WI:The German Invasion of France in 1940 fails?

Actually the Allies – the British certainly were not terrified of the casualties and had an absolute certainty that the allies would win.

That's my understanding as well. They would sit behind the Maginot Line letting the blockade do its work on the German economy, and in the meantime Allied airpower would be built up ready for the offensive phase after Germany was collapsing. So no, I don't believe a fallout in Berlin would cause the Allies to have altered their plans. They would view it as confirmation that their strategy was going to work.
 
Actually the Allies – the British certainly were not terrified of the casualties and had an absolute certainty that the allies would win.

In pre-war planning, British civil defense authorities estimated more civilian casualties from air attack in the first week than actually happened during the entire war.

That hadn't happened by 1940 - but Germany hadn't attacked British cities yet, either.

No one knew what could happen - and there was a lot of reason to expect the worst.

They wanted to avoid them and again in the British case that meant a heavily mechanised army and large air force.

Wanting to avoid them is one thing. But no tactic, no method of war can guarantee victory, much less avoid casualties. The experience of the Allies was millions of deaths.

It would have been ludicrous overconfidence for the Allies to believe that they could certainly conquer Germany with much less bloodshed.

Recent history shows Prussia/Germany launching wars of aggression every 20 – 30 years and that has to stop, especially from a French point of view having been the target of the last three.

The first succeeded. The second failed at enormous cost. The third failed rather ignominiously (even if Germany retains its arms), and hasn't cost the Allies that much. The German military and General Staff types will make it very clear to the Allies that they were against this stupid adventure from the get-go, for military/economic reasons that they will explain at length. (Thereby indicating to the Allies that Germany knows better than to try it again ever.)

From a German pov why should they evacuate Poland, Czechoslovakia maybe Austria before a major defeat and any conceivable Allied peace offer would require at least the first two.

Poland; not necessarily the Czech lands. The Allies conceded the Sudetenland at Munich; they can't just revoke that. As to the Czech rump, by itself it's not defensible. Slovakia's independence can't be revoked either.

What does Germany get out of it? An end to the war, and to the blockade which will strangle them eventually.

And Russia is not looming, at least no more than it has been since Peter 1, maybe the SYW. The immediate revolutionary threat has been removed, its proving itself to be incapable against the Finns.

That's a very optimistic view. The USSR is qualitatively different from Imperial Russia, having a wholly different basis. Yes, the Red Army looked bad for a while against Finland - but they won. The massive industrialization program of the previous decade is producing lots of arms. Maybe the Soviet state is a paper bear. But the German high command is not going to assume that.
 
However the British were willing to go to war while estimating those casualty levels.

As to British confidence see the British War Machine - Eggerton especially in this context for early war attitudes and planning.

Noone assumed there would be no bloodshed. The assumption was that machines would act as a force multiplier and achieve more effect per casualty that previously. By comparison ww1 UK casualty rate was 2.16%, ww2 ~2%, german ww1 10% and ww2 50%- deaths only for the latter. Albeit for the germans exaggerated by POW deaths on the eastern front and losing in both cases.

Poland, the German occupied part certainly, Czechoslovakia Yes, Slovakia is a Nazi Puppet state not the Legitimate government and Germany itself revoked the Munich deal by annexing the Rump of Czechoslovakia. And the UK and France recognised the Czech government in exile with the 1937 borders as the legitimate government.

It would be reinstated precisely because it punishes Germany. If Germany does not accept the blockade stays in place. There is also I think a very strong chance that Italy would jump in on the Allied side with demands on former Austrian lands, as might other minor powers.

The German high command did assume the USSR was a paper bear, thats why they launched Barbarossa. They could beat it in 6 weeks. Both the British and US believed they could well be right.

Your underlying assumption is that german can launch an aggressive war, force a stalemate and keep some gains fair enough.

I think you are wrong, I think that the Germans would in fact lose a war against the UK and France once fully mobilised probably in 1942. Losers don't keep their gains.
 
Maybe the Soviet state is a paper bear. But the German high command is not going to assume that.

They actually did assume that and i don't think anything happening in this scenario would change that. Halder estimated that in 21 weeks, the werhmacht could be on a Arkhangelsk-Gorki-Astrakhan line. Fourteen times the territory conquered and six times the population conquered in France in 6 weeks. The last phase of the operation could only be done if there was no combat ! Halder said that the main fighting would be done in 4 to 6 weeks.
 
Last edited:
When Guderian presented accurate numbers for Soviet tank production, Hitler got miffed. Even claiming that if those numbers were correct, they had already lost the war.

A lot of it came from the disasters in the Finnish war. Even Beck from Poland, right up until August 1939 totally disregarded any Soviet ability to help out.

It might have been true in 1939 and 1940, but it did indeed start to turn, and turn fast.

So, paper bear, well, yes, depends on the timing.

Another side remark: Whemn Hitler saw the Czech defences, he exclaimed that if he had known how strong those were, he would never have played hard ball as he did.

