Do you think it is possible France 'falls', but the British manage to hold onto a chunk of land on the mainland? Basically, do any of you think it is possible the Allies could have held out in, say Brittany, long term? This is asking in both a military and political sense.
Fall of France but not total collapse
- Thread starter The Tai-Pan
- Start date
For Brittany not to fall would require at least a third of the pre-Fall Gelb French army to successfully retreat there and set up defensive lines before the Germans can get there, and for the French forces there to decide to keep on fighting when Pétain signs Montoire. I just can't see that happen.
The Brittany Redoubt that was proposed in June (and supported by De Gaulle among others) was doomed to failure as is, because it was too late.
Weygand's last battle on the Somme was meant to be all or nothing, either the Germans were stopped or they weren't and the latter meant that the French Army would have disintegrated, which is what happened OTL. Past that there was no room for organized retreat that could allow fighting from other positions.
If the military leadership and events leading to that baroud d'honneur don't change, then the POD requires the French government to impose a strategy of organised retreat (while hoping that the Germans don't move too quickly to make this possible). Though in such conditions it would be problematic to still get a French surrender because such a retreat would have been made in the assumption of fighting on in the Empire.
Weygand's last battle on the Somme was meant to be all or nothing, either the Germans were stopped or they weren't and the latter meant that the French Army would have disintegrated, which is what happened OTL. Past that there was no room for organized retreat that could allow fighting from other positions.
If the military leadership and events leading to that baroud d'honneur don't change, then the POD requires the French government to impose a strategy of organised retreat (while hoping that the Germans don't move too quickly to make this possible). Though in such conditions it would be problematic to still get a French surrender because such a retreat would have been made in the assumption of fighting on in the Empire.
Last edited:
TDM
Kicked
I'm not sure it would. Unless the French/British army somehow manages to keep it's air force, heavy guns and tanks with it that's going to be the main a retreating infantry army carrying whatever it can grab while being pursued and then facing off against modern combined arms army
Britain can maybe try and reinforce and resupply but they're going to have to fight the LW to do so and the LW are going to be quickly operating out of nearby airfields.
On top of that I give the Germans all of 5 seconds before they start reprisals against the French population for the continued resistance.
Last edited:
TDM
Kicked
Yep, and I doubt the French are going to suddenly go to an organised retreat and get boxed into a peninsula plan since their experience of WW1 and fighting on their own ground is fresh in their minds and their plans were not to let Germany operate on French soil as much as possible.
Last edited:
Seems like you'd pretty much need the French government pre war to admit their was a serious risk that the Germans might ovverrun the entire country in the next round and that pre preparing some sort of fortified redoubt might be neccesary with some of the French Army/ BEF would theoretically retreat to.
It seems pretty unlikely. In a democracy like France admitting publicly " Yes we're effectively preparing to loose and for the majority of the country to get conquered and occupied". Seems like any government dumb enough to publicly admit any of that would get thrown on its ass in five seconds flat.
It seems pretty unlikely. In a democracy like France admitting publicly " Yes we're effectively preparing to loose and for the majority of the country to get conquered and occupied". Seems like any government dumb enough to publicly admit any of that would get thrown on its ass in five seconds flat.
Well, there was some consideration for it in the government, but it didn't have the courage and urgency to enact it in the time when it would have mattered, that is roughly towards the end of May when the British were withdrawing and the trapped forces were evidently not going to be relieved. For example the substantial forces protecting the Maginot line were left there as part of the last battle plan, but in that case would have to withdraw before early June when it was too late.
IMO there would be enough left to slow down the Germans and create a proper Brittany Redoubt, but not enough to stabilize the front in France. Regardless this would remain unviable long term, at best it would be a way to evacuate more forces as part of a plan to fight on but without any local industry it could not be sustained beyond a few months.
Again, all of this is dependent on the attitude of the French government and there wasn't really a basis to think it would have had such determination. Although as of late May the "fight-on" faction was actually pretty large and arguably larger than the defeatist faction. But you need to act quickly otherwise the latter will prevail as OTL.
TDM
Kicked
I agree but honestly I think any Brittany redoubt plan is never going to work for two reasons:
1). Unless you spent a long time preparing it and by that I mean months if not a year+, (i.e. not something you do while you are trying and keep the Germans back once the fighting has started), it can't be held, certainty not by retreating formations. And even if you do somehow create a defensive line it's just going to get demolished by the LW and broken though by panzers anyway
2). If the remains of the French army has retreated to Brittany, France has already lost
Last edited:
Why do we need Brittany Redoubt can the French fall be back to the extended Maginot line?
Would a fall back to a line in France without Belgium count for the OP?
Deleted member 160141
In this one, Petain doesn't surrender, France still falls. However, the colonies and the navy are still Allied, so the Mediterranean war is a lot quicker.
ITTL, the French don't have to get butthurt every year about Mers-el-Kebir.
TDM
Kicked
How would that work though, the brits might plan it but at some point they have to go and start fortifying a chunk of Franc (Jean of Arc's ashes would be stirring).
Plus the BEF is 13 divs
With what? If the British actually build a large army pre-war them France doesn't fall anyway....and without it, they can't hold anything that can't be isolated by RN/RAF?
The basic problem is that it's easier to hold the eastern frontier/ML/Rhine than anything else after you lose most of the French army, except maybe French North Africa or a republican Spain on the Pyrenees?
Last edited:
Maybe the prewar plan might have been that as additional forces are raised once the war started there would have been an option to use them to hold an enclave in a portion of France vs throw them into battle trying to hold all of France. I agree it probably would not have worked out well in practice.
The issue is holding an enclave against the entire German army will require a very strong force like 50+ Divs minimum (unless its Corsica or NA that can be isolated by RN) so if they have that in 1940 they should easily hold the BoF so why give up France? That and the French in overall command might object to your deployment plan......?
Yes I agree.. It probably would not have been very feasibe in practice. On the other hand keeping a significant German force ouccpied would have had interesting ripple effects. Maybe in an alternate WW2, the Soviets might have been inclined to help keep the Germans busy in a French enclave
(I realize this would likely have been politically and logistically dificult, but perhaps if the Allies hold Norway then the RN could perhaps help the Soviets deploy forces to coastal France )
Last edited: