What if France had prepared differently for WW2?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: How could France have avoided defeat in WWII?

#16

Post by phylo_roadking » 25 Feb 2010, 01:10

And, of course, there's this -
Heck, even the really vengencefull Entente let Germany had an Army
With Brest-Litovsk still in place between Germany and Bolshevik Russia, later to morph into the Treaty of Rapallo IIRC - letting Germany retain even a small army meant that the Allies didn't have to permanently occupy and protect a TOTALLY demilitarised Germany in order to stabilise its Eastern frontier against Bolshevik Russia or the Poles! :lol:

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Re: How could France have avoided defeat in WWII?

#17

Post by Mark V » 25 Feb 2010, 01:19

phylo_roadking wrote: 1/ that army was small...and not allowed armoured vheicles. They did drill with "tanks"....wooden and cardboard ones, there are pics on this forum of Reichswehr exercises with them :wink:
Small yes, but that worked to their advantage in long run.

I would not laugh, there were the future great panzer commanders trying to get those veneer-cladded automobiles to go forward during exercises...

The same as laughing to those designers and engineers that predicted in 30s and 40s that man will soon be able to go to space... they were also laughing stock of many at the time.

Seeckt made sure that every man in that small army was trained to fullfill one rank higher responsibility than his normal duty. It was an army of hand picked cadre of best imperial German Armys young officers, and the common soldiers were all NCOs in reality, though not in rank.

Because they were not allowed to re-arm, they also did not had to waste money for armament purchases (in 20s, early 30s) that would been totally obsolete when WW2 erupted. That time they used for experimenting, and studying. Though it is fallacy that Wehrmacht generals as whole embraced or even understood Blitzkrieg in 1939-40, all of them understood that WW1 method was not the way forward. All of the senior commanders had been in junior commanding or staff positions during WW1.

Regards


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: How could France have avoided defeat in WWII?

#18

Post by phylo_roadking » 25 Feb 2010, 01:41

Seeckt made sure that every man in that small army was trained to fullfill one rank higher responsibility than his normal duty. It was an army of hand picked cadre of best imperial German Armys young officers, and the common soldiers were all NCOs in reality, though not in rank.

Because they were not allowed to re-arm, they also did not had to waste money for armament purchases (in 20s, early 30s) that would been totally obsolete when WW2 erupted. That time they used for experimenting, and studying. Though it is fallacy that Wehrmacht generals as whole embraced or even understood Blitzkrieg in 1939-40, all of them understood that WW1 method was not the way forward. All of the senior commanders had been in junior commanding or staff positions during WW1
Actually...while we're in danger of getting way off-topic now...the WWI experience WAS the way forward that the Germans adopted - the LATE WWI stormtrooper doctrine, with greater individual decisionmaking, flexibility/manouverability, using overwhelming force coupled with modern individual firepower at the schwerpunkt to break through static defences etc.

ALL they eventually did was add armour and the extra mobility of motorisation to the equation :wink:

The question is, however - would a "proper" post-occupation monitoring of a "French" army by the victorious Germans have permitted this sort of redoctrinisation happen? Would a properly-motivated ALLIED have noticed/stopped it in Germany in time between the wars?

Plus - while the Revanchism of 1870 to 1914 may have resulted in a French nation that was prepared to undo the damage of the Franco-Prussian War with a defeat of Imperial Germany...the defeat of 1870/1 hadn't resulted in an army that could defeat Germany in 1914 :wink: France has always seemed to concentrate on a moral rearmament after a defeat rather than a really military one.

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Re: How could France have avoided defeat in WWII?

#19

Post by Mark V » 25 Feb 2010, 01:55

phylo_roadking wrote:...the defeat of 1870/1 hadn't resulted in an army that could defeat Germany in 1914 :wink: France has always seemed to concentrate on a moral rearmament after a defeat rather than a really military one.
You are very much right about stormtrooper tactics. I was talking about WW1 on more general terms.

And we can't expect France to win Germany alone, do we ? Germany had 50% more manpower resources for starters. In the end WW1 would had with 100% assurance ended to German victory if French Army would had faltered.

Regards

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: How could France have avoided defeat in WWII?

