Could France and Great Britain defeated the Germans in 1939?

Almost certainly; Germany invested almost everything it had in Poland. Wehrmacht General Siegfried Westphal that if the Western Allies proceeded with an invasion of Germany, the Third Reich could only have held out for a matter of weeks.

MadLib said:

Almost certainly; Germany invested almost everything it had in Poland. Wehrmacht General Siegfried Westphal that if the Western Allies proceeded with an invasion of Germany, the Third Reich could only have held out for a matter of weeks.

Click to expand...

In earlier years, probably; by 1938 probably not. In 1939, not at all. It would have delayed the invasion of the Soviet Union, certainly, but then it would have encouraged Stalin to move ahead with invading the eastern countries as well as Germany anyway. Not much of a strategic gain for the West overall.

Red_Dave said:

How do you figure? Mien Kampf seems to suggest otherwise

Click to expand...

Yes. Most of the German right wing were as obsessed with the 'encirclement problem' as Wilhelm II was. WW I only exacerbated this paranoia. Hitler and Mussolini also had many fans in the West, so an invasion wasn't something feared by all in that era of severe Depression.

Looking over the OB's for 1939 I don't see where the French and the British combined had enough to launch any successful offenses against Germany, which is why they didn't. Some 900,000 in uniform and another 5 million reservists, 2,000 aircraft, etc.

French Forces ? strength of Army divisions, l'Armee de l'Air

French Forces total

5,000,000 men, 99 divisions, 4,200 tanks, about 11,000 guns
2,916 planes (1,114 fighters, 1,002 bombers)
7 capital ships, 1 aircraft carrier, 19 cruisers, 70 destroyers, 75 submarines

British Forces total, by Sept. 1939

897,000 men, 26 divisions, 1,146 tanks, about 2,600 guns
1,911 planes (747 fighters, 871 bombers)
15 capital ships, 6 aircraft carriers, 61 cruisers, 181 destroyers, 59 submarines

German Forces total:
3,706,104 men (103 divisions), 3,478 tanks, over 7,000 guns
4,093 planes (inc. 1,176 bombers, 1,179 fighters, 335 dive-bombers)
2 old battleships, 2 battlecruisers, 3 pocket battleships, 8 cruisers, 22 destroyers, 56 submarines

A lot of outdated ordnance, heavy use of reservists, inferior air support, and not enough to sustain any major offensive; a third or less of the German forces would have easily shut the Allies down in 1939, leaving way more than enough in the East to deter Stalin from an early attack as well as continuing with Hitler's original invasion plans in the East.

Oberon said:

In earlier years, probably; by 1938 probably not. In 1939, not at all. It would have delayed the invasion of the Soviet Union, certainly, but then it would have encouraged Stalin to move ahead with invading the eastern countries as well as Germany anyway. Not much of a strategic gain for the West overall.

Click to expand...

General Westphal was specifically referring to the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Poland. As others have mentioned previously, Hitler seems to have thought that the West was bluffing and was not counting on an actual response, so the western border was lightly defended (France's probe into the Saar met little resistance).

The Soviets were not really in a position to seize Eastern Europe in 1939. They were only able take Poland in the first place because most Polish forces were concentrated on fighting the German invasion, and their performance in Finland indicates that they wouldn't have fought well against larger numbers of Polish troops, let alone the Western Allies or the Wehrmacht (depending on which alliance Stalin would align with).

Oberon said:

Looking over the OB's for 1939 I don't see where the French and the British combined had enough to launch any successful offenses against Germany, which is why they didn't. Some 900,000 in uniform and another 5 million reservists, 2,000 aircraft, etc.

French Forces ? strength of Army divisions, l'Armee de l'Air

French Forces total

5,000,000 men, 99 divisions, 4,200 tanks, about 11,000 guns
2,916 planes (1,114 fighters, 1,002 bombers)
7 capital ships, 1 aircraft carrier, 19 cruisers, 70 destroyers, 75 submarines

British Forces total, by Sept. 1939

897,000 men, 26 divisions, 1,146 tanks, about 2,600 guns
1,911 planes (747 fighters, 871 bombers)
15 capital ships, 6 aircraft carriers, 61 cruisers, 181 destroyers, 59 submarines

German Forces total:
3,706,104 men (103 divisions), 3,478 tanks, over 7,000 guns
4,093 planes (inc. 1,176 bombers, 1,179 fighters, 335 dive-bombers)
2 old battleships, 2 battlecruisers, 3 pocket battleships, 8 cruisers, 22 destroyers, 56 submarines

A lot of outdated ordnance, heavy use of reservists, inferior air support, and not enough to sustain any major offensive; a third or less of the German forces would have easily shut the Allies down in 1939, leaving way more than enough in the East to deter Stalin from an early attack as well as continuing with Hitler's original invasion plans in the East.

