Printable View
Imagine. The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact is discovered by Brittish Inteligence. Neville Chamberlain is replaced by Churchill. When Hittler invades Poland, France and England declare war on Germany and attack Germany's western border. With a war carried on two fronts as early as 1939 might Hittler's Germany have collapsed earlier. What might the political map look today with Germany defeated in 1940?
If the French and British would have attacked right after they declared war on Germany. Germany would have most likely collapsed under there combined attacks. I pretty sure of this.
The Allies did know about the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact just not the very sneaky secret details. But they did know it was a non-aggression pact and so it would be the West the Germans took on first.
The Problem with your theory of two front was that France's military was simply not ready. They hadn't even been fully mobilised by the time Poland was annexed and as for Britain, they had so small an army that it hardly mattered to Germany what they did with it.
In 1939 Britain was by no means ready for a war.
she was still trying to put off the rebuilding of the army etc after the first world war. In Hilter had of invaded Britain after France Fell Britain would also have fallen.
Therefore twelve months earlier would have been totally out of the question. My grandad often told me stories that it was a couple of years into the war before they were actually issued with real weapons, uptil then they might have had two or three between the whole unit.
Weapons had to be built as very few were actually around.
The Germans wouldn't be able to hold up a defensive position in my opinion. The tactics the Germans used were based on the Blitzkrieg, which was a very offensive strategy (from what I know). And that was one of the reason they were so effective.
Eeerm, not exactly. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
Yes, it's VERY possible I'm wrong. Only rescently have I started to find an interest in more modern warfare. I was stuck in the ancient times of Rome and Greece.Quote:
Originally Posted by AggonyDuck
Could you please explain why it is wrong?:sweatdrop:
A Whole host of factors prevented an attack in the West, Chamberlain's leadership was only one such factor. As noted above, nether Army was ready for offensive operations until early 1940, by which time numerous German forces had shifted back to the West.
However, if [and a might big one it is] they had somehow managed an attack through Luxembourg and punched into the Rhineland, Germany would have been in a bad way initially, but the Allies lacked the armored formations and doctrine to make a truly decisive blow. Germany's blitzkreig tactics would have been just as difficult to stop when used as a counter attack tool, but the Allies would have had the Rhine as a fallback. Probably a stalemate at the Rhine with Germany industrializing/war focusing earlier but a somewhat more resilient French army facing them.
Some interesting shifts, since the Norwegian campaign probably doesn't occur in this scenario, but the Italians would have been bound by treaty to come in in support of the Reich -- and would do so with a greater proportion of England's air forces (and ground?) committed to the Rhineland campaign.
Sorry, I lack an edit button at the moment. Nether should read neither and I am referring to the French army and the BEF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I'm not convinced that the world, as a whole, was ready to deal with Hitler until he caused enough grief to make it obvious that something needed to be done. The world simply was unprepared for another massive war. Britain, France and the U.S. along with many other countries were still suffering the lingering psychological effects of WWI. It affected everything. Remember that it took a direct attack on the U.S. to bring the U.S. into the war. Poland, Norway, the Low Countries, France and even the Battle of Britain weren't enough to convince Americans to fight Hitler. Even with existing treaties, I don't think the real public (as opposed to political) will to fight Hitler existed until after Dunkerque, and in the case of America, not until after Pearl Harbor. Ribbentrop-Molotov could have been printed in full with all details known and distributed to newspapers world-wide, with a picture included of Hitler proclaiming himself the future ruler of the entire world, and it wouldn't have stirred up enough people to make a difference.
Another thing was that Britain feared the communists more than the Fascits and hoped that hitler would attack then but instad signed a teaty with Stalin. They thought maybe they would build up first but then hwe invaded Poland so The Allies had to back up their promises to Poland even though they realisticlly couldn't
I don't know but many pps would live.
Well the Germans were not only great at offensive warfare, but they had pretty much early on guessed correctly how certain weapons should be applied in all scenarios. Also the best way to win a defence wasn't actually by standing firm in dug in positions, but by counter-attacking the enemy at a point of weakness. Even small well led counter-attacks against an advancing foe's flank could throw the attackers off-balance and stop a whole advance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
Of course at the start of WWII the Wehrmacht wasn't the battle-hardened force of 1941, but it's training and tactics were definately superior to the other armies of the time. Especially when it comes to mobile warfare the Germans were nicely ahead of the others.
