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

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.

Heck no.
The concept of life not worth being lived is firmly based in German eugenetics, and that wording is exactly even the title of a pamphlet written all the way back in 1920. http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~rohrmann/Literatur/binding.html Note that people in these conditions wouldn't be considered usable as slave labor, so they're really irrelevant here.
"Sub-humans" could be used as slaves in the Nazi mindset, but again the concept goes way back before 1941.
 
The eugenics movement was widespread not just in Germany but the US, UK and other places. Now in Germany it took on aspects more extreme than elsewhere, but from the same roots. Look at the T4 program for example, as well as mandatory sterilization for those deemed to be unacceptable but not Untermenschen - for example "Aryans" with mental handicaps.
 
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.

didn't most French divisions have horse and wagon...in fact all armies in Europe had horse drawn armies. Britain seems to be the only exception.
 
didn't most French divisions have horse and wagon...in fact all armies in Europe had horse drawn armies. Britain seems to be the only exception.

and Britain was on whose side again? Anyway, the Wallies win go check out blunted sickle by @pdf27 if you want a scenario where France fights and doesn't fall
 
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?

Actually surprised no one has brought up the butterflies for the Pacific Theater in a detailed way yet. If France is still in it, the Japanese annexation of Indochina, which is what touched off U.S. sanctions and the economic desperation that led to Japan deciding to do the lunge south, will not happen or will be significantly delayed. If it's significantly delayed as opposed to permanently butterflied, they are in serious trouble. The Philippines will be defended by a real military force, numerous facilities would be upgraded, the U.S. Navy would have more ships in the water...they'd do REALLY badly.

The other interesting thing of note is that the British would have a great deal more troops to commit to Malaya, Singapore, and Burma with no North Africa, Greece, etc. campaigns. The Japanese capture of Malaya would be quite up in the air in that scenario and taking Burma much less invading India would be borderline ASB.

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?

An interesting thing to consider is that with the Pacific War butterflies, a huge number of naval amphibious assets could be freed up, particularly if the whole thing just doesn't happen. That could crush Germany's u-boat campaign; it could also lead to some sort of amphibious op being attempted by the WAllies.
 
While the occupation of French Indochina was the "final straw", the USA had been ramping up sanctions on japan for several years. Most likely you'd see a cutoff of all oil within a few months of the time OTL, and Japan is in the same cleft stick - settle a peace in China and end the war, or run out of petroleum in 18 months or so. The amount of petroleum products being sold to Japan before the final embargo was not sufficient to build up reserves, and was probably not enough for day to day usage so their reserves were being nibbled at.

If there is a war with Japan, the WPO idea of seizing islands and advancing west will still be in effect, although the number of islands to be seized will be smaller. However until production really ramps up these assets will still be in short supply. If France holds out longer, then probably French North Africa is never neutralized, but part of "Free France" from the get-go, since Italy did jump jump in as they did OTL, there won't be much of a North African campaign, and Yugoslavia, Greece/Crete are secure - no need for TORCH. If there is a prolonged campaign in France, this will eat up a lot of British troops, so if we posit France finally falls 6+ months in, it is unclear the UK will be much better off in terms of equipped/trained troops for service elsewhere than they were OTL. Certainly as long as they are fighting on the continent they won't be shipping a lot of resources to Malaysia.
 
didn't most French divisions have horse and wagon...in fact all armies in Europe had horse drawn armies. Britain seems to be the only exception.

You miss the point. Horse-drawn artillery works pretty well on the defense. Tank divisions were what made the Germans win quickly by going all-out on the offense. That's why, if the initial big gamble (because it was just that, a high-yield but high-risk idea) fails, that means the Germans have expended the better part of their armor, the strategy devolves to WW1.5, and in that case the defender holds on.
 
and Britain was on whose side again? Anyway, the Wallies win go check out blunted sickle by @pdf27 if you want a scenario where France fights and doesn't fall


Seriously?? some posters phantasy based internet conventional wisdom has become what ? Revisionist history? Oh please, any one who believes in there own phantasy/propaganda is in trouble. If its a thought exercise to explore possibility , that's another matter.
 
