Allies strike first

Between the German invasion of Poland and the Battle of France was a period known as the "Phoney War". Both sides had soldiers stationed on the border between Germany and France. As we all know, the Germans struck first by going around the magionot line through Belgium and took France down in a month. What if the French and British attacked first? How would this effect the war? Would Germany be able to repel the attack, or would this bring a quick end to the war with a white peace?
 
It all depends how.
If they went thru Belgium like the germans did or if they head on attacked them.
if it was a head on attack i think the Allies would lose alot of troops and what saved allied soldiers (and mabye even the whole war) was the miricale of Dunkirk, but if they had no troops to save there them germany would posibly have taken advantage of that and invaded Britian thus alowing them to focus on only the USSR and win WW2.
 
Between the German invasion of Poland and the Battle of France was a period known as the "Phoney War". Both sides had soldiers stationed on the border between Germany and France. As we all know, the Germans struck first by going around the magionot line through Belgium and took France down in a month. What if the French and British attacked first? How would this effect the war? Would Germany be able to repel the attack, or would this bring a quick end to the war with a white peace?

The allies are not going to go through a neutral Belgium since they have some moral decency... so that only leaves a frontal assault against the west wall which had been stoutly constructed since 1934, with hundreds of bunkers and block houses, hundreds of thousands of anti vehicle and anti personel mines, rows of dragons teeth, and well rested infantry manning the lines

The French made one assault on the west wall in September 1939 using a professional long service north african division and two tank battalions... it promptly ran into a minefield and got shot up

The French where not looking to escalate the war after that because they no AA guns and feared mass German air attacks on their cities (their most common AA weapon was a useless 8mm machine gun)
 
The allies are not going to go through a neutral Belgium since they have some moral decency...

I'm not sure moral decency had much to do with it. After all, we were essentially prepared to go into Norway with or without Norwegian support. This is not to mention some of the decisions we made with regards to bombing targets with no concern for civilians. No, I'm not one of those idiots who thinks the air campaign was a terrorist act, I'm just pointing out that "moral decency" probably didn't enter into the military decision making process.
 

LittleSpeer

Monthly Donor
It all depends how.
If they went thru Belgium like the germans did or if they head on attacked them.
if it was a head on attack i think the Allies would lose alot of troops and what saved allied soldiers (and mabye even the whole war) was the miricale of Dunkirk, but if they had no troops to save there them germany would posibly have taken advantage of that and invaded Britian thus alowing them to focus on only the USSR and win WW2.
the mammal has been mentioned and u just related Germany winning the war with the allies attacking first. Germany would still lose the war because they would lose so many troops in the invasion of England which would fail horribly.
 
I'm not sure moral decency had much to do with it. After all, we were essentially prepared to go into Norway with or without Norwegian support. This is not to mention some of the decisions we made with regards to bombing targets with no concern for civilians. No, I'm not one of those idiots who thinks the air campaign was a terrorist act, I'm just pointing out that "moral decency" probably didn't enter into the military decision making process.

Well also, prior to May 10, you don't have damn the torpedoes Churchill in charge... I don't think Chamberlin would mess with Belgium (a WW1 ally) so easily and throw them into the arms of Germany
 
Chamberlain's the one who authorized the Norwegian incursion.

I do agree with you, though, that the Allies wouldn't enter Belgium without permission for the reason you stated - fear of pushing Belgium into the German camp.
 
If France and Britain try to invade Germany in 1939/1940, the result is disaster.

* The French military at the time was terribly disorganized. Their tank force in particular was good in terms of equipment, but pathetic in terms of tactics and operations.

* The Allies would probably be stopped dead by the Siegfried Line as they had very little understanding of what "combined assault" and "air support" meant at the time.

Germany would repel the assault, and then take France after a struggle of about three to nine months. The world is the same at the end of 1940, except Britain has lost more troops, both sides are more bloodied and experienced, and Hitler can brag to the German people about how he bravely defended the Fatherland from the French and British empire-builders.
 
It depends a lot on timing. If the WAllies attack during the invasion of Poland, then they could take the Rhineland with acceptable casualties; they would take losses, but they would gain a lot to make up for it. IIRC, during the Polish campaign the Germans had 20-25 divisions facing some 100+ British and French divisions in the West. If the WAllies had launched an all-out attack into the Rhineland, then they could have taken it fairly easily. Granted, they would have taken substantial casualties due to inferior doctrines and German defenses, but a 4-to-1 numbers advantage would probably guarantee success. Also, the added pressure in the West would mean that large numbers of German troops would have to be transferred from the Polish front to the Rhineland. This might keep Poland fighting for a couple more weeks, keeping the main weight of the Germans of the WAllies for a little longer. Once the Rhineland has fallen, Germany is pretty much doomed, since they will have lost an enormous chunk of their industrial production, and since they were already being greatly outproduced by the WAllies, this will spell their eventual doom. Also, the combat effectiveness of many German divisions will be greatly reduced since many of them will be thrown straight into heavy fighting after wearing out all their equipment against the Poles.

