France doesnt declare war on Germany in 1939

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
And France is the most powerful army in Western Europe. Just because it won't fight over Poland doesn't mean it won't fight over Belgium or the Netherlands, or keep rearming and outproducing Germany.
The Molotov Ribbentrop pact was to buy time to deal to France, add in that leaving France intact keeps Italy out of the war, and France before Soviets is the only practical option for Germany.
The “keep outproducing Germany” part of this is the only part that does not sit right with me. Why would France, with a smaller workforce, less coal, less industry, and a smaller economy, and a less single-minded regime, outproduce Germany on arms and munitions?
since there is no functional Entente/Allies, how would the Soviets tailor their relations with Nazi Germany? especially if, as a couple of us suggested, Romania is occupied or a puppet regime instead of a putative ally (i.e. German controls all the oil), then the Soviets don't have Germany over a barrel (of oil.)

historically the flow of materials to Germany was halted or slowed, just IMO that would not happen here. the other question would be whether the Soviets move on any British interests as the Germans encouraged? such as Iran.
Your questions are valid ones, but I think we can pretty safely say nothing about this situation is likely to give Stalin an attack of the ‘reckless stupids’ and compel him to attack British interests in the Middle East, especially when the British themselves are not under serious invasion threat and the Germans have a large army in Central Europe unencumbered by active fighting with France.
If Deladier suddenly backs away from war, the French will put someone else in power who will.
Maybe a former minister of war and current ambassador to Spain.
Oh the irony
Who were those individuals, or that individual? Pertain? Maybe he would look at the odds and say, screw la Guerrero I was hired for.
 

Garrison

Donor
The “keep outproducing Germany” part of this is the only part that does not sit right with me. Why would France, with a smaller workforce, less coal, less industry, and a smaller economy, and a less single-minded regime, outproduce Germany on arms and munitions?
That's your false assumption. By 1939 Germany was spending 20% of GDP on rearmament while the British and French were spending 5% and yet were rapidly closing the gap. The Germans expected them to overtake by 1940, most importantly they were expected to eliminate the early advantages built up by the Luftwaffe. The reality was the Nazi economy was constantly teetering on the brink of disaster throughout the 1930s and in 1939 Hitler believed his window of opportunity for a short victorious war was closing because they couldn't ramp military spending any higher while the British and French had plenty of spare capacity.
 
If Deladier suddenly backs away from war, the French will put someone else in power who will.
Maybe a former minister of war and current ambassador to Spain.
Oh the irony
Who were these "French" able to so easily remove/replace a french ministerpresident?

Also ... what would be their incentive to do so to remove the Ministerpresident hailed as preserver of peace by the whole populace just a year (return from Munich 1938) ago?

Are there any reliable data/sources (aside the very general neverthell very loud lamenting of Hitlers 'untrustworthiness so popular on this board but without any source supportin contemporary and esp. widespread perception of this) supporting a general pro-war sentiment within "the French" strong enough to somehow remove/replace said ministerpresident?
 

thaddeus

Donor
since there is no functional Entente/Allies, how would the Soviets tailor their relations with Nazi Germany? especially if, as a couple of us suggested, Romania is occupied or a puppet regime instead of a putative ally (i.e. German controls all the oil), then the Soviets don't have Germany over a barrel (of oil.)

historically the flow of materials to Germany was halted or slowed, just IMO that would not happen here. the other question would be whether the Soviets move on any British interests as the Germans encouraged? such as Iran.