Also what you need to remember is that the difference tactic wise between attacking and defending isn't actually that big in reality. It's really just the initial breakthrough attempt that has big differences between the two parts.
Hmm...Interesting.:idea2:
I'm pretty sure that if the French and English would have had one big push along the Maginot Line. Most of what Hitler went on were gambles and most of them payed off in the beginning. He bet on the fact that the French wouldnt cross the Maginot Line into Germany the French wanted to make the Germans attack the Line. So Hitler used that to his advantage and left defensive armies on the western front. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that if the French invaded Germany that they most likely would have been defeated. I'm pretty sure I can find some info to support my arguement
IIRC didn't the French occupy parts of the Rhineland in the early stages of the 'phoney war'?
There was no real possibility of effective French action against Germany during the Polish campaign. This is largely due to the swiftness of the Polish defeat. German victory was quite clear after two weeks and Polish defeat was made certain on September 17th when the Soviets invaded. The last Polish city to offer resistance, Gdynia, surrendered on October 2nd. By this time, some German forces in Poland were already being sent west to the Rhine.
The BEF didn't begin deployment until war broke out and wasn't in position until October. So any attack upon Germany during the Polish campaign would have been carried out by France alone. Violating the neutrality of any of the Low Countries was politically impossible. Failing this, there were only two options:
(1) A Rhine crossing between Karlsruhe and the Swiss border.
(2) An attack into the 100 mile-long border region between the Moselle and the Rhine. This region was protected by the prepared defenses of the Siegfried line, including small concrete works and minefields.
Both options presented serious military problems, so the German force of 11 regular and 32 reserve divisions on the western border was enough to prevent the French from making any quick breakthrough.
Furthermore, French planners did not consider large-scale offensive operations possible until about 16 days into a war. By this time, Poland was clearly doomed and France found it necessary to assume a defensive posture.
The 4th French Army did, in fact, cross into the Moselle-Rhine triangle on the 8th but avoided the Siegfried line and any serious combat. A larger attack was called off on the 22nd because Polish defeat was clear.
No. They did it between the wars to get the money promised in the Versaille treaty.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
France could not attack, because the Maginot stood in their way. The complete doctrine was defensive. They were not able to change this. They did not want to have another WW1 where a whole generation died. So they tried to secure themself with steel and stones.
Britain alone could not do it either. And the British military dctrine was defensive too. Protect the islands with fighters and the RN, then support France and attack Germany with long range fighters. They did not want to risk their lives too.
No. They did it between the wars to get the money promised in the Versaille treaty.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
France could not attack, because the Maginot stood in their way. The complete doctrine was defensive. They were not able to change this. They did not want to have another WW1 where a whole generation died. So they tried to secure themself with steel and stones.
Britain alone could not do it either. And the British military dctrine was defensive too. Protect the islands with fighters and the RN, then support France and attack Germany with long range fighters. They did not want to risk their lives too.
Actually, the French army invaded some parts of western Germany right at the start of the war, but as already said, after the slaughter of WWI, most French (and at a lesser point British) leaders and generals were totally focused on a defensive war (there was some exceptions, like De Gaulle, who wrote on the advantages of offensive war over defensive one - it is claimed by some that Guderian was directly influenced by De Gaulle's work). The French public opinion wouldn't have supported another war involving waves and waves of 18 years old guys sent to death on the front.
So what did they do ? They did call back the army, and waited for the Germans behind la Ligne Maginot.
That doesn't change the fact that the French army was in 1939 and even in 1940 vastly superior to the German one. It was just led by people who had outdated point of view.
What Chamberlain did wrong was that he, when giving his ultimatum, didn't increase readiness and mobilization immediately to be prepared for war. Similarly, the French could have beated Germany early on together with Britain if Britain had mobilized properly and the French had accepted an offensive approach. Many people say the usage of an ultimatum rather than an unprovoked strike was the cause for why this war took 5 years to resolve, but in fact it was the lack of firmness of the ultimatum (only reluctantly and too late did they really mobilize properly to keep it) and the foolish strategy during 1939-1940 that made ww2 take long and cost so many lives. Often ww2 is taken as an example of why an ultimatum is bad in politicis, but in fact the ultimatum was the only thing that was done right by the allies in the earliest part of the conflict...