If the WAllies attack between the fall of Poland and the start of Fall Gelb, then they will likely get substantially less gains initially since most of the German Army will be available to fight them immediately, instead of off fighting Poles. However, the Germans will still be in the middle of refitting after the Polish campaign, and the WAllies are still outproducing the Germans, so they might still win. However, it's less likely that they will win in this scenario, since the numbers will be far more even initially and the Germans are much better organized and have a better combat doctrine, as well as lots of recent combat experience. If the Germans are forced into a battle of attrition, the WAllies will win, given time. If it turns into a war of movement, the Germans will likely win, since they have trained for that kind of war.
 
It depends a lot on timing. If the WAllies attack during the invasion of Poland, then they could take the Rhineland with acceptable casualties; they would take losses, but they would gain a lot to make up for it. IIRC, during the Polish campaign the Germans had 20-25 divisions facing some 100+ British and French divisions in the West. If the WAllies had launched an all-out attack into the Rhineland, then they could have taken it fairly easily. Granted, they would have taken substantial casualties due to inferior doctrines and German defenses, but a 4-to-1 numbers advantage would probably guarantee success. Also, the added pressure in the West would mean that large numbers of German troops would have to be transferred from the Polish front to the Rhineland. This might keep Poland fighting for a couple more weeks, keeping the main weight of the Germans of the WAllies for a little longer. Once the Rhineland has fallen, Germany is pretty much doomed, since they will have lost an enormous chunk of their industrial production, and since they were already being greatly outproduced by the WAllies, this will spell their eventual doom. Also, the combat effectiveness of many German divisions will be greatly reduced since many of them will be thrown straight into heavy fighting after wearing out all their equipment against the Poles.

If the WAllies attack between the fall of Poland and the start of Fall Gelb, then they will likely get substantially less gains initially since most of the German Army will be available to fight them immediately, instead of off fighting Poles. However, the Germans will still be in the middle of refitting after the Polish campaign, and the WAllies are still outproducing the Germans, so they might still win. However, it's less likely that they will win in this scenario, since the numbers will be far more even initially and the Germans are much better organized and have a better combat doctrine, as well as lots of recent combat experience. If the Germans are forced into a battle of attrition, the WAllies will win, given time. If it turns into a war of movement, the Germans will likely win, since they have trained for that kind of war.

During the Polish campaign the Germans had 42 infantry divisions with army group C guarding the west wall.

The French had 70ish divisions (I don't count their static/fortress divisions since the French general staff never intended to use them for anything) And the British took till May 1940 to build up to 10ish divisions (of varying manpower totals)

The French and British lacked the heavy artillery pieces, and mass of accurate bombers to do anything to the west wall, nor where their armies prepared for mass casualties as would be seen in a serious assault on the west wall

They wouldn't be ready for a general offensive for at least a month probably more if you want good ammo reserves and time to train the men in fortress assaults... and by then the Polish campaign is winding down and the panzer divisions start returning... winter weather sets in within 60 days closing the battlefield...there is aboslutely to point to such an attack
 
And, you just gave the Americans a good reason to stay out of the war. If France and Britain strike first, despite the cultural ties and the efforts of the Baker Street Irregulars*, America will be very reluctant to take sides against Germany. (And if FDR did something, a lot of people would bring up the Allied first strike...)
The American people don't support aggressors, and most of the foreign policy apparatus likely wouldn't either, recent exceptions** notwithstanding...

* The unofficial nickname of a group of British spies and agents designed to observe the US government and maintain a pro-British tilt in US policy. One of the most famous members of said group was Roald Dahl.
** Exceptions (not counting Gulf War II) include Iraq vs. Iran & Georgia vs. South Ossetia). Some individuals in the foreign policy establishment of the Neocon mold also supported Argentina over the UK in the Falklands War.
 
