Allied Victory in 1940/1941

ok, i have little in-depth knowledge of WW2, but could the UK, France et al pull of a victory against Germany, or if not a Victory, a significant offencive against the Germans before Operation Barbarossa?

perhaps if the original plans for the Invasion of France were used, and they get bogged down?

or if the French dont build the Margot line, but invest that money in new tanks and stuff:D
 
The Foresight War, but with electronics. Specifically, a television camera (even the lousy ones they had back then) in the front of the airplane, that is radio guided by a chase plane until it hits the target. Since half of Germany's power came from only fifty power plants...
In the first day, Germany loses half it's power production.
In the first week, Germany loses three quarters of it's power production.
In the first month, Germany loses seven eighths of it's power production.
By this time you are down to taking out individual factory power plants for steel mills and coke oven complexes.
So Germany can't make explosives, aluminum, air planes, tanks, synfuels, etc. Eventually they just give up and attack with their original plan and no Ardennes surprise means they lose.
 

Redbeard

Banned
There are loads of plausible PoD's to have the German campaign(s) of 1940 fail, from the small including a handful of men to the great socioeconomic.

First we could have the Danish government listen to the warnings and decide to offer the resistance they can. So German transports and warships are decimated by Danish mines and coastal subs. The airport at Aalborg (the main reason for including Denmark in the Norwegian campaign) is demolished, and Copenhagen is not taken in the first try (similar events to Oslo). As a consequence of the extra losses on the way to Norway and the lack of airsupport (from the base at Aalborg) the campaign in Norway fail, and the allies are boosting with selfconfidence.

Hitler sees that it is now or never if he shall win this war and orders the attack on France, Belgium and Netherlands as in OTL (10th of May). But this time things go slightly different. The allies are just a little more confident, they are not quite as scared by the Stukas, and the Germans not quite as lucky when it comes to the initial crossing of the Meuse by assault teams. A French staff officer chooses a slightly different wording in report about some shots and the mass hysteria at Bulson over imaginary German tanks never starts and as a result the 55th Division has most of its massive 174 piece artillery support intact, that is seriously felt by the Germans at the Meuse.

General Lanfontaine in this TL does not need 17 hours to initiate the counterattack with the available two infantryregiments (205th and 213th) and two tank battalions just awaiting the order, but only needs 16 hours and 45 minuttes. That has the French take possession of key terrain leading out of the bridgehead. As a consequence General Flavigny sticks to his orders from Huntzinger to do an all out assault on the bridgehead with the powerful XXI Corps (3rd Armd. Div, 3rd Mot. Div., 5th Light Cav. Div and 1st cav. Bde). In OTL he heard about the failed connterattack of Lanfontaine and decided to spread out his tanks and go into defensive position!

Flavignys force holds a big number of the Char B bis, which was practically immune to German tank and anti-tank guns, and at this time the Panzer forces were deployed company wise as soon as they had crossed the pontoon Bridge at Gaulier. The French attack is not a fast sweeping one like the Germans would have done, but more like a slowly moving steamroller. Against a complete Panzer Corps such an attack would probably have been outflanked and rolled up, but the penny pocket deployment of the crossing German forces would be extremely vulnerable to the French doctrine.

The allied air attacks on the bridge at Gaulier still suffers horendous losses (6 AA battalions with 300+ AA guns) were deployed at the bridge, but this time the crashing French plane which in OTL near missed the bridge hits it fair and square. To complete the misfortunes Guderian and Rundstedt are hit by stray bullets while standing on the middle of the bridge during an airattack (in OTL they did hold a "conference" there during an airattack but were unharmed ).

So by 15th of May the bridgehead is wiped out and next the BEF and 1st and 9th French Armies start to advance from Belgium into NW Gernany. The German strategic reserve is committed, but these are mainly Divisions with very little training or modern equipment, and one after one they are routed much like the French Divisions in OTL.

The Luftwaffe is wholesale committed to stop the allied avalanche, but short of the OTL experiences at Sedan the Stuka has lost its spell and spurred by the success the RAF moves to the continent and soon the 2000 French planes held in the rear areas for the expected long campaign begin to mark their presence - Luftwaffe looses air superiority and the German high command looses its nerve. Hitler is assasinated and an armistice is concluded where Ruhr, NW Germany and the Rhineland is occupied.

In Germany the new military leadership liquidates the nazi party and the SS, but anxiously watch the Soviets, and secretly consult the allies about what to do if the reds come storming from the east...

