Was the fall of France in 1940 preventable if there was a change in leadership?

Redbeard

Banned
A lot of interesting posts on what the Maginot Line could have been transformed into - thanks - makes this board worthwile to follow.

But anyway, I doubt the political climate in interwar France would have allowed anything resembling the preparation of a new offensive war.

Seen from post WWI France the big lesson was to avoid the spirited but extremely bloody attacks of 1914-15 and next to transform the apparently inevitable defensive positions from mud holes to relatively comfortable concrete caves.

The idea of Blitzkrieg would have been considered barking mad.

What France would need was a talented staff officer realising that the French interwar CCC cyclus was too slow to meet the challenge of a potential attacker with motorised and armoured spearheads. That wouldn't need that much mental capacity to calculate and could find reference in military history. Basically the French revolutionary and Napoleonic armies did the same with the classical European armies as the French left train and cordon system behind and moved around in flexible Divisions and Armycorps.

Add next some spirted French industrialist having invented a good radioset and with the necessary political connections to sell a lot to the army.

In other words the best French counter to Guderian is not one thinking like Guderian (i.e. de Gaulle) but one thinking like Monty or Zhukov.
 
...

What France would need was a talented staff officer realising that the French interwar CCC cyclus was too slow to meet the challenge of a potential attacker with motorised and armoured spearheads. That wouldn't need that much mental capacity to calculate and could find reference in military history. Basically the French revolutionary and Napoleonic armies did the same with the classical European armies as the French left train and cordon system behind and moved around in flexible Divisions and Armycorps.

Jury is still out in my view. However a couple years ago I read a argument that the French understood perfectly well the problem of slow C3, but they did not have the wherewithal to improve this. In short, the training for officers was reduced, and reduced again during the intervening decades. The politicians running the defense ministry set the priority on training a large a army as possible, the 'Levee en Mass' & down sizing the training to fit the budget the legislature allowed. Hence the emphasis on detailed written orders from the HQ staff. The small number of career officers in each HQ staff were to use detailed operational orders as a substitute for the missing training. All that fits what we see in the books. Doughty describes the same in his 'Seeds of Disaster'. The additional argument made by this other person is the intent was to remediate the officer/staff training so that battalion/regiment/division/corps could issue orders faster & execute them with less delay. I've not seen anything directly supporting that, but the difference in performance between the first echelon 'Active' formations and the third echelon 'Series B' formations is huge. From virtually every history of the campaign we see that the active units spent the autum & winter training, and the B units were usually of labor duty. The later were not scheduled for a serious training regime until May 1940 - when the attack came.

In other words the best French counter to Guderian is not one thinking like Guderian (i.e. de Gaulle) but one thinking like Monty or Zhukov.

There were more than a few like that. Unfortuantly they were in the wrong place. The example I commonly use is the 1st Army repulsing the attack by Hoeppners Pz Corps in central Belgium. Had the west bank at Sedan been defended by any of the corps in the 1st Army the outcome would have been different. Instead there were too many formations like the 53rd, 55th, or 63rd which were wholly unready to face a combined air & armor assault.
 
People often seem to forget the why of the Maginot line.

If you do not purchase it then you can save money( obvious :p ) or you can spend it on something else. Assume that you spend it on weapons... you still have the same basic problem: how can you protect the country against a surprise attack? How can you stand at least two weeks to allow mobilisation?

The whole idea behind the line was:
1/ protect the country against a surprise attack (it has not been designed for something else)
2/ save manpower. You can construct weapons but if you don't have men!
3/ use the economic weapon: on the long run France + UK can blockade and win whatever happen (and to be honest without Soviet help Germans were doomed in 39-40).

The two main failures were
- Belgium: becoming stupidly neutral and not lining with French
- Romania
 
The two main failures were
- Belgium: becoming stupidly neutral and not lining with French
- Romania

Well. In defense of Belgium - they have seen the French allowing Germans to fortify Rheinland, to rearm, to annex Austria. They have also seen the French abandon their ally and allowing them to be dismembered. They have seen the French sitting on their collective a*ses while Poland went down. They decided to stay on the German good side if at all possible. Or at least not provoke the Germans and appear at least a proper victim.
 
The example I commonly use is the 1st Army repulsing the attack by Hoeppners Pz Corps in central Belgium. Had the west bank at Sedan been defended by any of the corps in the 1st Army the outcome would have been different. Instead there were too many formations like the 53rd, 55th, or 63rd which were wholly unready to face a combined air & armor assault.

Except France's best and brightest were sent to stop Hoepner at Gembloux, as that was seen as the German 'Schwerpunkt" - which they were so sure of that they didn't even bother to check with their air recon. Having them in the Ardennes means the Allies beome aware of the German plan and choose to believe the info.

On a slightly related note -

I'm not even sure cancelling the "Breda variant" and keeping French 7th army in reserve would do them a lot of good, as by the time they would deploy, the Germans would have most likely crossed the Meuse already.
 
People often seem to forget the why of the Maginot line.

