As we all know, Germany ransacked Poland in 2 weeks while the Allies twiddled their thumbs. Then the sitzkrieg happened where military action was at a wartime low.

Now suppose the Allies had launched an offensive across the rhine or even into te low countries in order to throw Germany off kilter. I would imagine the Germans would have one hell of a time figuring out what to do.

__________________
"If your gonna buy the angel s**t, you might as well go for the zombie package as well."
-George Carlin

Personally I think the French and British would not have had a very good chance. If they managed to get into the Low Countries they might have been thrown back into France again. I say this because look at what the Germans did to Poland, France, Russia etc.
But the Germans would have had a massive shock and the French along with the British could have gotten quite far. In the end though the allies would have been forced back to the French Border.

Jet

__________________
And when he gets to heaven
To Saint Peter he will tell
One more soldier reporting sir
I have served my time in hell

From what I have read , although the bravery of the soldiers could not be denied, the French high command was too disjointed to quickly plan and execute such an offensive.

And the British were simply not prepared - the BEF were inferior in numbers and at that early stage had much to learn tactically. The RAF, too, were poorly-equipped - one only has to consider the slaughter of the Fairey Battles

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

The allied were not prepared for an attack. I guess the French thought Maginot would hold the Germans back forever. That´s why I guess no real attack plans were made (?) except for the small offensive where French took some area from Germans but did not even have any idea to continue(?).

As I understand the Germans had quite a lot of forces (80%?) directed to east for the attack in Poland so if the allied had attacked during the Poland Blitz the Germans might have been in a very sticky situation.

Sorry about the question marks but I don´t have time to search for these facts at the moment and I just trust my memory here.

__________________

Why would France and Brittain invade the low countries. I mean, they were just nutral.

An attack might give these countries the guts to ask help from Germany. Not sure about that one.

But an attack on the low countries would be foolish and they would lose all their credibility.

__________________

If they were prepared(Which they were not), and did it in September-December 39 It could have worked

__________________
Go-Flames-Go

They had the same infantry and panzer divisions,(the same amount as the Germans) but they weren't prepared to fight.

__________________

All true, but since most of the Wehrmacht was in Poland, what about the element of surprise? Hitler knew he was taking a great gamble by leaving the western front in a weak position. Personally I dont feel the Allies could have won unless they made a concentrated and organised attack, which they were hardly capable of at the time. I think they could have at least slowed the Germans down some in their conquest of Europe, plus they might have even been able to hold a defensive line on the Rhine, assuming they made it that far into Germany. Perhaps it would have changed Von Mansteins plan for invading the low countries first?

__________________
"If your gonna buy the angel s**t, you might as well go for the zombie package as well."
-George Carlin

In this scenario the Allies declare war on Germany after their attack on Tchechia. So they wouldn't attack Poland, but they would pull their troops towards the Dutch, Belgian, Luxemburg and French border.

__________________

As a "What if" it certainly would be an interesting war game to see what would happen if the western allied could start an attack early Sept 1939.

What would Hitler do? Cancel Poland operation? Or hope that the Poland operation would pass quickly so that the troops could be moved back in west while the troops in the western front could hold the British and Fench for a while. And if Germans showed any signs of losing the fast victory in Poland what would Russia do?? Would they keep their part of the bargain and attack Poland in the back in the end??

I think a fast attack in German´s west front might have caused some problems, then again West wall might have stopped the allied attack in its tracks??

__________________

The Western Offensive would have been a success up until the Rhine. At that point, the Allies would halt and wait. Hitler would have concluded the Polish campaign and then transferred his forces to the West. My opinion.

Hitler knew he was taking a risk but was relying on the spineless leaders of the West to sit it out as they had appeased him before.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

No, my friends. Not at all.

In September 1939 the French had 110 divisions fully equipped and by then with high-morale ready in the whole front and specifically some 40 divisions in front of the German border, which ONLY had no more than 15 infantry divisions. The remaining German forces, the 90% of the Wehrmacht, including 95% of the Luftwaffe and 100% of the armoured forces were involved in Poland. If the French would have attacked the Rhineland on, let's say, September 7th in two weeks (with the Polish still resisting and a hesitating USSR) the Allies would have reached the Ruhr and the Germans would have had a two war front in which they were not prepared at all to fight. Panzer divisions could not have been transferred to the West because they were still involved in Poland and even if they were transferred, what about their losses? They would have been thrown into battle not ready at all. Some infantry divisions could have been formed and dispatched rapidly to hold the Allies, but the very sheer of numbers would have made its effect. The morale of the German people would have been affected, if the Allies reached the Ruhr then 70% of the German war capability would have been cut off... And let's ay that by the third week of September the Poles are controlled and by the fourth week four fifth parts of the forces in Poland are transferred to the West (supossing that 90 divisions could have been transferred and refitted in a week) and the Allies are held. Now, the attrition war begins in October 1939. German teterritory and its industrial heart are in Allied hands, Germany is fighting with its weakened forces with low morale and no supplies against two very powerful Armies... Maybe in a year or two the war would have been over, maybe because France and Great Britain won or most likeable because the USSR or the USA decided to join the war...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

No, the US wouldn't have entered the war. They wanted to stay out of that mess. But in fact the USSR had a secret pact with Germany to divide Poland.

So if Germany would have lost that battle, probably the Russians would have captured big parts of Germany.

__________________

USA and USSR joining the war for the Allies was not likely at that time. The USA was nowhere near ready to declare war, and even if they did there is no way they could have helped until at least 1941, considering the state of her Armed Forces. And like Erwin said, Germany and the USSR had a pact to divide Poland. Regardless of future intentions, the Soviets simply werent willing to go to war...although if Germany was hit hard enough by the Western Allies, she might try to grab as much Polish territory as possible.

Friedrich: If the French were totally organised and had high morale, why didn't they attack? I agree the conditions were favorable to at least severely harass the Germans, which is why I started the thread, but if the French could have swept over the Ruhr and Western Germany then why didnt they? A successful attack requires not just organisation and morale, but the determination of the Senior leadership to mount a successful offensive. Thats why I feel that if the Western Allies had attacked, they would have gone very cautiously and while taking some ground, would have given the Germans ample time to at least attempt a counter-attack. The French leadership, stung by losses in the first war, was not willing to make a sweeping assualt like they used to. They were afraid of casualities and a drawn out war, and thats what doomed them to defeat in the West.

__________________
"If your gonna buy the angel s**t, you might as well go for the zombie package as well."
-George Carlin

Das Reich, I agree with what you said. But that is precisely the question here: "What if the Allies would have attacked?" What if the French leadership would have had the determination to cross the border, forgetting about their 'Maginot Line' and give the Germans a fatal blow. They had everything on their side then, except the dtermination of their generals. So, let's change that for this what if. Germany would have not been able to defend herself at all. maybe they could have stopped them in the Rhine and put an halt to the Allied advance. But then they could not have counterattacked and a static war would have come. And after a while, the two super powers would have come to finish the bussiness.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

With all the Wehrmacht busy in Poland, the French would have a rather easy job. They would have captured large parts of Germany.

__________________