Nazi unilateral ceasefire after the fall of France

[ivanotter]

It hinges on one simple thing, I believe: German treatment of France (and also US not getting involved).

It is quite difficult for UK to invade Germany if France is not in on the act.

Let us assume that Hitler reads the situation as follows:

1) Create a prosperous Western Europe, able to feed and produce in quantity for the coming showdown in the East (I think it is fair to say that Hitler did not necessarily want a war in the West. The main occupation was Russia).

2) Isolate UK

3) Persuade US to stay on their side of the pond

If these were the aims, then the strategies could be:

1) Offer France a decent peace treaty and persuade France to be an equal partner in a New Europe
2) Italy not attacking France, but becoming a partner in New Europe
3) Leave Holland and Belgium

This will in essence be European Union 1940.

Keeping France and Italy neutral will isolate UK. The Med cannot be used by the UK.

Bombing of Germany cannot take place as the bombers will violate France airspace.

UK cannot be invading Italy as Italy will be neutral.

... But it will entail that Hitler is not Hitler and the Nazis are not Nazis.

On the bomb: When De Gaule told Britain that they could not be members of EEC, Britain did not hurl a bomb at Paris.

So, if EU is a reality in 1940 and the war is a fizzle, how will UK then suddenly start again five years later? Especially if US is not a part of it.

Ivan

 

[jsb]

....
So, if EU is a reality in 1940 and the war is a fizzle, how will UK then suddenly start again five years later? Especially if US is not a part of it.

We are talking about Nazi Germany they will start something GB will simply join in to help USSR/the next victim... or a rebelion in non-occupied Europe ?

GB will have time and the world resources to build up for the coming war, cold war style without the BoA and the Med they are in a much stronger position.

 

[ivanotter]

That is what I said: It requires Hitler is not Hitler and the Nazis not Nazis.

All of that said, IF Hitler manage to create a buffer of neutral countries around Germany, it gets very difficult to do anything.

No BoA and no BoB will obviously be good for UK, but equally so for Germany.

... and the Med where France, Italy and maybe even Greece are neutral will prevent any offensives from UK. They can't quite get to grips with Germany then.

My big idea is that the war will be a fizzle. Trade and co-existence will somehow develop over a period of say 5-10 years. No way that a new war will break out because of the old one. Maybe something else can be found.

Also remember that the Coal and Steel union was a mechanism to tie France, Germany and Italy together in a net of economic relationships which ultimately would prevent another European war.

... and that is exactly what happened.

Barbarossa in 1941? ultimately yes. But here is the catch: if it can be turned into a crusade against communism, and Germany is not waging war against UK (unilateral ceasefire) it is hard to see what UK can do.

Maybe there would not even be any support for an alliance with USSR. After all, Churchill was one of the best interventionists after the Russian revolution. Churchill was not particular fond of communism at all.

Stranger things than this has probably happened in world politics (and cricket!).

Who would have thought the MR-pact in 1939 when looking at the world in 1938!

Ivan

 

[MattII]

In France gets invaded, they aren't going to give up until they've forced Germany into surrender. Oh they may get a Vichy government for a while, but the French aren't a people who go "oh yeah, you invaded and killed thousands, but hey, that's okay, we don't mind".

 

[King Augeas]

1) Create a prosperous Western Europe, able to feed and produce in quantity for the coming showdown in the East.

Keeping France and Italy neutral will isolate UK. The Med cannot be used by the UK.

Why would a neutral France/Italy close the Med?

Also, I don't think Europe can feed itself under blockade, so point 1 works only with Stalin's permission. Your EU becomes a Soviet economic dependency.

 

[marathag]

Why would a neutral France/Italy close the Med?

Also, I don't think Europe can feed itself under blockade, so point 1 works only with Stalin's permission. Your EU becomes a Soviet economic dependency.

USA didn't cut ties with Vichy till the Germans occupied it.

If it could be paid for, the USA and the rest of Latin America would sell food

Or you planning for the Royal Navy to strike Neutral shipping?

 

[marathag]

In France gets invaded, they aren't going to give up until they've forced Germany into surrender. Oh they may get a Vichy government for a while, but the French aren't a people who go "oh yeah, you invaded and killed thousands, but hey, that's okay, we don't mind".

Most in Vichy did exactly that, at first.

 

[ivanotter]

I don't think 'close the Med' is really the right expression I was looking for.

Even if RN is happily sailing along in the Med, how will they get to grips with Germany if Germany is shielded by neutral countries? France, Italy and Greece as it is.

I admit that this might not be two directly comparable situations, but let us look at it anyway:

1945: Germany flattened and everybody in Germany knew they had been defeated - in spades.
1950: former enemy France proposes a get-together and includes Italy.
1951: ESCU a reality.