Click to expand...

And yet Germany had to strip practically all of their forces from the west to subdue Poland. And Poland would have fought much longer had it not been for Russian invasion of the East (where the Poles were to set up their defenses)

Add to that the PzIII and PzIV tanks were not produced in any real numbers until 1940. The PzIII was the primary Tank vs. Tank vehicle and were limited in their 37MM gun. Fine against polish armor, but not against many French and British tanks. The Somua S35 and Char B1 would both have given fits to the German tanks.

When Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, its armored corps was composed of 1,445 Panzer Is, 1,223 Panzer IIs, 98 Panzer IIIs and 211 Panzer IVs; the more modern vehicles amounted to less than 10% of Germany's armored strength.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV

And remember, one has to get the armor from Poland back to the western front. It took time to assemble everything for the invasion of Poland. The returning weapons and men would have entered the defense of Germany piecemeal. Any interruption of German trains would have seriously impacted the return of weapons....

Tanks could not have covered that distance in time nor would have much of the artillery.

Fledermaus said:

And yet Germany had to strip practically all of their forces from the west to subdue Poland.

Click to expand...

Had to, or did so because they could, as they had little worries re the Western borders?

Add to that the PzIII and PzIV tanks were not produced in any real numbers until 1940. The PzIII was the primary Tank vs. Tank vehicle and were limited in their 37MM gun. Fine against polish armor, but not against many French and British tanks. The Somua S35 and Char B1 would both have given fits to the German tanks.

Click to expand...

Don't recall saying anything about PzIII's or IV's, but okay ... I already said the French armor was adequate enough, it was poor use of them that made them useless.

And remember, one has to get the armor from Poland back to the western front. It took time to assemble everything for the invasion of Poland. The returning weapons and men would have entered the defense of Germany piecemeal. Any interruption of German trains would have seriously impacted the return of weapons....

Tanks could not have covered that distance in time nor would have much of the artillery.

Click to expand...

If the Allies were a threat Hitler wouldn't have shipped all of them East in the first place. And I still don't think Poland's military was much of a threat, not against the German combined arms tactics; their tactical doctrine wasn't all about just armor alone. From the western OB, the Allied forces were off about a third from what is considered a three to one advantage minimum for launching an offensive, not factoring in the dearth of modern equipment on the Allied sides.

Oberon said:

Had to, or did so because they could, as they had little worries re the Western borders?

Click to expand...

The why is irrelevant.

Oberon said:

Don't recall saying anything about PzIII's or IV's, but okay ... I already said the French armor was adequate enough, it was poor use of them that made them useless.

Click to expand...

More than adequate...

And how they were used on defense is not an indicator on how they would perform in offensive operations against negligible resistance.

Remember, if practically everyone and everything is in Poland, they aren't going to stop anyone in the west.

Oberon said:

If the Allies were a threat Hitler wouldn't have shipped all of them East in the first place. And I still don't think Poland's military was much of a threat, not against the German combined arms tactics; their tactical doctrine wasn't all about just armor alone. From the western OB, the Allied forces were off about a third from what is considered a three to one advantage minimum for launching an offensive, not factoring in the dearth of modern equipment on the Allied sides.

Click to expand...

Hitler bluffed.

And there would have been far more than a three to one advantage at the point of assault, where it matters.

The vast majority of troops, tanks, artillery, were where they would have had zero effect on the outcome in the west.

And "dearth of modern equipment on the Allied sides"? In 1939 horses provided the majority of transportation for the German Army. The vast majority of tanks were MG or 20MM armed. Biplanes made up a fair amount of the ground attack aircraft. The navy was lacking. Their small arms were good, but not outstanding (MG34 excepted).

The difference between Germany's capabilities of 1939 and mid 1940 is remarkable. Expanded mechanization, tanks with real killing capability, the start of a long line of tank destroyers, etc. Add to that the tactics learned and/or honed in the Poland campaign.