#20

Post by phylo_roadking » 25 Feb 2010, 02:06

Germany had 50% more manpower resources for starters. In the end WW1 would had with 100% assurance ended to German victory if French Army would had faltered
....or simply been attrited even more in the various defensive battles :( France expended what she did in WWI....holding part of the line - you're quite right that she couldn't have done it alone. But that's a separate, "foreign relations" set of PODs :wink:

The French Army didn't need to falter to loose - just be alone on the Western front. In that circumstance it would have stood fast....and STILL been overrun.

takata_1940
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: 01 Jun 2007, 06:48
Location: France

Re: How could France have avoided defeat in WWII?

#21

Post by takata_1940 » 25 Feb 2010, 09:43

I'll propose to send this whole thread and its garbage into the what-if section as it isn't about history. From the start of it, it is mostly a contest of half-educated generalities and clichés. There is no need to make many lists of "stuff for improving the French situation as I see it" without an analysis backed by a basic understanding of the constraints implying why it was like that in reality. As Daveh posted above:
If each point is taken in turn perhaps it could be analysed with a view to seeing why it did not happen. This may help highlight the weaknesses of the French state and Army as found in 1940.
This might be the right way for discussing such kind of subject without going into fantasyland...

S~
Olivier

User avatar
Markus Becker
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 27 Apr 2005, 18:09
Location: Germany

Re: What if France had prepared differently for WW2?

#22

Post by Markus Becker » 26 Feb 2010, 01:39

The OTL-plan was generally sound. The Maginot Line covered the border with Germany in the south. Maybe the infantry reserves were a bit too generous but there was still more than enough left for the field army in the north. The key mistake up there had been the addition of a part of the Netherlands to the "territory required to defend". That tied down almost all of the reserves the army in the north had and thus should have been avoided. Sucks if you are Dutch but live is unfair.
The plan for the central sector was absolutely ok. It was based on the German WW1 offensive and assumed the Germans would need 7 days to make it to the Meuse and another 7 to bring enough artillery forward to attempt a crossing. So the French made sure two or three divisions could reinforce the sector within 5 days max. To make sure the Germans would not be able to cross the Ardennes faster they kept a QRF of several so called "Light Cavalry" divisions and brigades ready to support the two crack divisions the Belgians had in the Ardennes.

The problem was the Belgians did not tell the French they didn´t intend to defend the Ardennes. When the offensive began the French actually raced east, the Germans advanced west and the Belgians left northward. They barely fought but they did blow all the bridges and roads on the German and French side. As a result an easy to defend area was left virtually undefended and the French QRF was swept aside. Better Allied-Belgian staff contacts would have helped. But the blame for that lies with the Belgians.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: What if France had prepared differently for WW2?

#23

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 26 Feb 2010, 03:27

Markus Becker wrote:
The problem was the Belgians did not tell the French they didn´t intend to defend the Ardennes. When the offensive began the French actually raced east, the Germans advanced west and the Belgians left northward. They barely fought but they did blow all the bridges and roads on the German and French side. As a result an easy to defend area was left virtually undefended and the French QRF was swept aside. Better Allied-Belgian staff contacts would have helped. But the blame for that lies with the Belgians.
I've seen a lot of third or fourth hand opinions on exactly why the Belgians departed the Ardennes faster than the French could establish a covering force that far forward. Unfortunatly none I've seen yet get to the core of what the Belgians were thinking, and none point to a definative original source, or even a usefull secondary Belgian source for the decision.

User avatar
Markus Becker
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 27 Apr 2005, 18:09
Location: Germany

Re: What if France had prepared differently for WW2?

#24

Post by Markus Becker » 26 Feb 2010, 04:01

Carl Schwamberger wrote: I've seen a lot of third or fourth hand opinions on exactly why the Belgians departed the Ardennes faster than the French could establish a covering force that far forward. Unfortunatly none I've seen yet get to the core of what the Belgians were thinking, and none point to a definative original source, or even a usefull secondary Belgian source for the decision.
I guess from the Belgian perspective there is nothing worth defending there, especially not when you think the main attack is made further north like in the last war. The French saw that differently but since there was no formal alliance and very limited pre-attack staff contacts its not surprising they missed an area even the French considered to be of secondary importance.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: What if France had prepared differently for WW2?

