What if the French had actually been able to repulse the Germans?

What if the French generals had been competent and had realized the weakness of the Maginot line and the unprotected Ardennes? What if they had protected or mined the Ardennes? What if the Maginot Line was extended?
 
There'd still be a bloody battle. OTL 58,000 German soldiers died in the six weeks campaign. More than in the first six weeks of attacking the USSR. That can extrapolate to 120,000 dead and another 310,000 wounded in a 90 day offensive. I'd expect the collective Allied maimed and dead to be at a similar scale.

The historian Horne described the German Army of 1940 as a sharp but brittle instrument. I'd guess breaking it depends on how throughly it is repulsed. If the Sickle Cut maneuver fails & the Germans are stuck in Belgium, facing a congealing defense in depth. Its probable morale is failing and the Gnerals are pondering their options. If the battle peters out near or south of Paris then the Gobbels propagandists can make a case for success.
 

kernals12

Banned
There'd still be a bloody battle. OTL 58,000 German soldiers died in the six weeks campaign. More than in the first six weeks of attacking the USSR. That can extrapolate to 120,000 dead and another 310,000 wounded in a 90 day offensive. I'd expect the collective Allied maimed and dead to be at a similar scale.

The historian Horne described the German Army of 1940 as a sharp but brittle instrument. I'd guess breaking it depends on how throughly it is repulsed. If the Sickle Cut maneuver fails & the Germans are stuck in Belgium, facing a congealing defense in depth. Its probable morale is failing and the Gnerals are pondering their options. If the battle peters out near or south of Paris then the Gobbels propagandists can make a case for success.
So what would happen next? Would the Nazis sue for peace and go after the Soviet Union?
 
So what would happen next? Would the Nazis sue for peace and go after the Soviet Union?

France won't accept it. Their defenses just proved to be effective, after all, and their notion of this being The Great War Part II: Electric Bogaloo proven correct. The French war strategy depended on using blockade and the force multiplier of their fortifications to bleed Germany white, and after getting diplomatically sidestepped on so many occasions are going to be making demands for security/economic concessions the regime in Berlin politically can't afford to pay, or practically afford to keep their domestic and military industry running enough to have a prayer of dealing with the Soviets. My best guess; the Stitzkreig kicks off once again and Stalin does a little jig as he strings Germany out for more concessions.
 
For a start if the Battle grinds to a stalemate I can see Italy not jumping in like it did.

No obvious seat at the victors table for them
 
For a start if the Battle grinds to a stalemate I can see Italy not jumping in like it did.

No obvious seat at the victors table for them

Yes indeed. The Allies have preformed as expected, & Germany is subject to tightening blockade.

... and Stalin does a little jig as he strings Germany out for more concessions.

This is a opportunity for France to renew a dialogue with the USSR, Secretly of course. The Brits and their insufferable anti Communits in the cabinet needn't know for the moment. Perhaps they can persuade the Reds to make their trade with Germany 'less robust'. Surely a understanding could be reached?

Reviewing my notes on this subject:

The French had over 3,000 aircraft ordered from the US for 1941 & were negotiating the delivery of more. Some 1,200 aircraft were scheduled for delivery from the US from June through December 1940.

Aside from the Marten 167 fast bomber & further Curtis Hawks, or the Douglass -7 bomber the French had a interest in the New Consolidated Aircraft four engine bomber.

The French had also like the Brits received a Polish built "Bombe" machine for decrypting Enigma, the related documents, and they had collected a half dozen of the Polish cryptologists who had been penetrating the Enigma system. The French took all this as seriously as the Brits & were working up their equivalent of Bletchley park.

In 1939 The French government reviewed the current literature on physics and started forming a Atomic power study group and outlining a development project. In the winter of 1940 they paid Norsk Hydro for its entire stock of Heavy Water and the transfer of the material was executed in March 1940 a few weeks ahead of the German invasion of Norway.
 
Last edited:
The French have been pretty good at repulsing many peoples...anyone remember, "Freedom Fries"?
Seriously, I'm sure the Germans weren't expecting a complete walkover like Poland and Czechoslovakia had been, but if they'd taken a serious bloodying and had only been able to peripherally penetrate France, they'd be in a snit! They'd virtually be able to watch the French defenses harden and deepen before their eyes, see the Brits rolling ashore with an even more mobile force than they had, and hear greedy American arms dealers grunting in glee at future prospects. They'd be left with three courses of action; they could knuckle down to the task at hand or begin talks to hold their ill gotten gains, neither seeming too propitious...or, they could go with door number 3, and Hitler could have a bad cooking accident and fall backwards on a bunch of salad forks, allowing for decompression, compensation, restoration, and wholesale incarceration of Nazi Party members. Good times!
 

