AHC: Have the Manstein Plan succeed and yet prevent (continental) France from falling

CaliGuy

Banned
Here's a fun AHC for you: Have the Manstein Plan succeed and yet prevent (continental) France from falling to the Nazis (in either 1940 or later).

Basically, I am curious about this considering that, in spite of the strength of France's army on paper, France's army was never able to recover from the Manstein Plan's encirclement and destruction of a large part of it. In contrast, the Soviet Union was able to survive in spite of numerous parts of its army being encircled and destroyed by the Nazis. True, the Soviet Union was much larger and much more populous than France was, but I am nevertheless curious as to whether--as well as how exactly--France could avoid falling to the Nazis during WWII in spite of having a large part of its army be encircled and destroyed.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
 
I mean, I think you've hit the nail on the head - the French didn't have the manpower to replace their army - hell, they already had to make some sacrifices in order to field the large army they had - and they lacked the ability to trade space for time like the USSR effectively did. I just don't see what other options they'd have. There would simply be not enough troops and not enough time.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I mean, I think you've hit the nail on the head - the French didn't have the manpower to replace their army - hell, they already had to make some sacrifices in order to field the large army they had - and they lacked the ability to trade space for time like the USSR effectively did. I just don't see what other options they'd have. There would simply be not enough troops and not enough time.
Yeah, it's interesting how some users here point out that France's army was so formidable in 1940 (and in comparison to Germany's army, it probably was) and yet France had no back-up option in place in the event that it lost a large part of its army. Heck, wasn't Germany able to replace large parts of its armies on the Eastern Front later on? (True, they did have an advantage in operating far away from home--unlike France.)

Frankly, I wonder if a good way to fulfill my AHC here would be to have Britain build a large army before 1939 and send it over to France right at the start of World War II. In such a scenario, the British Army can be kept in the Paris area and be used for France's defense after the success of the Manstein Plan. Indeed, could the Weygand Line actually hold indefinitely in this TL?
 
Yeah, it's interesting how some users here point out that France's army was so formidable in 1940 (and in comparison to Germany's army, it probably was) and yet France had no back-up option in place in the event that it lost a large part of its army. Heck, wasn't Germany able to replace large parts of its armies on the Eastern Front later on? (True, they did have an advantage in operating far away from home--unlike France.)

Germany had twice France's population at this time and used the armies of its allies as well.

Frankly, I wonder if a good way to fulfill my AHC here would be to have Britain build a large army before 1939 and send it over to France right at the start of World War II. In such a scenario, the British Army can be kept in the Paris area and be used for France's defense after the success of the Manstein Plan. Indeed, could the Weygand Line actually hold indefinitely in this TL?

This kind of has the same problem as someone writing a Germanwank where the Germans build up greater strength than OTL and none of their rivals react accordingly. A British army buildup would probably force Hitler to alter his own plans somehow, and you'd need to figure out how that works.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Germany had twice France's population at this time and used the armies of its allies as well.

Excellent points. However, it took Germany to endure several million casualties before it fell; indeed, as a proportion of the German population, Germany lost much more than France did before it fell.

This kind of has the same problem as someone writing a Germanwank where the Germans build up greater strength than OTL and none of their rivals react accordingly. A British army buildup would probably force Hitler to alter his own plans somehow, and you'd need to figure out how that works.

Wasn't the German military already stretched to the limit by Germany's finances during this time, though? If so, wouldn't Germany have to significantly reduce its defense spending (because it can't loot any additional territory) if it wants to avoid economic collapse in this TL?
 
Excellent points. However, it took Germany to endure several million casualties before it fell; indeed, as a proportion of the German population, Germany lost much more than France did before it fell.

True, and there are probably several reasons for that. The main one would still have to be that most Germans didn't die on German soil. Even so, in both cases there wasn't much resistance left after they lost their capitals and leadership.

Wasn't the German military already stretched to the limit by Germany's finances during this time, though? If so, wouldn't Germany have to significantly reduce its defense spending (because it can't loot any additional territory) if it wants to avoid economic collapse in this TL?

Probably true. Hitler's response would likely be something other than just building up more. Knowing him, he might have to invade France early to neutralize the threat before it could grow too much. The smarter choice might be to scale back rearmament a lot and wait out the British until they're forced to draw down too. This all supposes that a massive British army buildup could be done in the mid-30's, which I doubt. The tensions between Britain and France were significant, and fighting the Germans would not be popular before 1938.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
True, and there are probably several reasons for that. The main one would still have to be that most Germans didn't die on German soil. Even so, in both cases there wasn't much resistance left after they lost their capitals and leadership.

