WI: French press Saar Offensive

[Equuleus]

Many times I hear people say "If only the French attacked in the west! Surely Poland would have been saved and Hitler defeated!" But how realistic is this interpretation given the extremely built up status of the west wall fortifications or the fact Poland was toast only a week in or so in when the Saar offensive actually started? I'm of the opinion if the French put everything into it, Poland would have fallen a bit delayed but generally around the same time, the French would have made a hole in the west wall at a high price, but by the time they did this the German forces from Poland would be moving into the Rhineland to check any french advance, there is a bloody slug fest and the French do a fighting retreat back to the Maginot line.

Under this Scenario the French might capture the Saar and destroy the coal mines there and cause some economic damage to Germany. However they could end up losing 10,000s of men in an ill fated attack that gained nothing. This does raise the question, if this plays out like this how does it impact the French political scene, are the French more keen to sue for peace after they get a taste of pointless ww1 style high loss no gain attacks?

Or am I full of BS and the French would be in Berlin by December?

 

[The Red]

Was it Siegfried Westphal who said that the Germans could have held out two weeks if the French launched an all out offensive across the border? The Germans had no AFV's on their western front.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

The French army was not prepared for this sort of action in 1939. Had they not built the Maginot Line and invested instead in a modern army and airforce however, it would be a different story.

 

[Equuleus]

The French army was not prepared for this sort of action in 1939. Had they not built the Maginot Line and invested instead in a modern army and airforce however, it would be a different story.

The Maginot line really didn't cost them that much, only 1-2% of their defense budget over an 8 year period.

Edit:
http://www.amazon.com/Maginot-Line-1928-45-William-Allcorn/dp/1841766461

Typically, the Maginot Line is derided as a complete waste of money that failed to save France from invasion. If only the money had been spent on tanks and aircraft, the French might have survived the Blitzkrieg, goes the popular refrain. However, Allcorn notes that the Maginot Line, built between 1928-1936 cost about five billion francs (about $100 million in then dollars). Unfortunately, Allcorn fails to note that the French defense budget in the mid-1930s was about $900 million (45 billion francs) per year; therefore, the Maginot Line cost only about 1.3% of the French defense budget for eight years. Apparently, if France lacked money for mobile forces it was not due to the Maginot Line.

 

[Urban fox]

Given the weakness of the Germans in the west, even the rather plodding French Army could take the Saar, then beyond that the Ruhr. Poland is still pretty much screwed through.

The more intresting factors is how does the Heer react. Can the Germans hold well enougth until Poles are fully beaten, then ship forces west to contain and drive back the French advance.

Then beyond that there are of course the actions U.S.S.R to consider.

 

[Equuleus]

Also to be considered is while it takes the Germans time to move forces west, it also takes the French to mobilize their forces into the attack.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

The Maginot line really didn't cost them that much, only 1-2% of their defense budget over an 8 year period.

Edit:
http://www.amazon.com/Maginot-Line-1928-45-William-Allcorn/dp/1841766461

That's the cost of construction. What about cost of manning? The line caused the French to become complacent and under funded their armed forces. Are we so sure the French couldn't afford it, or that they didn't feel they wanted to due to the illusion of safety?

France couldn't afford to be occupied either. The occupier however don't care what you can afford. When they were liberated, the French couldn't even buy soap. People had been wearing the same clothes and shoes for 5 years.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The Ruhr is very unlikely but the Saar and much of the Rhineland is not.

In an absolute best case scenario I could see the Germans fighting to buy time and ending by blowing the bridges all along the Rhine, leaving France in a much better military position and, as a bonus, abandoning the Maginot and taking out the men and artillery on the grounds that the line is now far behind the actual front.

At worst the French do some harm to Germany's industrial output and to the Rhineland and Germany certainly loses first tens of thousands of the men already on the spot and then even more as the first divisions to return from Poland are rushed in piecemeal.

 

[Cook]

That's the cost of construction. What about cost of manning?

That is part of it.

The other part is that an Army that is training to defend the Maginot line and plug breaches in it is not training how to conduct an offensive.

Equuleus, consider such an offensive in 1938 to assist Czechoslovakia.

 

[Blackfox5]

If the French launced a major offensive in the west just as Germany invaded Poland, a lot of things might end up different.

Poland were planning on holding the southwestern portion of the country until France and Britain relieved them. That didn't happen because 1) France and Britain did not do anything, and 2) the Soviet Union intervened when it was obvious Poland was collapsing.