Oh, and the small French offensive was the Saar offensive, it was just a bit of marching into the German minefields without any real opposition. There were a few artillery duels and patrol engagements but nothing more really, and later the allies withdrew from what they had conquered...
Anyway one can't blame the supporters of the defensive approach too much either - even among the Germans there were a lot of old-fashioned generals who favored infantry based warfare, and it wasn't really until halfway through Fall Gelb in 1940 that they truly realized how powerful the Panzer spearheads could be. Rommel and others were repeatedly ordered to halt their offensives because the plans didn't have proper logistical methods for making the infantry divisions keep up with the rapid advance the armored divisions could allow, those things were developed later, especially during 1941. Also from what I recall the allies were shocked when they got to Belgium and found that there were very little possibilities for building up a strong defense there in the time they had at their disposal when they finally got there. It's possible that they could even have been able to win with the defensive strategy (with proper counter-offensive thrusts), if things had turned out differently. But Belgium can't be too much blamed for wanting to do what they thought was a way of perhaps being able to stay out of the war.
It would be interesting to see a reenactment of the battle with today's knowledge...
[QUOTE=Atilius] The last Polish city to offer resistance, Gdynia, surrendered on October 2nd.
Nope, Gdynia was taken in on 19th September - although it was quite suprising that it took so much time which was mainly due to the poor quality of SS troops there - Gdynia is few kilometers from Danzig which was in fact Nazi from the beginning.
It was Hel garrison - the ideal place to defend - which surrendered on 2nd October. BTW also Germans defended it till 8th May 1945 or so.
Still it was Polesie army which fought to 5th October against both Soviets and Germans and it fought well untill it used all ammunition while fighting the 13th and 29th motorised German divisions.
Polish war of defence officially lasted to 7th October.
Polish underground started fight on 27th September...
Cegorach :book:
Hitler would probably have been able to defeat the French armies. They'd just be overwhelmed by the tanks spearheading the attacks, and with the very much motivated, well-trained, well-supplied, well-armed and co-ordinated German troops who would have had a plan of attack, the Germans probably didn't even need to bypass the Maginot Line to get into France. Anyway, the French probably wouldn't have fared well in Germany seeing how quickly and easily they fell to Germany. Britain and France alone wouldn't be able to hold out against Germany... remember that this Germany was able to simeltaneously fight Soviet Russia, Great Britain and America while retaining their position in Europe (the Americans were practically at war in the Atlantic).
“Anyway, the French probably wouldn't have fared well in Germany seeing how quickly and easily they fell to Germany” All the fights where French Tanks fought against Germans tanks were won by the French. Guderian, like Rommel, thought that the tanks were not to fight against other tanks, but to make a break through, then to attack the rear. The German tactic was better, not the material nor the crews. There were at least equal, with better tanks on the French side, but more and better planes on the Germans.
“remember that this Germany was able to simeltaneously fight Soviet Russia, Great Britain and America while retaining their position in Europe” Nope, and that is why Germany lost the war. Just have a look to a map the 5th ff June 1944, and look where the Russian are… It will talk by itself.
The difference between The Germany of 1939/40 and 1942 Germany was quite large. They had perfected their tactics and manourver, They learned how to moderately keep up with the tanks (The infantry as in 1914 mostly walked through Russia) They also had more experience with many veterans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Wheras the only Superiority the Germans had over the French ( and small BEF) was the Luftwaffe, everyhing else was outnumbered. The German's doctrine was just better once they achieved the breakthrough.
Pardon me cegorach1. This was from Henri Michel's history; if you say it is in error, I believe you. The point I was making, that large-scale fighting in Poland was over in early October, still stands I trust.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach1
“The difference between The Germany of 1939/40 and 1942 Germany was quite large.” Yes, but it is also true for Germany opponents, especially Russia. In 1941 the core of the Red Army tanks was the KV1, BT-7, T26, T60, beginning of 1942, T70, T34, KV2. And the Red Army had defeat the German in Moscow. The English will do it in the desert. All of them learnt fast, except the Germans (slower because they were winning, so they didn’t see the reason to change tactic).