AHC: Germany and France allied in WWII

I have some sort of idea or scenario in my mind, which I'll describe below. Your challenge is to make it plausible with a POD after 1900.

After World War I, Germany gets a less harsh peace. Alsace-Lorraine is lost, as well as Posen and the Polish corridor, but Danzig and Upper Silesia remain German. Austria-Hungary is detroyed, but less harshly as in OTL. Hungary can keep Crisana and some other areas with a Hungarian majority, like OTL's southern Slovakia and a part of Banat. Slovakia is created too, but has less land in the south and gets Carpathian Ruthenia too. Hence, the country is called Slovako-Carpathia (or, informally, Slovakia-Ruthenia). Czechoslovakia is never formed. Bohemia and Moravia become separate countries. Czech Silesia is given to Germany and the very south of Bohemia and Moravia is partly given to Austria. Burgenland is Hungarian territory and Galicia is Polish. Lithuania, Courland, Livonia, Latvia and Estonia are created and are expanded eastwards a bit. Lithuania is expanded southwards too. However, that territory is only de jure possessed, as the Soviets occupy it since they haven't signed the peace treaty. Belarus is created but immediately occupied by the Soviet Union. The Balkans are an unstable region with Serbia, Slovenia (also called Carniola), Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, the free cities of Trieste and Ragusa, both under Italian adiminstration, Bulgaria (only the north; without eastern Rumelia), the Romanian Federation, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia (the entire region), Albania (with southern Epirus), Greece (without southern Epirus and Macedonia, but with the area around Smyrna, all islands in the Aegean Sea, the Ionian Islands, the peninsula of Chalkidiki, Thessaly and the Gallipoli peninsula) and Turkey (the Ottomans have lost Hejaz, Armenia, Kurdistan and parts of Mesopotamia, but still have the north of Levant, while having lost Syria, partly, and Judea and Palestine, but they still have Thrace and eastern Rumelia). And the Sinai is jointly administered by Turkey and Egypt, which is now independent and possesses Sudan and Nubia, but not OTL's South Sudan, which is British Nuer. I won't explain all changes in Africa, that's something you can create, imagine or whatever yourself.

Anyway, the peace is different after World War I and France experiences a radical change in government towards national-socialism, just like Germany. France, Germany and Austria become allied countries. National-socialism rises earlier than OTL and after a couple of years, Germany (after Hitler having gained power, though not as autocratic as OTL) argues in a League of Nations conference that there should be a plebiscite on whether areas with german majority in the Polish corridor should become German. A crisis erupts over this question and tempers get very frayed between Britain (plus its dominions) and the US on the one side, and the fascists on the other. Italy, by the way, is not fascist and is almost Switzerland-like peaceful, democratic, neutral and isolationist. When a solution is almost found, unrest starts in German Upper Silesia where Poles are in majority. Similarly, there is afeeling that problems are going to arise in German majority areas in Poland, Slovenia and the Czech nations. World War II eventually starts, when Hitler doesn't do what he has promised - he invades the Polish corridor right away and the rest of Poland is invaded shortly thereafter. Britain and the US immediately declare war on Germany and its allies. Hitler's aim is to expand Germany eastwards (Poland and the Baltic, and possibly even Ukraine, Crimea and further into the Soviet Union) and he wants to re-create the Austrian Empire and the French Empire. Spain and Portugal join the allies when the Facist Axis (France in this case) invades the Iberian peninsula.

Anyway, World War II goes on and on... But then Hitler dies in combat. A more moderate leader takes over power. A stalemate is formed. the war comes to an end when the Allies finally defeat the Fascist Axis after a succesful attack simultaneously in Britanny and northern Germany.

What I 'want' to happen after the end of World War II, is another war, World War III, in which the Allies overthrow communism in the Soviet Union. A democratic Russia is established. I also need a POD and background behind this.

And maybe, but that's just a random idea, there could also be a World War IV. The fascists flee to South America and set up fascist dictatorships there. The people in South America don't manage to overthrow those autocratic goverments, so the Allies intervene in the situation.

What do you think? And what could be a post-1900 POD?
 