If you do not purchase it then you can save money( obvious :p ) or you can spend it on something else. Assume that you spend it on weapons... you still have the same basic problem: how can you protect the country against a surprise attack? How can you stand at least two weeks to allow mobilisation?

The whole idea behind the line was:
1/ protect the country against a surprise attack (it has not been designed for something else)
2/ save manpower. You can construct weapons but if you don't have men!
3/ use the economic weapon: on the long run France + UK can blockade and win whatever happen (and to be honest without Soviet help Germans were doomed in 39-40).

The two main failures were
- Belgium: becoming stupidly neutral and not lining with French
- Romania

This far too optimistic and distorted. This is what the french politiciens wanted their population to believe. There is a quite famous french propaganda picture, showing the world map with the french and british empires, and saying : "we will win because we are the stronger."

This was quite stupid and was based on the idea that Germany would wait until it was suffocated by the blocus.

The main problem was land military doctrine : the german military innovations had temporarily made the french and british doctrine obsolete.

That's what nobody had guessed, not even the german military command that had never imagined that it would defeat the french army in a few weeks.
 
In defense of Belgium - they have seen the French allowing Germans to fortify Rheinland, to rearm, to annex Austria. They have also seen the French abandon their ally and allowing them to be dismembered. They have seen the French sitting on their collective a*ses while Poland went down.
Wrong, Belgium cancelled its alliance in the late 20s... BEFORE Hitler.

Then when Hitler invadec Poland they said "oups, we must have done a mistake somewhere".

which they were so sure of that they didn't even bother to check with their air recon. Having them in the Ardennes means the Allies beome aware of the German plan and choose to believe the info.
Wrong, they did, didn't believe the results and tought that they would have time to stop them.

I'm not even sure cancelling the "Breda variant" and keeping French 7th army in reserve would do them a lot of good, as by the time they would deploy, the Germans would have most likely crossed the Meuse already.
It would have been close to Reins...The best place to strop them along the Meuse or to cut them from the flank. That was exactly what Germans feared the most.

This was quite stupid and was based on the idea that Germany would wait until it was suffocated by the blocus.

Stupid maybe but logic and not that stupid: Germany had weapons and ammo for a single massive attack, not for a protactec campaign
 
Except France's best and brightest were sent to stop Hoepner at Gembloux, as that was seen as the German 'Schwerpunkt" - which they were so sure of that they didn't even bother to check with their air recon. Having them in the Ardennes means the Allies beome aware of the German plan and choose to believe the info.

I dont see this. The 21st Corps including the top quality 3rd Motor Inf Div was sent to reinforce the 10th Corps at Sedan. Flavigny its commander was regarded as one of the top generals in the French army. All three of the new DCR type armored divisions were sent from the Stratigic Reserve to reinforce the 2d & 9th Armies facing the Ardennes, not elsewhere.

The ignoring of the reconissance in the Ardennes seems wrong as well. Air recon missions were overflown on the 10th May, there were reports from before dawn 10 May from a French officer stationed in Luxemborg, five mechanized cavalry divisions were sent to find the Germans in Luxembourg and the Belgian Ardennes on the morning of 10 May. On 11 May a continuing series of airstrikes were started on the German forces in the Ardennes. The airstrkes continued on the 12th May & Guderians HQ was bombed on the afternoon of the 12th May. Huntzinger on the late afternoon of the 12th May reported a dangerous enemy force facing his 2d Army.
 
Hm.. the fortresses were not stood up until the Cezch Crisis in October 1938.

This is hardly surprising as the whole of the French military was at a rather poor readiness until the October '38 crisis. Maybe if they had spent some of the money for the maginot line on their actual forces instead they wouldn't have been at such a poor readiness.

Plus, it says nothing about the quality of troops.

A quick check of the map shows approx 40% of the French field armies would be required to hold that length of ground.
Based on what? Even without the Maginot Line, the German's are not going to be throwing anything other then holding attacks down there. Maginot Line or no, the main German thrust - as in WWI - was going to come through Belgium. The Germans were never going to throw their main thrust through the south due to the closed terrain, pre-existing fortress cities (like Metz), and most importantly because south of the Ardennes means they have to cover several hundred more km of ground to reach the Channel. The Maginot Line defended an axis that even before its construction in WWI, the Germans had shown a disinclination to use.

Take another look at Horne & count the size of the group sent into the Ardennes on 10 may. Five of the Mechanized cavalry divisions, reinforced with motorized units from the divisions and corps troops of the 2d, 3rd & 9th Armies. Since the French sent a mechanized/motorized force into the area it sort of contradicts the idea they thought it impassable to such a force. They were also aware the Belgian army had assigned a large portion of its motorized formations to the same area. They had sent two armies into the area in 1914 & that experience appears in the French army literature of the interwar years.

Between the four Belgian divisions assigned & the French mechanized force the Ardennes should have been well defended. Why these units failed is not because the region was misjudged but lays in other directions.
None of this at all matches the actual French dispositions; the First French Army Group included the First, Second and Third Armies. The First Army had some of France's best troops, including all of France's armored formations, and was directed to advance into central Belgium. To the south of First lay Ninth Army which covered the western side of the Ardennes, down to Sedan on its right flank. And then to the south east of the Ninth lay the Second Army, with Sedan on on its left flank, and then extending down to the Second Army Group holding the Maginot Line, proper.

The closest of these that could be described as "defending the Ardennes" is the 9th army, whose OOB for May 10th gives it one motorized division, two light cavalry divisions, and 7 infantry divisions. And given the grand total of the Belgian motorized capabilities consisted of the 1st Ardennes Chassiers division, the fact they deployed down around the Ardennes is non-indicative. In the part of the Ardennes where the German schwerpunkt was, the only forces were elements of the Belgian 1st Ardennes Chassiers and 5th French Light Cavalry which, to quote wiki, "had insufficient anti-tank capacity to block the surprisingly large number of German tanks they encountered and quickly gave way, withdrawing behind the Meuse."

The movement of all French reserves makes clear where Gamelin's focus lay (if the text of his various orders and reports over the period left any doubt - which it does not). Between 10 and 14 May Gamelin committed a total of 13 divisions from his reserve to battle. Of these five were sent to First Army, and eight to Second Army, four of which were engaged (disastrously) on the fringes of the German breakout. But to the center of the German effort, defended by the Ninth Army, Gamelin sent not one division from the central reserve. Certainly Second Army was involved in some bitter fighting attempting to hold Sedan, but it was against only a portion of the Ninth Army that the full force of the German breakout was aimed. Finally on 15 May Gamelin began to redirect some forces from First Army to Ninth, although by then it was much too late.

Even on 15 May, when the German breakout was a reality, Gamelin continued to badly misread it's intent. The going opinion at his HQ at Vincennes was now that the Germans would swing left into Second Army, outflank and roll up the Maginot Line. This poor assessment meant that even though several more divisions were moving to Sedan their orders continued to anticipate that the Germans would swing south. As a result, what force the French had left in the sector was out of position to block the Germans when they instead moved west and north - through Ninth Army.

The French military command simply couldn't believe the Germans would do anything so ambitious. Gamelin and Georges thought in terms of a war of cautious steps, not grand thrusts. In fact, the only person in the French hierarchy who seems to have realized that the Germans might actually launch a more ambitious penetration was Prime Minister Reynaud. On the morning of the 15th, Reynaud personally rang Churchill, "evidently under great stress," according to Churchill's account, to inform him that the French front had been broken at Sedan, and the Germans were pouring through and could soon be in Paris. Extremely concerned, Churchill immediately rang the BEF, and was informed by General Ironside that Gamelin had issued them no further orders and assured them that all was in hand. Churchill then rang General Georges directly. Georges "seemed quite cool, and reported that the breach at Sedan was being plugged." Considering Reynaud (the politician) to be a bit overwrought, Churchill accepted the word of Georges (the soldier).

Finally, on 16 May Gamelin awoke to news that German Panzers were closing on Laon, just 82 miles from Paris. Vincennes went into a panic, and Gamelin began issuing frantic orders to redirect everything (which would have been unnecessary if the shwerpunkt had been correctly identified on the 11th). Even then, the French assumption was that the target was Paris itself, as opposed to the encirclement and destruction of the Army in Belgium. Thus it was actually not until 18 May that the French realized the Germans were going for the Channel, not Paris.

They gambled that a half dozen mobile divisions could seize & exploit multiple bridgeheads from two enemy armies with three times as many divisions, five time the artillery strength, and mostly defending from prepared positions.
Except in reality, the German schwerpunkt did not face the entirety of two armies. As you can see below, the broad front of the German breakthrough largely conforms to the boundaries of Ninth Army, the French force that received the least (no) reinforcements in the critical days between 11 and 14 May, and on which front lay the actual center of gravity.

10May_16May_Battle_of_Belgium.PNG


And see Stonne to the south of the red bulge on the map? That's where Second Army threw all its reserves. Whoever held Stonne would have a commanding view of the Sedan bridgehead, so it was an important position, but it wasn't the center of gravity. As the map shows, the Germans crossed on a wide front, of which Sedan was only the largest crossing. The problem is that the French committed to the south of Stonne, while Guderian just left two divisions behind to keep them busy, and then moved the rest of his forces away to the north west. You can see it clearly on the map. So even those forces at Sedan were oriented to block an advance in the wrong direction.

Put together, on May 10th the Germans moved through the Ardennes with nearly the entirety of Army Group A for a total of 8 panzer divisions, 3 motorized infantry divisions, 27 infantry divisions, and 1 mountain division (a total of 39 divisions) against the elements of a single Belgian motorized and a French light cavalry. Afterwards, the German main effort lay into Ninth Army, which had a total of 10 divisions. Thus, your proclaimed force estimate is actually inverted: it was the French who were outnumbered more then 3:1 during the critical breakthrough phase and not the other way around.