We have had a thread on WI the Czech had stood their ground and got into the fight instead of giving up in Munich. Some 28+ divisions behind the "Eastern Maginot line" as it was called, would have been a match for Germany in 1938.

Anyway, I can see that a German invasion might fail after Dunkirk. Tanks starting to be worn out, lack of transport, and then facing fresh French troops from the South.

If the re-insertion of BEF then is reasonable successful (Brooke's second trip to France), it could perhaps become reality.

That said, we have also had a thread on WI France never capitulates but the Gamelin plan actually is implemented, trying to hold out until spring, etc. The stuff that Brooke said was not feasible.

Ivan
 

Robert

Banned
To prevent the fall of France, the French Army command structure would have had to have been reformed. Let's say that De Gaulle managed to lead a group of younger officers more interested in modern warfare into positions of power in the 1930s. The French now have radios at their main headquarters (instead of a single telephone line as in OTL), and are able to respond more quickly to the German bridgehead at Sedan. A quick counter attack by French armored forces (all tanks with radio, thanks to De Gaulle), and the bridgehead would have been wiped out, preventing the German breakthrough. The Allied Armies in Belgium would have been able to at worst withdraw in good order, or even better consolidate their positions making any German Advance costly.
 
That would have required an offensive spirit and doctrine which were not present.

The entire idea was the Maginot line. It would have to go further back in time. Probably back to 1925-30 as these things do take a bit of time.

A lot came out of the lessons learned from WWI:

France saw that defense is great -> Maginot line
Germany saw tht mobility is great -> Tanks

Churchill put it nicely (a bit freely quoted,but the gist is correct): "You cannot win a war via successful evacuations"

The same applies here: You cannot win a war via a successful defense.

The first phase was lost years back.

The pursuit is a case we have recently been in on.

Ivan
 
That would have required an offensive spirit and doctrine which were not present.

The entire idea was the Maginot line. It would have to go further back in time. Probably back to 1925-30 as these things do take a bit of time.

A lot came out of the lessons learned from WWI:

France saw that defense is great -> Maginot line
Germany saw tht mobility is great -> Tanks

Churchill put it nicely (a bit freely quoted,but the gist is correct): "You cannot win a war via successful evacuations"

The same applies here: You cannot win a war via a successful defense.

The first phase was lost years back.

The pursuit is a case we have recently been in on.

Ivan

Germany and France had comparable amount of tanks in 1940.

Churchill's United Kingdom won their war because of an evacuation. The importance of the Maginot Line is severely overstated.
 
Well the original point is with OT to 10 May the same the german invasion of France fails

leaving that as a given, what happens next is the point.
 
They actually did assume that and i don't think anything happening in this scenario would change that. Halder estimated that in 21 weeks, the werhmacht could be on a Arkhangelsk-Gorki-Astrakhan line. Fourteen times the territory conquered and six times the population conquered in France in 6 weeks. The last phase of the operation could only be done if there was no combat ! Halder said that the main fighting would be done in 4 to 6 weeks.

That was after the swift and decisive victory over France. Do you really think that success had no effect on German expectations later on?

Also, of course, all these estimates were produced to the order of Hitler. No one was going to tell Hitler that the war in the East was not going to be the easy success he wanted. I'm not saying that Halder was consciously telling lies - but what he could say was clearly forced to the optimistic side.
 
Anyway, I can see that a German invasion might fail after Dunkirk. Tanks starting to be worn out, lack of transport, and then facing fresh French troops from the South.

After Dunkirk is too late. The French have lost too many troops, and their remaining forces are not organized to fight effectively. The Germans have complete dominance in the air, which was decisive. (The French actually threw back most of the initial German attacks in early June until the Luftwaffe silenced their artillery.)

As for a second BEF - the British have lost too many men and far too much equipment. Bear in mind that the Germans shattered the "Weygand line" less than a week after the last troops left Dunkirk.
 
However the British were willing to go to war while estimating those casualty levels.

With great trepidation. A victory which avoids such losses is highly desirable.
Poland, the German occupied part certainly.

Czechoslovakia Yes, Slovakia is a Nazi Puppet state not the Legitimate government and Germany itself revoked the Munich deal by annexing the Rump of Czechoslovakia.

How do the Western Allies enforce all this? They have no troops on the ground in the area. Do they demand that German troops enforce it for them?

There is also I think a very strong chance that Italy would jump in on the Allied side with demands on former Austrian lands...

Say what? The only former Austrian or "Austro-Hungarian" territory claimed by Italy was the Dalmatian coast of Yugoslavia. Italy has no further demands against Austria itself.

The German high command did assume the USSR was a paper bear, thats why they launched Barbarossa.

Hitler did, and no one was allowed to argue with Hitler. And this was after Germany had crushed France in a brief campaign with small losses. Few had believed Germany would defeat France and Britain, much less do it in two months. After that, defeating the USSR in a short campaign seemed a lot more plausible. But even then there were doubts. Goering was opposed to Barbarossa, but went along with Hitler as he always did.
 
Top