How long could the phoney war have been dragged out?

ivanotter

I have been reading up on the Phoney War. It is an interesting interlude in many ways.

True enough, the immense hatred etc was not prevalent in 1939. US was not committed, USSR was still out in the cold, etc.

Was the French attitude to war more relaxed? In essence: would France fight at all? they had not shown great elan over Poland.

Despite armaments going on in UK, it is hard to see any impact unless France is coming to the party. Would they? Which French governments would go to war unless attacked?

The invasion of Scandinavia was after all only on the periphery and probably didn't really matter in the bigger picture.

So, could it have dragged on for some more months?

(But, alas, Hitler being Hitler, but let us just imagine...)
 

Garrison

Donor
ivanotter said:
I have been reading up on the Phoney War. It is an interesting interlude in many ways.

True enough, the immense hatred etc was not prevalent in 1939. US was not committed, USSR was still out in the cold, etc.

Was the French attitude to war more relaxed? In essence: would France fight at all? they had not shown great elan over Poland.

Despite armaments going on in UK, it is hard to see any impact unless France is coming to the party. Would they? Which French governments would go to war unless attacked?

The invasion of Scandinavia was after all only on the periphery and probably didn't really matter in the bigger picture.

So, could it have dragged on for some more months?

(But, alas, Hitler being Hitler, but let us just imagine...)
Click to expand...
Norway or at least Narvik was far from peripheral. It was vital to the flow of Swedish iron ore to the German steel industry. Also the notion that nothing much happened during the 'phoney war' is misleading to say the least. It was only the issues of logistics and arguments over the operational plan that delayed the German attack on France for so long. Hitler originally wanted it in November 11939, which was hopelessly unrealistic, but it was scheduled for January 1940, until other events intervened. The period between the defeat of Poland and the attack in the west was one of considerable activity, just not one involving any major battles on land, the Royal Navy and the Merchant Marine would certainly protest the idea that there was anything phoney about the war they were engaged in, so I think your basic premise is flawed.
 

ivanotter

I hear you.

However, it was exactly called 'phoney' because there was nothing happening at what was perceived as the main front = France.

Not saying that RN wasn't active. Sure, factual, a range of things did happen, but it was not perceived' as major. That is the point.

If France was not keen on playing ball, how could UK attack on any major front? impossible. If Germany did not attack in May, then what?

(yes Hitler had wanted to attack France in November 1939. It surely would have been a surprise, but for who?)

If nothing ishappening in Northern Europe for a year, it is hard to see any continuation.

It of course comes down to France. Did they want to get into it without having been attacked?
 

Intosh

The longer "Phoney War" last, it is better for the Western Allies who have French massively restructuring its armored formations by creating armored divisions of two midels DLM and DCr at a fast rate.

The Air Industry of both the UK and France were also producing better planes and France was buying US planes.
 

Garrison

Donor
ivanotter said:
I hear you.

However, it was exactly called 'phoney' because there was nothing happening at what was perceived as the main front = France.

Not saying that RN wasn't active. Sure, factual, a range of things did happen, but it was not perceived' as major. That is the point.

If France was not keen on playing ball, how could UK attack on any major front? impossible. If Germany did not attack in May, then what?

(yes Hitler had wanted to attack France in November 1939. It surely would have been a surprise, but for who?)

If nothing ishappening in Northern Europe for a year, it is hard to see any continuation.

It of course comes down to France. Did they want to get into it without having been attacked?
Click to expand...
Again the scenario makes not a bit of sense, Hitler is going to strike west as soon as he can. There may have been no battles being fought but both sides were urgently working to build up for the one that they knew was coming.
 

Post

I assume that with Germany not getting anything from Western Europe, being blockaded, they're going to get into issues with the supply of various stuff/ resources. In OTL they looted Western Europe to keep the economy going and the wareffort up. Now the wareffort will be less, so that may balance a bit. But the longer the Sitzkrieg stays seated, the more chance there is that they'll run into issues/shortages.
 