Completely agreed--as in my earlier post--that Germany's conquest of large amounts of space in the East allowed it to constantly replenish its military with new troops.

Probably true. Hitler's response would likely be something other than just building up more. Knowing him, he might have to invade France early to neutralize the threat before it could grow too much. The smarter choice might be to scale back rearmament a lot and wait out the British until they're forced to draw down too.

Agreed. Indeed, in this TL, Hitler might focus on a slower rearmament which lasts say, 20 years; however, by the time that rearmament is completed, Hitler might be too frail to contemplate starting a war. Or, alternatively, he might begin being marginalized by younger Nazis in this TL.

I doubt that Hitler would be stupid enough to fight France if he doesn't think that he can win; of course, if he thinks that France is bluffing about going to war for Poland, then he could be in for some deep doo-doo! :D

This all supposes that a massive British army buildup could be done in the mid-30's, which I doubt. The tensions between Britain and France were significant, and fighting the Germans would not be popular before 1938.

Agreed, unfortunately. :(
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Also, out of curiosity--how well do you think that France would have fared in 1939-1940 had it attacked Germany rather than been on the defensive? Indeed, given France's small size and small population, I suspect that the best move for France might have been to invade Germany as early as possible; that way, if France would have still experienced a large-scale encirclement of its troops by Germany, it would at least have more time to build a new army.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yeah, it's interesting how some users here point out that France's army was so formidable in 1940 (and in comparison to Germany's army, it probably was) and yet France had no back-up option in place in the event that it lost a large part of its army. Heck, wasn't Germany able to replace large parts of its armies on the Eastern Front later on? (True, they did have an advantage in operating far away from home--unlike France.)
Sort of. They had mobilized 85% of normal mobilizable manpower for Barbarossa (including all the non-Barbarossa military forces: occupation, naval, reserve, North African force, Luftwaffe defending Europe, SS, etc.), so there was a 'reserve' in industry and of course less qualified manpower (older/younger/infirm) and future conscription classes that were too young as of 1941. Still the Wehrmacht was in many ways in terminal decline from Winter 1941 on, which was only partially made good by 'economizing' manpower in the existing army, making due with too few replacements, foreign manpower, foreign army divisions, etc..
The French in 1940 had also pretty much mobilized all useful manpower without disrupting the war economy to have a big army to counter Germany's...but their biggest problem, even more than trained manpower, was the lack of weapons and supplies after the Manstein Plan had come off. Hundreds of thousands of men got out of the encirclement (just flowed through because it was not tight), but had left all their heavy equipment behind. Much like the BEF post-Dunkirk they were combat ineffective in terms of everything above rifles and MGs.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
1. *early* US intervention (and prewar build-up) able to contribute to French survival just in the nick of time?
2. Spanish Republic survives and allies with Britain and France at beginning of the war. The French suffer additional territorial and battlefield losses but don't get pushed all the way to the Pyrenees or the Med before reinforcements from the Commonwealth and levies of colonial troops stabilize the front against Germans, and allow for an eventual turn of the tide?
3. Soviets attack in the east after the German breakthrough at Sedan but still weeks before the fall of Paris?
4. The Manstein plan "catches air". Well actually it "succeeds" in gobbling up the Low Countries, but the French and BEF do not walk their forces into the trap, instead letting the Belgians hang for not cooperating early enough. [maybe that violates the Manstein Plan succeeding concept of the OP though].
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Sort of. They had mobilized 85% of normal mobilizable manpower for Barbarossa (including all the non-Barbarossa military forces: occupation, naval, reserve, North African force, Luftwaffe defending Europe, SS, etc.), so there was a 'reserve' in industry and of course less qualified manpower (older/younger/infirm) and future conscription classes that were too young as of 1941. Still the Wehrmacht was in many ways in terminal decline from Winter 1941 on, which was only partially made good by 'economizing' manpower in the existing army, making due with too few replacements, foreign manpower, foreign army divisions, etc..

As well as by importing foreign slave labor and sending off German factory workers to the front lines, correct?

The French in 1940 had also pretty much mobilized all useful manpower without disrupting the war economy to have a big army to counter Germany's...but their biggest problem, even more than trained manpower, was the lack of weapons and supplies after the Manstein Plan had come off. Hundreds of thousands of men got out of the encirclement (just flowed through because it was not tight), but had left all their heavy equipment behind. Much like the BEF post-Dunkirk they were combat ineffective in terms of everything above rifles and MGs.

