Barabarossa in 1940

Without France, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the vast amount of equipment captured from those territories the Heer will soon bog down and the German economy will collapse. Also, the Allies aren't a bunch of wimps who are going to make peace at the first offer. They stopped trusting Hitler in early 1939 and aren't going to take him at his word ever again. Thirdly Hitler would never agree to a limited peace with the Soviet Union; it was all or nothing from the start.
 
Can the Germans realistically conquer France even earlier than OTL? No phoney war, but a German offensive as soon as the Heer recovers from Poland, even if they have to attack in winter?
 
Probably not without abandoning Norweigan operations. Though Then you would still have the Allies able to take the Iron Ores and other strategic materials and deny them to the Germans. That would be bad for the Germans :eek:
 
There were several proposed start dates for Fall Gelb, but it kept getting pushed back for various reasons. The cancelled invasion dates (according to this timeline) were Nov 19, 1939; Jan 1, 1940; Jan 17; and May 5, 6, 7, and 8; with the actual invasion occurring on May 9.

The big delay between Jan 17 and the May dates was largely due to having to replace the initial warplan after security was discovered to be compromised. It took several months to write, debate, and approve the new plans, and then to rearrange preparations as required by the new plans.

With a POD of the original plans being compromised earlier, some time in late Summer 1939 (or even if the first leak of the plans in November 1939 was discovered immediately by the Germans), the revised plans might be ready to go into effect in Jan or Feb 1940. If the war were to go similarly to OTL, that'd mean France would surrender in March or April 1940, which might give Germany enough time to be ready to attack Russia by June or July 1940 (assuming they skip the Battle of Britain and the invasion of the Balkans).

OTL, there was some overlap between the Battle of Norway (April 9 - Jun 10) and the Battle of France (May 10 - June 25), and the Battle of Norway only used a tiny fraction of Heer forces (about 100,000 troops, mostly infantry, in Norway; compared to 3.3 million troops and 3000+ tanks in France). Unless the opening phases of the Battle of Norway required some specific support/logistics resources that was also needed for the Battle of France, I suspect they could probably have happened simultaneously, or overlapping in the other direction (e.g. Battle of France Feb-April, with Battle of Norway as per OTL).
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
There were several proposed start dates for Fall Gelb, but it kept getting pushed back for various reasons. The cancelled invasion dates (according to this timeline) were Nov 19, 1939; Jan 1, 1940; Jan 17; and May 5, 6, 7, and 8; with the actual invasion occurring on May 9.

The big delay between Jan 17 and the May dates was largely due to having to replace the initial warplan after security was discovered to be compromised. It took several months to write, debate, and approve the new plans, and then to rearrange preparations as required by the new plans.

With a POD of the original plans being compromised earlier, some time in late Summer 1939 (or even if the first leak of the plans in November 1939 was discovered immediately by the Germans), the revised plans might be ready to go into effect in Jan or Feb 1940. If the war were to go similarly to OTL, that'd mean France would surrender in March or April 1940, which might give Germany enough time to be ready to attack Russia by June or July 1940 (assuming they skip the Battle of Britain and the invasion of the Balkans).

OTL, there was some overlap between the Battle of Norway (April 9 - Jun 10) and the Battle of France (May 10 - June 25), and the Battle of Norway only used a tiny fraction of Heer forces (about 100,000 troops, mostly infantry, in Norway; compared to 3.3 million troops and 3000+ tanks in France). Unless the opening phases of the Battle of Norway required some specific support/logistics resources that was also needed for the Battle of France, I suspect they could probably have happened simultaneously, or overlapping in the other direction (e.g. Battle of France Feb-April, with Battle of Norway as per OTL).

The plan for the invasion was such that, IMHO, it might even fail to conquer France. Let alone conquer it before the OTL Armistice date.
 
I think an invasion of France in the fall of 1939 is very interesting. I would like for those of you with knowledge of the German, French and British states of readybess to discuss it some more.
 
