"What if Napoleon had command of the French forces in 1940?" Topic

As this theme keeps cropping up on the Discussion Board…so, what would have happened if Napoleon I had commanded the French forces during the Battle for France 1940?

He would have advanced rapidly into Belgium, defeated the Germans at Ligny then been defeated south of Brussels by his perfidious British allies.

Setting aside all my usual sarcasm about such things--in 1940, possibly not much. He needed the sort of unit training and quick responses the French army of that year wasn't up to. In 1939, he might have been more interesting. Hard to imagine Napoleon not attacking in the fall of 1939, or deciding it was too cold to train in the winter of 39-40. (It certainly wasn't too cold for the Germans to train, but the French keep trotting out the excuse.)

Earlier still, he might have built a different army. But then again, so might some of the French generals who were still alive in the Interwar period. Does General Bonaparte have to bow to the popular will, or does the Emperor Napoleon do as he pleases? (Which takes us back to the problem of removing a commander from his historical context.)

By 1940, he would have been too old for active campaigning. Stalin, on the other hand ..

I am going out on a limb and saying that a Napoleon probably would have done better against the Germans in 1940.

The usual knock on the French in 1940 was that they were prepared to refight 1918. I think the truth is they really weren't prepared to fight period. French commanders in 1918 understood it wasn't defense that won the war. It was bringing overwhelming resources to play. In 1918 the Entente had superiority in men, in artillery, in tanks, in air power and in food. They had adequate amounts of amunition and equipment on hand and had well trained troops. In 1940 which of these was true. I cannot see Napoleon allowing France to be in a situation where at best they were on parity with a reviving Germany. Even if it would have meant wrecking the French economy.

Well if he was around in 1940, then he would have been around in 1929. In 1929 he could have sacked André Maginot. Thus stopping the financially crippling, waste of resources and manpower that was the Maginot Line. Napoleon was very perceptive and would have undoubtedly made maximum use of the 20th Century version of Rock, Paper, Scissors, (Mobile Inf, Armor and Air Power).

Thank you all for the contributions. I think that possibly you are all saying that the French in 1940 lacked nothing but decisive leadership…

It is just possible that this joke has run it's course, and I shall resist the temptations to ask 'if Joachim Murat had commanded the Rohirrim at the Battle of Pelennor Fields'…

I'd go as far as "decisive and intelligent." Decisive by itself isn't enough. Every now and then an army is gifted with a general who gives clear, straightforward orders but who really does not grasp the situation. The results aren't pretty.

When was all the materiel ordered from the US due to arrive?

(subsequently sent en masse to USSR)

He would have attacked in the Ruhr with deep tank strikes to put off balance the Germans busy in Poland. Then, with infantry, he would have occupied as much territories as he could to obtain a favorable ground for negotiations. He would have probably used his air force to ground the German one and the fleet to asphyxiate German's economy and possibly set up an front somewhere in the north.

France had a few chances to play on equal terms with Germany or at the very least seriously hamper their plans. It lacked mostly strategic leadership which Napoleon could have provided amply.

He may have well done better than the French leadership at the time.

One question is did he go through the Great War and thus have been affected by that experience? Would anyone have listened or followed him or would he have been another de Gaulle?

Would attacks in column have worked?

The Germans would have been beaten.

Just look at Napoleon's 1796 campaign in Italy. He was given command of an army that lacked food, uniforms, pay, organisation, morale, basically everything. Yet within weeks he had run rings around a numerically superior enemy.

Just think what that same young General could have achieved with the French army of 1939/1940…

If his lifespan had been the same, then he'd never have made general in the French army of 1940. He'd not have lived long enough. He would have made maybe major at best.

If he were in command in 1940 the average age of the French high command would skew a couple years younger.