So that the US declares war together with England in the beginning of WWII, the US has to leave their isolation behind and have to have strong interests in Europe. Maybe the US decides to intervene more in Europe after WWI to establish a stable political situation to avoid another Great War.
If this decisions are somewhat pro-England and contra-France England could ally with the US and the Entente is dissolved by France as it feels betrayed.
Maybe freedom for the european colonies. England avoids this with the establishment of more dominions, France was against this and refused to release its colonies, cooling the relationship with England and the US.

Maybe the POD could be that the US participate strongly in the League of Nations and tries to enforce its decisions onto other nations. Also brand nations, refusing to participate in the civilized and democratic organization the League is, as possible warmongers that are against sustained peace and freedom.
 
Perhaps if Communism was seen as great of a threat in France as it was in Germany and possibly even terrorist attacks done by Communists. France and Germany might Ally against the USSR. Even one can add in aiding Finland as a possibility.
 
...

Anyway, the peace is different after World War I and France experiences a radical change in government towards national-socialism, just like Germany. France, Germany and Austria become allied countries.
Why? How?

These statements are totally unbelievable/implausible, and thus screws over the entire premise.

National Socialism, at least Hitlers National Socialism was a totally fringe ideology that was particular to Germany in the 1930s following the American depression that kicked Weinmar Germany back into a period of instability at the end of the 1920s at a time when Hitlers fiery rhetoric was entering the political sense, there was no (true) other precedent in any other nation for this type of political ideology without Hitler at this time.


If instead we are looking at fascist political structures like those Mussolini advocated then there is a better precedent for many different nations at the time, from Greece, to several of the Balkan nations, and like we saw in our timeline even Spain and Portugal.

As to if France could ever become a fascist power during the era, it is fairly weak. Unlike Germany and Italy France didn't really have any of 'need to restore our empire' rhetoric that Germany had with overthrowing Versailles, Italy rebuilding the Roman Empire or Austria and Hungary looking to restore their personal prestige in central Europe.

Thus the necessary militarism message within fascism simply cannot apply to France. Even if images of Napoleon are used the parallels to the German Kaiser and French distrust of dictators and politicians in general for the era would run totally counter-culture to the French Republican ideals.

...and that's a second point. As one of the key birth places of the republican movement during the age of the enlightenment, it would be fairly difficult to throw out that heritage without evoking massive issues within the judiciary and French legal heritage, even if there is a march on Paris.


On the otherhand there was distension within France, and a strong conservative attitude that would run through the majority of the nation that extreme-right wing parties could take hold of and use. But these are equally balanced during hte era of the urban left-wing radicals within France following the Great War and ripples from the Russian Revolution.

Enough for a Civil War or heavy political instability?

Possibly at a push, but just as improbable as Britain turning into a Stalinist dictatorship in the era. There is more precent for France to go Socialist, rather than Nationalist during this era.


Then let's look at the laughable notion of a Franco-Germanic Alliance.

Really, are you going trust the robber who just kicked down your door, killed your wife and son, trashed your house, then walked out still singing about an 'honourable conflict' and all the recompense you got was the police and a piece of paper forcing the robber to pay you back money.

Basically Germany was Frances worst enemy and even with Versailles wasn't hard enough on Germany for many. There is very little you could ever do to help France and Germany to bury the hatchet unless Britain or America is threatening them both, and even then the French are hardly going to trust the Germans given their historical actions.

The likelihood of a Franco-German alliance is low without a strong external threat, of which Britain might be the only real credible threat, but how are you going to achieve that...? Britian having fought with the French during the Great War was Frances best ally, and Weinmar Germany had some thanks to Britain for not allowing the French hard liners from making Versailles a complete dismantlement of the Germanic Nation.

Basically if you want a Franco-Germanic Alliance you are going to need a pre-1900 POD.


If we are talking about threatening France out of a conflict over Poland in 1939 along an OTL timeline, then that's a different issue.


... (after Hitler having gained power, though not as autocratic as OTL) argues in a League of Nations conference that there should be a plebiscite on whether areas with german majority in the Polish corridor should become German. A crisis erupts over this question and tempers get very frayed between Britain (plus its dominions) and the US on the one side, and the fascists on the other. Italy, by the way, is not fascist and is almost Switzerland-like peaceful, democratic, neutral and isolationist.
Pur-leasse, the only way Hitler’s national socialists got into power was by forcing the Reichstags and Chancellors hand through political pressuring.