Driftless

Donor
The French fleet continues to play a significant role for the Allies, vs OTL internment or destruction. That alone has knock-on effects for the Mediterranean and even for Asia.
 
What if the French generals had been competent and had realized the weakness of the Maginot line and the unprotected Ardennes? What if they had protected or mined the Ardennes? What if the Maginot Line was extended?

Even if the French general staff and government had been competent I am not sure they could have avoided defeat, although defeat would have happened later.

The conditions of war had evolved since WW1. WW1 times favored defense because heavy artillery then had the edge. WW2 favored offense because tanks and war planes had the edge.

Besides, Germany made breakthroughs on the tactical field that made it literally unstoppable for 2 years. Contrary to the USSR, France lacked the strategic depth and the demographics to trade land for time and win by attrition.

In 1940, Germany’s population was twice as big as France’s. The BEF was still but a rather marginal support for the French.

So it is still quite probable that, if Fall Gelb failed in may 1940, Germany would switch to another strategy and be able to overwhelm France thanks to its operative superiority in the second half of 1940.
 
Well, it mostly depends on what you expect.
If the Maginot Line doesn't get breached around Sedan (after all, the Maginot Line technically went from the Channel to Corsica, it's just that people generally consider the heavier bits in Alsace and Northern Lorraine to be the whole deal), then the rest of Fall Gelb still goes through.
That means that the Northern portion of the German army still crushes its way through the Netherlands. You can expect much of Pas-de-Calais and Picardy to be taken by the Germans in this scenario, but they'll probably fall short of Paris.
But then what ?
Well, Germany never had a very good pilot training system. Their pilots getting shipped to the Sahara after being captured would mean the quality of their air force would slowly go down, especially if Goering goes and makes some kind of boast that involves transport planes (which were piloted by the instructors).
On the other side, you have a lot of French planes incoming, since the industry is finally sorting itself out after the mess of the mobilisation and the forced fusions. In other terms, the situation is rapidly worsening in terms of air force disparity.
In terms of tanks, well, Germany does have an edge. But the French also has an edge of their own that can come into play as soon as the war slows down. The B1-bis. The French heavy tank was a real catastrophe for Germany in tank-to-tank combat, they needed Stukas or arty to get rid of those, even with the poor French doctrine. Furthermore, the tanks in production were slowly being enhanced, with the newer tanks having radios for example. Add to that the very good Somua S40, the G1 being developped, and the Germans are getting a tank headache.
Finally, France was rapidly innovating in terms of defense tactics. Most of the tactics used during the war by Germany were developed by France and used on the Germans during Fall Rot.

I think calling a German victory, considering their small base motor pool than France and lesser industrial capacity than the Entente, is overestimating Germany.
 
Even if the French general staff and government had been competent I am not sure they could have avoided defeat, although defeat would have happened later.

The conditions of war had evolved since WW1. WW1 times favored defense because heavy artillery then had the edge. WW2 favored offense because tanks and war planes had the edge.

Besides, Germany made breakthroughs on the tactical field that made it literally unstoppable for 2 years. Contrary to the USSR, France lacked the strategic depth and the demographics to trade land for time and win by attrition.

In 1940, Germany’s population was twice as big as France’s. The BEF was still but a rather marginal support for the French.

So it is still quite probable that, if Fall Gelb failed in may 1940, Germany would switch to another strategy and be able to overwhelm France thanks to its operative superiority in the second half of 1940.

Tanks and war planes having the "edge" is not a completely universal trait. Like all technology and options in wartime, they are more or less useful for conducting certain strategies and in certain conditions. Throw a tank formation like a cavalry charge up against trench line and tell me how long it takes for less mobile artillery to turn them into a pile of smoldering metal. Germany, with relatively light tanks concentrated in large numbers, aligned their armor strategy with the idea of Blitzkreig/"Decisive Point" doctrine; using speed and mobility to cocentrate firepower at a tight point in order to quickly create and rush through breaks in the enemy's line, preventing its different parts from effectively supporting one another, throwing them into a disorganized state to further slow their responce, and so being able to defeat them in detail. If they can't make the breakthroughs and have to engage against a prepared, more heavily armed enemy though (For example, when French tanks DID manage to catch German ones the later got absolutely slaughtered) those designs and tactics that were so effective for Blitzkreig will find themselves ill suited for a set-piece fight relative to artillery and dug-in, properly equip infantry.

