France's performance in WWII without Britain but also with better generals

CaliGuy

Banned
It isn't very realistic for Britain to remain neutral in a World War II where Nazi Germany is involved. However, out of curiosity, I decided to ask about this hypothetical scenario:

How would France have fared in World War II had Britain stayed neutral but also had France had better generals during this time? In other words, while Britain stays neutral in this TL's World War II, France's military also has better leadership in 1939-1940 and thus keeps the French Seventh Army stationed at Rheims (as per the original plan) instead of sending it over to the Low Countries.

Also, France would still be able to purchase military equipment from Britain and the U.S. in this TL; indeed, it would simply have to fight Nazi Germany alone once Poland falls.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this scenario? Would France be able to successfully blockade Nazi Germany by itself? Also, would France be able to overcome Nazi Germany's two-to-one advantage in population and defeat it?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
For what it's worth, my own guess is that Nazi Germany will defeat France in this TL, but after a long battle of a couple of years. Since France is playing defense in this TL and not making any stupid moves, it should be able to bleed Nazi Germany a lot even if it will ultimately lose.

However, I am curious as to the rest of your thoughts on this scenario. After all, no British and British Empire participation is going to hurt France a lot--especially in the long(er)-run.
 
Provied the French don't fold within months, they can make Germany loose the war. French population from where they can draw recruits spans beyond metropolitan France. Raw materials, including the oil, should be far cheaper for the French than for the Germans. Plus, the French have more money in 1939/40 than the Germans.
 

Deleted member 1487

They get slapped stupid. For starters they lack an air force that is prepared for war, so that even with better generals they still lack the ability to contend with the Luftwaffe; without the British they lack the manpower to hold well in Belgium and if they still try it they lose very badly without the BEF there. They'd still be short on radios and even with better generalship they are even more outnumbered in the air and on the ground. Since their plans was to shorten the line and keep the fighting outside of France they had to advance into Belgium and even if they had garrisoned the Ardennes properly they are too short on manpower to make it work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_war_planning_1920–1940#Dyle_Plan.2FPlan_D.2C_1940

UK-NWE-Flanders-ii.jpg


If not the Dyle then the Escaut Plan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_war_planning_1920–1940#Prelude
UK-NWE-Flanders-x.jpg


Then the Ardennes situation doesn't happen, but they still have too much line and not enough men, so the Germans can pick a spot, breakthrough, and pin whatever part they want to the Channel and kill them. Thanks to the Luftwaffe badly outnumbering the ALA alone then the French are screwed (the RAF had 1600 aircraft in the Battle of France in 1940, the French ALA only had 25% of their air force operational).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France
Germany: 141 divisions[1]
7,378 guns[1]
2,445 tanks[1]
5,638 aircraft[2][a]
3,350,000 troops
Alps on 20 June
300,000 Italians


Allies: 144 divisions
13,974 guns
3,383-[1]4,071 French tanks[3]
2,935 aircraft[4]
3,300,000 troops
Alps on 20 June
~150,000 French

So subtract the BEF from that and about half the air force. That isn't even factoring in an early Italian entry into the war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CaliGuy

Banned
Provied the French don't fold within months, they can make Germany loose the war. French population from where they can draw recruits spans beyond metropolitan France. Raw materials, including the oil, should be far cheaper for the French than for the Germans. Plus, the French have more money in 1939/40 than the Germans.
True, the French can draw recruits from their colonies; however, would these recruits be as good as native French soldiers?

Also, the Soviet Union still provides a lot of raw materials to Nazi Germany in this TL.

Does German U-boats blockade French ports?

Well, what did Hitler do or try doing in our TL?

Does Italy join the war?

Only if it looks like France is about to fall.

They get slapped stupid. For starters they lack an air force that is prepared for war, so that even with better generals they still lack the ability to contend with the Luftwaffe; without the British they lack the manpower to hold well in Belgium and if they still try it they lose very badly without the BEF there. They'd still be short on radios and even with better generalship they are even more outnumbered in the air and on the ground. Since their plans was to shorten the line and keep the fighting outside of France they had to advance into Belgium and even if they had garrisoned the Ardennes properly they are too short on manpower to make it work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_war_planning_1920–1940#Dyle_Plan.2FPlan_D.2C_1940

UK-NWE-Flanders-ii.jpg


If not the Dyle then the Escaut Plan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_war_planning_1920–1940#Prelude
UK-NWE-Flanders-x.jpg


Then the Ardennes situation doesn't happen, but they still have too much line and not enough men, so the Germans can pick a spot, breakthrough, and pin whatever part they want to the Channel and kill them. Thanks to the Luftwaffe badly outnumbering the ALA alone then the French are screwed (the RAF had 1600 aircraft in the Battle of France in 1940, the French ALA only had 25% of their air force operational).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France

So subtract the BEF from that and about half the air force. That isn't even factoring in an early Italian entry into the war.
Very interesting!

However, I have a question--if the French are desperate, can't they try shortening the front line by withdrawing from Belgium and creating a new front line on the Somme River? True, it would be a last-ditch move, but would it have a chance of working?

Also, if France has a much better and more prepared air force, how much of a difference is it going to make here if Italy is going to remain neutral (up to the point that it looks like that France is about to fall, at which point it will enter the war on Nazi Germany's side)?
 

Deleted member 1487

However, I have a question--if the French are desperate, can't they try shortening the front line by withdrawing from Belgium and creating a new front line on the Somme River? True, it would be a last-ditch move, but would it have a chance of working?

