How would Germany fare in a Defensive War?

The UK wasn't ruled by a bunch of idiots. They'd probably have declared a naval exclusion zone in the channel to both sides---i.e, anybody moving warships through here except by very limited prior arrangement constitutes an act of war. Then if the Germans violate it, they'd protest and/or declare war. French violations are more likely to get protests than war. They're unlikely to play gotcha with a charnel house of a war like WWI. They might well decide that having everyone else wreck their navies would be a good thing for the British Empire, especially if they could persuade the Germans and French to sell them some of their colonies instead of taking quite so many loans.

EWHM

Can't remember the details but pretty certain that Britain had made clear that if the HSF entered the Channel [before Britain joined the conflict] it would be considered an act of war.

However, if Germany had stayed on the defensive and mauled the French attacks, then broken through in a counter-attack without going through Belgium Britain could well have stayed neutral. There's no particular reason for the Germany to need to send their battle-fleet into the Channel.

Steve
 
EWHM

Can't remember the details but pretty certain that Britain had made clear that if the HSF entered the Channel [before Britain joined the conflict] it would be considered an act of war.

However, if Germany had stayed on the defensive and mauled the French attacks, then broken through in a counter-attack without going through Belgium Britain could well have stayed neutral. There's no particular reason for the Germany to need to send their battle-fleet into the Channel.

Steve

the way I view the situation is that the Germans have more than sufficient naval power to ensure their sea lanes are open to the Atlantic, and sufficient numbers of well armed and fast battlecruisers and cruisers to prevent the French from doing much damage outside of local waters. The French would probably do fine in the Med, but their colonies in Asia and southern Africa would likely be in trouble if the Germans chose to exert energy to get them. Probably not though, as the Germans would likely feel they could get them at the peace table anyway, should they want them post war.

The RN is unlikely to intervene unless a belligerent is foolish enough to engage shipping in what the RN considers its turf. .. like the Channel for instance.
 
EWHM

Can't remember the details but pretty certain that Britain had made clear that if the HSF entered the Channel [before Britain joined the conflict] it would be considered an act of war.

However, if Germany had stayed on the defensive and mauled the French attacks, then broken through in a counter-attack without going through Belgium Britain could well have stayed neutral. There's no particular reason for the Germany to need to send their battle-fleet into the Channel.

Steve

Correct---the UK would consider any significant number of warships in the Channel to be an act of war---probably going back to the 1800s and before honestly. God forbid there be transports involved, those would probably anger them more than a few battleships. The Germans know this and would be pretty unlikely to accidentally piss off the British.
 

Perkeo

Banned
1) Could Imperial Germany have won a defensive war if Russia and France launched a preemptive strike?

That removes THE strategic mistake of Germany in WWI: Had the Germans not drastically underestimated the political fallout of the Schliefen Plan - and had France and Russia made those mistakes instead - they would have been in a much better position than OTL.

Britain and Italy are likely to stay neutral - or even join the CP's if France is as stupid as Germany was IOTL.

2) If the French pushed the Saarland Offensive, how would Nazi Germany fare?

If the French manage to capture and hold the Rheinland, we have a very different WWII: With foreign troops on their own soil rather than OTL's Blitzkrieg-myth, the psychological impacts on the German public are huge. The Nazi Regime will struggle to survive this.

The USSR won't risk a war if the Saarland Offensive is early and successful enough, so even in Poland a quick German victory becomes doubtful.

However, if the French screw up the Saarland Offensive, things can end up pretty OTL, with a propagandistic advantage to Germany ("They invaded first!").
 
If the French manage to capture and hold the Rheinland, we have a very different WWII: With foreign troops on their own soil rather than OTL's Blitzkrieg-myth, the psychological impacts on the German public are huge. The Nazi Regime will struggle to survive this.

The USSR won't risk a war if the Saarland Offensive is early and successful enough, so even in Poland a quick German victory becomes doubtful.

However, if the French screw up the Saarland Offensive, things can end up pretty OTL, with a propagandistic advantage to Germany ("They invaded first!").


I actually started a timeline on this idea in my sig. It requires a different French premier and army chief who had the political balls to do it. Daladier is not that man but Paul Reynaud is. I haven't done much with it lately but I'm going to revive it. My conclusions were that Stalin would not invade Poland if the French had considerable success in the west, and that the German Army would likely institute a coup against the Nazi's - possibly with the help of high ranking Nazi's like Goering who retained credibility with the armed forces. Of course we will never know for sure and that is the beauty of AH.
 
