How would you defend France?
Would you adopt an aggressive, forward defense as did Gamelin with his Dyle Plan, trying to launch an advance into Belgium simultaneous with the Germans?
Or would you dig in along the frontier or some river, and try to concentrate your reserves for counter-attack?
How would you keep the BEF's Channel Ports out of range of German fighters (i.e. so bombers would be mostly unescorted)? How would you protect your key rail junctions in northern France? How would you prevent the Germans from obtaining submarine bases in the Low Countries? These were all considerations behind the Dyle Plan, so any alternative should take them into account as well.
Note that I'm asking this question as it existed in 1940. I would prefer to avoid in this thread much speculation on alternative French defense or foreign policies prior to that time, and concentrate on the operational possibilities as they existed during that fateful spring.
Now I think a forward defense was the wrong strategy, simply on general principles. It forsook the advantages of both the offensive and the defensive. It left the timing of the battle and the main thrust of the battle in the enemy's hands, while at the same time moving the Allied armies further from their logistical base and onto unprepared, indeed unreconnoitred, ground. It sent the larger part of the Allied armies into motion before the main thrust of the enemy could be recognized. The Allies forsook many of their lateral roads and railways and chose to operate on exterior lines.
World War Two featured a number of forward defense fiascoes, such as the USSR's war plan in 1941, Britain's in Malaya in 1942, or Rommel's in France in 1944. But none of these were quite as decisive in shaping the whole future of the war, and perhaps of the world, as the French defeat of May 1940.
Why did Gamelin choose to stake it all on a gamble, on a plan in its way even more aggressive and risky than Plan XVII in the previous war?
And why does Gamelin have a reputation in history for being passive, when in fact his strategy was reckless beyond anything conceivable by his mentor Foch?
Would you adopt an aggressive, forward defense as did Gamelin with his Dyle Plan, trying to launch an advance into Belgium simultaneous with the Germans?
Or would you dig in along the frontier or some river, and try to concentrate your reserves for counter-attack?
How would you keep the BEF's Channel Ports out of range of German fighters (i.e. so bombers would be mostly unescorted)? How would you protect your key rail junctions in northern France? How would you prevent the Germans from obtaining submarine bases in the Low Countries? These were all considerations behind the Dyle Plan, so any alternative should take them into account as well.
Note that I'm asking this question as it existed in 1940. I would prefer to avoid in this thread much speculation on alternative French defense or foreign policies prior to that time, and concentrate on the operational possibilities as they existed during that fateful spring.
Now I think a forward defense was the wrong strategy, simply on general principles. It forsook the advantages of both the offensive and the defensive. It left the timing of the battle and the main thrust of the battle in the enemy's hands, while at the same time moving the Allied armies further from their logistical base and onto unprepared, indeed unreconnoitred, ground. It sent the larger part of the Allied armies into motion before the main thrust of the enemy could be recognized. The Allies forsook many of their lateral roads and railways and chose to operate on exterior lines.
World War Two featured a number of forward defense fiascoes, such as the USSR's war plan in 1941, Britain's in Malaya in 1942, or Rommel's in France in 1944. But none of these were quite as decisive in shaping the whole future of the war, and perhaps of the world, as the French defeat of May 1940.
Why did Gamelin choose to stake it all on a gamble, on a plan in its way even more aggressive and risky than Plan XVII in the previous war?
And why does Gamelin have a reputation in history for being passive, when in fact his strategy was reckless beyond anything conceivable by his mentor Foch?
Comment