Also, if France has a much better and more prepared air force, how much of a difference is it going to make here if Italy is going to remain neutral (up to the point that it looks like that France is about to fall, at which point it will enter the war on Nazi Germany's side)?
They can try...but the damage likely would be done by that point and they don't want the fight to happen in their country. Plus a pull back has to deal with the Luftwaffe interdicting it.
A much better prepared French air force means a worse prepared some other component of their military.
 

hipper

Banned
A much better prepared French air force means a worse prepared some other component of their military.

I disagree all that needs to happen is a change in culture n he Air Force, it may be unlikely but attitudes can be changed by will which is unlimited. The French Air Force had all the eqipme t and manpower it needed to be an effective fighting force. It just lacked the proper structure and procedures.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
They can try...but the damage likely would be done by that point and they don't want the fight to happen in their country.

Wouldn't a fight in their country be better than having France fall to the Germans, though?

Plus a pull back has to deal with the Luftwaffe interdicting it.

Good point.

A much better prepared French air force means a worse prepared some other component of their military.

What about simply raising taxes to get more funds for the French military so that no other component of the French military has to lose any funding?

I disagree all that needs to happen is a change in culture n he Air Force, it may be unlikely but attitudes can be changed by will which is unlimited. The French Air Force had all the eqipme t and manpower it needed to be an effective fighting force. It just lacked the proper structure and procedures.

What exactly was the problem with attitudes in the French Air Force?
 

Deleted member 1487

Wouldn't a fight in their country be better than having France fall to the Germans, though?
You'd think so, but they routinely messed strategy and operations up IOTL.

What about simply raising taxes to get more funds for the French military so that no other component of the French military has to lose any funding?
French politics and finances made that impossible until far too late.

What exactly was the problem with attitudes in the French Air Force?
It went beyond attitudes and was in large part a funding issue, including lack of modern equipment. IIRC Hipper cited one article that leaves out the major material issues the ALA faced.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
You'd think so, but they routinely messed strategy and operations up IOTL.

French politics and finances made that impossible until far too late.

It went beyond attitudes and was in large part a funding issue, including lack of modern equipment. IIRC Hipper cited one article that leaves out the major material issues the ALA faced.
Thanks for all of this information! :)

Also, off-topic, but I want to ask you another question here considering that I don't want to create a separate thread for this: What would World War II have looked like had France protected the Ardennes more (with the French Seventh Army--instead of sending it over to the Low Countries) but also if France would have had British help (as in our TL, with the BEF)?

Basically, I want to know what this scenario would have looked like if one gets rid of the part about British neutrality.
 

Deleted member 1487

Thanks for all of this information! :)

Also, off-topic, but I want to ask you another question here considering that I don't want to create a separate thread for this: What would World War II have looked like had France protected the Ardennes more (with the French Seventh Army--instead of sending it over to the Low Countries) but also if France would have had British help (as in our TL, with the BEF)?

Basically, I want to know what this scenario would have looked like if one gets rid of the part about British neutrality.
They kinda did in that they had a 15 division reserve. It fell apart in the face of the Luftwaffe trying to counterattack; had it not been for the interdiction that reserve would have made the Sichelschnitt impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France#Central_front
Failed Allied counter-attacks[edit]
Some of the best Allied units in the north had seen little fighting. Had they been kept in reserve they might have been used in a decisive counter-strike. Pre-war General Staff Studies had asserted the main reserves were to be kept on French soil to resist an invasion of the Low Countries and deliver a counterattack or "re-establish the integrity of the original front".[142]

The 4th DCr (de Gaulle), attempted to launch an attack from the south at Montcornet, where Guderian had his Korps headquarters and the 1st Panzer Division had its rear service areas. During the Battle of Montcornet Germans hastily improvised a defence while Guderian rushed up the 10th Panzer Division to threaten De Gaulle's flank. This flank pressure and dive-bombing by Fliegerkorps VIII (General Wolfram von Richthofen) broke up the attack. French losses on 17 May amounted to 32 tanks and armoured vehicles but the French had "inflicted loss on the Germans". On 19 May, after receiving reinforcements, de Gaulle attacked again and was repulsed with the loss of 80 of 155 vehicles.[144] Fliegerkorps VIII attacked French units massing on the German flanks and prevented most counter-attacks from starting. The defeat of the 4th DCr and the disintegration of the French Ninth Army was caused mainly by the fliegerkorps.[145] The 4th DCr had achieved a measure of success but the attacks on 17 and 19 May had only local effect.[146]

If they held more in reserve at the Ardennes they would have lacked units to check breakthroughs elsewhere.
 
Allied morale was weakened since WW-I, without Russia and the UK in direct alliance, that could not improve. Once Poland is defeated, France will be isolated -further weakening its morale. It will collapse when the krauts mount wave after wave of attack.
 
The one advantage France gets is better leadership?
As others have said, they're defeated.

If you want a lucky, low-probability turn of events that might, possibly, perhaps save France regardless of the desperate situation it's in, try this: exactly because the British aren't in, Hitler somehow does manage to force his generals to attack in November. The weather turns very bad, the Germans get barely contained, and it's back to trench war for a few months.
Come spring, the French are bound to lose, again and anyway - unless the time gained during the winter hasn't given the British an opportunity to reconsider the French situation and the long-term results if the Germans win. And even then, anything but a variation of 1940 is rather unlikely.
 
Top