I think an invasion of France in the fall of 1939 is very interesting. I would like for those of you with knowledge of the German, French and British states of readybess to discuss it some more.

I think an invasion of France in the fall of 1939 is very interesting. I would like for those of you with knowledge of the German, French and British states of readybess to discuss it some more.

I was thinking of an even faster fall of Warsaw during an earlier German invasion of Poland. This would help if the Germans pull off a successful surprise attack and receive earlier Soviet intervention

It'll result in less losses for the Germans and embolden Hitler.

The waiting after the Fall of Poland was only due to Hitler's hope that the Allies would sacrifice Poland for a quick peace.

No invasion of Norway would help the earlier invasion of France.

Maybe if the Saar Offensive continued and the French suffer heavy losses during the invasion would put the French into a much more defensive mindset, diverting more troops to the Maginot line, allowing for a quicker French surrender.
 
Invading France in 1939? Germany would get torn apart, simple as that. War ends by 1941 at the latest.
 
BEF was not deployed in any great way in October/November 1939.

A more interesting twist would be if Hitler decides NOT to invade Poland in 1939, decides NOT to invade France, but makes a move on Russia in 1940.

France/UK would have no justification for a war against Germany, and UK may even see it as an advantage.

Tank tactics etc may have to be learned on the fly, and the Polish forces would have to be defeated befoire getting to grips with Russia, sure enough.

On the invasion of France in 1939, the German generals nearly had kittens when Hitler presented this to them. They talked him out of it, but what if?

If the fall of France could have been accomplished in 2 weeks, the weather may not have been too bad in October?

Ivan
 
Juan, That is correct. The Polish alliance with UK/France was still there.

But then it would have been 1940. How would it have looked? What condition would the French army be in? would BEF have fully deployed? Would we have a "phoney war" for some months? Would the Saar offensive have been successful in 1940?

It does open some possibilities.

It really comes down to a few things, I think:

Barbarossa in 1940 would not have been possible if Hitler had followed OTL: First invasion of Poland then invasion of France, all before May 1940.

So, Somehow, France would have to wait, but could Poland have waited?

Barbarossa did (whether by design or not) hinge on access to the BEF and French captured transports; hence France had to be invaded?

Would France/UK still have declared war on Germany if they had been informed (covert) that Poland was a "speed bump" on the road to Russia? After all, UK was not too impressed with Russia or Stalin.
 
Would France/UK still have declared war on Germany if they had been informed (covert) that Poland was a "speed bump" on the road to Russia? After all, UK was not too impressed with Russia or Stalin.

Technically, Allies were informed that Poland was a "speed bump" for Germany on their way to USSR. Not even covertly, but overtly. Many times Hitler emphasized that he is only interested in spreading the Lebensraum to the East and that he will leave the West alone. Somehow, Allies did not believe him.
 
The plan for the invasion was such that, IMHO, it might even fail to conquer France. Let alone conquer it before the OTL Armistice date.

If you're referring to the original invasion plan, I agree with you. That's why I tried to set up the POD such that the original invasion plan would still be replaced by something like the OTL sickle-cut plan, but the replacement would happen much sooner.
 
Even without the BEF deployed yet attacking France in the fall of 1939 will be a disaster.

The Germans were short on ammunition and would have had no opportunity to refit their tanks or alter their battle plans. An invasion in 1939 is going to be a massed drive through Belgium aiming at the Channel ports. That is EXACTLY the kind of fight the French were expecting and were prepared for. Even if the Germans are able to beat them in such a head on attack there is no oppprtunity for encirclement, the French will just retreat through Belgium back into their own country.

I think the best the Germans could hope for in this scenario is capturing the Channel ports by the spring of 1940. But then what? They would have suffered heavy losses on the ground, would be facing increasing opposition in the air, would still be blockaded, would likely see Norway occupied by the British, and would still have the French army in the field with the English rushing as many troops to the continent as they can.

The Germans did as well as they possibly could have in France in OTL. Rushing forward to attack in winter in exactly the manner the enemy expected they are bound to do worse.
 
Top