Air recon missions were overflown on the 10th May, there were reports from before dawn 10 May from a French officer stationed in Luxemborg,
Which were largely ignored by higher command. In fact, as late as 15 May Gamelin still believed the German "schwerpunkt" was further north in Belgium in the Gembloux area. On 11 May when the first reserves were sent to the Sedan area, Gamelin still believed that the effort in the Ardennes was a spoiling attack. He (or rather Georges, because Gamelin limited himself to tacitly accepting his deputy's maneuvers) committed reserves to the fight on the Meuse out of prudence, but therafter his full attention remained further north. After reviewing Georges actions he went to bed stating "The defence now seems well assured along the whole front of the river [Meuse]." Gamelin himself later admitted that he didn't realize how grave the situation at Sedan was, though he blamed poor reporting from the field on his ignorance.

five mechanized cavalry divisions were sent to find the Germans in Luxembourg and the Belgian Ardennes on the morning of 10 May.
The Germans certainly didn't encounter anything like five mechanized-cavalry divisions during their dash through the Ardennes and French records do not show them deploying that number of forces into the Ardennes.

All three of the new DCR type armored divisions were sent from the Stratigic Reserve to reinforce the 2d & 9th Armies facing the Ardennes, not elsewhere.
Except this is false. All three of the DCR armored divisions were initially employed with first army, where they actually stalled the German advance at Hannut. But the French victory at Hannut was totally undermined by the concurrent German breakthrough at Sedan to the south, forcing them to abandon the field and begin a ruinous 200km dash south to try and stop Guderian's panzers.
 
Last edited:
So much to discuss here, I'll address a few points.

Quote:
Hm.. the fortresses were not stood up until the Cezch Crisis in October 1938.

This is hardly surprising as the whole of the French military was at a rather poor readiness until the October '38 crisis. Maybe if they had spent some of the money for the maginot line on their actual forces instead they wouldn't have been at such a poor readiness.

Kemp 'The Maginot Line' Chapman 'Why France Fell' Horne 'To Lose a Battle' All place the completion of the fortress as in mid to late 1938. As kemp makes it clear that had to do with the budget for the project from the politicians & engineering progress. The CORF construction project was not built by the conscripts or the Army in general. It was built by civilian contractors with engineering and ordnance specialist officers involved.

Plus, it says nothing about the quality of troops.

Not clear what you are getting at here. But, moving on..

Quote:
A quick check of the map shows approx 40% of the French field armies would be required to hold that length of ground.

Based on what?

Based on French doctrine for frontages of infantry divisions & corps support. Without the fortifications between 35 & 40 divisions would be the norm for a main defense zone & local operational reserves for the region between Longwy & Strassberg.

Even without the Maginot Line, the German's are not going to be throwing anything other then holding attacks down there.

Go to Kemp, Horne, Chapman, or Jacksons 'The Fall of France & read their descriptions of the quantity of French industry that lay directly on or near the border. All that was at risk if not well defended. With & without the fortifications the military leaders considered it dangerously vulnerable to a enemy strike. In 1914 a large portion of the industrial region was lost in the opening weeks to a strong enemy attack.

Maginot Line or no, the main German thrust - as in WWI - was going to come through Belgium. The Germans were never going to throw their main thrust through the south due to the closed terrain, pre-existing fortress cities (like Metz), and most importantly because south of the Ardennes means they have to cover several hundred more km of ground to reach the Channel. The Maginot Line defended an axis that even before its construction in WWI, the Germans had shown a disinclination to use.

Disinclination? In 1870 the entire German attack came south of the Ardennes. In 1914 three large armies attacked through the same region. those armies had been created in part by weakening the left wing moving through Belgium. Moltke regarded the attack through that region a essential part of his strategy & changed it from a static screening force in the earlier plans to a major offensive force. Hardly a disinclination.

Quote:
Take another look at Horne & count the size of the group sent into the Ardennes on 10 may. Five of the Mechanized cavalry divisions, reinforced with motorized units from the divisions and corps troops of the 2d, 3rd & 9th Armies. Since the French sent a mechanized/motorized force into the area it sort of contradicts the idea they thought it impassable to such a force. They were also aware the Belgian army had assigned a large portion of its motorized formations to the same area. They had sent two armies into the area in 1914 & that experience appears in the French army literature of the interwar years.

Between the four Belgian divisions assigned & the French mechanized force the Ardennes should have been well defended. Why these units failed is not because the region was misjudged but lays in other directions.
None of this at all matches the actual French dispositions; the First French Army Group included the First, Second and Third Armies. The First Army had some of France's best troops, including all of France's armored formations, and was directed to advance into central Belgium. To the south of First lay Ninth Army which covered the western side of the Ardennes, down to Sedan on its right flank. And then to the south east of the Ninth lay the Second Army, with Sedan on on its left flank, and then extending down to the Second Army Group holding the Maginot Line, proper.

