PC:Stalemate In France = Negotiated Peace ww2

If Germany got bogged down world war 1 style while occupying large parts of Northern France, Could a Negotiated settlement be possible after a few years

Could Germany gain any colonies

What would Italy and the soviet union do
 

Deleted member 1487

As with the First World War, after a few years Germany would have been crippled by blockade.
Depends on when Stalin opts to cut off trade.
Basically this scenario is Stalin-wank, his plan would work out perfectly and he'd have the chance to weaken Europe and decide if it makes sense to sweep it all if they are weak enough. Hitler might find himself getting puppeted through access to restricted resource access; that said I don't see Hitler surviving the results of a stalemated war in France, especially since a number of his generals were interested in removing him in the event of failure so that they could negotiate with the Allies. Hitler's popularity hit it's low point after the declaration of war in 1939 (prior to Stalingrad) and then peaked after the defeat of France. Without a cheap victory over France and in fact a long ruinous war...he doesn't have political capital to draw on or a powerful SS yet to challenge the army. The public may well be looking for a change pretty quick if Hitler doesn't get his big win to coast on for years.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Depends on when Stalin opts to cut off trade.
Basically this scenario is Stalin-wank, his plan would work out perfectly and he'd have the chance to weaken Europe and decide if it makes sense to sweep it all if they are weak enough. Hitler might find himself getting puppeted through access to restricted resource access; that said I don't see Hitler surviving the results of a stalemated war in France, especially since a number of his generals were interested in removing him in the event of failure so that they could negotiate with the Allies. Hitler's popularity hit it's low point after the declaration of war in 1939 (prior to Stalingrad) and then peaked after the defeat of France. Without a cheap victory over France and in fact a long ruinous war...he doesn't have political capital to draw on or a powerful SS yet to challenge the army. The public may well be looking for a change pretty quick if Hitler doesn't get his big win to coast on for years.
Going for all of Europe would be risky for Stalin given the size of Britain's and France's military at the end of this TL's World War II, though.

Also, in regards to the German generals, Yes, they might oust Hitler and the Nazis if German military progress in France halts for a long time period; however, the kind of peace that Britain and France would envision probably wouldn't be the kind of peace that they would be willing to accept. After all, the Polish Corridor was widely unpopular in Germany even before the Nazis came to power.
 

Deleted member 1487

Going for all of Europe would be risky for Stalin given the size of Britain's and France's military at the end of this TL's World War II, though.

Also, in regards to the German generals, Yes, they might oust Hitler and the Nazis if German military progress in France halts for a long time period; however, the kind of peace that Britain and France would envision probably wouldn't be the kind of peace that they would be willing to accept. After all, the Polish Corridor was widely unpopular in Germany even before the Nazis came to power.
Depends on how weakened they are and where their tank technology developed to. Facing hordes of T-34s and KV-13s may not end well for the Allies.
France and Britain...might have to agree to a lenient peace if the Nazis were removed because of Stalin. They cannot afford for Germany to collapse and THEN fight the Soviets for control of Central Europe and perhaps France.
 
Seeing Germany collapsing Stalin would join UK and France and finish Third Reich gaining Central Europe as his sphere of influence. Result of this ww2 would be similar to OTL, just with shorter and less bloody war.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Depends on how weakened they are and where their tank technology developed to. Facing hordes of T-34s and KV-13s may not end well for the Allies.
France and Britain...might have to agree to a lenient peace if the Nazis were removed because of Stalin. They cannot afford for Germany to collapse and THEN fight the Soviets for control of Central Europe and perhaps France.
To be honest, I don't think that Britain and France would be in that bad of a shape if they manage to totally defeat Germany. After all, their armies will be huge at that point in time. Of course, the challenge might be to sustain such huge army levels over the long(er)-run--but I am not sure that this is impossible for Britain and France given the size of the U.S. military-industrial complex in our TL.

Also, just how much of a generous peace are you thinking of here?
 
Depends on when Stalin opts to cut off trade.