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

King Thomas

Banned
The French and British attack in September 1939 whilst most of the German Army is in Poland and come crashing into the West of Germany. When the German army is weakened by the two-front war, the Poles take advantage and shove the Germans out.Hitler gets assassinated by a general who asks for terms.
 
Redbeard said:
In Germany the new military leadership liquidates the nazi party and the SS, but anxiously watch the Soviets, and secretly consult the allies about what to do if the reds come storming from the east...

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

That all sounds really good, Steffen. Just one question- what do you think would become of occupied Poland? Would the Allies put pressure on the Soviets by re-constituting a Polish state on that occupied territory?

Regards,

Steve
 

Redbeard

Banned
SteveW said:
That all sounds really good, Steffen. Just one question- what do you think would become of occupied Poland? Would the Allies put pressure on the Soviets by re-constituting a Polish state on that occupied territory?

Regards,

Steve

Uups, forgot Poland - sorry Poland :eek:

Well, I guess an armistice couldn't be concluded without including Poland somehow - that simply wouldn't be a political option for the allies. So let's say that the German occupied part of Poland is taken over by an international commission, but with the German troops there staying in their garrisons (in case the ruskis try something). Next they are supplemented by allied troops and Poles as the Polish Army is reborn. Meanwhile the west and the Soviets quarrel over what to happen about Soviet occupied Poland. The Soviets claim that the Germans and the allies never seriously fought each other, but just waited to form a conspiracy towards the proletarians of the world. The crisis reaches a new climax when the Polish Peoples republic is created and communist inspired strikes and unrest happen all over the western world...

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Somehow I don't see Denmark being able to do much damage. On the other hand, the German invasion was exceptionally light on manpower so even minor efforts might have bought time elsewhere.

I have a book on the Kriegsmarine and the ships used against Denmark and Norway were pushed to the maximum for these two invasions. A squadron or two of British destroyers could have caused some serious concern, if they were in the right place.

Even better would be if the British manage to intercept the German attack on Trondheim(heavy cruiser Hipper and 4 destroyers).

For an even easier approach, the French realize that the strike of 1938-39 has badly disrupted the planned rearmament and gives Hitler too large an advantage unless they strike while Poland is in the fight.

After nearly a week of debate and diliatory measures the enraged French leadership fires several senior generals and advances others(LeClerc? Juin? De Gaulle himself?). On September 9th an armored division leads off on a lumbering but powerful force of nearly fifty French divisions which manage to overwhelm the handful of scratch German divisions and seize most of the Rhineland by the time Poland has fallen.

Perhaps even a crossing over the Rhine at some point?

The vital Ruhr industrial valley is now in artillery range.

Belgium returns to the Franco-Belgian alliance abrogated only in 1936.

The invasion of Norway(and Denmark), opposed almost psychotically by the Wehrmacht, is cancelled.

And now...
 
1. Britain manages to commit more than the pathetic OTL divisions of the BEF in France, say doubling that number. This is used as a strategic reserve to block the German advance after Sedan.

2. Same scenario, but this time by using French VIIth Army under Giraud who is not sent on a non-sense mission to the Netherlands.

3. No traitor selling the plans of Eben-Emael to the Germans in 1938. The crossing of the Meuse by the German armies is rendered terribly bloody under the fire of the fortress. Forces need to be sifted towards Von Bock's Army Group B in the North, more time required for Guderian to reach the Meuse between Dinant and Sedan, and French defenses better established.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Grimm Reaper said:
Somehow I don't see Denmark being able to do much damage. On the other hand, the German invasion was exceptionally light on manpower so even minor efforts might have bought time elsewhere.

I have a book on the Kriegsmarine and the ships used against Denmark and Norway were pushed to the maximum for these two invasions. A squadron or two of British destroyers could have caused some serious concern, if they were in the right place.

Even better would be if the British manage to intercept the German attack on Trondheim(heavy cruiser Hipper and 4 destroyers).

They Germans only committed two Divisions for the attack on Denmark, which also was the approximate force Denmark could field if mobilised. The army actually had been partly mobilised at the outbreak of war, but after the allies clearly stated that Denmark couldn't expect any help, all but a few thousand scattered men were sent home in early 1940 (March IIRC). The Germans were short of trained troops in early 1940 and sending more would have been problematic as would taking heavy losses. The Danish Navy had about 10 coastal subs, which if deployed could have done serious harm to any German ship in the western Baltic or the North Sea. The two Coastal battleships would also have required German attention which hardly could be spared from elsewhere. Most of the initial wave for Norway had passed the Danish straits by the time Germany attacked Denmark though, but if deployed the considerable Danish mining capacity could have cut any German forces in Norway off. Most important however is negating the Germans the use of Aalborg Airport as this will seriously handicap the Germans in Norway.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

Gremlin

Banned
Just by having the bridge at Gaulier destroyed or sufficiently damaged would have slowed the German advance down to a level that the ageing French high command would have been able to respond to. Even if the allies were pressed back as in WWI the attrition suffered by the Wehrmacht coupled with the influx of troops from the empire (Benito doesn't jump in) will eventually result in a German defeat.
 