Out of curiosity--had France's military been well-equipped after Fall Gelb (for instance, let's say that France would have produced more guns and whatnot in the pre-war era and have kept these guns stored somewhere where French troops could have easy access to them if necessary), do you think that France would have been able to hold out indefinitely?

Also, two additional questions:

1. Was France's defensive strategy in 1939-1940 based in part on its belief that it simply cannot expend a lot of men on risky attacks and that it thus needs to bleed the Germans dry before it and Britain can defeat them?
2. How exactly was the Soviet Union able to sustain itself all of the way up to 1945? After all, weren't 1 in 5 Soviet men--in total (including children and the elderly)--killed during World War II?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
1. *early* US intervention (and prewar build-up) able to contribute to French survival just in the nick of time?

That could work, but it requires a PoD 20+ years back for it to work. Basically, this requires the U.S. to ally with Britain and France back in 1919--which requires either Wilson dying of his stroke in 1919 or Hughes winning in 1916.

However, even if the U.S. enters World War II in 1939, its troops are probably initially going to be all volunteers. Basically, even with an Anglo-French alliance, I expect the U.S. to still see large-scale disillusionment with Europe in the 1920s and 1930s in this TL; thus, Americans are probably not going to be willing to draft troops to send to France in 1939-1940 unless France's situation gets really desperate--and even then, you'd have to train the troops and get them to Europe in time to prevent France from falling!

Honestly, the best way to get a lot of U.S. volunteers to Europe in 1939-1940 (in the event of a U.S. entry into WWII in 1939, that is) might be for Hitler to be a bit more open about his genocidal intentions for European Jews. Indeed, this could motivate hundreds of thousands of fit U.S. Jewish males to volunteer to fight against Hitler as early as possible. Could this be enough to turn the tide? Together with a larger BEF, let's hope so! :)

2. Spanish Republic survives and allies with Britain and France at beginning of the war. The French suffer additional territorial and battlefield losses but don't get pushed all the way to the Pyrenees or the Med before reinforcements from the Commonwealth and levies of colonial troops stabilize the front against Germans, and allow for an eventual turn of the tide?

What exactly would be in it for Spain, though? After all, Spain was ruined by war and didn't have any alliance commitments to any Eastern European states.

Plus, if Italy's example is anything to go by, I am unsure that Spaniards would fight particularly well.

3. Soviets attack in the east after the German breakthrough at Sedan but still weeks before the fall of Paris?

That's a tough one to predict. Indeed, in such a scenario, I suspect Nazi Germany is going to be willing to lose large amounts of its eastern territory in order to be able to keep most of its troops in the west for another month or two. This, combined with logistical limitations, might make it difficult for this to work--after all, I find it hard to believe that logistics would allow the Soviets to seriously threaten Berlin in 1940 in this TL.

4. The Manstein plan "catches air". Well actually it "succeeds" in gobbling up the Low Countries, but the French and BEF do not walk their forces into the trap, instead letting the Belgians hang for not cooperating early enough. [maybe that violates the Manstein Plan succeeding concept of the OP though].

Doesn't work--these troops need to be encircled and at least in large part their military units need to be destroyed in combat by the Nazis.
 

Deleted member 1487

As well as by importing foreign slave labor and sending off German factory workers to the front lines, correct?
Yes.

Out of curiosity--had France's military been well-equipped after Fall Gelb (for instance, let's say that France would have produced more guns and whatnot in the pre-war era and have kept these guns stored somewhere where French troops could have easy access to them if necessary), do you think that France would have been able to hold out indefinitely?

Also, two additional questions:

1. Was France's defensive strategy in 1939-1940 based in part on its belief that it simply cannot expend a lot of men on risky attacks and that it thus needs to bleed the Germans dry before it and Britain can defeat them?
2. How exactly was the Soviet Union able to sustain itself all of the way up to 1945? After all, weren't 1 in 5 Soviet men--in total (including children and the elderly)--killed during World War II?
Probably not. They could have held for longer, but they'd lose eventually. France's defensive strategy was largely based on a doctrine of firepower to spare casualties and the belief that they had largely got it right in WW1 and were elaborating on that doctrine. So largely yes, they were trying to keep the fight off of their own soil, in Belgium, and buy time to modernize their air force and army, while the British blockade of Germany took effect.