You can see this on the Eastern Front; German statagy and the basic set-up of its forces DEPENDED to retaining the initiative and keeping the enemy off-balance to prevent them from organizing effective responses. Basically, get them in a stun lock.
 
It's not just the French politicians and generals who deserve criticism for the Battle of France. Their British equivalents should also hold their heads in shame. They made the decision in 1935 to start rearmament and then did nothing for over a year and then did little until after Munich when they panicked like headless chickens.

The mind boggles at how the early war would have been very different if the BEF had been a fully equipped force of 4 Infantry and 1 Armoured divisions (OTL 1st Armoured arrived piecemeal after the German invasion due to lack of suitable tanks and achieved little). Followed by a number of reasonably well equipped infantry divisions from the Territorial Army (6 additional divisions where sent OTL including 3 very poorly equipped intended to finish their training in France and assist with digging defences). Such a mobile force would give the Allies the option of a larger reserve to counter the unexpected. This is not alien space bats. It is what the BEF should have looked like and only didn't due to the penny pinching of the Treasury and a lack of urgency.

A larger British contingent in France may have had a positive effect on the reported poor French moral during the Battle. It would certainly have given the British generals more power to argue obvious issues like the lack of reserves with their French counterparts. An OTL British excuse for this lack of discourse with their French allies was the small size of the BEF which led the battle to be a French show.
 
Well, it mostly depends on what you expect.
If the Maginot Line doesn't get breached around Sedan (after all, the Maginot Line technically went from the Channel to Corsica, it's just that people generally consider the heavier bits in Alsace and Northern Lorraine to be the whole deal), then the rest of Fall Gelb still goes through.
That means that the Northern portion of the German army still crushes its way through the Netherlands. You can expect much of Pas-de-Calais and Picardy to be taken by the Germans in this scenario, but they'll probably fall short of Paris.
But then what ?
Well, Germany never had a very good pilot training system. Their pilots getting shipped to the Sahara after being captured would mean the quality of their air force would slowly go down, especially if Goering goes and makes some kind of boast that involves transport planes (which were piloted by the instructors).
On the other side, you have a lot of French planes incoming, since the industry is finally sorting itself out after the mess of the mobilisation and the forced fusions. In other terms, the situation is rapidly worsening in terms of air force disparity.
In terms of tanks, well, Germany does have an edge. But the French also has an edge of their own that can come into play as soon as the war slows down. The B1-bis. The French heavy tank was a real catastrophe for Germany in tank-to-tank combat, they needed Stukas or arty to get rid of those, even with the poor French doctrine. Furthermore, the tanks in production were slowly being enhanced, with the newer tanks having radios for example. Add to that the very good Somua S40, the G1 being developped, and the Germans are getting a tank headache.
Finally, France was rapidly innovating in terms of defense tactics. Most of the tactics used during the war by Germany were developed by France and used on the Germans during Fall Rot.

I think calling a German victory, considering their small base motor pool than France and lesser industrial capacity than the Entente, is overestimating Germany.

The Maginot line was not breached at Sedan. It was turned at Sedan since the French governments decided that they needn’t cover the Ardennes.

Counting gaiter buttons is not the good way to asses the probable outcome of a conflict. If it was, then Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Edward III, Henry IV, Napoleon, ... etc, would never have won against adversaries who were stronger on the paper.

The point is that Germany had got such an edge not only in warfare doctrine but also in actual operative capacity that it was almost unbeatable for 2 years. The German general staff itself was not fully aware of the full extent of the edge. They were stunned by the results of the French campaign of 1940, the success of which was partly due to a quite decentralized way of operating.

The French lacked both doctrine and actual operative capacity in compliance with the new doctrine. They did fight like lions, but they had no reserves left, nor strategic depth to have the German surge falter.

I don’t mean France couldn’t have held, but that would have required Germany not to strengthen its commitment. If Fall Gelb has failed but Germany had more mobilized its potential and brought more divisions on the front (which it had the capacity to do, contrary to France), then Germany would probably have defeated France.

In 1914 already, the Schlieffen plan would have been a success if Germany had not been forced to divert forces to hold on the eastern front against Russia.
 
What if the Maginot Line was extended?

That thing was not effective against Germans
The original concept consider the main Defence line had to be extended by Belgium fortress line

But Belgium abandon those plans after Handful of those forts were build and they were badly armed do lack of Money. (the German used that gap in Ardenne)
Next to that were Issues that Belgium Main fort Eben-Emael. was used as military penal institution.
to make matter worst the Belgium Army was a Joke in time in man power and equipment,
stuff like Belgium mechanized cavalry used bicycle, yes bicycle
there majority of there Air-force fighters was order in USA and not yet deliver as Germans invade Belgium
(they had only 50 reasonably modern standard fighters against 4,020 Aircraft of Luftwaffe)
they had TEN AMC 35 tanks, 42 T-15s light tanks and 200 T-13 ultralight "tank destroyers". (yes against 2,445 germans tanks)

you understand were i getting to
The French Generals knew the poor condition of Belgium Army and spread there Forces two ways along Maginot Line and at long the west Belgium Border
to move fast into Belgium, if Germans come, leaving gap at Ardenne, thinking that Germans were unable to move true.
they came and conquer Belgium in 18 days finishing Main fort Eben-Emael in couple of hours
in mean time the German tank divisions dash true Ardenne in french Territory
Here the french Generals realized there error, but were unable to move there Tank divisions fast back to France and do concentrated Attack on German main force.
who a easy game to deal with dispenses french forces.

so partly its dirty Belgium fault that France lost the war...

So what could have French do better ?
first not build the Maginot Line ! use Money and resources to build more Char B1 tanks and better Aircrafts.
better tactic for dynamic mobile tank combat with support of Air-force for ground attacks on enemy
and discounted Belgium and focus on French Border and combat on french mainland.
 
That thing was not effective against Germans
The original concept consider the main Defence line had to be extended by Belgium fortress line

But Belgium abandon those plans after Handful of those forts were build and they were badly armed do lack of Money. (the German used that gap in Ardenne)
Next to that were Issues that Belgium Main fort Eben-Emael. was used as military penal institution.
to make matter worst the Belgium Army was a Joke in time in man power and equipment,
stuff like Belgium mechanized cavalry used bicycle, yes bicycle
there majority of there Air-force fighters was order in USA and not yet deliver as Germans invade Belgium
(they had only 50 reasonably modern standard fighters against 4,020 Aircraft of Luftwaffe)
they had TEN AMC 35 tanks, 42 T-15s light tanks and 200 T-13 ultralight "tank destroyers". (yes against 2,445 germans tanks)

you understand were i getting to
The French Generals knew the poor condition of Belgium Army and spread there Forces two ways along Maginot Line and at long the west Belgium Border
to move fast into Belgium, if Germans come, leaving gap at Ardenne, thinking that Germans were unable to move true.
they came and conquer Belgium in 18 days finishing Main fort Eben-Emael in couple of hours
in mean time the German tank divisions dash true Ardenne in french Territory
Here the french Generals realized there error, but were unable to move there Tank divisions fast back to France and do concentrated Attack on German main force.
who a easy game to deal with dispenses french forces.

so partly its dirty Belgium fault that France lost the war...
I'm not going to contest that.
So what could have French do better ?
first not build the Maginot Line ! use Money and resources to build more Char B1 tanks and better Aircrafts.
Well, no. The Maginot Line was incredibly cheap for what it was and was an excellent force multiplier. Furthermore, the B1s the French army had - 360ish - were used inadequately, even if they were nightmares for the Germans to deal with, and the French fighter - the MS406 - was at the time of its conception considered the best fighter in the world. That was, of course, not true in hindsight, the D520 was better.
The point of the Maginot Line was to have to spend less manpower manning Alsace and Lorraine so that the French could spend their manpower in a good battlefield - Northern Belgium. Technically, it included fortifications at the Belgian, Swiss and Italian frontiers, but the fortified sectors were concentrated in the Alps and Alsace-Lorraine.
better tactic for dynamic mobile tank combat with support of Air-force for ground attacks on enemy
and discounted Belgium and focus on French Border and combat on french mainland.
There, you can only have the benefit of hindsight. And, not exactly. Best would've been combat in the Rhine plain in German mainland, but that would have carried many risks - notably the problem of capturing the forested, hilly region of the Northern Vosges to not be easily encircled.
 
Top