WI: France falls in 6 months to a year instead of 6 weeks

If we can find a mechanism to make it work (I'll leave that to others), then the Germans will have been bled dry, which means that Operation Barbarossa, assuming it even happens (unlikely but depressingly possible), will collapse at the Stalin Line.

Hard to have a result different from all or nothing.

And it will be necessary to find arguments for France resisting 6 months.

OTL, France fell because it had not enough reserves in troops and because its biggest army had been got around and cut from its supply line by a faster and leaner army that was able to inflict devastating shocks on a localized point.

So if you want France to hold longer than 6 weeks, I think your only option is fall gelb to fail. Which means Germany has no alternative plan and does not know how to fight a war Hitler thought would not happen in 1939/40.

Basically if fall gelb fails, it means the western allies will have time to bring their forces to a level where nazi Germany can no longer beat them.

Hitler's strategy was all about bluffing, poker and surprise through speed.
 
Aye, Matteo's right, basically if Fall Gelb fails then you get a Blunted Sickle https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/a-blunted-sickle.287285/ (well worth a read, its amazing) scenario. Fall Gelb was the military equivalent of Hitler betting EVERYTHING on Black, and it coming up right. In truth it might not have taken much for the whole thing to fall apart and it was actually more close run than it being a case of 'luuuuuuuuuuuul French surrender monkies!'

If Fall Gelb fails, then the Germans will loose the War, the longer the Battle for France goes on, then its more in the Allies favour as they will be outnumbered. France either falls very quickly due to a successful Sickle Cut, or not at all and the Germans then loose. It really is an either/or situation. And even if somehow Adolf held off going to war until later, this still makes things worse, he'll be in massive debt with an econimy thats collapsing and owing the Soviets more money for their trade agreements whilst the UK and France were both re-arming as fast as possible.
 
If Germany is still fighting in France after 2 years then they are probably bankrupt with a home industry in chaos as raw materials run out.
 
The USSR invading eastern europe becomes very likely in my opinion
Soviet logistical capacity to lift troops, fuel, munitions, spares and foodstuff in 1940 & 1941 are sub par and unlikely to maintain an all out offensive longer than two weeks, let alone one as they transition from their 1939 OOB & TOE to newer equipment by 1942 and there is still the issue of not having enough trucks built to keep any offensive going while their military officers learn their trade from the ground up after the purges of Stalin.
 
Even with the six week win the Germans lost 27,000 dead, 111,000 wounded and 18,000 missing along with 1200 aircraft and around 800 tanks. If it took around 30 weeks we can assume that number goes up quite a bit. I think Germany would have to do what they OTL did not do until after Stalingrad, go for total war and mobilise every man for the military.
One very plausible Way to get to the OP's request is to have Hitler initiate an offensive in the late Fall/winter of 1939 which Will most likely bog down in trench warfare untill spring and maneuver warfare is resumed (provided tranches Can even be dug in that record winter). A total mobilisation including polish slave labor at this time could lead to a French defeat in the summer of 1940 and ironically a stronger Germany in 1941. One Factor that would play in Hitlers hand is that Stalin did not want an early winner and support of Germany might increase.
 
& the rabbit hope opens. Unfortunately I don't have moderator privileges in this forum.
What?!
Well you do have the privelege of providing thorough arguments for your post.
When the war got tough IOTL the Germans mobilized various kinds of reserves. This included slsve labor which allowed them to field a larger army while maintaining/increasing productivity. It was a war crime, evil, sinister, bad- but id did allow the wehrmacht to function longer than it should have.
It was of a benefit to the war making capability of Germany.
If it happens earlier it would be of benefit to Germany because they were in a war. What exactly is it you want to moderate.
 
Last edited:
What do the Japanese do in this scenario?
With Britain and France tied up in the trenches do the Japanese "go for broke" and strike as OTL?
As Japan becomes a threat the British and French are forced to send resources to the Pacific giving the Germans the edge in 1941?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I can see Stalin accepting a ton of bribes in order for economic aid against Germany, then once they land in Normandy or wherever, pulling a reverse Barbarossa and eventually getting much more of Europe than historically.
Without Soviet participation in the war yet, though, would Britain and the U.S. actually be able to successfully pull off something like D-Day?
 
. . . One wonders if they wouldn't find that there are unforeseen technical difficulties in their deliveries, in TTL; they'll keep promising, naturally.
Effing Counter-revolutionaries fitting Square wheels to Comrade Stalino's trains!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Without Soviet participation in the war yet, though, would Britain and the U.S. actually be able to successfully pull off something like D-Day?
If France holds out much longer than OTL, they'll hold permanently, firstly.
Secondly. The US and UK? Oh yeah. It would be bloody expensive in lives and materiel, but just look at the industrial capacity of the US vs Germany. Especially if Germany's not doing as well.