Last edited:
Scenario 2, if the french and british pushed into Germany, Nazi Germany would be incredibly screwed, or at the very least, the War in the West would last much longer.

Not if the Germans didn't panic. Poland was screwed and there was a limit to how far the British and French could get into Germany before they had to face the full force of the Wehrmacht. Bits of the French army might have got cut off but on the whole I do agree that the war in the west would have lasted a bit longer (but it still would be over by 1941).
 
Not if the Germans didn't panic. Poland was screwed and there was a limit to how far the British and French could get into Germany before they had to face the full force of the Wehrmacht. Bits of the French army might have got cut off but on the whole I do agree that the war in the west would have lasted a bit longer (but it still would be over by 1941).

teg

If the French really went for it they should get most/all the west bank of the Rhine and maul the reserve forces operating there. It would probably also mean significant losses for the rest of the German forces as they would have to be pulled out of Poland PDQ and thrown into the battle in the west. Coupled with the material and moral loses the Germans have suffered a shattering blow. Also the Rhur is now within easy artillery range of France artillery.

Furthermore the strategic situation has changed drastically. There's not going to be a drive through Belgium as that's now safely behind allied lines. The Netherlands possibly but it's going to be a longer swing by a weaker force. The French will have their moral and confidence boosted by the success while it also gives a chance to blood their forces and gain some experience of weaknesses.

Also if Stalin reneges on the agreement with Hitler Poland will be able to fight on longer, tying down the weaker German forces and putting more strain on the economy. There will be few/no supplies from Russia so that will also be a problem. At this point there was also the potential of Romanian support for Poland and that could be a fatal threat, both by greatly increasing the forces and depth in the east and of course cutting oil.

Even without that possibility, with their significantly greater industrial and military production the allies have a much greater chance of knocking out Germany fairly quickly. The war might last until 41, provided no coup in Germany but I doubt that the Nazis will actually last that long.

Steve
 
The Imperial German army was a good one. At the start of WWI, after the Battle of the Frontiers it had the French retreating on a broad front, including the Ardennes area where the French had expected to break through. If the armies meet in Germany instead, the Germans have even more advantages of supply and logistics. I don't know if they had a plan for a defensive war; given the thoroughness of the general staff, I think they would. My guess is that they would draw the French forward, then cut then off.

All sorts of outcomes are possible on the Eastern Front. Russia did attack and as others have noted, it was a disaster. But it could have gone much better. The Germans had been defeated in the center and one wing at Gumbinnen, and General Prittwitz (briefly) seriously contemplated abandoning East Prussia. Germany recovered by bluffing the 1st Russian Army with a screening force while the Second Russian Army was destroyed at Tannenburg. If the First Army attacks strongly instead, it could have been the Germans who were on the run.
 

loughery111

Banned
Not if the Germans didn't panic. Poland was screwed and there was a limit to how far the British and French could get into Germany before they had to face the full force of the Wehrmacht. Bits of the French army might have got cut off but on the whole I do agree that the war in the west would have lasted a bit longer (but it still would be over by 1941).

Bullshit. Sorry, but there's no other way to put it; the limit of advance you refer to, while it does exist, is the WEST BANK OF THE RHINE. This puts France in control of a goodly fraction of Germany's industrial heartland, and much of its iron ore and coal production. It also puts them in a position to devastate the Ruhr Valley with land-based artillery, which can provide round the clock, cheap, unstoppable bombardment in a way that the USAF and RAF could not, even at the peak of the bombing campaign in 1944.

If, and I agree it's unlikely, but if the French have a government and upper command structure with some balls, they can take the Rhineland and work with Britain to pressure the Dutch into allowing them to secure and fortify the whole length of the river from the Swiss border north. The Germans will break themselves trying to take it back, and almost certainly not succeed as they did against the Maginot Line IOTL., at which point Hitler will be overthrown in a coup and the new military government will sue for peace on any reasonable terms they can get.

The terms I see would involve restoring the independence of Poland and Czechoslovakia, possibly requiring them to repatriate the Sudeten and Danzig Germans as well, and disarming. Again. Since it was a short war, and everyone was starting to figure out, by now, that Versailles had been a mistake, they might be inclined to be even more lenient regarding Danzig, but the Czech arms industry means that country will be liberated.

EDIT: Dammit, I really must read these threads to the bottom before replying... stevep beat me to it.
 
Top