the allies will persist on carrying out a costly offensive when ready (in 1941) and an armistice is probable. The big interesting question is how to handle the Polish question. The Germans will of course have to leave Poland, but the new government would of course have an obvious chance of being accepted as "good company" again, if joining an allied cause in putting pressure on the Soviets to leave Poland too. The spin surrounding it could be something like: "Our true cause is against Bolschevism, but Hitler obscured this by making pact with Stalin and attacking Poland and France. Now Hitler is removed, we, and other "aryans", can at last turn our attention against the real danger...etc.!"

In this context a blatant Nazi influx in the new government will of course be a barrier for acceptance, all this "aryan" talk etc. will be quite embarrasing and passé, and I guess the Army, spurred by conservatives in general, will soon have this proletarian nazi stuff toned down or deleted altogether.

If Stalin in this ATL decide to invade and annex the Baltic republics as OTL (June-July 40), I guess it will mean the allies and Germany declaring war on SU, but I very much doubt that Stalin will do exactly as in OTL. Instead the huge Soviet rearmament programme for an army of 500+ Divisions by mid 42 will go on, and Stalin will be very cautious not to provoke anybody before the Red Army is ready. The question is how aggressive the allies will be, they after all did consider serioulsy to intervene on Finnish side in 1939. In this ATL we must assume that Churchill is PM as in OTL, and that IMO points towards an aggressive stance - like issuing guarantees on Baltic independence and building up the pressure considering Soviet occupation of Polish (and Finnish) areas.

Most likely we will have a cold war starting in 1940 and with the Soviets in a withdrawn position compared to OTL. They will of course not have suffered the devastation of OTL WWII, but OTOH the Soviet regime also will lack the huge legitemacy earned in WWII. All in all I think the SU will last shorther than in OTL. If the allies and Germany are still far apart, we could see a Soviet attack on Germnay in 1942.

But back to the French 7th Army, please remark that the French blunder wasn't a defensive mindset, but being too offensive by putting all eggs in the left flank basket and kicking it across the Belgian border.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Top