Essentially yes, and I'd bet that that's going to be sooner rather than later.

that said I don't see Hitler surviving the results of a stalemated war in France, especially since a number of his generals were interested in removing him in the event of failure so that they could negotiate with the Allies. Hitler's popularity hit it's low point after the declaration of war in 1939 (prior to Stalingrad) and then peaked after the defeat of France. Without a cheap victory over France and in fact a long ruinous war...he doesn't have political capital to draw on or a powerful SS yet to challenge the army. The public may well be looking for a change pretty quick if Hitler doesn't get his big win to coast on for years.

I often feel that this outcome is a bit overdone, given the poor organisation and planning of most coup attempts IOTL. Hitler's certainly weaker earlier, but not as weak as in July 1944 and ultimately less responsible for the actions of the Wehrmact as well. I don't believe in permanence in regards to Hitler hanging on to the bitter end, but it seems more likely than him being replaced.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I often feel that this outcome is a bit overdone, given the poor organisation and planning of most coup attempts IOTL. Hitler's certainly weaker earlier, but not as weak as in July 1944 and ultimately less responsible for the actions of the Wehrmact as well. I don't believe in permanence in regards to Hitler hanging on to the bitter end, but it seems more likely than him being replaced.
To be honest, killing Hitler itself might not be too hard. Indeed, it's the full seizure of power afterwards that might be the difficult part.
 
How do you GET a stalemate?
Basically, if the Nazis can't defeat France quickly (as it did iOTL), it loses. Britain and France were both ramping up their industries and war-efforts quickly, they just got a later start. By couple of years in, they'll have the ability to take back conquered parts of France and move into Germany, so no way would they agree to any sort of deal with the Nazis at that point.

Blunted Sickle has a good description of what a stopped invasion of France might well look like, and 'stalemate' is not it.
 
Blunted Sickle has a good description of what a stopped invasion of France might well look like, and 'stalemate' is not it.
I agree to a point and I have often said the same myself. For the sake of argument what if the nazi attack fails without having their armour caught in a pocket and trapped.
 
How do you GET a stalemate?

I had a rough go at this in another thread recently:

Instead of the great victory that you get in Blunted Sickle, you could have a sort of 'Barbarossa in the West'. The Germans initially achieve meteoric success but get bogged down by logistics and suprise enemy counter-attacks from the north and south (Gort = Timoshenko, De Gaulle = Yeremenko?) and are panicked into a minor retreat. The Entente are unable to exploit this to the full extent, partially due to the weakness of the British position and partially due to Weygand's ineptitude, and by the end of summer the British have been forced to evacuate (in good order) whilst the French army is in tatters.

With his army on the Somme, Hitler triumphantly declares that the Wehrmacht only needs to deliver one last killer blow to destroy the Entente armies and force their leaders to the table. In a moment of pompous hyperbole, he declares that he will unleash a "Typhoon on the Seine!"

Essentially, the Entente survive Fall Gelb but in a bloodied state, to the extent they're unlikely to (decisively) defeat Germany in 1941 or 1942.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
France and Britain...might have to agree to a lenient peace if the Nazis were removed because of Stalin. They cannot afford for Germany to collapse and THEN fight the Soviets for control of Central Europe and perhaps France.
Wiking, how lenient of a peace are you thinking of here? Allowing Germany to keep all of its 1937 territories plus Austria and the Sudetenland?
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Wiking, how lenient of a peace are you thinking of here? Allowing Germany to keep all of its 1937 territories plus Austria and the Sudetenland?
I can’t imagine them letting Germany keep the Sudetenland, not after they violated the Munich Agreement.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I can’t imagine them letting Germany keep the Sudetenland, not after they violated the Munich Agreement.
The thing is, though, that putting these Germans back inside of Czechoslovakia would simply create a German fifth column there. Meanwhile, if Britain and France insist on the wholesale expulsion of the Sudeten Germans, Germany's new leadership might decide to fight to the bitter end.
 

