Battle of Paris 1940
- Thread starter walmart
- Start date
Could. Not sure how well it would go. The only strategic or operational objective I could see useful would be the denial of the Paris transportation hub to the enemy. Both delay of capture, and time to sabotage the railways converging there would hinder the enemy after they advanced further south. What value that is depends on if it weakens the advance enough it stalls again somewhere to the south & buys the French significant time.
A significant part of the population had fled anyway, preparations to defend it would encourage more civilians to depart. Still there could be horrendous losses of non combatants.
A significant part of the population had fled anyway, preparations to defend it would encourage more civilians to depart. Still there could be horrendous losses of non combatants.
The German had spare infantry divisions to encircle the place at their leisure so I doubt an assault would be forthcoming, and the German motorized forces could still roll southward to the Swiss border.
but perhaps a willingness to fight for the place might get better armistice terms out of the Germans???
and as Carl mentions above if France wanted to fight on, perhaps due to its logistical impediment value, more French forces might get out to North Africa.
Probably much different French politics is happening if Paris is being fought for so a France fights on scenario seems likely.
but perhaps a willingness to fight for the place might get better armistice terms out of the Germans???
and as Carl mentions above if France wanted to fight on, perhaps due to its logistical impediment value, more French forces might get out to North Africa.
Probably much different French politics is happening if Paris is being fought for so a France fights on scenario seems likely.
Deleted member 1487
Paris gets smashed up badly and the population suffers. The Luftwaffe focuses bombing on it like Warsaw. It won't fundamentally change the outcome, just increase the damage and death among soldiers and civilians, while turning the city of light into rubble. Plus it allows for an 1870 situation where the city just surrounded with it's garrison and is starved into submission rather than direct assault, but bombing and artillery strikes would likely happen anyway. The French IOTL saw what happened in 1870 plus Poland and the Netherlands in 1939-40, they knew what it would mean to defend the city and fight it out.
The Germans make an example of it and pound it with bombers and artillery. The world sees pictures and newsreels of Stukas attacking the Arc de Triumph, Eiffel Tower, and Notre Dame. Versailles especially is attacked 'until two bricks do not stand together'. The French High Command is pilloried by the International Community as much as the German High Command.
Possibly, one thing I serious doubt is a fight for the city or shelling/bombing. Paris is not Warsaw, Hitler has a "connection" to place as a artist, the citizens aren't Eastern Europeans and even the most hardcore of the Generals know what destroying Paris would do to the rest of the world's (minus Japan...) view of Germany, even Italy would be horrified and the USA... and it the gift FDR needs to help the UK. France is beaten, the German uniformed leadership know that, and they know they have a fight with either the UK or the USSR coming. Surround the city, and wait them and the armistice out.
Deleted member 1487
Casablanca. In 1940 they were in Paris before they separated.
Not really, Hitler didn't care and the German military couldn't really care either. Internationally it would probably provoke a reaction, but since when did the Nazis really moderate their bombing based on world opinion? Likely though it is encircled and the pocket starved into submission. Paris in 1940 is not going to be able to hold out like in 1870-1, but they probably will bomb the less historic parts of the city closer to the outskirts as they squeeze things in. I highly doubt they'd try and bomb the main sites or city center.
Last edited by a moderator:
I can see them making an exception for Versailles, with its connection to the embarrassment of the treaty.
Well beyond implying a France fights on scenario, not too much assuming the Germans are thinking rationally.
If the Nazis pull a Stalingrad and decide to order their troops into the city for no reason, the Wehrmacht possibly doubles its Battle of France losses.
I don't see the French doing this outside a scenario where France decides to fight on from the colonies and the fact the French fight on instead of agreeing to an armistic would be the much more significant event then whatever they and the Germans could do to Paris. Even there, the most likely result would not be the French forces concentrating to defend Paris but withdrawing as best they could with the intent of taking ship to North Africa and fighting on from there, and thus forcing the Germans into a long pursuit to the south coast of France to prevent another Dunkirk. If they choose to forego that and give into idiocy... well, Weygand historically put everything he had on the line at the Somme to give a last hurrah before armistice and was able to hold them for barely 48 hours. Throwing them into the city might drag that timeframe into weeks, or months if the Germans just bypass it and the Parisians are willing to run 1870-71, again, but it won't fundamentally alter the final outcome of the battle.
Last edited:
It makes more sense if the opening battles further north have gone worse for the offense. Several ways that could happen, but whatever it is the the attack south is more problematic, desperate for the attacker, & its possible the Allied armies can hold through the summer & autumn in southern France. In the context of OTL it buys the French & perhaps Britain a few more weeks, & perhaps alters the air attack on Britain later.
Deleted member 2186
The Germans will bomb the city like they did with Rotterdam and Prague.