Your questions are valid ones, but I think we can pretty safely say nothing about this situation is likely to give Stalin an attack of the ‘reckless stupids’ and compel him to attack British interests in the Middle East, especially when the British themselves are not under serious invasion threat and the Germans have a large army in Central Europe unencumbered by active fighting with France.

that is a fair point but this scenario is a puzzle, the Nazi regime could be seen as having gotten at least half of what they wanted with France remaining sidelined but at least partly due to the German-Soviet Pact (when they ideologically want to conquer the USSR)

not clear how this scenario affects German-Soviet relations, have an agnostic view, German-Soviet relations could crumble early over the Winter War or prove durable if the flood of Soviet materials continues with few strings? (my thinking the Soviet grab for "just a little more" in Romania was an important point historically.)

wonder if a three way (Germany-USSR-Hungary) division of Romania could occur roughly during the timeframe of the Winter War? (the Germans were behind or supported the assassination of the Romanian PM circa the invasion of Poland) since there is no immediate threat from a neutral France.

there was the historical British planning (and absent France), so my view the Norway-Denmark invasions occur, then to me we are in a fog. next a possible alt.Winter War as a counter to the Germans being in Norway or just a logical realization of M-R Pact agreements by the Soviets?

my prior post was for an invasion of the Low Countries and not France (with the knowledge the French could declare war), largely under the "why not?" theory but also to create a better position for themselves if they wanted to invade France OR the USSR. can envision Germany invading East without first occupying France but not without occupying the Low Countries since they are at war with the UK.

the Nazi regime could occupy the Low Countries and test the French reaction? if the French remained neutral, they could allow the Finns to be armed (by Italy and/or Hungary and/or Sweden) to draw out the Finnish-Soviet conflict.
 
There are a couple of fairly unconnected pieces of the puzzle that I will toss out.
The first is why does France remain neutral? How does that why affect Hitler's reaction, which may cut either way - increasing or decreasing factors in favour of war with France in 1940? My impression is it must be some rather drastic within France for her to be neutral, but I am still munching over what that could be.
Secondly, with France neutral, restrictive U.S. Neutrality Laws do not kick in. The timewasting nonsense of Curtiss and Vought aircraft being flown to open fields in northern Maine and pulled across the Canadian border by tractor to be flown to Halifax and crated for shipment or hoisted aboard FS Bearn for transport would not occur. Instead, aircraft would be crated at the factory, shipped by rail to Port of New York or Boston, and expeditiously sent to France. I am not sure of the details of Douglas DB-7 light bombers built on the west coast, but it is likely they would also arrive sooner. This gives the French Air Force and Navy additional time to integrate and train crews. I suspect the Air Force indifference and incompetence to be the same, but the Navy was quite efficient. The Luftwaffe will be very aware of these deliveries, does it affect their quantity calculations (I doubt if it affects those of quality)?
Thirdly, the Dutch order for 35 Curtiss Hawk 75A-7 is likely to go through without delay or reduction in numbers, although I have strong doubts about adequate time to put them in service.
Fourthly, I asked this before, but received no comments. I'll try again.
Which brings up a sidebar, how much aid would France send Finland? And if France were neutral, would her ships be blocked passing through Baltic waters controlled by Germany?
How much aid does a neutral France send Finland? Does it include "volunteer" mountain troops? Is it enough that Hitler views France as an useful idiot against Stalin? One to be dealt with later?
Fifthly, The USSR has already broken the Ribbentrop-Stalin Pact by sending troops into Lithuania in October 1939. (Annexation came in June 1940.) Lithuania was assigned to the German sphere of influence. Hitler fumed, but had an enemy in France. What if Hitler fumed and had a neutral in France?
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
That's your false assumption. By 1939 Germany was spending 20% of GDP on rearmament while the British and French were spending 5% and yet were rapidly closing the gap. The Germans expected them to overtake by 1940, most importantly they were expected to eliminate the early advantages built up by the Luftwaffe. The reality was the Nazi economy was constantly teetering on the brink of disaster throughout the 1930s and in 1939 Hitler believed his window of opportunity for a short victorious war was closing because they couldn't ramp military spending any higher while the British and French had plenty of spare capacity.
It has to be Britain accounting for that out production, not France.
 

Garrison

Donor
It has to be Britain accounting for that out production, not France.
Nope sorry, France as well. The Germany economy was just that bad. Also the French could buy stuff from the USA, they had massive numbers of aircraft on order with the USA, most of which ended up being taken on by the British after Summer 1940.
 
Last edited:
Top