The closest of these that could be described as "defending the Ardennes" is the 9th army, whose OOB for May 10th gives it one motorized division, two light cavalry divisions, and 7 infantry divisions. And given the grand total of the Belgian motorized capabilities consisted of the 1st Ardennes Chassiers division, the fact they deployed down around the Ardennes is non-indicative. In the part of the Ardennes where the German schwerpunkt was, the only forces were elements of the Belgian 1st Ardennes Chassiers and 5th French Light Cavalry which, to quote wiki, "had insufficient anti-tank capacity to block the surprisingly large number of German tanks they encountered and quickly gave way, withdrawing behind the Meuse."

Your idea of the forces is inaccurate. Two more of the cavalry divisions advanced from the 2d Army are, & a fifth moved to Luxemborg City from 3rd Army area. All five of the cavalry divisions had motorized units from the 2d, 3rd, & 9th Armies supporting them. The Belgians had a infantry division directly supporting the Chas d Ard Division & two more assembled near Huy & Liege which were support the Corps d Ardennes.

My point was the French did send a large reconissance force in the Ardennes, which encountered & identified the enemy. They did not fail to reconoiter. It is correct to think they did not recognize the threat swiftly enough, but incorrect to say they made no reconissance.

Quote:
five mechanized cavalry divisions were sent to find the Germans in Luxembourg and the Belgian Ardennes on the morning of 10 May.

The Germans certainly didn't encounter anything like five mechanized-cavalry divisions during their dash through the Ardennes and French records do not show them deploying that number of forces into the Ardennes.

Well, then Horne, Chapman, Jackson, Doughty, & a number of others are all wrong on this point. Since they all cite 'French Records' as well as German and quote extracts from those records I have to wonder where their confusion comes from?

Quote:
All three of the new DCR type armored divisions were sent from the Stratigic Reserve to reinforce the 2d & 9th Armies facing the Ardennes, not elsewhere.

Except this is false. All three of the DCR armored divisions were initially employed with first army, where they actually stalled the German advance at Hannut. But the French victory at Hannut was totally undermined by the concurrent German breakthrough at Sedan to the south, forcing them to abandon the field and begin a ruinous 200km dash south to try and stop Guderian's panzers.

You are conflating the DCR Divisions with the DLM. The 2d & 3rd DLM were part of Pirouxs Cavalry Corps, which covered the 1st Army. The 1st DLM started with the 7th Army & advanced to the Dutch city of Breda 10-11 May. Later after the 7th Army was disolved it was sent back south.

The 1, 2, 3 DCR started in the Stratigic Reserve on 10 May. On the 12th May the 1DCR was ordered to 1st Army, then redirected to 9th Army, which it supported in battle near Flavion on 15 May.

The 2d DCR was ordered to 9th Army & was overrun unloading its tanks from railroad transport. The motorized infantry & artillery escaped south.

The 3rd DCR war ordered to join with 21st Corps & to 2d Army.
__________________
 
Wrong, Belgium cancelled its alliance in the late 20s... BEFORE Hitler.

Then when Hitler invadec Poland they said "oups, we must have done a mistake somewhere

There never was a formal alliance between France and Belgium, but rather a military cooperation agreement for the occupation of the Rhur, that became an agreement to exchange between the two HQ.

The Locarno treaty was the cornerstone of Belgian foreign policy until 1936. When the French did't live up to their commitment when the Germans violated the treaty by reoccuppying the Rhineland made Belgian neutrality almost inevitable... Blaming Belgian neutrality on "stupidity" is really too simple, I'm afraid.
 
There never was a formal alliance between France and Belgium, but rather a military cooperation agreement for the occupation of the Rhur, that became an agreement to exchange between the two HQ.


Wrong, you conveniently forget the Franco-Belgian Military Accord of 1920 wgich was a collective defense pact...


The Locarno treaty was the cornerstone of Belgian foreign policy until 1936. When the French did't live up to their commitment when the Germans violated the treaty by reoccuppying the Rhineland made Belgian neutrality almost inevitable... Blaming Belgian neutrality on "stupidity" is really too simple, I'm afraid.

Wrong again. You just need to read
"A propos des relations militaires franco-belges, 1936-1940" http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rbph_0035-0818_1969_num_47_4_2801


Page 1204 and next ones.... It's an academic historial journal from... Belgium. Some interesting sentences:

- Hymans decided to act in October 1930 after
- As a consequence king's speach (march 1931!!!) stated that thed country wanted to pursue a politic of full independance and stated that the 1920 agreement was not to be seen any more as an alliance

Talking about stupid moves: the Ghent line with fortifications facing SOUTH constructed in 39-40
http://www.niehorster.org/021_belgium/forts/_forts-part_02.htm
 
It frankly depends what you call a formal military alliance. The reality is that the agreement you refer to (and to which I was referring in my preivous post) was fraught with ambiguities and interpreted differently almost from the start in France and in Belgium. In that sense, Hymans's speech in 1931 was perceived in Belgium as a clarification rather than a change of interpretation (I suggest you re-read the source to which you posted the link...)