Deleted member 1487

Wiking, how lenient of a peace are you thinking of here? Allowing Germany to keep all of its 1937 territories plus Austria and the Sudetenland?
Definitely not Sudetenland...but without a major invasion I'm not sure how'd they'd make that work. Perhaps just evacuating Poland and restoring quasi-independence to Czechia? The Allies don't want a long grinding war to defeat Germany, especially when Stalin is the only one that actually profits and could end up rolling them at the end of it. If Hitler is removed and occupied territory in the West evacuated with an evacuation of Norway and Denmark, plus semi-independent status for Poland and Czechia (they will present it as independence but it will be hard to enforce independence and it will be hard for the German people to accept full independence after victories there and a coup). The rub is what will the publics of the Allies and Germans tolerate in a peace deal? The Allied publics will be demanding blood and total victory so Germany isn't a threat, especially after defeating a major offensive that penetrates French soil, kills French and British soldiers (never mind Dutch and Belgians among others) and threatens European peace yet again. What the governments might want could be intolerable to the public and what the Germans will tolerate might not be able the Allies could tolerate. The question is when and where do they finally meet in the middle? The German 'resistance movement' in the military wasn't necessarily opposed to war in 1939, they were opposed to losing a war and the dirty parts of the Nazi race war. The 1944 'resistance' was much more broad and even less in touch with reality and opposed to conquest and domination of conquered peoples than the Oster Conspiracy was. Some of those people will be part of a 1940-41 coup against Hitler out of fear of defeat and the Soviets backstabbing them, but that doesn't mean they will be realistic about giving up conquests, which will create problems for Allied governments trying to come up with a peace deal their people will accept. It will be bad enough that the government doesn't want to fight to totally crush the Germans, so letting them keep conquests will be anathema, but still necessary for the coup government to have legitimacy with the public after the coup.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
The thing is, though, that putting these Germans back inside of Czechoslovakia would simply create a German fifth column there. Meanwhile, if Britain and France insist on the wholesale expulsion of the Sudeten Germans, Germany's new leadership might decide to fight to the bitter end.
Giving Sudetenland to Germany would render Czechoslovakia's borders indefensible.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Giving Sudetenland to Germany would render Czechoslovakia's borders indefensible.
True, but do Britain and France have the appetite to lose hundreds of thousands of their own troops' lives for the Sudetenland?

Definitely not Sudetenland...but without a major invasion I'm not sure how'd they'd make that work. Perhaps just evacuating Poland and restoring quasi-independence to Czechia? The Allies don't want a long grinding war to defeat Germany, especially when Stalin is the only one that actually profits and could end up rolling them at the end of it. If Hitler is removed and occupied territory in the West evacuated with an evacuation of Norway and Denmark, plus semi-independent status for Poland and Czechia (they will present it as independence but it will be hard to enforce independence and it will be hard for the German people to accept full independence after victories there and a coup). The rub is what will the publics of the Allies and Germans tolerate in a peace deal? The Allied publics will be demanding blood and total victory so Germany isn't a threat, especially after defeating a major offensive that penetrates French soil, kills French and British soldiers (never mind Dutch and Belgians among others) and threatens European peace yet again. What the governments might want could be intolerable to the public and what the Germans will tolerate might not be able the Allies could tolerate. The question is when and where do they finally meet in the middle? The German 'resistance movement' in the military wasn't necessarily opposed to war in 1939, they were opposed to losing a war and the dirty parts of the Nazi race war. The 1944 'resistance' was much more broad and even less in touch with reality and opposed to conquest and domination of conquered peoples than the Oster Conspiracy was. Some of those people will be part of a 1940-41 coup against Hitler out of fear of defeat and the Soviets backstabbing them, but that doesn't mean they will be realistic about giving up conquests, which will create problems for Allied governments trying to come up with a peace deal their people will accept. It will be bad enough that the government doesn't want to fight to totally crush the Germans, so letting them keep conquests will be anathema, but still necessary for the coup government to have legitimacy with the public after the coup.
To be honest, I don't think that Britain's and France's leaderships would be able to accept anything other than a total withdrawal from Poland, Danzig, and Czechia (with or without the Sudetenland) and with full independence being restored to all of these countries (plus to Danzig, of course). Indeed, if Germany's new leadership can't tolerate this, they're probably going to be looking at a war towards the bitter end.

As for Britain and France, such a war might be very hard to swallow for the reasons that you mentioned above, but anything other than a full German withdrawal from Poland, Danzig, and Czechia would totally destroy Britain's and France's credibility. After all, they are the ones whose guarantee to Poland caused Poland to reject compromise over Danzig and to reject an alliance with Nazi Germany.
 
Top