Fledermaus said:

The why is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Of course it's relevant.

More than adequate...

Click to expand...

In some cases, yes; most of the French armor was not adequate.

And how they were used on defense is not an indicator on how they would perform in offensive operations against negligible resistance.

Click to expand...

I'll disagree; if your commanders don't know how to exploit and get the best use out of their equipment, it's effectively useless, as the results of the German offensives against France clearly show. The Allies were out-generalled, period.

Remember, if practically everyone and everything is in Poland, they aren't going to stop anyone in the west.

Click to expand...

They wouldn't have all been in Poland if there was serious threat from the West in the first place.

Hitler bluffed.

Click to expand...

No doubt, but it was a calculated bluff based on knowing his enemies.

And there would have been far more than a three to one advantage at the point of assault, where it matters.

Click to expand...

French and Allied armor tactics weren't about exploiting breakthroughs and encirclement with speed and force, the Germans were, which is why Panzer I's and II's were more than sufficient for sweeping behind lines and creating havoc with supply and communications control; not nearly as much organized resistance behind the front, and it renders whatever advantage had in armor and artillery useless against it.

The vast majority of troops, tanks, artillery, were where they would have had zero effect on the outcome in the west.

Click to expand...

This makes no sense; of course they would have had an effect. That's why the Allies didn't launch offensives; they didn't have enough to do so in 1939.

And "dearth of modern equipment on the Allied sides"? In 1939 horses provided the majority of transportation for the German Army. The vast majority of tanks were MG or 20MM armed. Biplanes made up a fair amount of the ground attack aircraft. The navy was lacking. Their small arms were good, but not outstanding (MG34 excepted).

Click to expand...

Obviously it was more than enough in 1939; they won in the West and later crushed a far more numerous Soviet military in the East, with little interference in the West.

The difference between Germany's capabilities of 1939 and mid 1940 is remarkable. Expanded mechanization, tanks with real killing capability, the start of a long line of tank destroyers, etc. Add to that the tactics learned and/or honed in the Poland campaign.

Click to expand...

No argument there, except to add that the Germans first honed their armor and blitzkrieg tactics in the Spanish Civil War, on the plains of Russia, and in Mussolini's wars in Africa, not Poland.

Oberon said:

Of course it's relevant.

Click to expand...

YOIN (Your opinion is noted)

Oberon said:

In some cases, yes; most of the French armor was not adequate.

Click to expand...

Char B1 (700+), the Souma S35 (400+) were more than enough for the PZIIIs. The Hotchkiss H35 was no slouch either. Facing them would be 98 Panzer IIIs and 211 Panzer IVs.

Do the numbers.

Oberon said:

I'll disagree; if your commanders don't know how to exploit and get the best use out of their equipment, it's effectively useless, as the results of the German offensives against France clearly show. The Allies were out-generalled, period.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Allies were outgeneraled by Generals who leaned a lot in Poland.

Oberon said:

They wouldn't have all been in Poland if there was serious threat from the West in the first place.

Click to expand...

YOIN

Oberon said:

No doubt, but it was a calculated bluff based on knowing his enemies.

Click to expand...

Indeed... The political posture, not the physical threat.

Oberon said:

French and Allied armor tactics weren't about exploiting breakthroughs and encirclement with speed and force, the Germans were, which is why Panzer I's and II's were more than sufficient for sweeping behind lines and creating havoc with supply and communications control; not nearly as much organized resistance behind the front, and it renders whatever advantage had in armor and artillery useless against it.

Click to expand...

PzIs were good for whacking undefended infantry, the PzII were good for whacking undefended infantry, armored cars and lightly armored tankettes the Poles had.

Oberon said:

This makes no sense; of course they would have had an effect. That's why the Allies didn't launch offensives; they didn't have enough to do so in 1939.

Click to expand...

??????? How would forces in Poland... Already engaged in combat with the Poles, have any appreciable effect in the west, where they weren't?

And the allies had a far superior advantage in 1939 then they did in 1940.

Oberon said:

Obviously it was more than enough in 1939; they won in the West and later crushed a far more numerous Soviet military in the East, with little interference in the West.

Click to expand...

To beat the Poles... WITH Russian help. Remember the Poles were withdrawing to defensive lines that were rendered unusable by the Russian incursion. The Polish Army was not defeated until Soviet intervention.