#25

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 26 Feb 2010, 05:45

Markus Becker wrote:
Carl Schwamberger wrote: I've seen a lot of third or fourth hand opinions on exactly why the Belgians departed the Ardennes faster than the French could establish a covering force that far forward. Unfortunatly none I've seen yet get to the core of what the Belgians were thinking, and none point to a definative original source, or even a usefull secondary Belgian source for the decision.
I guess from the Belgian perspective there is nothing worth defending there, especially not when you think the main attack is made further north like in the last war. The French saw that differently but since there was no formal alliance and very limited pre-attack staff contacts its not surprising they missed an area even the French considered to be of secondary importance.
I've considered that one before. As with the others the jury is still out. Some Belgians must have considered the area worth defending, they invested a lot of cash and effort into fortifications to be used in delaying actions. Perhaps others disregarded that effort? perhaps they had other reasons? here is a description of the Belgian fortifications beyond Eban Emael. Some nice photos.

http://niehorster.orbat.com/021_belgium ... art_01.htm

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: What if France had prepared differently for WW2?

#26

Post by phylo_roadking » 26 Feb 2010, 20:44

The OTL-plan was generally sound. The Maginot Line covered the border with Germany in the south. ...The plan for the central sector was absolutely ok.... It was based on the German WW1 offensive


Yes, it was - when planned, but THIS is not right...
The problem was the Belgians did not tell the French they didn´t intend to defend the Ardennes.
The Maginot Line-based plan fell apart in 1935-36 when Belgium pulled out of the Locarno Pact and declared itself Neutral. No matter what - even though the British/French immediately declared they would still protect Belgium as if she still were part of the Pact - it was a HUGE hole in the plans that had been made and exercised on for 15 years...

After the 1935-36 political crisis in Belgium, how and where Belgium chose to defend itself wasn't really anything to do with France - except once covert contacts began again 3-4 years later.
The problem was the Belgians did not tell the French they didn´t intend to defend the Ardennes. When the offensive began the French actually raced east, the Germans advanced west and the Belgians left northward. They barely fought but they did blow all the bridges and roads on the German and French side. As a result an easy to defend area was left virtually undefended and the French QRF was swept aside. Better Allied-Belgian staff contacts would have helped. But the blame for that lies with the Belgians.
I've seen a lot of third or fourth hand opinions on exactly why the Belgians departed the Ardennes faster than the French could establish a covering force that far forward. Unfortunatly none I've seen yet get to the core of what the Belgians were thinking, and none point to a definative original source, or even a usefull secondary Belgian source for the decision.
Then try "Belgium - The Official Account Of What Happened 1939-40", published in London in 1941 by the Belgian government "in exile", and get it straight from the horse's mouth. Also take a look at some of Daveh's threads on the Forum.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: What if France had prepared differently for WW2?

#27

Post by Gooner1 » 01 Mar 2010, 15:58

In preparing for WWII France should have placed a higher priority in its rearmament on anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns.
Given the basic defensive outlook of the French general staff it seems odd that the French army had as many motor vehicles and more tanks than the Wehrmacht but were heavily outnumbered in A/Tk and AA guns. :idea:

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: What if France had prepared differently for WW2?

#28

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 01 Mar 2010, 16:35

phylo_roadking wrote: Then try "Belgium - The Official Account Of What Happened 1939-40", published in London in 1941 by the Belgian government "in exile", and get it straight from the horse's mouth.
Thanks, I'll continue to look for that one. Is there a post war version?

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: What if France had prepared differently for WW2?

#29

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 01 Mar 2010, 16:44

Flipped back through Gundmundson magazone artical on the battle @ Gembloux. A good reality check on so many of the statements folk make about the French army.

User avatar
Markus Becker
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 27 Apr 2005, 18:09
Location: Germany

Re: What if France had prepared differently for WW2?

#30

Post by Markus Becker » 01 Mar 2010, 17:19

Gooner1 wrote:In preparing for WWII France should have placed a higher priority in its rearmament on anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns.
The French being short of modern AT-guns is new to me. Their 25mm AT-gun could kill any german tank at 500 meters even if the angle of impact was not ideal and as far as I could find out, they had enough of these guns. Even the 55th Division had some and plenty of 75mm field guns.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”