I'm not sure moral decency had much to do with it. After all, we were essentially prepared to go into Norway with or without Norwegian support. This is not to mention some of the decisions we made with regards to bombing targets with no concern for civilians. No, I'm not one of those idiots who thinks the air campaign was a terrorist act, I'm just pointing out that "moral decency" probably didn't enter into the military decision making process.
If Alan Brooke got the chance to talk to the King of Belgium on 9/3/39? And finds out then, what IOTL he did in May of 1940? That the King was a Fascist sympathizer? And it gets out? Who knows?
 
Hitler ordered the RAF to be destroyed before the invasion of Britain went ahead, and I see no reason why this should change. After all, given their total lack of proper sea transport, the Germans kinda need to. Nobody has explained why they are any more able to do so.

And, you just gave the Americans a good reason to stay out of the war. If France and Britain strike first, despite the cultural ties and the efforts of the Baker Street Irregulars*, America will be very reluctant to take sides against Germany. (And if FDR did something, a lot of people would bring up the Allied first strike...)
The American people don't support aggressors, and most of the foreign policy apparatus likely wouldn't either, recent exceptions** notwithstanding...

Explain to me how it's aggression to go to the aid of a country (Poland) that was attacked with a completely fictitious casus-beli, itself disproved by the incursion of German commandos a day early?
 
During the Polish campaign the Germans had 42 infantry divisions with army group C guarding the west wall.

The French had 70ish divisions (I don't count their static/fortress divisions since the French general staff never intended to use them for anything) And the British took till May 1940 to build up to 10ish divisions (of varying manpower totals)

The French and British lacked the heavy artillery pieces, and mass of accurate bombers to do anything to the west wall, nor where their armies prepared for mass casualties as would be seen in a serious assault on the west wall

They wouldn't be ready for a general offensive for at least a month probably more if you want good ammo reserves and time to train the men in fortress assaults... and by then the Polish campaign is winding down and the panzer divisions start returning... winter weather sets in within 60 days closing the battlefield...there is aboslutely to point to such an attack


Actually, most of those German "divisions" were still battle-groups desperately mobilizing up to true divisional size. There was a relatively thin string of German units in a West Wall that was a mousetrap compared to the Maginot Line. Now that said, I agree with you on everything else. It might have been similar to the "Winter War", with heavy French numbers being mowed down by Heer formations being rapidly reinforced. A war of attrition so bloody the French will break off their offensive soon enough.

Also, as you alluded to, the winter sets in. The worst in decades.
 
And, you just gave the Americans a good reason to stay out of the war. If France and Britain strike first, despite the cultural ties and the efforts of the Baker Street Irregulars*, America will be very reluctant to take sides against Germany. (And if FDR did something, a lot of people would bring up the Allied first strike...)
The American people don't support aggressors, and most of the foreign policy apparatus likely wouldn't either, recent exceptions** notwithstanding...

* The unofficial nickname of a group of British spies and agents designed to observe the US government and maintain a pro-British tilt in US policy. One of the most famous members of said group was Roald Dahl.
** Exceptions (not counting Gulf War II) include Iraq vs. Iran & Georgia vs. South Ossetia). Some individuals in the foreign policy establishment of the Neocon mold also supported Argentina over the UK in the Falklands War.


Roald Dahl? Interesting, I hadn't followed his career since he returned to Egypt after serving Greece, but Wikipedia says he went to Washington in 1942.
 
Any attack by the Allies against Germany in the early years of the war would be a disaster. As many have said, the Allied military, even if numerically superior, was not capable of dealing a death-blow against the German military during the first couple months, for various reasons that have already been given.

However, I am not sure what the nature of the coastal defences is during this period. Maybe the British and French could jointly move against Bremen (the principal German port on the North Sea), occupy it, and use it to avoid a direct attack on the West Wall. With most of the German military either in Poland or along the German-French border, they could not respond effectively to it (the French only required 16 divisions to man the Maginot Line, leaving about 50 or more for an invasion through that route; some would remain positioned along the Beligian and Italian borders)
 
Any attack by the Allies against Germany in the early years of the war would be a disaster. As many have said, the Allied military, even if numerically superior, was not capable of dealing a death-blow against the German military during the first couple months, for various reasons that have already been given.

However, I am not sure what the nature of the coastal defences is during this period. Maybe the British and French could jointly move against Bremen (the principal German port on the North Sea), occupy it, and use it to avoid a direct attack on the West Wall. With most of the German military either in Poland or along the German-French border, they could not respond effectively to it (the French only required 16 divisions to man the Maginot Line, leaving about 50 or more for an invasion through that route; some would remain positioned along the Beligian and Italian borders)

That would be worse than SEALION!!!