Facts
1940: Fall of France.
- 90,00 dead
- Infra-structure by and large intact (not as flattened as Germany 1945 at least)
- 2 million POW's
- RN killing French navy

What IF:
1941:
- POW's back at home
- ECSU proposed
- French elections - motto: no more wars. ECSU can make it happen. UK killed our people
- ECSU a reality. France an equal partner

Why not?

Soooo, if Germany should offer France a decent peace treaty and including them as equal partner in a New Europe (proto-EU), I am terrible convinced that it could work.

Is it out of the question? I don't think so.

If it is unilateral ceasefire, why would US get involved?

US selling to a Europe which is not threatening the UK: why not? Selling to France? why not?

US might also get more interested in the Pacific.

I don't know how universally liked Churchill was in the US in the early years (1939/40 and especially after May 1940). It does come across as though FDR tolerated him more than listened to him (based on the book Alliance by Fenby).

Joe Kennedy was not in favour of anything British and might have had a better hand to play with FDR if the war was a fizzle.

I am not sure that Europe in 1940 could not feed itself. That needs to be looked at in terms of some data, which I don't have at hand.

The 'smart' move is to exclude UK in a proto-EU.

Napoleon's Continental System might just work in 1940.

Ivan

 

[MattII]

Most in Vichy did exactly that, at first.

For about 5 minutes.

Even if RN is happily sailing along in the Med, how will they get to grips with Germany if Germany is shielded by neutral countries? France, Italy and Greece as it is.

This all assumes Benny didn't stick his nose into France as per OTL.

- ECSU proposed

Signing a peace deal with Germany? France is immediately paralysed by strikes.

- French elections - motto: no more wars. ECSU can make it happen. UK killed our people

You don't get a Mers-el-Kebir attack if Hitler immediately pulls back, which is what you're proposing.

Soooo, if Germany should offer France a decent peace treaty and including them as equal partner in a New Europe (proto-EU), I am terrible convinced that it could work.

Is it out of the question? I don't think so.

Hitler is Hitler, the Nazis are Nazis, and until you get rid of them, this isn't possible.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

What IF:
1941:
- POW's back at home
- ECSU proposed
- French elections - motto: no more wars. ECSU can make it happen. UK killed our people
- ECSU a reality. France an equal partner

A post war style ECSU runs directly counter to nazi mentality. Theyed have to fall on their heads & become not nazis. It also runs against the core policy of making Germany the dominant economic power.

On the French side Petains government represented the business leaders & others who were firmly in the imperial stand alone model. They had more than enough of free markets within Europe.

To make a ECSU system work you have to get rid of two national governments & remove the power of their core supporters who see no advantage to such a system.

Napoleon's Continental System might just work in 1940.

Not under nazi guidance. That crowds economic competence extended to understanding fraudulent book keeping, extortion, bribery, theft. The idiealists among the nazi party were living in 'cloud cuckoo land' the rest were busy creating a kleptocracy. They had no understanding of how such a system would work, or why they might benefit from it.

The political leadership in Europe of 1940 was in two groups, conservative business oriented, with a preference for protectionist policies, and a spectrum of socialist oriented leaders. Free market believers & internationalists had been in decline in the governments & were largely confined to academic venues. The socialist-communits spectrum of leaders had a different vision of international economic cooperation. 1945-1950 Europe was largely a ruin & Soviet domination of half or it forced the centerist & conservative leaders of western Europe to accept their old economic model of Imperial mechantililst autarky was not viable. It took the complete physical & economic ruin of Europe & a decade to bring them to that point. From that point it took another decade to firmly get the system in place, several key nations tried to avoid it, and it was aided by massive capitol flow back from the US. In 1940 Europes finance system was in disarray requiring more than a few meetings or months to rebuild, and the US banks were not yet in a position to direct large scale investments to Europe.

Bottom line here is the creation of a ECSU or Napoleonic Continental System in 1940-42 had severe obstacles. Speculation on its effects is at the extreme end of the scale in academic or abstract exercise.

 

[Gudestein]

A quick review recalls the following items: After the cease fire with France Hitler thought he had a unilateral cease fire. While there was some skirmishing for the next few weeks of June & early July he was in his mind holding back. This is coupled with the Reichtag speech where he made the vague allusion to peace with the former Allies, and the low level diplomatic contact made via Sweden. Those two incidents are very vague & were not interpreted as actual peace offers by the Brits. However Hitler did not think like a Brit. In his mind the victor received peace offers from the losers. He seems to have expected Britain & Co to come to him with their proposals, as did France & Belgium in May & June. My guess is he was waiting for the Brits to come shuffling up with bowed heads begging for terms. When he got Churchills fiery speeches he decided to punish them further with more military defeat & a invasion.