Then what the f*ck happened to make Italy 'Switzerland like'? It's not like Italy could rely on historical neutrality since Catholicism and centuries of political alliance left it heavily ingrained within the European political system, even as a fairly new world nation. Italy was a colonial power, and hence could never be able to pursue a policy of armed deterrence.

Likewise there was huge disparity across Italy, the rich northern provinces, compared to the south would make it hard for equality or social stability to become prevalent in such a short timeframe.

You might butterfly away Mussolini from the picture, but it's not going to change Italys world position, particularly after it got slighted in the fallout of the Great War by the other world powers.

Again no mechanism is suggested for these divergences.


When a solution is almost found, unrest starts in German Upper Silesia where Poles are in majority. Similarly, there is afeeling that problems are going to arise in German majority areas in Poland, Slovenia and the Czech nations. World War II eventually starts, when Hitler doesn't do what he has promised - he invades the Polish corridor right away and the rest of Poland is invaded shortly thereafter. Britain and the US immediately declare war on Germany and its allies. Hitler's aim is to expand Germany eastwards (Poland and the Baltic, and possibly even Ukraine, Crimea and further into the Soviet Union) and he wants to re-create the Austrian Empire and the French Empire. Spain and Portugal join the allies when the Facist Axis (France in this case) invades the Iberian peninsula.
Hang on, didn't you basically balkanise parts of central bohemia/europe? So no only did you totally change the historical map of Europe with no rationale, you then expect events to have unfolded that almost totally mirror our timeline...?

There is a phrase about having cake, and eating it as well, that comes to mind.

Anyway, World War II goes on and on... But then Hitler dies in combat. A more moderate leader takes over power. A stalemate is formed. the war comes to an end when the Allies finally defeat the Fascist Axis after a successful attack simultaneously in Britanny and northern Germany.
So Hitler, your top politician and statesman (who was also a bit of a coward in some accounts) is fighting on the front-line...???

If most of continental Europe was in a bulk alliance, then the Allies; A) Would not exist, it would just be Britain standing on her own. B) No power (other than possibly Russia) would be able to stand opposed to the Continent in a position to force them into surrender.

Even if all French, Spanish and other colonial holdings were taken by Britain and America, those nations know that they can never truly be threatened on land on the continent, and long term Britain is in the weaker position to get bombarded from the air and/or being invaded.

No, if it's a showdown between Continental Europe and the British Empire, Continental Europe will likely win in the long run.


What I 'want' to happen after the end of World War II, is another war, World War III, in which the Allies overthrow communism in the Soviet Union. A democratic Russia is established. I also need a POD and background behind this.
That's fairly simple. Our timeline, but Britain and the Allies stick up for Poland when the Soviets Invade as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty.

Hence France, and Britain declare war on the Soviet Union too. Imperial Japan in this scenario would certainly canvass Britain into re-signing the Anglo-Japanese Alliance and join the conflict with the Soviets, possibly unilaterally. Britain would not like this, particularly given German-Japanese relations and the fact that Japan would/may have acted unilaterally to attack the Soviets, then expect Britain to bail them out simply because of a common enemy.

On the otherhand, Britain may likely use the Japanese like a diversion and demur to the Americans to support the Japanese war effort, which the Americans may support if they can get the Japanese to pull out of China in return (which if the Japanese are loosing in Manchuria fairly likely, they will accept out of pragmatism).


France would likely unexpectedly fall to the German blitzkrieg like in our timeline, and Hitler might be even more excited about attacking the Soviets given that the Allies are also at war with them.

While the chance of an Anglo-German armistice and reinstatement of France might be on the table at some point for Britain so that Britain can join Germany in attacking the Soviets, it would likely fail for the fact that it basically undermined the principle of the conflict, and so Britain would not accept.

Without Allied lend-lease the Soviets may take another year or more to regain the initiative in the east, by which time the Allies have still opened up the second front with American support.

With the war possibly over for Germany, a peace may be signed without having to fully occupy Germany, and hence 'Operation Unthinkable type scenarios' may occur, on the otherhand, perhaps Stalin, having been made a Pariah, and having lost Manchuria, Kamchatka and China, might call it quits and accept a peace that returns Poland to its pre-conflict position.