In a nutshell, what the agreement foresaw included:
- Details how French and Belgian troops would coordinate for the occupation of the Rhur - obviously became obsolete after the end of the occupation
- A commitment for both countries to mobilize their reserves if Germany were to re-arm
- Ways to better integrate border defence between France and Belgian
- A commitment to hold regular discussions between the two General Staffs

As such, the agreement was a technical military agreement. It did not include political commitments, such as under which circumstances one of the countries was supposed to support the other one and through which measures. It is in that sense that I (like many historians) do not consider it as a formal alliance. It is undeniable that it put Belgium in the sphere of influence of France. This was albeit reluctantly on the part of the Belgians, a fact that not many people in France fully appreciated at the time (and many still don't today...)

What Belgian diplomacy did over time was to link the applicability of the agreement to the Locarno treaty (in full transaprency and agreement with the French). That treaty was not an alliance between France and Belgium either. In fact, all the signing powers were supposed to gang up against whoever would violate the treaty, and - in theory - Belgium was supposed to support Germany as well if France was the perpetrator. As I've said, Locarno was the cornerstone of Belgian diplomacy until 1936, and it is the perceived failure of France (and Britain) to enforce the treaty when the Germans violated it that led to the stronger reaffirmation of Belgium's independence policy and the formal ending of the 1920 military agreement (of which the last thing standing was the commitment to hod talks between general staffs, arguably a fairly meagre thing anwyay).

The fact is, many segments of the Belgian population didn't feel comfortable in the French sphere of influence and French policy in the 1930's only made these segments stronger. I'm not blaming the French, who may have had reasons for pursuing these policies, but nobody in Belgium felt they had a responsibility as a small country towards Poland, Czechoslovakia or Romania...
 
Last edited:
Talking about stupid moves: the Ghent line with fortifications facing SOUTH constructed in 39-40
http://www.niehorster.org/021_belgium/forts/_forts-part_02.htm

It is very interesting that you think the Ghent Bridgehead was a stupid thing to do, as its set-up and lay-out was one of the last things that the Belgian and French General Staffs studied together and recommended in early 1936... More seriously, look at the shape of the Scheldt in the area. The Scheldt was deemed to be the third line of defense of Belgium against a German invasion, with the hope of protecting the coast and Antwerp. South of Ghent, the Scheldt makes an northward loop that would have created a salient into the Belgian defence and dangerously exposed the city, which was a vital center of communication. This is the reason why the bridgehead was created south of the city. This has nothing to do about defence against the French in this particular case. And had it not been for the shameful surrender of Ghent in May 1940, it would have been used indeed against the Germans.

I have to say there is a certain French historiography that specializes in finding all the anti-French "stupidities" that the Belgians would have done. But it's the first time that I read about the Ghent Bridgehead in that context. The list usually includes the fortifications that were built South of Brussels, the fact that certain casemates in the Belgian Ardennes were facing south instead of northeast, or the fact that half of the Belgian army would have faced the Southern border instead of the Eastern border.

While it is true that a few bunkers were built south of Brussels as a pretence of balanced neutrality, there is absolutely no doubt that almost all the Belgian defence effort was directed against a German invasion. The Belgians were fully conscious where the danger was coming from. The Albert canal, the modernization of the Liège forts (with Eben-Emael), the KW-line, the Scheldt line (with the Ghent bridgehead), the creation of the Ardennes Chasseurs corps, all of that was clearly facing an enemy coming from the East. Belgian military plans were fully shared with the Allies, Belgian gold had been brought to safety in France and the UK, German invasion plans captured by the Belgians were fully shared with the Allies as well, the Belgian army had fully adapted its deployment to the Dyle-Breda plan, etc. If you want my opinion, this was a pretty damned biased neutrality (and for very good reasons, don't get me wrong...) And if there was some temporary redeployment of a few Belgian units near the French border with grandstanding declarations in early 1940, this was in the context of a very specific incident and lasted for only a couple of weeks.

I certainly don't want to imply everything the Belgians did was perfect. They made their fair share of mistakes in the run-up to the war, but so did the British, the French, the Dutch, the Poles, etc. But there was a logic to what they did, and calling their actions 'stupid' doesn't help.
 
heben
do you have any information concerning the withdrawl of the Belgian forces from the Ardennes? That is the intended schedule vs the actual movement, coordination with the French forces, losses of the Belgians in this action, ect... ?

One of the claims agaionst the Belgians is their withdrawl from the border was too fast & allowed the Germans a day gained in their move through the Ardennes. I've been curious about this 'story' for a decade now & any fresh information would be welcome.

Thanks
 
heben
do you have any information concerning the withdrawl of the Belgian forces from the Ardennes? That is the intended schedule vs the actual movement, coordination with the French forces, losses of the Belgians in this action, ect... ?

One of the claims agaionst the Belgians is their withdrawl from the border was too fast & allowed the Germans a day gained in their move through the Ardennes. I've been curious about this 'story' for a decade now & any fresh information would be welcome.