Redbeard

Banned
I agree. The success of the Germans in this campaign relied not only on their unquestionable skills in quick decision making etc. but also on a string of good luck events. The bridge at Gaulier indeed was one, and apparently the Germans didn’t even have spare pontoons in case of damage. The bridge was heavily defended though – 6 AA battalions with combined more than 300 AA guns! I don’t know of any other point target in the field ever being so heavily defended against air attack. That makes the high losses in the allied airforces more understandable (40 out of 70 Battles) – perhaps the problem wasn’t the Fairy Battle, but the AAA?

Most interesting is IMHO also how much the German success relied on everything going wrong on the French side. Studying the events at Sedan and Bulson on 13th to 15th of May simply is horrendous reading. Not only the slowly working French decision cycle, but how anything that could go wrong, and some more, did go wrong on the French side. Here you can say the Germans relied on a string of bad luck events on the French side, but of course spurred by the slow and initiative killing French doctrine. Genaral Lafontaine (CO of 55th ID) used 17 hours to look for his Corps commander to get permission for a counterattack with troops ready to go, and when he finally started, he arrived at the object 15 minuttes after the Germans! In contrast the German Assault Engineer Feldwebel (Rubart IIRC) who suddenly found himself and a few squads isolated on the west bank of the Meuse, did not await further orders, but started busting French bunkers right away and in that way gave a significant contribution to the campaign. Germans were not given detailed orders but a mission (Auftrag) and were expected to find out themselves how to fulfil the mission (Auftragstaktik). In this campaign it was followed to a degree of even disobeying orders – especially Guderian did so.

But after 17th of May it IMHO becomes much more difficult to find plausible PoD’s for an allied victory. By that time the Germans had too much across and the allies had sunk into deep chaos. But a slight hesitation on German side might still be significant. I’m quite impressed by how fast the French learned to use 360 degree hedgehog defensive positions instead of continuous front line after Weygrand took over in late May. Combined with the Germans being a little slower the mounting German losses of early June could perhaps have the front stabilise. Anyway the French did show very good fighting skills when ever they were deployed correctly (i.e. not hopelessly).

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
ok, a bit of speculation here...

hmm. lets look at post-War Germany. lets say the Allies push for Berlin, and Hitler orders the troops to fight to the very end. troops are pulled out of Poland to face the Allies across the Rhine. germany falls, etc,etc. perhaps Italy could enter the War on the Allies side, especialy if Germany fails early on, and they see the opertunity to do some land grabbing, and to fiddle around with the Balkans with the allies looking the other way.

lets say the seeing his invasion of France has backfired dramaticly, Hitler orders the Luftwaffe to bliz Paris. if he cannot have it, no one can.

ok, final defeat in 1943/43. Hitler is killed off by top Nazis, and they seek the negotiating table. France, pissed at the destruction of Paris, demands complete surrender. Britain, other allies decide (reluctently) to follow. meanwhile in Poland, the resistance has overthrown the yoke of the remaining Nazis, and is recognised by the Allies. by the end of 1943, its all over. the French flag is raised over the Reichstag.:D

post war? perhaps an enlarged Chezcslovackia?, a free Austria, maybe even a free Bavaria and a Baden state? Poland gets OTL land gains, but also gets all of East Prussia. perhaps Danzig is restored? France would take lands to the Rhine, and perhaps a few boarder expansions for Netherlands, Denmark, and Belgium?

A new German government is formed by the occuping Allies, with Romel as the new leader!!!:eek: the Nazis escape to Romania or some place. Stalin looks on with intrest...

maybe i will do a map
 
The time table looks helter skelter. If the invasion of France bogs down and then the AngloFrench forces make a counterthrust I would see a coup led by Halder taking over late 1940 or early 1941. Negotiations through a neutral party would start soon. Perhaps AngloFrench terms are too harsh but likely with the specter of Stalin looming over Euope they are not. War ends in a peace conference. Germany may get off lightly.

Tom
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
I once read a AH short story in which Pland wins in 1939, but I can't remember where.