Seriously?? some posters phantasy based internet conventional wisdom has become what ? Revisionist history? Oh please, any one who believes in there own phantasy/propaganda is in trouble. If its a thought exercise to explore possibility , that's another matter.

......WHAT what are saying cause I have no idea what you mean
 
......WHAT what are saying cause I have no idea what you mean
the Wallies win go check out blunted sickle by @pdf27 if you want a scenario where France fights and doesn't fall

https://www.google.ca/search?source...ab..2.7.839.0..0j0i131k1j0i10k1.0.7KgLsrs_xmg

the reference "blunted sickle"....applies to couple of AH threads the most resent is 104 pages long! I'm supposed to read all that and the original 500 post thread????

Why its not history?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how it translates to what would happen in real life, but I play war games as a hobby. In the grand strategic level games I've played - World in Flames, The Struggle for Europe, etc. - if Germany gets delayed into the fall of 1940 we usually declare the Allies the winner and start the game over. If they haven't gotten France by then too many other things start to go wrong and Germany ends up too far behind the eight ball to recover.
 
You miss the point. Horse-drawn artillery works pretty well on the defense. Tank divisions were what made the Germans win quickly by going all-out on the offense. That's why, if the initial big gamble (because it was just that, a high-yield but high-risk idea) fails, that means the Germans have expended the better part of their armor, the strategy devolves to WW1.5, and in that case the defender holds on.


I don't see how this logic follows? An army is only as good as its training & doctrine -not its equipment? Even if the French had twice as much gear than historical, they still would have lost. French doctrine was mostly defensive ANCHORED on the Maginot line. The allied strategy was to hide behind the Maginot line for two years - while they mobilised there forces and the combined allied bomber forces - bombed the Nazi back to the stone age? Only wishful thinking -based on WW-I experience-could expect such a strategy to work.Once that was defeated- the French morale & allied strategy would collapse.

Even the notion of "blunted sickle", would never lead to allied victory & German defeat. German attacks would continue and grow in intensity . However since the costs to Germany would sky rocketed, this would undermine Hitler's credibility and instead confirm the pre Hitler strategy of the three phase 15 year build up to total war to lead to an offensive war to defeat Poland & France. That war would have been won, but Groner's inevitable warning of 'exploding into a wider European war ', would have come true and Germany would not have "a reasonable chance" of winning such a war. Under those conditions Barbarossa could not have been contemplated.
 

Perkeo

Banned
didn't most French divisions have horse and wagon...in fact all armies in Europe had horse drawn armies. Britain seems to be the only exception.
The Germans are outnumbered and outgunned. As soon as they loose their tactical advanteges, quantity decides the war.
 
The Germans are outnumbered and outgunned. As soon as they loose their tactical advanteges, quantity decides the war.
Sounds like classic cold war propaganda.

Certainly by mid to late war that might have been true. However until then troop/army morale held allowing regiments to be gutted in battle and still be rebuilt within months to the same standards . They had faith in 'win the battles/campaigns and the rest will fall into place'.
 
If it takes Germany 6-12 months to win the Battle of France, this will cause them huge problems. Their expenditure of petroleum products and materiel will be much larger than the same period of time and that won't be good for them. Until the Germans take control of the French coast (which means France surrendered) the U-boat war on trade to Britain will be a small fraction of what it was OTL - this allows more "stuff" to get to Britain during this period of time, and also by the time the Germans do establish U-boat bases on the French coast, the RN will have had anywhere from 9 to 18 months to crank out more escorts (it will take the Germans a few months after surrender to get bases up and running). At the same time the UK is getting better supplies and more food, Germany is not getting much of anything from France compared to OTL.