Garrison

Donor
Post said:
I assume that with Germany not getting anything from Western Europe, being blockaded, they're going to get into issues with the supply of various stuff/ resources. In OTL they looted Western Europe to keep the economy going and the wareffort up. Now the wareffort will be less, so that may balance a bit. But the longer the Sitzkrieg stays seated, the more chance there is that they'll run into issues/shortages.
Click to expand...
The Reichsbahn was suffering serious issues that were resolved by seizing large quantities of French rolling stock. Without that the German transport system is going to be falling apart sooner rather than later. Also at some point the RAF is going to get its act together and start bombing Germany. Overall Hitler went to war when he did precisely because he knew that British and French rearmament would soon erase what material advantages the Wehrmacht enjoyed. There is no way Hitler is simply going to let the Wehrmacht sit on its hands one second longer than necessary, Case Yellow is going to go off at the start of ay even if there isn't a fight over Narvik.
 

Derwitt

I’ve often wondered what would have happened if in September 1939 Gamlin puts his foot down with the Belgians and gives the ultimatum that France will not aid Begium if attacked unless Belgium joins the Western Alliance before the spring of 1940 and allows Allied forces free entry into Belgium to garrison the boarder with Germany. Otherwise France will sit tight behind it’s boarders which it would spend the OTL Phoney War fortifying. Either option could extend the Phoney War period.

If French and British forces where able to move into Belgium quickly over the winter there would be little the Germans could do to stop it. This would make the OtL German faint into Belgium much much more difficult as hey would be fighting good quality groups in established defensive positions. It would also make the main thrust through the Ardennes more difficult firstly as the defencive arrangements would have been ironed out between the French and Belgians in advance and secondly there is a greater likelyhood that a larger reserve could be spared as Belgium would be more secure. In either scenario it’s possible that the German Generals get colder feet than before the offensive starts than OTL and either talk Hitler to the negotiating table (albeit this is very unlikely) or they arrange an “A terrible accident or two“ until someone they can talk since into is in charge.

More likely is that the offensive would be launched on time (as other have noted the rearmament of France and Britain was starting to out pace Germany’s) but would end with Germany taking territory but failing to hit the knock out blow to France leading to the eventual defeat of Germany.
 

Crowbar Six

Garrison said:
Norway or at least Narvik was far from peripheral. It was vital to the flow of Swedish iron ore to the German steel industry. Also the notion that nothing much happened during the 'phoney war' is misleading to say the least. It was only the issues of logistics and arguments over the operational plan that delayed the German attack on France for so long. Hitler originally wanted it in November 11939, which was hopelessly unrealistic, but it was scheduled for January 1940, until other events intervened. The period between the defeat of Poland and the attack in the west was one of considerable activity, just not one involving any major battles on land, the Royal Navy and the Merchant Marine would certainly protest the idea that there was anything phoney about the war they were engaged in, so I think your basic premise is flawed.
Click to expand...
Winter 1939 was one of the coldest on record in West Europe. No one was going to fight unless they needed to.
 

Geon

Donor
As has been mentioned on several other threads, a simple fact was that Nazism, by its nature, was a warrior philosophy. Once Hitler "unleashed the dogs of war" there was no turning back. as noted by @Crowbar Six above, the winter of '39-'40 was one of the coldest on record. Not a good time to be moving armies. Hitler was fully intent on taking care of the French come the spring. He ultimately intended to invade the Soviet Union, but to do so he needed to neutralize the western Allies first. That meant invading France.

Hitler's expansionist tendencies weren't going to be sated by just taking Austria, or Czechoslovakia, or Poland, or Norway, or Denmark. He wanted France. He wanted to grind his heel into the face of the French and force them to admit he was the victor. The Phony War would have ended in Spring of '39 with the invasion of France and the Low Countries, The only way this wouldn't have happened is if there had been some sort of coup in Germany removing the Nazis from power
 

Garrison

Donor
Derwitt said:
I’ve often wondered what would have happened if in September 1939 Gamlin puts his foot down with the Belgians and gives the ultimatum that France will not aid Begium if attacked unless Belgium joins the Western Alliance before the spring of 1940 and allows Allied forces free entry into Belgium to garrison the boarder with Germany. Otherwise France will sit tight behind it’s boarders which it would spend the OTL Phoney War fortifying. Either option could extend the Phoney War period.