What fighters can reach Bremen (since they can't fly over Belgium or Holland) and how long can they loiter... the answer is few and not very long... you would be surrendering total air supremecy to the Luftwaffe. Not to mention this area was heavily mined, and warships would be hard pressed to operate in condition of no air support (no British fleet carrier would possibly come within 200 miles of German shorelines, nor would you want to send the sea gladiators out for a sortie against ME-109's

You have to understand how quick the Polish campaign was... within 6 weeks all forces had finished there missions and where availble for other deployment

It would take 4 to 6 weeks to organize a landing corps strength (assuming such landing craft existed to move an entire corps at once... they would be batshit insane to try a landing in less strength than that)

What is to stop the Germans from boxing them in with their victorious panzer divisions, and then in conjunction with the Luftwaffe, pushing them into the drink

And what is one corps or even three corps against the 50+ divisions the Germans have returning home from Poland including 6 panzer divisions...even if the French and British with 10 divisions somehow held a bridgehead against the German army... winter weather sets in 60 days after the DOW and makes their position absolutely untenable
 
Not sure if I can agree with everyone saying that it would have been a disaster. The German fortifications looked much, much better on paper than in reality, and the troops were, as has been mentioned, short on everything. Hitler was flying the war by the seat of his pants in 39 same as in 41. Also they would have deprived the Germans of the massive advantage they gained by attacking through the Ardennes, which would have also made the Allied effort much more formidable. So with the Allies being able to go at it in systematically rather than having to improvise from the wrong foot I'd expect a much more set-piece, much more old-school style of warfare. Should suit the Allies a lot better.

So first the Allied troops are pitched against much better odds than in Fall Gelb because lots of troops are in Poland. Then, once the Germans redeploy from Poland they 1. will have had zero time to rest and refit and 2. will have to attack the Allies head-on rather than get the opportunity to surprise them and push them off balance, so the Allies find themselves in a much better position. More like Kursk rather than Barbarossa. As for the US, nothing changes. Hitler will still do U-Boot-Krieg, the Japanese will still attack Pearl Harbor, the US still enters the war.

Had the Allies attacked early they might have spared the world a lot of grief.
 
Not sure if I can agree with everyone saying that it would have been a disaster. The German fortifications looked much, much better on paper than in reality, and the troops were, as has been mentioned, short on everything. Hitler was flying the war by the seat of his pants in 39 same as in 41. Also they would have deprived the Germans of the massive advantage they gained by attacking through the Ardennes, which would have also made the Allied effort much more formidable. So with the Allies being able to go at it in systematically rather than having to improvise from the wrong foot I'd expect a much more set-piece, much more old-school style of warfare. Should suit the Allies a lot better.

So first the Allied troops are pitched against much better odds than in Fall Gelb because lots of troops are in Poland. Then, once the Germans redeploy from Poland they 1. will have had zero time to rest and refit and 2. will have to attack the Allies head-on rather than get the opportunity to surprise them and push them off balance, so the Allies find themselves in a much better position. More like Kursk rather than Barbarossa. As for the US, nothing changes. Hitler will still do U-Boot-Krieg, the Japanese will still attack Pearl Harbor, the US still enters the war.

Had the Allies attacked early they might have spared the world a lot of grief.

The West Wall was stoutely built for 5 years before the war. The bunkers where made of excellent reinforced concrete and largely (like their French counterparts who they stole many ideas from) immune to artillery and airpower

Attacking during case white is generally impossible without prewar POD's... the French and British didn't even declare war until 9/3... and even then you have a necessary period of weeks that must pass to do the following:
mobilize the armies
transport the mobilized armies and their equipment to the frontier
work out an assault plan for the west wall
build up a reserve of ammunition for a fortress assault
give your infantry divisions some bunker busting training

and even then lets assume they magically pull that off within 30 days after DOW and are ready for the offensive... Poland is allready beat and divisions can be taken off the line and sent west... and by 10/1 you only have a 30 day or so before the weather closes the battlefield
 
You're absolutely correct that mobilization etc. would take some time, so it depends on when they decide to start preparing. But the point that the German troops would have zero time for rest and refit still stands and IMO partly supersedes your objection. And I don't know where you get the idea that the Westwall was finished, there was a massive lack of steel armour plates for the weapon mounts in the bunkers and for observation cupolas, doors and embrasures. The guns themselves, where they had actually been installed, were also inadequate. The type 10 bunkers, of which thousands were built, were inadequately armored against artillery. Whether or not the Allies knew this I don't know, but if they had gotten it into their heads early on that a thrust into Germany was the way to go the Westwall itself wouldn't have been an insurmountable problem.
 
Top