As for the dissolution of the Soviet system, that depends on internal Russian politics. Possibly Stalin get's overthrown within the Communist party and we see a retune of Leninist left-wing politics or a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as a 'extreme left-wing 'quesdo-democracy'' that evolves a bit like Chinese lines...but who knows...
 
Last edited:
Why? How?

These statements are totally unbelievable/implausible, and thus screws over the entire premise.
Sorry :eek: That's why I asked if anyone would be able to transform it to a somewhat plausible idea.

National Socialism, at least Hitlers National Socialism was a totally fringe ideology that was particular to Germany in the 1930s following the American depression that kicked Weinmar Germany back into a period of instability at the end of the 1920s at a time when Hitlers fiery rhetoric was entering the political sense, there was no (true) other precedent in any other nation for this type of political ideology without Hitler at this time.
I know, that's basically what I learned two semesters ago.


If instead we are looking at fascist political structures like those Mussolini advocated then there is a better precedent for many different nations at the time, from Greece, to several of the Balkan nations, and like we saw in our timeline even Spain and Portugal.
Okay.

As to if France could ever become a fascist power during the era, it is fairly weak. Unlike Germany and Italy France didn't really have any of 'need to restore our empire' rhetoric that Germany had with overthrowing Versailles, Italy rebuilding the Roman Empire or Austria and Hungary looking to restore their personal prestige in central Europe.
Is there a way to make them want to restore Napoleon's Empire? I guess that's too implausible with a post-1900 POD, right? Is there any other POD that could make it less unbelievable?

Thus the necessary militarism message within fascism simply cannot apply to France. Even if images of Napoleon are used the parallels to the German Kaiser and French distrust of dictators and politicians in general for the era would run totally counter-culture to the French Republican ideals.
Hmm, that's what I thought. Anyone an idea to actually make this posible, or at least transform the scenario so that it's a little bit possible?

...and that's a second point. As one of the key birth places of the republican movement during the age of the enlightenment, it would be fairly difficult to throw out that heritage without evoking massive issues within the judiciary and French legal heritage, even if there is a march on Paris.


On the otherhand there was distension within France, and a strong conservative attitude that would run through the majority of the nation that extreme-right wing parties could take hold of and use. But these are equally balanced during hte era of the urban left-wing radicals within France following the Great War and ripples from the Russian Revolution.
Do you think there's a way for the extreme right-wing to 'defeat' the left-wing and the part of population that supports it? Could there be something that could create enormous for "fascists"?

Enough for a Civil War or heavy political instability?

Possibly at a push, but just as improbable as Britain turning into a Stalinist dictatorship in the era. There is more precent for France to go Socialist, rather than Nationalist during this era.
Okay, clear. But what if it gets the other way around? France turning extreme socialist and Germany as well after that?


Then let's look at the laughable notion of a Franco-Germanic Alliance.

Really, are you going trust the robber who just kicked down your door, killed your wife and son, trashed your house, then walked out still singing about an 'honourable conflict' and all the recompense you got was the police and a piece of paper forcing the robber to pay you back money.

Basically Germany was Frances worst enemy and even with Versailles wasn't hard enough on Germany for many. There is very little you could ever do to help France and Germany to bury the hatchet unless Britain or America is threatening them both, and even then the French are hardly going to trust the Germans given their historical actions.
Yeah, hmm, the idea is probably too ASB now that I really think of it.

The likelihood of a Franco-German alliance is low without a strong external threat, of which Britain might be the only real credible threat, but how are you going to achieve that...? Britian having fought with the French during the Great War was Frances best ally, and Weinmar Germany had some thanks to Britain for not allowing the French hard liners from making Versailles a complete dismantlement of the Germanic Nation.

Basically if you want a Franco-Germanic Alliance you are going to need a pre-1900 POD.
Okay, I get that.


If we are talking about threatening France out of a conflict over Poland in 1939 along an OTL timeline, then that's a different issue.
Again, I understand.


Pur-leasse, the only way Hitler’s national socialists got into power was by forcing the Reichstags and Chancellors hand through political pressuring.
I know.