If French and British forces where able to move into Belgium quickly over the winter there would be little the Germans could do to stop it. This would make the OtL German faint into Belgium much much more difficult as hey would be fighting good quality groups in established defensive positions. It would also make the main thrust through the Ardennes more difficult firstly as the defencive arrangements would have been ironed out between the French and Belgians in advance and secondly there is a greater likelyhood that a larger reserve could be spared as Belgium would be more secure. In either scenario it’s possible that the German Generals get colder feet than before the offensive starts than OTL and either talk Hitler to the negotiating table (albeit this is very unlikely) or they arrange an “A terrible accident or two“ until someone they can talk since into is in charge.

More likely is that the offensive would be launched on time (as other have noted the rearmament of France and Britain was starting to out pace Germany’s) but would end with Germany taking territory but failing to hit the knock out blow to France leading to the eventual defeat of Germany.
Click to expand...
It could go the other way, the further forward the Allied forces are the more vulnerable they are to Sickle Cut and given the poor command and control of the French Army I doubt they would perform better.
 

thaddeus

Donor
prior to the invasion of France, the newspapers at the time speculated on German invasion(s) of Romania, Switzerland, and Sweden. there's some rationale for Germany to have seized control of Romania (Romanian oilfields), assume with their putative allies Hungary and USSR? (if done in the period after Poland was invaded, it would/could eclipse the Winter War?)

what if we are into 1940, Denmark and Norway have been invaded, and the Soviets then move on Finland? there might be an interesting dynamic if Germany had the Romanian oil in hand and the Allies had not yet made a serious invasion attempt?

not an expert on the details but while Germany is not ready for an invasion of the the USSR in 1940, the Soviets are not prepared for an invasion either? (and the Soviets are not in the Baltics yet either)
 

Ambusher11

thaddeus said:
prior to the invasion of France, the newspapers at the time speculated on German invasion(s) of Romania, Switzerland, and Sweden. there's some rationale for Germany to have seized control of Romania (Romanian oilfields), assume with their putative allies Hungary and USSR? (if done in the period after Poland was invaded, it would/could eclipse the Winter War?)
Click to expand...
I believe Britain and France during the Phoney War were actually planning on sending troops into Greece and Turkey if Germany (or Italy) decided to invade the Balkans. Also, Mussolini, who was already not happy with Hitler for breaking the Munich Agreement (which Italy was a party to), and for going to war with Poland and thus starting WWII in 1939 (despite promising to him in May 1939 that Germany would not go to war until at least 1942, when Italy would be ready), is definitely not going to be happy if Germany encroaches on Italy's perceived sphere of influence (In fact, Hitler stationing troops in Romania in October 1940 OTL caused Mussolini to accelerate plans to invade Greece in an attempt to assert Italian equality with Germany)
 

thaddeus

Donor
thaddeus said:
prior to the invasion of France, the newspapers at the time speculated on German invasion(s) of Romania, Switzerland, and Sweden. there's some rationale for Germany to have seized control of Romania (Romanian oilfields), assume with their putative allies Hungary and USSR? (if done in the period after Poland was invaded, it would/could eclipse the Winter War?)

what if we are into 1940, Denmark and Norway have been invaded, and the Soviets then move on Finland? there might be an interesting dynamic if Germany had the Romanian oil in hand and the Allies had not yet made a serious invasion attempt?

not an expert on the details but while Germany is not ready for an invasion of the the USSR in 1940, the Soviets are not prepared for an invasion either? (and the Soviets are not in the Baltics yet either)
Click to expand...

Ambusher11 said:
I believe Britain and France during the Phoney War were actually planning on sending troops into Greece and Turkey if Germany (or Italy) decided to invade the Balkans. Also, Mussolini, who was already not happy with Hitler for breaking the Munich Agreement (which Italy was a party to), and for going to war with Poland and thus starting WWII in 1939 (despite promising to him in May 1939 that Germany would not go to war until at least 1942, when Italy would be ready), is definitely not going to be happy if Germany encroaches on Italy's perceived sphere of influence (In fact, Hitler stationing troops in Romania in October 1940 OTL caused Mussolini to accelerate plans to invade Greece in an attempt to assert Italian equality with Germany)
Click to expand...

my speculation was for events to cause an Eastern War but you are outlining a more likely scenario, Operation Pike has already been mentioned and recall that was only discovered during the German invasion of France? (and of course was preempted by the invasion of France, thus it is more likely though far from guaranteed to happen)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top