Was there any possibility that the Western Allies could have prevented the Fall of France and the Low Countries in 1940? Or at the very least held on to a sliver of mainland Europe by forcing the Germans into a stalemate?
If so, what would've been the impact later in the war assuming Hitler still invades the Soviet Union and the U.S. joins the war in 1941?
There was a decent chance at a successful capture of the Ruhr area if Britain and France went all in when Germany was invading Poland. Then the front freezes, and we get strategic bombing of Germany, more complicated diplomacy with the Soviets and Italy (who could end up on either side), and Germany is slowly worn down.
But for that to happen, you'd need to get the Allies to gear up for War '39 instead of War '42. Remember, even Germany wasn't gearing up for War '39.
I think a more realistic scenario than the decidedly anti-war and/or reactive rather than proactive allies actively attacking Germany while it was busy in Poland is a much simpler and I think much more plausible successful defense during the Battle of France.
Going through the Ardennes was incredibly risky and at times the Germans had miles long traffic jams on the handful of roads through the area (as in single digits of roads, like half a dozen or something at times).
Should that advance be spotted earlier and more importantly this intelligence acted upon, the war would be over, I think. Germans lose the advantage of surprise, of cutting off the allied vanguard, and suddenly the war turns out the way the allies wanted to, with a slugfest in Belgium.
>>1408336
If we imagine the Front is on the Rhine, what would that imply for the rest of the war?
The strategic bombing is still happening. It didn't start 'by mistake' when a German bomber accidentally dropped it's bombs on East London after missing a military target in order to make it home; it was planned before the war by everyone. And everyone during the war invested in it, especially the WAllies.
>>1408299
Simple. Just get a small diplomatic coup, convince Belgium that Germany's going to attack sometime in the winter of 39-40
Now, instead of an ad-hoc advance into the Low Countries, you have a well fortified setup behind the Maas and Dyle rivers by the time the weather clears, a shorter line to boot, and enough time to notice the obvious flaw in the historic line around the Ardennes.
>>1408299
>Was there any possibility that the Western Allies could have prevented the Fall of France and the Low Countries in 1940?
France and Britian should've attacked the moment Germany remilitarized the Rhineland with their -then- pitiful army. Some Nazi officers in Nuremberg confessed that a French attack was their biggest fear and would've ruined everything.
>>1408320
This
>>1408336
>Going through the Ardennes was incredibly risky and at times the Germans had miles long traffic jams on the handful of roads through the area
I imagine Bomber Harris and the RAF could've stopped or at least slowed the Germans down if they had been turned loose over French airspace the moment the first tanks started rolling into it.
not much really
Case White was in all honestly an incredibly risky plan, and yet the Germans pulled it off
The German advances in early ww2 can be put down to superior training, mass armament and better technology (early on that is) but risk taking is such an under appreciated aspect
>>1409221
Harris wasn't even in command by that point, and the RAF was shit at tactical bombing, which is why the squadrons that did try to do something accomplished little and suffered huge losses
>>1408473
Belgium actually captured German plans detailing their attack on the Low Countries and did nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechelen_incident