Then what the f*ck happened to make Italy 'Switzerland like'? It's not like Italy could rely on historical neutrality since Catholicism and centuries of political alliance left it heavily ingrained within the European political system, even as a fairly new world nation. Italy was a colonial power, and hence could never be able to pursue a policy of armed deterrence.

Likewise there was huge disparity across Italy, the rich northern provinces, compared to the south would make it hard for equality or social stability to become prevalent in such a short timeframe.

You might butterfly away Mussolini from the picture, but it's not going to change Italys world position, particularly after it got slighted in the fallout of the Great War by the other world powers.

Again no mechanism is suggested for these divergences.
Yeah, too far-fetched too, most likely. But this is a point in the timeline idea I could easily delete :)


Hang on, didn't you basically balkanise parts of central bohemia/europe? So no only did you totally change the historical map of Europe with no rationale, you then expect events to have unfolded that almost totally mirror our timeline...?

There is a phrase about having cake, and eating it as well, that comes to mind.
What would you suggest as other possible conflicts?

So Hitler, your top politician and statesman (who was also a bit of a coward in some accounts) is fighting on the front-line...???
Maybe not the front-line... perhaps something else, like being in a bunker that was too weal and got bombed, or whatever...

If most of continental Europe was in a bulk alliance, then the Allies; A) Would not exist, it would just be Britain standing on her own. B) No power (other than possibly Russia) would be able to stand opposed to the Continent in a position to force them into surrender.
But wouldn't Portugal, Spain, Britain (and dominions), most of the Balkans, Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, maybe republican Turkey and maybe Italy not be strong enough?

Even if all French, Spanish and other colonial holdings were taken by Britain and America, those nations know that they can never truly be threatened on land on the continent, and long term Britain is in the weaker position to get bombarded from the air and/or being invaded.

No, if it's a showdown between Continental Europe and the British Empire, Continental Europe will likely win in the long run.
Yes, that's seems quite obvious.


That's fairly simple. Our timeline, but Britain and the Allies stick up for Poland when the Soviets Invade as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty.

Hence France, and Britain declare war on the Soviet Union too. Imperial Japan in this scenario would certainly canvass Britain into re-signing the Anglo-Japanese Alliance and join the conflict with the Soviets, possibly unilaterally. Britain would not like this, particularly given German-Japanese relations and the fact that Japan would/may have acted unilaterally to attack the Soviets, then expect Britain to bail them out simply because of a common enemy.

On the otherhand, Britain may likely use the Japanese like a diversion and demur to the Americans to support the Japanese war effort, which the Americans may support if they can get the Japanese to pull out of China in return (which if the Japanese are loosing in Manchuria fairly likely, they will accept out of pragmatism).
Thanks, that seems a good idea.


France would likely unexpectedly fall to the German blitzkrieg like in our timeline, and Hitler might be even more excited about attacking the Soviets given that the Allies are also at war with them.

While the chance of an Anglo-German armistice and reinstatement of France might be on the table at some point for Britain so that Britain can join Germany in attacking the Soviets, it would likely fail for the fact that it basically undermined the principle of the conflict, and so Britain would not accept.

Without Allied lend-lease the Soviets may take another year or more to regain the initiative in the east, by which time the Allies have still opened up the second front with American support.

With the war possibly over for Germany, a peace may be signed without having to fully occupy Germany, and hence 'Operation Unthinkable type scenarios' may occur, on the otherhand, perhaps Stalin, having been made a Pariah, and having lost Manchuria, Kamchatka and China, might call it quits and accept a peace that returns Poland to its pre-conflict position.

As for the dissolution of the Soviet system, that depends on internal Russian politics. Possibly Stalin get's overthrown within the Communist party and we see a retune of Leninist left-wing politics or a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as a 'extreme left-wing 'quesdo-democracy'' that evolves a bit like Chinese lines...but who knows...
Yep, all good ideas. However, we still have the big French problem... :(
 
Is it possible that both nations (Germany and France) try to strengthen their common past as the Carolingian Empire? Something like 'our both nations were born as one, we shall not fight against each other but embrace our brethen.'

The rivalry between Germany and France would always split Europa as neither of them wanted to back down. So they could try smooth their relationship. It wouldn't work for short term, but maybe long-term.
 
Top