Thanks

I don't know all the details, but the principles were the following. Belgian forces in the Ardennes were supposed to retreat westward towards the Meuse over a period of 2-3 days while performing multiple destructions to slow down the German advance. They were not supposed to engage the Germans. The Ardennes Chasseurs were among the best Belgian troops and constituted a sort of mobile reserve that the Belgian high-command wanted to preserve for the section of the front it had been assigned (the northern part of the Dyle, or KW, line).

As a matter of fact, a couple of companies of Ardennes Chasseurs didn't receive their retreat order in the morning of May 10, and did engage the German avant-garde in 3 places: Bodange, Martelange and Chabrehez. In each case, they caused considerable delays (from 3 hours to almost a full day) to the German forces they were facing while outnumbered by an order of magnitude. ROmmel had a famous word about the Ardennes Chasseurs, which he faced in Bodange: 'These are not men, but green wolves !'. To my knowlegde, the German advance overall proceeded very much according to schedule, except in a couple of places where they were delayed by these actions. I never heard that the Germans went faster than their own plan, but I don't pretend I know everything about that.

The Belgian plan was fully known to the French high-command, as the King and his military advisor were passing them to the French military attaché in Brussels. The French did send a sort of "reconnaisance en force" in the Belgian Ardennes (don't remember exactly the units involved, I think a mix of light cavalry and motorized infantry). But it seems that French units on the ground were not aware of the Belgian retreat, possibly because Gamelin didn't want to risk the Germans (or certain segments of the Belgian public opinion) knowing he had access to Belgian plans. In the end, the French units didn't achieve much either, and there was a lot of blame put on the Belgians for poor cooperation : bunkers that had been locked, bridges that were destroyed on the path of the French reconnaissance, westward retreating Belgian units cutting the path of northward advancing French troops, etc.
 
I don't know all the details, but the principles were the following. Belgian forces in the Ardennes were supposed to retreat westward towards the Meuse over a period of 2-3 days while performing multiple destructions to slow down the German advance. They were not supposed to engage the Germans. The Ardennes Chasseurs were among the best Belgian troops and constituted a sort of mobile reserve that the Belgian high-command wanted to preserve for the section of the front it had been assigned (the northern part of the Dyle, or KW, line).

Thanks. The 'not engage' part is the key to the events.

As a matter of fact, a couple of companies of Ardennes Chasseurs didn't receive their retreat order in the morning of May 10, and did engage the German avant-garde in 3 places: Bodange, Martelange and Chabrehez. In each case, they caused considerable delays (from 3 hours to almost a full day)

What the French seem to have been expecting.

... The French did send a sort of "reconnaisance en force" in the Belgian Ardennes (don't remember exactly the units involved, I think a mix of light cavalry and motorized infantry).

A modern mechanized screening force in US Army terms. Four "Light Cavalry Divisions - Divisions Legere de Cavalerie - DLC were sent into Belgium & a fifth to Luxembourg city. Their composition was:

60 light tanks
950 motorcycles (?)
450 trucks, armored cars, & APC
24 75mm cannon, or 12 75mm & 12 105mm
8 47mm AT guns
12 25mm AT guns
4 37mm AA (?)
A dozen armored cars & a troop of 100+ infantry on motorcycles comprised a Groupe de Decoverte

Most of the tanks were in a Groupe de Combat, which had is tank squadrons paired off with companies of motorcycle mounted infantry. The APC were mostly in a Dragoon Portee Regiment which also had its squadrons of APC or truck mounted inf combined with motorcycle troops. These motor inf squadrons included mortars.

Originally the DLC included a brigade of horse cavalry with 4100 horses. these were being seperated from the divisions in May 1940. Some went into the Ardenees with their horse brigades, some seem not to have them.

Supporting this cavalry screen were motorized units detached from the Infantry Divisions of 2d, 3rd & 9th Armies. ie: the cavalry squadrons of the infantry divisions. other attachments were infantry battalions motorized from the division & corps transport companies & reinforced with a few AT guns or a artillery battery. A battalion from the 295th Regiment of the 55th Division was advanced as far as the Semois river. Part or all of a regiment of the 5th Motorized Inf Div went east of the Meuse River & a reinforced battalion from the 18th Inf Div. There were suposedly others, but I'd not identified them. Neither have I identified any of the independent tank battalions of the 2d & 9th Armies crossing the Meuse River tho there are claims some did.

The French cavalry screen was to have reached a line from Liege, along the Ourthe River, to Neufchateu, & then to Florenville on the border. Occupying this position on the morning of the 11 May they expected to start a delaying action supporting the Belgian Corps de Ardennes, fighting on that line of zone through the 12th & through sucessive delaying positions until reaching the Meuse River on the 15th May.

But it seems that French units on the ground were not aware of the Belgian retreat, possibly because Gamelin didn't want to risk the Germans (or certain segments of the Belgian public opinion) knowing he had access to Belgian plans. In the end, the French units didn't achieve much either,

Approaching the Ourthe R. & Neufchateau they found the Germans already across the stream & uncomfortably close to the town. Unable to deploy on the intended delaying zone they found themselves fighting a meeting engagement in the area they expected to be in on the 12th & 13th. Further they found themselves out numbered five to one in tanks & 2-1 in motorized infantry and artillery. The horse cavalry brigades that came along proved of little help. The Belgians did not stop as expected but went on north west as ordered.

