Victory in the Saar: France Wins in 1938-9 ATL

New part up. Reynaud takes a step back from the professional army and focuses in on mechanized warfare, invites Petain and Mandel into government. Petain served as minister of war during this period in OTL and Georges Mandel served as Minster of the Interior under Reynaud's 39-40 government in OTL.
 
From what I've read (and do correct me if I've wrong). But France was having heavy economic problems and simply couldn't afford to keep the army raised for even a day (which is one of the main reasons for not contesting the Rhineland occupation), It wasn't until 1937 that these problems were starting to be addressed. How do you propose that the economy is dealt with in this TL?
 
From what I've read (and do correct me if I've wrong). But France was having heavy economic problems and simply couldn't afford to keep the army raised for even a day (which is one of the main reasons for not contesting the Rhineland occupation), It wasn't until 1937 that these problems were starting to be addressed. How do you propose that the economy is dealt with in this TL?

Thanks for the comment.

French military spending did steadily increase every year despite the poor economy. In this TL I think it would just be a matter of allocation towards important areas. Having a professional standing army, base on everyone comments, seems undoable and probably would break the bank. So France is going to instead focus on getting a suitable armour doctrine that can potentially take the fight to Germany in 1938-39. If 1938 seems to soon a POD it could be pushed back to OTL Saar Offensive in 1939, whats your view on the potential time frame?

Financial constraints were never a major limitation for France. In the
period from 1918 to 1935 France spent on defense a larger percentage of
its gross domestic product then any other great power. Although Germany
spent more than France in its defense expenditures after 1936, much of the
cost was due to the fact that Germany was purchasing new stocks of basic
equipment, while the French Army already had considerable equipment
stocks at its disposal. Still, France did not readily accept a position behind
Germany and the French increased their defense budget from 12.657
billion francs in 1935 to 14.848 in 1936, 21.235 in 1937, 28.976 in 1938 and
93.687 in 1939. One can conclude that the French defense system did
not suffer from inadequate financing.

Of course, France could have spent more money on its defense needs. But
more money would not have necessarily resulted in a better state of
preparation for war. One cannot see how large financial resources might
have resulted in any fundamental changes in any of the defense sectors.
More money would not have resulted in the development of more modern
vehicles, a different doctrine or wider acceptance of mobile concepts of
war, or encouraged decentralized command and control relationships. In
short, France’s economical and financial situation in the interwar period
was adequate and certainly was not the source of disastrous defeat of 1940.
http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengin...6cfa5d6-4c1d-4c70-900a-e670e6d49748/en/11.pdf
 
Last edited:
Intriguing quote I found by Leon Blum: "de Gaulle had combined two ideas which in my opinion should not have been associated in any degree: one was the strategic employment of large armoured units and the other was the return of a professional army. I was tempted by the first idea, I was a resolute adversary to the other."
 
- Mandel, not Mandal

- Not a single f chance that Reynaud will select Pétain as minister of war
a) there is no minister of war. From 36 it's called "Ministre de la Défense nationale et de la Guerre"
b) they were political ennemies
c) such a job in 36-40 is designed for political men (such as Daladier)

- Reynaud would never have asked Mandel to join him. Just imagine that Reynaud is Clinton and Mandel is like Newt Gingrich
 
If 1938 seems to soon a POD it could be pushed back to OTL Saar Offensive in 1939, whats your view on the potential time frame?
If it took place during OTL time frame then that honestly would have been the best. 40 French Divisions against 20 German ones, and the Germans had little in the way of Armor, Artillery (less then 100 guns) or Mechanized units in the Siegfried line at the time. If it happened any early then it would be a fully mobilized Germany (Germany had a quicker and more efficient mobilization system then France) along a line that stretched the entire western border.
 
- Mandel, not Mandal

- Not a single f chance that Reynaud will select Pétain as minister of war
a) there is no minister of war. From 36 it's called "Ministre de la Défense nationale et de la Guerre"
b) they were political ennemies
c) such a job in 36-40 is designed for political men (such as Daladier)

- Reynaud would never have asked Mandel to join him. Just imagine that Reynaud is Clinton and Mandel is like Newt Gingrich

No chance they would all cooperate for the sake of the nation? Any other suggestions for candidates? Jean Estienne perhaps?
 
Last edited:
The Democratic Alliance is the ruling party. Reynaud is a member of that party so when Pierre Étienne Flandin resigns it is possible they would nominate him. Kind of like sorry we didn't listen to you earlier come back and save us. Would that be a valid explanation for the change?

But, AFAIK Democratic alliance was split between suporters of appeasment (majority) and hawks (minority). What was the cause of the change in relative strength? IIRC, Reynaud split from the party. You'd need some event that radicalizes the French public oppinion to the point that they do not elect appeasers.
 
So France is going to instead focus on getting a suitable armour doctrine that can potentially take the fight to Germany in 1938-39.

A "doctrine" is comparatively easy to finance. The tanks are being built in massive numbers anyways as per OTL- and their quality is decent. What they need is a concept for their suitable use.
 
But, AFAIK Democratic alliance was split between suporters of appeasment (majority) and hawks (minority). What was the cause of the change in relative strength? IIRC, Reynaud split from the party. You'd need some event that radicalizes the French public oppinion to the point that they do not elect appeasers.

What if French Prime Minster Pierre-Étienne Flandin was assassinated in a failed Fascist coup attempt similar to Dollfuss in Austria? People would rally around Democratic Alliance and the party itself would surely take a harder line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croix-de-Feu
 
Part Two: De Gaulle's Armoured Fist

220px-De_Gaulle-OWI.jpg


De Gaulle constructing his independent tank arm focused first on doctrine. He published a field manual “Instructions on the Employment of Tanks” that outlined offensive tank tactics. De Gaulle envisioned masses of tanks advancing in wedge formation, with close infantry support, punch through the enemy’s defenses.

In building is armoured force, De Gaulle settled on Four Divisions Cuirassee (Armoured Divisions) and Three Divisions Legere Mecnique (Light Mechanized Divisions). The armoured divisions would be based around the French heavy Char B-1 tank and the mechanized divisions around the SOMUA S-35 medium tank. Both of these tanks possessed heavy armour, adequate firepower and were more then a match for contemporary German models. Additional light tanks, such as the Renualt R-35 and Hotchkiss H-35, and armored cars were also assigned to the divisions in large numbers.

In order to help the French infantry stay with the tanks they were equipped with Laffly trucks and a number of Bren Universal Carriers ordered from Britain. Keeping the advance supplied was left to the Renault UE armoured supply carrier.

08553.jpg
 
Last edited:
The problem with a professional army is that it can turn on you. If you have a look, France is one of the few country to have remained a true republic in the 30'.

Spain: Franco and its army
Italy: Mussolini
Germany: Hitler
and so on..

It's easy to understand why the government does NOT want a professionnal army. The conscript based army was a rational choice. The bad thing was its limited training, just that!

There is also the French history of the Napoleons to consider. An overthrow of the civilian government had happened a couple times or so in the previous century. Why would the French government risk another one?
 
Top