The Soviets sustained themselves via LL and ruthlessly mobilizing their economy, while sacrificing tens of millions of people, plus automating agriculture. Plus having allies took the burden off of them to fight the whole German military, which they would not have been able to succeed in. Remember the Germans kept huge productive capacity dedicated to combating the Wallies and millions of men off of the Eastern Front even in 1941. Not sure about the 1 in 5 men dying during the war, but it was huge for certain age groups.
 

CaliGuy

Banned

OK.

In addition to this, the Nazis (and Soviets, and Brits, and Americans) also put women into factories to allow more factory-working men to be drafted, correct?

Probably not. They could have held for longer, but they'd lose eventually.

How long do you think that it would take France to fall in this TL?

Also, would bringing additional British (and U.S., if you can come up with a PoD which causes the U.S. to enter the war in 1939) troops into France not be enough to prevent France from falling?

France's defensive strategy was largely based on a doctrine of firepower to spare casualties and the belief that they had largely got it right in WW1 and were elaborating on that doctrine. So largely yes, they were trying to keep the fight off of their own soil, in Belgium, and buy time to modernize their air force and army, while the British blockade of Germany took effect.

And also to buy time so that Britain can train more British and British colonial troops and send them over to France, correct?

Also, out of curiosity--had France not lost a large part of its army as a result of the Manstein Plan--and had France not had military equipment shortages as you mentioned--do you think that France would have been able to hold out indefinitely in World War II?

The Soviets sustained themselves via LL and ruthlessly mobilizing their economy, while sacrificing tens of millions of people, plus automating agriculture.

Did the U.S. and Britain help them with automating agriculture?

Plus having allies took the burden off of them to fight the whole German military, which they would not have been able to succeed in. Remember the Germans kept huge productive capacity dedicated to combating the Wallies and millions of men off of the Eastern Front even in 1941.

So, without the Western Allies being in the war, the Soviet Union is defeated by Nazi Germany in either 1941 or 1942?

Not sure about the 1 in 5 men dying during the war, but it was huge for certain age groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union#Male_war_dead

"Andreev, Darski and Karkova (ADK) put total losses at 26.6 million. The authors did not dispute Krivoshev's report of 8.7 million military dead. Their demographic study estimated the total war dead of 26.6 million included 20.0 million males and 6.6 million females. In mid-1941 the USSR hosted 8.3 million more females; by 1946 this gap had grown to 22.8 million, an increase of 13.5 million.[71]:78"

Also, considering that the Soviet Union had a population of 196,700,000 in 1941, and considering that there were 8.3 million more females than males in the Soviet Union during this time, we get figures of 94,200,000 males and 102,500,000 females for the Soviet Union in mid-1941. Subtracting 20.0 million from 92.4 million gives us 72.4 million, and 20.0 million divided up 92.4 million is 21.65%. Thus, the Soviet Union lost 21.65% of its total male population--including the elderly and children--in World War II. :(
 
Last edited:
Have Hitler not declare a halt order allowing the Wermacht to push north to Dunkirk. The strike south is delayed giving France time to rally.
 
My answer to the OP is to butterfly away the Maginot line in favor of significant armor reserves.

DOn't know how, but not impossible. France will still man their own border with 40 divisions, but they will be of fortress troops and mobile reserves. Once Manstein cuts off the creme of the French army (40 divisions plus the BEF) in the Low Countries, France will still have another 40 divisions which are not strictly stuck in the maginot line (though I'd guess that there would be 20+ divisions fortress divisions still stuck in front of Germany and Italy.) With those 40 divisions and those who escaped through the German encirclement, France can perhaps score a victory against the Germans (either preventing the capture of all the channel ports, or shattering German pincers on their way to Paris. Without it being hopeless, Paris might not be an open city. Germany will take Paris, but it will cost them. By then, France can drag out the war for months. With luck, Russia jumps in before final German victory. Italy in this case stays netural. Britain's second BEF can arrive and forces originally used in Africa (Anzacs and what not, get sent to France.) France, still in the fight, will conscript their own third rate of canon fodder and old men.

Without the Maginot Line, France can lose half of its mobile reserve but still ahve a larger force of armor and mobile infantry than the Germans. If so, crappy Panzer Is and IIs can only be in the fight so long. Then, it becomes attritional infantry fighting like WW1 with the Wallies holding the advantage in mobile forces.
 
Last edited:
Top