FRENCH FIRST STRIKE

Just wondering what would have happened if the French had attacked with tank forces with attached artillery and infantry through the Maginot line and into Germany

 

They would have met the Siegfried Line.

True, it was very thinly held (and badly constructed!), but it would have given the French a bloody nose, and slowed them down enough (or even stopped them) to let the Germans rush reinforcements up to deal with them.

 

It also depends on when. If they had attacked in 1939-09, they would have been large unopposed, and it is not unlikely that they would have given Germany a lot of problems - maybe even conquered most of Germany - before the main German forces could be withdrawn from Poland.

Had they attacked during the spring of 1940, the German forces could have been directed against the French relatively quickly.

As I see it, however, the German army was an offensively minded army, and I don't think that they - in 1940 - would have been very effective in a defensive role. Most of the German anti-tank weapons were not powerful enough to destroy the French tanks, with the obvious exception of the 8,8 cm Flak 36 (which was only sparingly available compared to other anti-tank guns).
The German tanks wouldn't have been able to use their superior tactics on the defensive role, so Germany's only chance would be to mount a series of counter-attacks.

 

Ok, ofcourse a nice suggestion but I actually don't get the use of the subject. I mean: would the french ever had the guts to attack germany by then? I really don't think so. therefore I think it's a little irrelevant to think of a french attack against germany in the early '40's.

 

They did, though.
At the start of WW2 the French advanced into a little pocket of marshy land that was not covered by the Siegfried Line.
Admittedly the Germans did not care, and the French sat there for a month or two and then went back to France, but technically the French did invade Germany.

 

Had the germans not attacked in 1940, there would have been an anglo-french offensive in 1941.
At this time Britain and France would have made up their lack of armament towards Germany.

It is however not clear how such an operation would have taken place.
Would the allies for example have broken belgian neutrality?

 

Good question. Much depends on who is leading France and Britain at the time. Churchill would almost certainly have done so, if he thought it was necessary.

 

Ah, but Churchill was not in power until France fell, and Chamberlain would never, ever have gone through a neutral country.

 

No, I think Churchill became prime minister the day the german offensive began.

 

That's a little unfair. During WW1 the French philosophy had been to always be on the attack, the price for such a strategy had been horrific and nearly broke the French army. Much as some might like to deny it, the french are only human. Hindsight is always a wonderful thing.

 

well, more or less, but he only became PM because of how the war was progressing. Chamberlain was seen to be a doddery old fool doing a bad job at beating Germany. Churchill, the old warmonger, was seen as a more suited man for the job.
So the point still stands, that until Germany attacks, Britain is stuck with Chamberlain, who would not go through Belgium.
However the question of Belgium is academic - the Anglo-French forces would not use the Ardennes, and the Siegfried Line (I think) went along the Belgian border too.

Ebar - it is fair, depending on how you interpret it! As the French troops had refused point blank to advance at all in 1917, the Generals would be rather scared to see that possibility happen again. Remember, the soldiers now in uniform are the kids of the mutineers. So the Generals could concievably be too scared to order too big an advance, just in case history repeated itself.

I am sure that the French troops would have attacked with great elan, as was their wont, and at least this time they were not wearing scarlet & sky-blue uniforms, but I think their advance would have met a fair bit of opposition.

 

I don't believe that would have been a factor.

Don't forget that in 1918 german units mutinated too, and their whole navy refused to go to battle, that did not prevent the german generals of the second world war to sent them into offensives.

In 1917 too, the whole russian army mutinated, and this too did not prevent soviet generals to send their men into the most bloody offensives in ww2.[/quote]

 

Both the German and Soviet armies were completely different affairs under their new masters.
Would a member of a Fascist army, or a Stalinist army, dare to mutiny?

 

:lol: this is just too good to be true!

 

Ricky is in fact right, the french did make tentative operations into germany but nothing in a grand scale.

 

The Siegfried line was 600 kilometers long, running from the Swiss border to where the Rhine changes its direction from north to west. This point is well along the Dutch border, which the 21st Army Group learnt all too well in 1944-45...

 

The siegfrend line had to be heavily modified in 1944 as it had to accomodate a number of heavier weapons than the small packs used in 1939.

Shows how its always important to think ahead.

 

You forget that the German Airforce was operating in Poland, and the Franco-British Airforce would have been unnoppesed, artillery would have also been used, and there were not nearly enough people in the Siegfried Line.

It would have fell in a matter of hours, if the second rate soldiers left there even resisted surrender during the air/artillery barage they would not have been able to beat back the attacking army with their equiptment damaged by barrage.

Also in his diary Ciano who was in Germany at the time wrote that the Germans expected defeat, so seeing the french army get through would have probably made many of them throw in the towel.

The US Army did many computer tests (With the computers controlling both sides without people interfering), and in every time a french 1939 offensive defeated Germany.

However as someone already noted all of this is irrelevant because Churchill became Prime Minister more or less when the German offensive began, and Reynaud replaced Daladier in France only a few days earlier so there is no way that offensive could have happened.

 

Well, I'm not sure. In actual history, most of the Siegfried Line was held by second or third-rate troops when the Allies arrived at it. The attackers by then completely controlled the air and had an overwhelming amount of artillery and tanks, which the enemy lacked everywhere. Yet the Germans did not break, and they did not surrender. To some extent the soldiers of 1939 could have put up a similar fight.

 

Except then it was not with the 'Unconditional Surrender' hanging over them, and the Line had been strengthened in 1944.