If France holding on longer means it's not as defeatist, as seems reasonable, then even IF the Nazis still conquer the Metropole, the government is likely to retreat to Algeria and fight on. Which means that Torch doesn't happen, and probably no North African campaign, so something like Anvil can happen in '43....
 
What do the Japanese do in this scenario?
With Britain and France tied up in the trenches do the Japanese "go for broke" and strike as OTL?
As Japan becomes a threat the British and French are forced to send resources to the Pacific giving the Germans the edge in 1941?

French IndoChina and Malaya vs Metropolitan France?

I think that they would deal with Germany first Japan can wait - the thinking would be that once Germany is defeated then their combined forces can be deployed to the east

And I agree with some of the comments if France Holds then it is likely to Hold indefinitely - Frances and Britain's air forces for example were better able to absorb losses both in terms of Pilot and Machines plus US aircraft were just beginning to arrive in numbers (ie the Curtis Hawk 75) - during that 6 weeks alone the Luftwaffe lost nearly a 3rd of its aircraft and while its pilots were more experienced than the Wallies they were teaching them all they knew!

Secondly France was then the 2nd greatest producer of tanks after the USSR and the tanks being produced at the time of Frances Defeat were superior in most aspects to the best German tank the PZIII

Again with months of combat experience the flaws in French Cavalry tactics would have been ironed out - after all the best lessons are learned by the survivors.

Casualties on all sides would be much higher and an attritional battle would ultimately 'favour' the 2 Empires.

Another issue is Britain would not be able to raise its continental army while only fighting on the periphery so building up its divisions would be harder and more costly than OTL although the experience gained would be at a far quicker rate than OTL
 

Perkeo

Banned
Germany was fighting with a spearhead of modern tanks and with horse-driven bulk army. If the Battle of France lasts 6 months, France not only holds but wins.
 
What do the Japanese do in this scenario?
With Britain and France tied up in the trenches do the Japanese "go for broke" and strike as OTL?
As Japan becomes a threat the British and French are forced to send resources to the Pacific giving the Germans the edge in 1941?
As in Blunted Sickle if Germany fails to break through Italy doesn't join. Then the Anglo French fleet is free. There's no Mediteranean theater, German Uboats have a third of the time on station.

Britain has a free navy that can go to the Far East if needed. Japan may back down.
 
A total mobilisation including polish slave labor at this time could lead to a French defeat in the summer of 1940

Highly unlikely, on its own. A total mobilisation gives Germany a lot of unskilled workforce. It still does not solve the lack of raw materials, fuel, and factory floor space and machinery.
 
What you're saying will certainly be true if the front lines become stalled for an extremely long period of time; however, if the Germans keep advancing further into France (even if achieving total victory is a very slow process), Hitler isn't going to get overthrown.

Point taken.
 
Uncle Joe wants the war in the west to last as long as possible, so he will supply Germany.

Does he? For free? In OTL, the Germans never paid the Soviet supplies. If they are struggling in Flanders, then the kind of stuff they should have paid with - armaments - will be need in Flanders. In the spring of 1941, the Germans were already in arrears with their first payments.
 
Does he? For free? In OTL, the Germans never paid the Soviet supplies. If they are struggling in Flanders, then the kind of stuff they should have paid with - armaments - will be need in Flanders. In the spring of 1941, the Germans were already in arrears with their first payments.

In 1940 the Soviets chalked up British and German losses in the credit balance of the Attrition Accounts. So yeah it is in the Soviet interest for the War of Western Attrition to continue. It would be shameful to let 6,000,000 troops (of which 1,000,000 are paratroops); 22,000 tanks (2,000 T-34; 600 KV), 5,000 combat aircraft in 289 (First Formation) Divisions to go to waste. When they could bring the Pax Sovietica so dearly needed by a troubled Europe to hand - the way Mr. Marx would have approved.
 
Just a point on slave labour. German conceptions of life unworthy of life and under men were fundamentally a reaction to the institutional responses to the capture of vast numbers of Soviet POWs in Barbarossa.

You'll still have the institutional and cultural reasons to produce action groups and reserve police battalions, but without the Soviet citizens to "train" these groups upon I don't see slave labour operating in the manner of 1943-45 that we know and revile.

Yours,
Sam R.
 
Top