Oberon said:

No argument there, except to add that the Germans first honed their armor and blitzkrieg tactics in the Spanish Civil War, on the plains of Russia, and in Mussolini's wars in Africa, not Poland.

Click to expand...

Agreed... Spanish Civil War was a testing ground of terror bombing as well.

PoS said:

If the Brits or the French reacted during Germany's rape of Czechoslovakia Hitler's regime would have collapsed right then and there- the German high command was planning a coup and would have deposed him immediately had the allies declared war right then and there so it would have been even sooner if they had acted earlier.

Click to expand...

I am currently reading a series by the person who is considered the master of alternative fiction, Harry Turtledove.



One of the things that makes his books so good is that they often have a single point of divergence from "real history", although this one has 2.

The first is that General José Sanjurjo is not killed in a plane crash, preventing Franco from rising to power in Spain. The other is the assasination of Konrad Henlein (Sudeten leader) during the negotiations for the Munich Pact cause Hitler to start the war in 1938 with an invasion of Chechslevokia.

But invading Germany likely would not have been as succesful as many think. Both England and France were still locked in the WWI mindset of advancing and then holding land with trenches and siege lines. They had yet to adopt the concepts of blitzkreig and schwerpunkt, so odds were they would have made a modest advance into Germany, then tried to break the army with the same failed tactics of WWI.

Most spectacularly, the concept of spreading their tanks along the line as mobile pillboxes, instead of concentrating them into armored fighting forces to pierce the line in a concentrated effort as the Germans did. In order for England and France to be victorious against Germany, first they had to study the German victories in order to learn how to do it themselves.

During the Saar Offensive during the Phony War, France attacked along a 20 mile wide front, and only penetrated 5 miles into Germany. They lacked everything needed to go any further or faster. Fixed artillery positions, tanks dispursed all along the front, and continuous belts of mines prevented them from even reaching the Siegfried line.

MadLib said:

General Westphal was specifically referring to the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Poland. As others have mentioned previously, Hitler seems to have thought that the West was bluffing and was not counting on an actual response, so the western border was lightly defended (France's probe into the Saar met little resistance).

Click to expand...

And they still had over 2,000 casualties. The Germans suffered less then 500. And a month later when the Germans finally counterattacked, they retreated back into France.

The French armor was easily evaded; the Germans learned early on that the heavy French tanks were tough to beat in head to head battles, but slow and guzzled huge amounts of fuel, making them useless for exploiting breakthroughs and easy pickings for artillery and infantry, and the lighter and faster German armor could easily cut their supply lines off and starve them out rather than waste time on fighting them head to head with their own armor. The Allied air forces weren't any great shakes, either. Add to that the armor doctrines being left over from WW II and you have a major defeat, 'superior' armor or not.

Turtledove does have some good 'what-ifs', well-researched points.

Oberon said:

. Add to that the armor doctrines being left over from WW II and you have a major defeat, 'superior' armor or not.

Click to expand...

That should be 'WW I', not WW II. My bad.

Oberon said:

The French armor was easily evaded; the Germans learned early on that the heavy French tanks were tough to beat in head to head battles, but slow and guzzled huge amounts of fuel, making them useless for exploiting breakthroughs and easy pickings for artillery and infantry, and the lighter and faster German armor could easily cut their supply lines off and starve them out rather than waste time on fighting them head to head with their own armor. The Allied air forces weren't any great shakes, either. Add to that the armor doctrines being left over from WW II and you have a major defeat, 'superior' armor or not.

Turtledove does have some good 'what-ifs', well-researched points.

Click to expand...

At that time, the Germans were still in the process of ramping up their arms industry.

They had the Panzer II as their main tank, the III and IV was just hitting the field, the Panther and Tiger were still years away.

Most do not seem to realize that in quality of equipment at the start of WWII, Germany was pretty much on par in quality and behind in quantity. The biggest difference was superior tactics and doctrine.

Case in point, what is probably their most famous bomber. The Ju 87 Stuka was a formidable dive bomber, that struck fear into the troops in the front lines. But it was outdated in many other wats. Fixed landing gear, and poor spead and agility left them sitting ducks to Allied fighters. Ironically, the inspiration of the A-10 in many ways came from the Ju 87G, where towards the end of the war they largely abandoned the tactic of using them as divebombers, and instead mounted a 37mm cannon under each wing and turned them into tank busters.



Most of the really spectacular German equipment dates from 1940-1943, well after the war started.