The basic idea was, that it started raining on September 1st and didn't stop for 6 weeks.

All the German Panzer got stucked in the mud, and the Luftwaffe couldn't
fly at all.

So the Polish Cavalery, was able to do their best and march into Berlin.

Stalin does not annex eastern Poland.

I kind of liked that idea.
 
If we assume that the Germans' 1940 offensive collapses (and/or the allies are able to mount an offfensive of their own) leading to a military coup, collapse of the Nazi state, and German armistice/surrender offer, the western allies have some big decisions to make.

In this context, it is important to remember that in 1939-40 the Nazis have not yet shown themselves to be radically different morally from ordinary nationalists and militarists. The vast majority of Jews in the west are still alive and the horrors in the east have not yet happened. The Allies are likely to see any German coup just an example of one set of bastards kicking out another.

(1) Do they accept any terms with a German regime in which the Army retains power or do they continue the fight for an unconditional German surrender?

(2) What does the West do about the Soviet Union, which is still technically an "ally" of Germany?

(3) What does the USSR do? Do they abandon the pact, declare war on Germany, and invade from the east or sit tight in their part of Poland to see what happens?

I tend to suspect that the West would be torn between a desire to completely demilitarize and dismember Germany (France) or restore a conservative Weimar-like Germany as soon as possible to serve as a counterweight against Stalin (Britain). If the French get their way, Germany may cease to exist as a unified state. In either case there would be considerable pressure to see Czechoslovakia fully restored - and possibly even enlarged slightly at Germany's expense. However, the anschluss may be allowed to stand in a peace which preserves Germany as a major regional buttress against the USSR.

Unless the Russians invade eastern Germany themselves, I would not be surprised to see a restored Poland under western protection, shifted to the west as in OTL.

I also suspect that in either case, a "cold war" of sorts would start almost immediately between the west and the USSR, perhaps leading to something more intense in a few years.

The USA would remain neutral, isolationist and militarily weak in comparison to OTL.

A war between the USA and Japan is still possible, but a Japan not in alliance with Germany and Italy may be much more cautious.

Mussolini would die in 1963 of old age as the highly respected "grand old man" of Europe
 
If we assume that the Germans' 1940 offensive collapses (and/or the allies are able to mount an offfensive of their own) leading to a military coup, collapse of the Nazi state, and German armistice/surrender offer, the western allies have some big decisions to make.

In this context, it is important to remember that in 1939-40 the Nazis have not yet shown themselves to be radically different morally from ordinary nationalists and militarists. The vast majority of Jews in the west are still alive and the horrors in the east have not yet happened. The Allies are likely to see any German coup just an example of one set of bastards kicking out another.

(1) Do they accept any terms with a German regime in which the Army retains power or do they continue the fight for an unconditional German surrender?

(2) What does the West do about the Soviet Union, which is still technically an "ally" of Germany?

(3) What does the USSR do? Do they abandon the pact, declare war on Germany, and invade from the east or sit tight in their part of Poland to see what happens?

I tend to suspect that the West would be torn between a desire to completely demilitarize and dismember Germany (France) or restore a conservative Weimar-like Germany as soon as possible to serve as a counterweight against Stalin (Britain). If the French get their way, Germany may cease to exist as a unified state. In either case there would be considerable pressure to see Czechoslovakia fully restored - and possibly even enlarged slightly at Germany's expense. However, the anschluss may be allowed to stand in a peace which preserves Germany as a major regional buttress against the USSR.

Unless the Russians invade eastern Germany themselves, I would not be surprised to see a restored Poland under western protection, shifted to the west as in OTL.

I also suspect that in either case, a "cold war" of sorts would start almost immediately between the west and the USSR, perhaps leading to something more intense in a few years.

The USA would remain neutral, isolationist and militarily weak in comparison to OTL.

A war between the USA and Japan is still possible, but a Japan not in alliance with Germany and Italy may be much more cautious.

Mussolini would die in 1963 of old age as the highly respected "grand old man" of Europe


First, the French and even some British did not consider the Nazis to be anything "ordinary." The French wanted the Entente Cordiale to pursue a much, much harder line toward Germany, but was afraid to act unilaterally, for fear of estranging the alliance with Britain, and possibly allowing a better relation between Germany and Britain. After 1935 this is impossible, but the rearmarment has also started, so France and Britain have a narrow window between 1936-1938 to be able to achieve quick, total victory over the Germans and demand unconditional surrender. Although the French considered the Weimar Republic to be just a new set of krauts, they would have likely considered them better than the militant expansionist Nazis.

Secondly, do not confuse a non-aggression pact with a mutual defensive alliance. Neither Stalin nor Hitler had any intentions of actually assisting the other side in their wars in any way. If Germany falls, the Soviets are likely to pull another 1922 and isolate themselves behind their border again, until Stalin is confident that he can conquer a large swath of Eastern Europe quickly.

As for the partition of Germany, a possible case would be the abolition of the Anchsluss, the restoration of Czechoslovakia as a state in full (it couldn't get any German territory, adding more Germans to Czechoslovakia would just exaserbate the conditions that led up to the OTL in the first place.) France will probably demand and get the entire Saarland annexed directly to France, with no plebecite, and the creation of a Franco-British puppet government in the Rhineland (capital at Trier), but not east of the river. The Weimar Republic (capital at Frankfurt, so the Allies can be within easy reach if Germany goes wild again) is restored, but the constitution is carefully drafted by the Allies to allow no absolute rulers to ever again come to power in Germany. Germany is allowed to keep part of its military, but only as defensive divisions in the east to ward off a Soviet blitzkrieg.

Poland would be reformed as the German occupied-zone of Poland, with at maximum a small parcel of Upper Silesia thrown in. The Oder-Neisse Line is completely unacceptable to the Germans, so Poland would look nothing like it does in post-war OTL. If the Allies are feeling especially malicious, they will strip East Prussia from Germany and give it to the new Polish Republic. Poland will be garrisoned by Franco-Anglo-Czecho-Polish forces in case of Soviet attack.

In the case of Japan, the state of Germany and Italy will have absolutely zero effect on the decisions of the Japanese High Command. There was never a plan for their two Axis branches to assist each other, or to link up through India and the Middle East. If Japan, Germany, and Italy had never founded the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis, Japan would have still invaded China in 1937, would have attacked the Allies in Asia, and might have even attacked Hawaii in 1940. Of course, with Germany easily routed, the French, British, and Dutch will be able to play a much, much larger role in the fight against Japan.
 
Last edited:
Secondly, do not confuse a non-aggression pact with a mutual defensive alliance. Neither Stalin nor Hitler had any intentions of actually assisting the other side in their wars in any way. If Germany falls, the Soviets are likely to pull another 1922 and isolate themselves behind their border again, until Stalin is confident that he can conquer a large swath of Eastern Europe quickly.
I assume you mean fighting side by side. If that's what you mean, then true. However, that's not all there is to war. The Soviet of supply of material to Germany was huge, and pre-war, the German army trained in the Soviet Union. So, they DID "actually assist[] the other side in their wars in SOME way".

People often think wars are decided only by armies, when production and logistics are usually more important in the long run.
 
ok, i have little in-depth knowledge of WW2, but could the UK, France et al pull of a victory against Germany, or if not a Victory, a significant offencive against the Germans before Operation Barbarossa?

perhaps if the original plans for the Invasion of France were used, and they get bogged down?

or if the French dont build the Margot line, but invest that money in new tanks and stuff:D

If Munich went a bit differently, you could get this.

Britain and France agree to Sudentenland going to Germany (maybe). The Czechs say "Hey, we weren't invited, let's talk about this", the Soviets say "what he said". Czechoslovakia makes it clear that it's prepared to cede some land, maybe all of it, but wants to discuss timeframes, moving machinery, etc.

Hitler goes in anyway. And the Czechs fight.

Hitler's army gets shredded (as it would have) but is still winning, and the West sees that the Germans aren't so invincible after all. Before German has finished conquering Czechia, the Allies issue an ultimatum, which Hitler refuses.

French and British armies cross the German border in the west. Hitler doesn't have the resources to fight a 2 front war, and ??? Germany loses? Generals stage a coup, and agree to go back to pre-war borders?
 
Hitler is actually facing a coup the moment he declares/starts war with Czechoslovakia. In '38, the Allies were contacted by several high-ranking German generals who basically offered them to take out Hitler if they'd block him at the Munich Talks. OTL, IIRC, France and Britain refused because they assumed that the generals' efforts weren't coordinated enough to succeed.

If the Munich agreement doesn't come to pass, said generals might very well decide to go ahead and we'll see a power struggle within Germany that'll probably end up with the Nazi leadership dead and a military junta in power within a few weeks; the SS isn't really capable of offering all that much opposition to the Wehrmacht at that point.

End result? The Allies "defeat" Germany without firing so much as a single bullet.

Edit: Of course, what comes afterwards is going to be interesting.

- Kelenas
 
Last edited:
Top