In this case, France continues to advance. Germany could very well decide to take out Poland entirely before dealing with the French, but taking Poland and losing the Ruhr would not be a good trade. Besides the obvious military effects, it might destroy German morale. Furthermore, such rapid advance by the French Army might encourage them to be more aggressive. Their doctrine is still inferior to the Germans, but France does have good troops, good equipment, and the initiative. France is not doomed to a repeat of May 1940.

Also, if the Soviet Union sees the Western Allies rapidly responding, Stalin might alter his plans. Would he risk taking eastern Poland if the French are rapidly advancing in Germany? Stalin was not much of a risk taker; he preferred certain, safe gains made in collusion with powerful allies. The entire Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact was based on the idea that a non-aggression pact between Germany and Russia would mean France & Britain would not intervene. He might just let the Poles be for the moment and see how things turn out. (If so, the Poles might just hold on in Galicia and Lvov for many weeks longer than they did IOTL). If the Germans do win, he can always demand his share of Poland later. If they don't, he's avoided potential problems. He even has the option of backstabbing Hitler.

Even if Germany knocks out Poland and manages to hold the line, the French likely have the Rhine as their natural frontier and control of the Ruhr and much of Germany's iron and coal. They are going to be in a much better defensive position. More of Polish troops probably escape through Romania and can reform in France later. Germany will have a lot less industrial capacity to requip the German Army which suffered substantial damage in the Polish Campaign.

It is also quite possible that certain German generals might simply kill Hitler in order to "save the country" and negotiate an end to the war.

Even if Hitler stays in power, 1940 will be quite different. There will likely be no invasions of Denmark or Norway. The Royal Navy could very well cut off the flow of Scandinavian iron to Germany. Rather than simply wait for Hitler to attack, they will probably make their own plans for a spring or summer 1940 offensive. IOTL, the Allied armies had greater forces than the Wehrmacht. ITL, they would also have greater morale, and Germany would be weaker in absolute terms as well.

In such a scenario, Germany will probably fall in 1941 at the latest.

 

[Gridley]

My $0.04:

Poland is probably still doomed... in the short run. The French army will pay an initial bill in blood to break the German fortifications, but once they do they'll have a notable numerical superiority on an expanding front. Berlin? Probably not. But they can take and hold a critical chunk of Germany's industrial heart. They'll also have established a forward line of resistance in front of the Maginot and the Ardennes.

The mid-terms depends on politics. Does Stalin intervene, and if he does on which side? Do the other Axis powers from OTL (such as Italy) decide they'd better sit this one out after all? Remember Italy only joined in when it looked like Germany was going to win.

If the political maneuvering goes against Germany, yeah, the war is probably over by the end of 1941, and the Poles probably get most of their country back.

 

[carlton_bach]

Don't forget the psychology of the situation. 1939 wasn't 1941. The Germans were terrified of a French attack. Poland probably couldn't besaved (not unless the attack came very early and was spectacularly successful), but fighting the French on German soil would certainly concentrate the mind of the OKW. At home. It wouldcause political problems for Hitler (who gained no end of capital when his gambles paid off, but was far less safely ensconced before) and could give the war an entirely different shape.

Yes, the French were not prepared fort offensivewar, and weren't planning it. But the Germans weren't planning blitzkrieg either. They just combined good offensive tactics with luck. It is very likely a French offensive, earlyin the war, with almost all of Germany's armoured and motorised forces committed to Poland, would meet a similar fate. Of course it's not likely the French would react the same. No peace dictate in Münster or victory parade through Berlin here. But with Germany limited to its own industrial capacity, the Ruhr and Saxony within range of land-based enemy bombers, and the foe on its own soil, the entire lookout on the war changes. It might do so to the point of the OKW taking matters into its own hands, or Goering actually following through with his putsch plans. And we may see both Mussolini and Stalin do an about-face and going off digesting their ill-gotten gains.

 

[arctic warrior]

Perhaps Mussolini would try the role of arbiter! Guess if anybody would accept that

 

[lukedalton]

Perhaps Mussolini would try the role of arbiter! Guess if anybody would accept that

Benny will love it, but probably nobody will accept it basically for not want to repeat Monaco

 

[euromellows]

This is a really interesting scenario. Was the Saar offensive abandoned for political reasons or was it abandoned from a military point of view?

Is it possible for the French to be provided with an intelligence report that shows the bulk of the wehrmacht is deployed east and they do not have the capacity to completely resist an all out french offensive? Perhaps Hans Oster or Canaris could provide this information.

