Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
The French "Union" Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Battle of France 1940 ... what if...
Godofgamblers    10/23/2007 6:06:34 AM
Let me play devil's advocate: What if the other allied countries supplied troops in the same proportion as France did for the Battle of France? France had mobilized 6m troops (!) and had stationed 2.2m in the North of France. All the other allies combined only contributed 1.3m troops (UK, Holland, Belgium). While France marshalled 93 divisions, UK only marshalled 10, Holland 9 and Belgium 22. The French military actually surpassed the Wehrmacht in numbers. The question is, what would have happpened if the Allies had mobilized troops in proportionate numbers to their populations? This would have brought allied numbers up by millions. This means that France would have had strategic reserves (which they didn't in the actual battle) to defend Paris, to threaten the German A Group (the 'Sichelschnitt'). It would have greatly increased the morale of the French political leaders and although losses would have still been heavy in the beginning, like the Russian campaign, despite the huge initial losses, the Allies would have the strategic reserves and strategic depth (in Bretagne and Normandie) to launch counter attacks. Paris would have become the French Stalingrad, as the German army met the million man + Allied reserves in street to street battle. Despite their early gains over the Allies on the relatively flat plains of Picardie and Champagne, in the urban environment, faced with millions of French, Brits, Poles, Czechs, Dutch and Belgians, the Wehrmacht's vaunted tactical mobile prowess would have come to nought and superior Allied numbers would, after a long bloody contest, have won the day...
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3
ProDemocracy    Reserve   11/27/2007 11:33:37 AM
If France did indeed have more troops and resources than Germany, then she should have had a strategic reserve regardless of how many UK troops were deployed in Northern France.  France was superior in numbers, but deficient in leadership.  As I understand it, the troops earmarked as the reserve were instead sent to southern Holland...a very poor move.  Leaving their army with no reserve, combined with the inability to launch an offensive in conjunction with the British offensive at Arras, the assumption that the Ardennes was "impassable" is what caused the fall of France...not lack of numbers from their allies.
 
The UK did not field many divisions because they are a maritime country whose navy and air force were sufficient for defense.  Certainly the UK suffered from the strategic wins of Germany over France, but the UK was not in danger as long as the Royal Navy and RAF remained strong...and they did.
 
One other thing - Germany had to maintain at least some divisions in Poland to guard against a potential Soviet threat - I would imagine at least 500,000 troops (would have been a million at least if I had been fuhrer)...so that only increases the superiority of France over Germany in numbers.  France had to guard against one third rate power exhausted by a civil war (Spain) and one second rate power who wouldn't have dared to enter the war if France had not already been defeated - a max of 12 divisions could contain those two fronts.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics