I agree completely, I was just trying to sum up the direction the thread was taking our suddenly strangely sensible Nazis.
A proto EU is unlikely in the long run. It would have to be forced at gun point if the nazis are in charge. Which sort of negates the spirit of a peace treaty. There is a sort of misconception, among some in the US at least, that French or Belgian, or British conservatives equates to Facist fellow travelers. There was the anti communists factor, but the conservatives in Europe were dominated by the business leaders & they saw the socialist & wealth redistribution of the facist/nazi type regimes as undesirable. Also by 1939 the business leaders of Europe understood the economic incompetence of facism as the Italians & Germans ran it. A economic union dominated by nazi Germany was clearly not in their best interests.
Petains long term goal was to rebuild French economic power through a combination of its empire, and getting rid of German influence as far as possible through a peace treaty. Neither he nor any likely British leader is going to embrace the nazi concept of a economic union. Maybe a post nazi government of Germany could reach a acceptable agreement on this, but the nazis as we know them would have had little to offer the French or others.
As for a anti communist crusade; in 1939 the French still saw the USSR as a useful counter wight to Germany. Post treaty there is still a powerful incentive to seek the same. In Britain the rabid anti communists who stalled the 1939 alliance effort are going to have even less to offer in alternatives. Supporting Germany in a war with the USSR looks to much like enhancing German power, which was the precise opposite of what any French or British leader wanted.
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?
If I am reading Paxtons 'Vichy France' and Jacksons 'The Dark Years' correctly the decision not to negotiate a peace treaty was Hitlers. When the British did not ask for terms for a cease fire/armistice he saw the war as not yet over & put off the issue of a peace with France, Belgium, and the others until the British war was over.
When Britain did not give in Hitler made the decision to attack the USSR in 1941 & shelved the peace treaty question until after that war extention was resolved.
Petain had wanted and expected negotiations for a peace treaty to start in the autum of 1940. That this did not start then or in the winter caused a loss of support for his government. Between the japanese intrusion of French Indo China in the autum of 1940, and the lack of peace negotiations Petains government lost a lot of prestige and support that winter.
...
my (convoluted) link to the OP is that (for a brief period) an agreement could have been reached with France that to my thinking would have left GB as the odd man out.