This scenario greatly favours the French, even if they are only able to secure parts of the Rhineland it will effectively be an end to blitzkreig and in all likelihood the Nazis will probably be removed from power once it becomes clear the war will not be over quickly.

Post war politics in Europe would be interesting. In many ways France will retain its position as the vanguard of democracy, although its capitulation at Munich will still colour its image badly (at least it didn't abandon Poland in TTL though!)

Anyone know of a timeline for a successful Allied advance in these circumstances or in 1938 where I presume this was also a possible outcome?

 

[Atlantic Friend]

This is a really interesting scenario. Was the Saar offensive abandoned for political reasons or was it abandoned from a military point of view?

Psychological reasons almost. Gamelin planned on winning a defensive battle against Germany in Belgium (at least, as a pre-requisite for any other operation), and so didn't want to risk troops in an offensive into Germany proper.

 

[Markus]

The more intresting factors is how does the Heer react. Can the Germans hold well enougth until Poles are fully beaten, then ship forces west to contain and drive back the French advance.

A moot point. After the polish campaign the german ammo and fuel reserves were too depleted to fight another campaign.

Also to be considered is while it takes the Germans time to move forces west, it also takes the French to mobilize their forces into the attack.

Most of their army was already mobilized by Sept.3rd, 1939.

 

[euromellows]

Ok lets assume the French launch an all out offensive in the west as soon as they are able to mobilise. Maybe they have good intelligence which suggests the German army has limited supplies, maybe they realise that this is their best chance to win the war for the forseeable future - it doesn't matter they strike.

Initially the French suffer terrible losses due to their inferior tactics and poor coordination. However after a protracted period of fighting they begin to notice the German army resistance is faltering (lack of supplies beginning to bite). The French are able to advance and within a few weeks they secure the Rhineland. The retreating German army destroy bridges and attempt to slow their advance. If they diverted a significant force from Poland they may be able to slow into incursions over the Rhine - however it will slow the Polish campaign.

Questions:

1 - At what point does Hitler get removed in a coup when it becomes clear France will not be easily removed from the rhineland? (even in a stalemate there France has won). Does he even get removed?

2 - What will the peace treaty be like? In a Hearts of Iron scenario (yes I know it's only a game but interesting nonetheless) Poland gets East Prussia and France sets up a puppet Rhineland republic. Germany is also forced to give up Austria and Czechslovakia in the event of a rapid French/Polish victory. Although in this game France managed to capture a fair slice of Germany (not just Rhineland) before the Wehrmacht step in and negotiate (under Beck).

 

[arctic warrior]

Questions:

1 - At what point does Hitler get removed in a coup when it becomes clear France will not be easily removed from the rhineland? (even in a stalemate there France has won). Does he even get removed?

2 - What will the peace treaty be like? In a Hearts of Iron scenario (yes I know it's only a game but interesting nonetheless) Poland gets East Prussia and France sets up a puppet Rhineland republic. Germany is also forced to give up Austria and Czechslovakia in the event of a rapid French/Polish victory. Although in this game France managed to capture a fair slice of Germany (not just Rhineland) before the Wehrmacht step in and negotiate (under Beck).

Whatever the tactical ability of the French army at this stage the majority of German troops on the Siegfried Line were green units being trained.

The loss of the Rhineland so soon following the retaking in 1936 will probably have a very bad sting on the German popular perception of Hitlers ability to rebuild a mighty Germany! Don't think this is helping the polls of the nazi-party in the future whatever happens.
Whatever happens to the Rhineland ITTL the French aren't going to give it back to Germany - just look what happened last time!

Would expect the Germans to have to let go of Austria and possibly Czechia as well - minus the Sudetenland. Slovakia has already left.

This time the German generals may get the impetus to get rid of the Corporal and end the war. The modern Germans doesn't really like to fight inside Germany - might spoil the housing.

 

[Mostlyharmless]

The events of 1939 show the awful danger of allowing people to study and write about history. Because the mobilization of the armies in 1914 was identified as one the causes of WW1, there was a huge pressure in France and Britain to delay mobilization. Poland was under great diplomatic pressure to delay mobilization and full mobilization was only ordered on 30th August. France was also not mobilized by September 3rd. The simplest way to make 1939 much better for Poland and France is for both to order full mobilization in the middle of August at latest. Then the French can launch an immediate offensive and Poland will survive longer. The USSR may not intervene until Poland has clearly begun to collapse.