Hitler attacks France sooner

Hitler initially wanted launch the attack on France November 12th 1939 and attack through central Belgium with the move through the Ardennes being a secondary attack.

Weather delayed the attack and the new date was set for January 17th 1940.

However, on the 10th January a plane made a forced landing in bad weather in Belgium carrying the entire plan which therefore fell in to Allied hands.

The plan was therefore changed to one proposed by Manstein through the Ardennes and the rest is history.

What would have been the result of the German attack following the initial plan through Belgium?

 

How would an attack through "central Belgium" have taken place? The German-Belgian border is basically made up of the Ardennes and the area just west of the Hürtgenwald. Was the great Panzer push supposed to go through the Netherlands first and then swing south through central Belgium?

 

well actually hitler does not want to go to war with the western countries his policy was to create living space in the east and a great arian germanian empire but when he launched his strike against poland france and britain declared war to germany so he had no other opportunuies

 

However Hitler was no fool, he was aware that there would probably be confrontation with the west sooner or later, so a pre-emptive strike west was always a possibility. Alternatively, there was over 6 months between the invasion or Poland and the Invasion of the west, possibly this timetable could have been reduced, or even could have occured earlier (Although given the rate of German rearmament I don't think a great deal earlier).

 

are you mad? he was the biggest idiot in history, he was lucky up to moscow but after thats just one big srewup

 

he was no fool when it came to politics but when it came to military stratedgey well lets just say he could be rated the worse general in history

 

He was selfish , and delusional , he thought he was a messiah or something , he didn't give a rats ass about the germans.

-in the Berlin raids in february 1945 , sat in his bunker all day listening to music.
-When Germany was losing the war he thought the german people germany "failed him" when Germany was defeated , they lost becuase of 1.Lack of supplies
2.Hitler medalling
-he flooded the Berlin subways sometime in late August,1945 , no purpose was served.

-much more stuff.

 

Hitler flooded the bunkers in August 1945? What, as a ghost come back to haunt us?

There is a huge difference between Hitler while things were going swell for his Reich, and Hitler when things came crashing down. After his initial successes he got fantasies of invincibility for himself and his armies; when Germany started losing the war and the German cities were being bombed flat, his remaining moods were bottomless depression and delusional frenzy. Therefore when we're talking 1939-1940, I think it's still possible to say that Hitler was no fool. Yet.

 

No, I am not mad, and I resent that tone in your answer.

If he was that idiotic at the outset he would have been easy to defeat or outwit. He was misguided, certainly, but he outwitted the statesmen of Western Europe and the Soviet Union. To say that Nazi Germany just "Got Lucky" up till Moscow is a gross oversimplification.

The German Armies ran rings around those of Western Europe and the Soviet Union, Hitler was a gambler and an opportunist, and luck certainly was a factor. But at that stage Hitler was aware that conflict in the West was more or less inevitable, as was conflict in the East. I do not think you can say in 1940 that Hitler was an idiot.

Stalin, perhaps, for being suckered with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

 

Something very close to the 1914 Schlieffen polan apparently.

 

Hitler could be considered a genius in strategy and economics during the first half of the war, but once the delusions of grandeur got to him, the 3rd Reich's fate was sealed.

 

Except he, too, was planning an invasion to break the pact. Hitler just got there first.

 

The german campaign plan for november 1939, or january 1940 was more or less what the allies supposed it would be.

As in may 1940, the allies would still advance into Belgium, to stop the germans on the line Brussels-Namur.


Unfortunately,even if they attacked earlier, the germans would still enjoy the same advantages they actually had in 1940:

- total air superiority
- totally superior tank doctrine(allied commanders and doctrine would still be the same as in may 1940)
- Stalin would still supply Hitler with all he needs, thus rendering the allied blockade inefficient

Of course the battle in Belgium would have lasted much longer(several months), and casualties on both sides would have been much higher(Historically the casualties during the short 1940 campaign were among the highest per day losses of the war, on both sides).

So, globally, I think the germans still would have a clear advantage....

The best the allies could hope for could be some form of cease fire, returning to the status quo in western Europe, and leaving Hitler free hands in the east....until the next turn....

 

Had Hitler done that he would not have won.

In Belgium the french defeated the Germans at the vast majority of their encounters in 1940.

Had Hitler's main attack been through Belgium he would have faced the best tanks and artillery in the world, and they would have been competently commanded. What may have happened could have been stalemate.

It is generally agreed that had Belgium been the main ground of battle the French would have won.

The reason they lost was they sent their best forces into Belgium while the main German Advance was through the Ardennes, and unnaposed it defeated the second rate soldiers who were left in France and made an encirclment move.

 

What, doing absolutely nothing?

I still don't get why the French did not invade Germany, like they promised, when Hitler invaded Poland. France would have had an easy run to Berlin considering Germany practically emptied its army (at that time) into the blitzkrieg in Poland.

 

Gamelin, Daladier, and Chamberlin simply were too stupid to do that.

Daladier as Premier, and Gamelin as head of the army was the worst possible leadership France could have possibly had.

 

There was simply a large difference between the French army on paper and the French army in the field. In theory they had several million men under arms with the best tanks in the world available in the greatest numbers. But in reality how many of those soldiers were regulars? How many of those army units were competently organized and led by officers who thought outsaide of WW1 doctrines?

Another fact is that since the Western Allies of 1939 believed WW2 would be much like WW1, they were preparing for a defensive war in which they would have the advantage. I believe policy was quite simply to allow Germany to batter itself silly against the French and British positions until they were bled white. If this is your view of what an offensive will result in, you're not about to start one yourself.

 

Especially as they believed in the invincibility of the Siegfried Line.

 

All of the soldiers sent into Belgium were regulars with effective officers who were more then their match for German Counterparts.

That showed on the field of battle in Belgium.

Giraud's forces destroyed 100 German Tanks, while they lost only 5, and at the Battle of Hanut the french tanks destroyed 160 German Tanks while losing only 100.

That is the kind of force the Germans would have recieved had they gone through Belgium.

 

tough call, we can only speculate about how the attack would go. i think the germans would certainly get over the meuse river but be stopped by the french and britisch on either the KW line or at the river Schelde.
given the fact that the luftwaffe was better than the allied airforces, it could be possible that they could have won.
the secondary attack could break trough into France if it was a strong army. problem is, we don't know how many divisions are placed were so how can we predict the battle??
and there were also some other factors as well. Rommel for instance, where would he go, who would he face (no doubt Rommel would have won against anyone who was against him.)
the french had there tanks spreaded and didn't made real panzerdivisions so german tankdivisions would certainly be capable of forcing a breaktrough.