Germany doesn't crush France: German success!? (Sorta)

WeisSaul

Banned
Introduction:

It is a great irony that one of the events early in the war that would later doom Germany was the German victory over the nation the German people had despised for so long.

Following what is now deemed the "Phoney War", Germany rapidly defeated France and the Low countries in just 47 days. If it weren't for this rapid victory Germany would have fared better.

Benito Mussolini knew the Italy would not be prepared for war until 1942. The Italians were motivated into leaping into the fray after they saw what appeared to be absolute proof that Germany would win the war against the western powers. France was crushed and Britain was isolated and kicked out of continental Europe.

Without Germany being shackled to the stumbling and mismanaged Italy, the German Industrial machine could focus on the real war instead of saving Italy from its disastrous ventures. Without Italy as an ally there would have been no Greek of North African campaign the Germans would have had to deal with.

Italy would have accepted the Franco-British offers for neutrality. As time went on, and the situation would look more and more dire for France, Britain and France would be more and more willing to give more and more for Italian neutrality; likely receiving a concession/bribe of Tunisia, Djibouti, the Aozou strip. Neutrality and concessions/bribes would likely butterfly away Italy's incursions against Britain and France.

In the early war, Germany would have eventually took Paris. The question is just how long it would have taken. The harder and longer it took and the more effort that would have had to be put in would have established a sense of realism in the German people. Barbarossa would likely have been seen as too ambitious, as the Soviet Union would clearly be a far more capable foe than France. With more distance to cross, more men to fight, and more industrialization to compete with, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would be seen as an adversary for a later date. Germany would have continued receiving Soviet agriculture and oil.

The long term implications, WW2 and onward, of a much harsher and costlier German victory over France are interesting and peculiar to say the least.
---------
I'm making a pretty rough timeline with a POD based around the Battle of France. This is my first time ever really trying something like this. Hope you all at least find the concept interesting.
 
Last edited:
Introduction:

Italy would have accepted the Franco-British offers for neutrality. As time went on, and the situation would look more and more dire for France, Britain and France would be more and more willing to give more and more for Italian neutrality; likely forcing a concession of the western half of Egypt, Tunisia, Corsica, Djibouti, Aozou strip, and perhaps Cyprus. Neutrality and concessions would completely butterfly away Italy's incursions against Britain and France.

In the early war, Germany would have eventually took Paris. The question is just how long it would have taken. The harder and longer it took and the more effort that would have had to be put in would have established a sense of realism in the German people. Barbarossa would likely have been seen as too ambitious, as the Soviet Union would clearly be a far more capable foe than France. With more distance to cross, more men to fight, and more industrialization to compete with, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would be seen as an adversary for a later date. Germany would have continued receiving Soviet agriculture and oil.

First off, no. The French and British may be willing to cede the Aozou strip and Djibouti, but the rest is ridiculous, Corsica, according to the French, is integrally French and Cyprus is a key British base in the Mediterranean.

And also German victory in France is not by any means assured, the French could've turned the Germans on their heels at any time.
 

WeisSaul

Banned
First off, no. The French and British may be willing to cede the Aozou strip and Djibouti, but the rest is ridiculous, Corsica, according to the French, is integrally French and Cyprus is a key British base in the Mediterranean.

And also German victory in France is not by any means assured, the French could've turned the Germans on their heels at any time.

For this TL, along with the fact that the Blitzkrieg through the low countries sort of bypassed almost all of France's defenses, Germany ends up defeating France.

Also, the associated press archives (which someone else on this forum found and posted in a different thread):
December 20, 1939
The French were prepared to offer a 90-year lease on the port of Djibouti (spelled Jibuti in the article) and transfer a large block of shares in the Suez Canal Company. The French were also willing to increase the rights of Italians in Tunisia and Algeria so that they could be instructed in Italian. The British were prepared to lower Italian fees on the use of Suez and to also allow Italian language instruction in Malta.

March 19, 1940
There were talks of the French relinquishing control of Tunisia. It seems that the British were trying to encourage the French to do so. France seemed reluctant to do so.

March 28, 1940
French Premier Reynaud receives the Italian Ambassador in Paris and is willing to give the Italians strong concessions in return for Italy joining the allies.

April 20, 1940
In a speech before the French Senate, premier Reynaud proposes a Mediterranean "entente" between France, Italy and Spain.

May 4, 1940
More speculation on Franco-Italian negations with the highlights being on Tunisia and French Somaliland. It appears that the French are not willing to negotiate on Corsica, Nice or Savoie.

May 23, 1940
The British and French are again trying to get Mussolini to at least remain neutral by offering the Djibouti railway and the port of Djibouti to the Italians.

Though I should have recognized the obvious flaws in my post... :eek: Fixed.

A problem: Supposing everything went as you said, what would Hitler do?

we'll see;)
 
Wouldn't Germany run out of materials in short order while the French continued to build up and rearm?
 

WeisSaul

Banned
Wouldn't Germany run out of materials in short order while the French continued to build up and rearm?

Raw materials come in from Sweden, oil and agriculture comes from the Soviet Union and Romania.

Considering Germany controlled Denmark and the straits by this point, Germany had a secure line of Raw materials and oil for the next few years.
 

Archibald

Banned
the French could've turned the Germans on their heels at any time.

+1

From March 7, 1936 to May 13, 1940, France still has a chance. Even a small butterfly in Sedan can turn things upside down.
And even after the Wermacht reached Abbeville on May 20, 1940, there is still the possibility of an organized retreat of the Armies, government and parliament to Algier, turning Vichy into an empty shell.
 
The Allies keeping the (at least in theory) powerful French is much more beneficial to the Allies than the disputed idea about whether or not Italy helped or hindered the Axis.
 

Archibald

Banned
The Allies keeping the (at least in theory) powerful French is much more beneficial to the Allies than the disputed idea about whether or not Italy helped or hindered the Axis.

Good point. an example is FFO - France Fights On - where the war ends in 1944, not 1945.
Everything gets accelerated, if only because the North African theather of operation disapears late 1940 and not in May 1943.
The italians are wiped out of North Africa long before any Afrika Korps can rescue them...
 
If France is not defeated Germany will be screwed, if France hold I doubt Italy will attack. And seeing how they fared OTL in their Alps offensive (they were kicked back) even if they join I doubt they could pause a serious threat. Italy would find itself without fleet and african colony pretty quickly.
 
Top