So why didn't Britain and France invade Germany in 1939

general.wolfe said:

maybe testing it would have been a good idea

Click to expand...

They had. it had already been proven that tanks could move through. they were just hoping that the Germans hadn't already found that out.

Allies were afraid by the ghost of another WWI, besides they didn't know the exact consistence of german forces and german incredible successes scared them, who did not surely want to be invaded successfully by german.
So they retreated in order to organize better their forces and gather their troops from dominions and england.

OpanaPointer said:

I think Hitler broke the peace there, not Chamberlain, so it wouldn't have been that hypocritical.

Click to expand...

I was talking about if it was Britain and France that initiated the war.

what evidence do we have that the French army was stronger than the German army in 1939? just because they advanced 10 kilometer in Germany does not mean the Germans would've not been able to crush them?

general.wolfe said:

the french army was the most powerful in the world at this time, at least until 1937 anyway. but Germany was fighting a completely different kind of war to the france and britain.

ironically, france even had stronger tank force then germany in 1940, but the German tanks used speed, while the allied tanks were slow

Click to expand...

I think it was alos a matter of how the tanks were used as well.
If I'm not mistaken the Tanks were used by the germans en-masse as armoured units, almost like cavalry. To advance, break through, surround, outflank.
Whereas the French has them more dispersed though their units, working in concert with the infantry.

Yes, penny packett is how that is called, dispersing the tanks like that. But , if I remember correctly, the French did have a massed tank force on that front for a time. But unfortunately, they un-massed that force and spread it out in penny-packetts just before the German attack.

The French tanks, such as the S-35, and even the lighter R-35s were actually pretty good tanks for that time. They tended to lack radios as compared to the numbers of radio tanks in the German formations, and the one man turretts were a handicap. Even still, had they met the Germans en masse, and with a reasonable level of air cover, then we might have seen a different result.

We might have seen the French temporarily stop the German attack, the front stabilize for a time, and that would likely have led the British to rush planes to France in large numbers.

And then, the Germans may have launched a July or August offence which would have broken through, led to the same basic patterns of the historical pattern, with the exception that the Battle of Britain would have started in September, with a broken RAF to fight it.

At least as it did happen, the RAF was able to fight on after the Fall of France and the Low Countries. And that is the wild card here. If the French had actually stopped the German advance, would the low countriees still have fallen? They did put up a pretty good defence as it was. The Belgians fought a good and long fight, as they were able, and the Dutch really hurt the Luftwaffe. The Germans lost a lot of transport planes in Holland, and experienced aircrews.

From my understanding, Hitler was a coy devil in that he was aware of what worked before him. He knew how the Confederate states of the US civil war had stopped MacClellen by marching their small group of men through a clearing in site of the poised army of the potomac. He, in this fashion paraded his forces through Berlin so the world would think, "if he's parading all that, what's he got behind the scene?" And this is what he did, he bluffed, and mislead and had at one time, the entire free world afraid of the might he really didn't have. This gave him time to build his forces while they tried to appease him. In 20/20 hindsight we can see this, but at the time, no one really knew for sure. The Brits and French had no way of knowing. The Brits are a strange people anyways, and seems they need to get their noses bloodied before they leap into it, once they do, they get after it.

Or maybe they didnt take WWII seriously?

Perhaps they thought that they would declare war on Germany as a point of honor, Germany would crush Poland, and the war would drag on for a while until the economic cost forced Germany to the Peace table. And then, the allies would give Germany half of Poland (this before the USSR came in) and then Germany would withdraw from the rest of Poland, and the war would be over.

I dont think they realized that Hitler was off to conquere everything. Maybe they should have read his book? Then they would have known what he was going to do.

At the risk of over-simplifying things, the French and British looked back at WWI and reckoned, "OK, we know what works. Trench Warfare. But this time, let's have the war on German soil."

On the other hand, the Germans, having lost WWI, reckoned, "OK, we know what doesn't work. Trench Warfare. So, this time, let's don't do that."

Wars are won the same way wars have ever been won. But not exactly the same way. The devil's in the details.

I think there are some misunderstandings and mischaracterisations here. The French were the only party that could have invaded Germany in September 1939 while the German army was overrunning Poland. The British Expeditionary Force needed months to be pulled together and dispatched into France (and subsequently Belgium) so Britain had no prospects for invading Germany at that instant. The French army was thought to be formidable, had a large number of Divisions and excellent tanks (except for being fuel hungry) but although they advanced 8km into Germany they didn't attempt to cross the Seigfried line. The question is why?

In practice general Gamelin ordered them back and German staff officers since claimed that Germany couldn't have held out for more than two weeks if the French had pushed on. Yet Gamelin was not an ..... and nor was he a coward. He'd masterminded the French counter attack at the Marne in WWI, which had saved France in 1914, but he was also the brains behind the Maginot line. Its easy to mock this now but at the time it was the most sophisticated defence system in the world and an engineering and logistical marvel. The Germans had no serious prospect of breaking through it and so perhaps it seemed to Gamelin that he should play for time while the British were building up their strength and bringing in forces from across the Empire. Germany was bogged down in Poland and so there was no threat of an imminent attack in the west. He probably lacked information about the German defensive strength and dispositions (but this is the bit I'd like to know more about), while in the north the Belgian army was quite large and was thought to be sufficient to hold up the Germans if they launched an attack through Belgium long enough for Britain and France to move forces to breach the gap. Thus based on the experience of the horrors of offenses in WWI holding tight until the allies built their strength probably seemed like the right thing to do at the time. In retrospect we know this was a major blunder but marching the French army into an offensive war against well set positions beyond French supply lines probably seemed the least attractive option at the time.