The other Nazi leaders made no move AFAIK to push Hitler to further peace overtures. So, while a extended stand down is possible, as folks here no doubt understand a German or Hitler peace offer is near ASB. Just against the mentality of the Nazi leaders. Still interesting to speculate on what might have happened had they gone against character

Your comments Seem to highlight the core. He wanted a peacefire from the British. Churchill hang out by saying that peace terms would be horrific now and would be better later.
Thus, any opening from the British could have made it happen. The pod does not have to be German

 

[ivanotter]

If Italy should also invade France, the project is 'dead as a doughnut'.

As fascinating as this What If is, I will accept defeat.

There are simply too many things preventing it. Hitler not Hitler, Nazis not Nazis, etc etc.

It seems again to be one of these things in world history which cannot be changed never mind how hard we try.

So, the theory that the formation of the ECSU had some similarities with a hypothetical situation in 1940 cannot be justified. Well then.

Ivan

PS: still wonder how it could come to pass, though.

 

[hipper]

This was the actual peace offer that Hess gave to the British after his solo flight to Scotland in 1941, they were less than impressed.

I'd love to see some evidence for that peace offer

 

[Mike D]

A Nazi dominated continent is simply not acceptable to the British.

England/Britain/UK have had the same policy towards the mainland since the 1600 or 1700s - support the second strongest power to prevent the first strongest every being in a position to threaten us.

 

[FickleCrossroad]

Even a Germany that retreated to 1918 borders + Austria & Sudentenland (but perhaps minus Alcase & Lorraine for sake of the treaty), is still a Germany which signed at Munich. You're basically looking for Or Elser Succeeds, and that POD was during the Phoney War, not after the fall of France. The only way this works is if Hitler is suddenly no longer among the living.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

If Italy should also invade France, the project is 'dead as a doughnut'.

As fascinating as this What If is, I will accept defeat.

There are simply too many things preventing it. Hitler not Hitler, Nazis not Nazis, etc etc.

It seems again to be one of these things in world history which cannot be changed never mind how hard we try.

So, the theory that the formation of the ECSU had some similarities with a hypothetical situation in 1940 cannot be justified. Well then.

Ivan

PS: still wonder how it could come to pass, though.

Ivan. Here is your POD.

The only way this works is if Hitler is suddenly no longer among the living.

Hitler, & perhaps another nazi leader dies in a accident or something in the summer of 1940. The other nazis do not move swiftly enough & the Army manages to pull off a coup. With the worst of the German leaders out of the way then Germany can back off and put out rational peace feelers. The new leaders can spin this to the public as the conclusion of the glorious German victory. Petain certainly wanted a peace treaty, so did the Belgians & Italians. It will take longer to coax the British & their exiled client governments but as autum and winter progress something can be worked out. The new German leaders have every incentive to negotiate as the nazi policies have left them with a rotten mess economically, politically, and socially. They need a peace as much as any of the others so the problems can be fully addressed.

 

[thaddeus]

could peace treaty be concluded with France leaving (at VERY least) Alsace in German hands?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Alsace seems trivial compared to redividing Poland yet again.

...and, what happens to the Jews that were inside the 'Reich'? Are they handed back their property?

 

[TFSmith121]

There is the "Peace of Amiens" option...

I don't know if this has been asked before so I apologise in advance if I am wasting time.

It has occurred to me that after the fall of France it may have been possible for Germany to cease combat action against the British Empire.

Would the British have been prepared to make attacks on the European mainland if Nazi Germany declared a unilateral ceasefire, or would the war have just fizzled out?.

There is the "Peace of Amiens" option... aka, a "strategic pause."

Certainly not unprecedented in terms of British strategy as a response to a (temporarily) successful contiinental rival.

Best,

 

[thaddeus]

could peace treaty be concluded with France leaving (at VERY least) Alsace in German hands?

Alsace seems trivial compared to redividing Poland yet again.

...and, what happens to the Jews that were inside the 'Reich'? Are they handed back their property?

sorry, do not understand your reply. what I meant to ask was there any basis for a peace treaty between Germany and Vichy France, leaving aside British stance? or was the delay in reaching (or attempt to reach) a peace treaty due in part or whole simply because of territorial issues that could never be resolved?

in my (maybe simple minded) view since the U.S. dealt with Vichy regime that was the important agreement to conclude, and that French would agree to deal that reduced their occupation cost, retained their empire , and moved the government back to Paris?