On the 12th the DLC tried to delay further, but were shoved back over the Semois & then the Meuse. Crossing the latter in the evening twilight. On both the 11th & 12th the cavalry screen was supported with interdiction attacks by light and medium bombers. about fifty sorties were flown by the LeO 45 bombers. A similar number seems to have been flown by the light Poetz bombers, but I've not confirmed this.

...and there was a lot of blame put on the Belgians for poor cooperation : bunkers that had been locked, bridges that were destroyed on the path of the French reconnaissance, westward retreating Belgian units cutting the path of northward advancing French troops, etc.

The key to the action seems to be discovering the Germans already penetrating their initial delaying zone on the 11th. Even outnumbered the rugged ground along the stream should have allowed some favorable hours to the French, but the Germans were already occupyiing the crossings & adjacent high ground.

The whole 'dont engage' thing for the Belgians is a bit of a mystery. There had been a double line of prepared positions built, including concrete bunkers for MG & A guns. Except in a very cases the Germans dont report any opposition from bunkers or prepared positions. The abandonment suggests a late change in strategy by the Belgians, or a misunderstanding of botched order from above. Or else the bunker lines were not actually built & only a few examples existed :confused:
 
Last edited:
Thanks. The 'not engage' part is the key to the events.

The whole 'dont engage' thing for the Belgians is a bit of a mystery. There had been a double line of prepared positions built, including concrete bunkers for MG & A guns. Except in a very cases the Germans dont report any opposition from bunkers or prepared positions. The abandonment suggests a late change in strategy by the Belgians, or a misunderstanding of botched order from above. Or else the bunker lines were not actually built & only a few examples existed :confused:

The Belgian defence strategy had been quite unstable throughout the 1930's, with big debates between the ones who favored defence at the border (typically Walloon politicians, of which the Minister of Defence Albert Devèze) and the ones who favored defence in depth (most of the military establishment). This explains why you had in May 1940 a whole series of fortifications that had been built around the country, without them fitting into a very clear plan as a whole.

The strategy finally crystallized in November 1939, when the French made it clear that they didn't have the manpower or the time to move forward towards the Meuse - Albert Canal line. This is when the Dyle (or KW) line was selected as the main line of defence. The Belgians worked frantically over the winter to prepare that line, which was not complete in its southernmost part in May 1940, the part that was to be covered by the French. I would need to check, but I would assume that the Ardennes bunker lines ("line" is a big word in this case for what were mostly ligh bunkers dotted through the forest) were mostly built before the Dyle plan was decided.

As a result of the Dyle plan, it turned out that the Ardennes Corps had to perform a very long retreat to take its position with the rest of the Belgian army, between Antwerp and Louvain (look at a map, that's at least 150 km). The Ardennes Chasseurs were the best Belgian troops, very well-equipped in terms of anti-tank capabilities (including a pretty effective tank-hunter). They were supposed to play a role as a mobile choc reserve
at the place where the German Schwerpunkt was expected. It was thus only logical that the Belgian high-command wanted to preserve them and re-unite them with the bulk of the army as fast as possible. In addition, the Belgians trusted that the French army would have enough time to move forward; like everybody, they didn't anticipate that the German advance through the "impenetrable" Ardennes would be so fast or so strong. It turns out the decision to withdraw the Ardennes Chasseurs without fighting was a mistake, but a mistake that was fully consistent with the entire Allied strategy and beliefs at the time.

I don't know for sure when the order not to engage was designed, but it would hypothesize that it would be at around the same time the Dyle plan was decided, since it's a direct consequence. Belgian plans were fully shared with the French high command, though I don't know in what level of detail. What is correct, is that only very few people around Gamelin knew about that exchange of information, so as to preserve Belgian neutrality. That's probably one of the reasons why the French commanders on the ground weren't aware, and became so frustrated as a consequence.
 
Benben
thanks for that. Among other things this affair illustrates why unity of command is a essential principle for warfare. Also illustrates how deeply military operations are influenced by political considerations.
 
As a result of the Dyle plan, it turned out that the Ardennes Corps had to perform a very long retreat to take its position with the rest of the Belgian army, between Antwerp and Louvain (look at a map, that's at least 150 km). The Ardennes Chasseurs were the best Belgian troops, very well-equipped in terms of anti-tank capabilities (including a pretty effective tank-hunter). They were supposed to play a role as a mobile choc reserve

ok, so
1/ you put your best troops in a place where they are not supposed to fight
2/ you ask them to retreat (fast) and to become a reserve and to move 150km... You also ask them to move north-west while the axis of attack is south-west
3/ you don't replace them using another division whose goal is to retreat slowly
4/ you don't put them in reserve from the begining....

Does not sound that clever
 
Top