Lucius said:

At the risk of over-simplifying things, the French and British looked back at WWI and reckoned, "OK, we know what works. Trench Warfare. But this time, let's have the war on German soil."

On the other hand, the Germans, having lost WWI, reckoned, "OK, we know what doesn't work. Trench Warfare. So, this time, let's don't do that."

Click to expand...

In fact WWI started in very "mobile" spirit. I was all manoeuvre until French managed to stop Germans before gates of Paris. That war deteriorated in to trench nightmare was to everyones surprise.

Also do not forget Spanish civil war. Which was kind of test ground before big finale.

Therefore I don't think it was really desire to fight in trenches what stooped Allies. In any case why not to build those trenches few kilometres deeper in to enemy territory, especially if there was nobody to prevent them from doing so. Also they declared war officially to stay to their alliance with Poland. This was clearly not the way to help those Poles and everybody sure knew it.

So I'll say, reasons must have been political not military.

In accounts of the Polish campaign I was struck by the number of instances of German troops failing under war pressures, not attacking, falling back. In General the war went well, but it enabled the Germans to get the kinks out of their army in a relatively low pressure situation.

The French denied themselves a chance to learn some lessons about a real shooting war. There is no doubt that an attack in 39 would have gone better than waiting to 1940. French High command for whatever reason was just incapable of forcing up to it's responsibilities. The ww1 experience was brutal for the french and left really scars.

I doubt the French could have mounted and sustained an offence if they had wanted to. They just didnt really have the logistical system for it. Much of it was still horse drawn, as was much of the artillery.

The BEF was fully motorized then, but small. And I dont think they could have drawn thier supplies from the French because the French ssytem wasnt set up for that. So, a creeping, small offensive was possibly about all the French could do, which is what they did.

It would have probably been a situation where they would have to stockpile supplies for a week or two, then attack a few miles and halt. Then the supply depots would have to be set up a little closer, more transport routes added, and a build up, then another attack. And so it would have gone. much along WWI standards, logistically speaking. And that if the Luftwaffe didnt object.

The Germans system was much better suited to offence, though much of it was also horse drawn then. The Germans were better off in keeping most of the panzers supplied, but even they had thier limitations in 1940, frontal units outrunning thier supplies. Luckily for them, the French and British were so disorganized by constant Luftwaffe attacks that they couldnt capitalize on that when it happened.

I think you may well have hit the nail on the head there Richard. Weak logistics that were not geared up for an invasion was likely to have been a key constraint on the French ability to invade Germany in 1939.

Two words: Maginot Line.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_line"]Maginot Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

arras said:

In fact WWI started in very "mobile" spirit. I was all manoeuvre until French managed to stop Germans before gates of Paris. That war deteriorated in to trench nightmare was to everyones surprise.

Click to expand...

arras said:

Also do not forget Spanish civil war. Which was kind of test ground before big finale.

Therefore I don't think it was really desire to fight in trenches what stooped Allies. In any case why not to build those trenches few kilometres deeper in to enemy territory, especially if there was nobody to prevent them from doing so. Also they declared war officially to stay to their alliance with Poland. This was clearly not the way to help those Poles and everybody sure knew it.

So I'll say, reasons must have been political not military.

Click to expand...

The reason that France and Britain did not attack was political. Poland, simular to Czechoslovakia one year before, was sacrificed to buy more time. Britain and France did not enter the war to defend Poland. They enter war because Hitler was getting to strong for their liking.

“much worst, however, was the gut wrenching realisation at Polish HQ that the western Allies were not going to honour their stated obligations. Poland’s leaders had gone to war on the understanding that their task was to hold the Wermacht at bay for fifteen days before the French delivered a devastating attack on western Germany. General Gemelin , who was the supreme allied commander, had talked in Warsaw of deploying le gros de nos forces(the bulk of our forces). In the event, no serious operation was mounted. Indeed, many historians believe that Gemelin ‘had no intention of keeping his promises’ Quote from "Europe at War" by Norman Davies



By the way, WWI was rather mobile on the Eastern Front. The area was to big for trench warfare similar to the Western front. The next big conflict between soviet Russia and Poland (1919-1921) was very mobile despite poor motorisation of the armies involved. But it was not unusual to cover distance of 60 km. per day by hard marching infantry.

Actually, The entire world was still reeling from WWI and another world war was the last thing that they want. Despite Britain's absolute determination to vanquish Hitler's regime at the high point of the war, at the beginning when the blocks just started to fall in to place, Britain had received several intelligence reports that suggested that Hitler was planning an invasion, in fact Britain even turned down the intelligence of German turncoats.

I blame Belgium.

Wow, just wow. I have never ever thought about this. Even after all the appeasement it wasn't too late if the French had just showed a bit more courage and initiative.

And like an above poster said, the British and French didn't truly declare war on Germany because of Poland, if they did they probably would've made an attempt to actually save it. No they declared war because Germany was becoming too strong and upsetting the balance of power.

Sometimes I wonder if Britain and France were so different than Germany, and if it weren't for war crimes like the Holocaust sparking such sentiments as good vs. pure evil, would World War 2 just be understood as your standard European imperialistic war.