A Germany fighting in France can't divert anything to help Italy in the Balkans or North Africa, and until Germany is clearly winning in France I don't see Mussolini attacking the UK and France either directly or by attacking Greece. Of course no way Barbarossa goes off in 1941.

Germany was simply not in a position to fight a long war, even if the USSR stays out and the US is a friendly neutral for the UK like OTL prior to PH. Most folks believe the USA would have jumped in against Germany at some point, which nails the lid tight on the coffin. Germany has to win quickly to win, both in France as well as against the USSR if/when that happens.

A final point is the psychological one. Germany that crushes France in a few weeks and swats the Brits at Dunkirk is seen as irresistibly strong,"Blitzkrieg" masters, etc. Take 6-12 months to defeat France and, yes they are winners, but not the 10 foot tall kind.
 
A Germany fighting in France can't divert anything to help Italy in the Balkans or North Africa, and until Germany is clearly winning in France I don't see Mussolini attacking the UK and France either directly or by attacking Greece.

I agree on everything you wrote, but I'd like to mention that not having Italy in the war is an advantage for Germany. No distractions, and peaceful Balkans.
Naturally there are less distractions for the French, too. After Italy remains on the fence for a month or two, and the Germans advance, albeit slowly, the French will be forced to remove troops from the Alps and possibly from Tunisia. If Italy still doesn't jump down the fence, this will be good news for France and bad news for Germany.

Another significant knock-on is that a Germany that doesn't trash France in six weeks is less convincing when it comes to bully the Romanians, and the Romanians are the ones having the oil Germany needs desperately at this point.
 
Compared to WW-I, France in 6 months is still a spectacular victory for Germany. Better yet if it 'curbs Hitler's enthusiasm' for immediate shift to a 'Eastern Front'. As long as Germany is not locked into an impossible war in the East, they could last for years.

BTW U-Boats at sea rose from 1940-mid 1941 the numbers at sea increased from 6-10....not much of an increase historically.
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
https://www.google.ca/search?source...ab..2.7.839.0..0j0i131k1j0i10k1.0.7KgLsrs_xmg

the reference "blunted sickle"....applies to couple of AH threads the most resent is 104 pages long! I'm supposed to read all that and the original 500 post thread????

Why its not history?

This is an alternate history site.

You asked a question.

You have been given a response to your question and a link to an excellently researched timeline that tells the story of your question in massive detail and with discussions as to the events both alternate and real.

You see how this works?
 
As others pointed out its quick or costly.

I don't think its impossible to win against France in a prolonged campaign, but the outcome is still open IMHO.

Its more interesting what a prolonged campaign means immediately - without thinking about the outcome of the war.

The most obvious effect is that Italy won't declare war immediately (it might be asked by Germany for support though, but a delay is at least to be expected)

We can assume the SU is doing what it did OTL - takeover of Bessarabia

SO the situation at 1st July is

Germany fights UK and France
Italy is out
Romania pissed, but might seek Entente support to get Bessarabia back in the long run


what happens next

I think we a free to assume that there will be no Second Vienna Accord - or if there is Romania will laugh and count on Entetnte Support against Hungary and Germany that is tied up in the West...
Greece MIGHT be attacked, but I don't know if Mussolini is tepted to act, but its possible.

IF he attacks then it will be under different circumstances - OTL Italy fought against the Brits at the time, now it will have more time and better preparation - The Italian command will probably get its 20 divisions that they atimated they would need instead of 8 that were available (shipping them to Albania will be easier as there is no Royal navy that attacks italian shipping...

Now to the MOST important thing in europe: Tarent - no Taranto raid probably means that the Japoanese get no template for their raid on Pearl harbour.

this together with the fact that an undefeated France will lead to a less agressive Japan (I doubt Indochina is possible if France still fights) At least there will be no Tripartite pact.

And this are probably only the most obvious butterflies...

HMMM - I might have to read the "blunted sickle" after all...
 
Top