Peace Terms After a Failed Invasion of France?

Archibald

Banned
An interesting question to solve in this scenario would be: wither denazification ?
If the French and British are to occupy Germany, do they try erasing nazi symbolism to the ground, OTL 1945 style ?

We suppose the Wermacht has a bad day near Sedan, May 14, 1940, and is actually stopped. Right.
The way I see it, France will first stabilize the situation on its border, bringing reinforcements on the Meuse.
Then after some weeks like that, the inevitable question: what about the Netherlands and Belgium ?
 
An interesting question to solve in this scenario would be: wither denazification ?
If the French and British are to occupy Germany, do they try erasing nazi symbolism to the ground, OTL 1945 style ?

We suppose the Wermacht has a bad day near Sedan, May 14, 1940, and is actually stopped. Right.
The way I see it, France will first stabilize the situation on its border, bringing reinforcements on the Meuse.
Then after some weeks like that, the inevitable question: what about the Netherlands and Belgium ?

Honestly, given National SOcialist Germany's repudiation of the Versaiis accords and their demonstrated expansionist agression, I do not see France and Britian having any policical room to give Germany even one bit of slack on this.
 

Archibald

Banned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_That_Came_Early
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_That_Came_Early#The_Big_Switch

We suppose that, either in 1938 or 1940, Germany fails its invasion of France. Hitler gets ousted in a coup (the question remains of what happens to Germany after that - civil war ? de-nazification and return to democracy ?)
An uneasy peace follow in the 40's.
My question is: is a war with stalin USSR an absolute given ? does France, Germany and England are bound to a war with the commies ?
 
Source? Most scholarship suggests the French strategy was to exercise a lethally effective defence and then, having broken the Wehrmacht in body and spirit, engage in a show of strength (likely an occupation of the Saar) and call for an Armistice.

I find this claim strange because everything that I read indicates that Britain and France intended to build up their forces behind the Maginot Line until 1942 when they'd have such an overwhelming advantage in forces that they could push through any opposition.

I have read nothing that indicates they went to war with Germany in 1939 only to offer an armistice. German generals did contact the Allies secretly after Poland and told them they'd be willing to overthrow Hitler and make peace, provided they could keep their conquests, and the Allies rejected the deal. The Allies did expect that a long war would demoralize the Germans, especially with strategic air bombardment and theeir naval blockade (but this probably won't happen).

So if we have a scenario where the German May 1940 invasion fails, the Allies have no choice but to keep fighting. Let's say that the Dyle Plan works, and the Allies have a good defensive line on the Dyle. Or that the Dyle Plan was never implemented, and instead the front lines are the French border and the Scheldt.

The British and French realize they need to make massive reforms to hold up against superior German doctrine. Luckily for them, the French have DeGaulle who can be expected to shake up the French Army. With other changes in tactics, like the hedgehog defense, and the lack of further German strategic surprise, the Allies are well positioned to win.

I'm assuming that unless opportunities present itself for an earlier attack, the original plan to build up and attack in 1942.

If Hitler is overthrown in a coup, and the generals take over, they'll likely offer peace, but only in keeping their portion of Poland and Czeochoslovakia. Allies will refuse that, and the generals won't want to surrender. So the war goes on.

It's possible that during the Allied build up, that Britain might be able to stage a peripheral attack in 1941 - say landing better prepared mountain troops in Norway during the summer - but it's not vital. However, we'll likely see various German offensives as well, but if we keep to the POD, then the Allies must win and hold the line.

With France holding and the Germans making less ground than they did in 1914, Italy never declares war, nor does Japan. FDR does not run for re-election, but both US parties are pro-Allied and want to help them short of war. If the Republicans win, there will be much less help though, but it's most likely the Democrats will still win in 1940.

So the Allied offensive in 1942 is finally launched. This is going to be a bloodbath, but the Germans will have a lot of economic problems without being able to pillage the wealth of western Europe, so I expect the Allies - with their superior numbers, better equipment, stronger economies, and reformed military - to push through into Germany. Allied victory is probably foreseen to occur in either 1943 or 1944 at the latest.

At that point, the Germans are probably willing to accept Allied demands when it comes to Poland and Czechoslovakia, and some kind of compromise peace is possible.

At that point, it's hard to determine what happens next, but a lot depends on the details. It also depends on what Stalin intends to do. Stalin typically played things conservatively and tried to mitigate the risks of war. I think he'll insist on keeping his gains during Molotov-Ribbentrop, but make concessions to the West. He may insist on keeping Ukrainian and Byelorussian land east of the Curzon line which will be the bulk of Soviet gains, but agree that majority Polish lands be returned to the Polish government now that the reasons for occupation are over. The Baltic states may still be occupied and annexed, but it's possible that Moldava was never taken by the Soviets.

If so, I suspect the Allies won't have the stomach for another major war and will reluctantly accept Soviet gains, but the situation could very well galvanize much of Europe to join an anti-Communist alliance that includes much of Eastern Europe. Hitler would be despised as a man who betrayed Europe with his maniacal deal with the Soviet Union, and the anti-Communist dictatorships of Spain and Italy ally with the Democracies.
 
An interesting question to solve in this scenario would be: wither denazification ?
If the French and British are to occupy Germany, do they try erasing nazi symbolism to the ground, OTL 1945 style ?

We suppose the Wermacht has a bad day near Sedan, May 14, 1940, and is actually stopped. Right.
The way I see it, France will first stabilize the situation on its border, bringing reinforcements on the Meuse.
Then after some weeks like that, the inevitable question: what about the Netherlands and Belgium ?
The invasion force that Germany send was the cream of their current army and most of their mechanised force the rest are only garrison forces not likely to pause a serious threat. It would take time for Germany to rebuild thoses forces.
The french campaign was a gamble that paid off.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
There's a very big problem here. If they occupy Germany, or otherwise try to break it, there might well be a soviet-supported communist coup. Would the allies want to risk putting one of the most powerful forces in Europe(and to some measure the world) in the Soviet camp?

If they're harsh, that is very likely to happen. Another problem is that Stalin, cautious as he was, wouldn't give up the opportunity to take as much of Poland as he could. Who or what is going to stop him?

Really, the French & British have two very bad options. One is to keep Germany strong, to aid in defense against the Soviets(whether said invasion would happen is irrelevant, they thought it would). The problem here is that, well, the civilians and most of the government won't like it. At all. However, this option likely becomes much more acceptable if the General Staff ousts the Austrian Corporal.

Two, break Germany and try to ensure it doesn't start this shit again, but at the same time making it that much easier for a Red Revolution.

The allies don't have any appetizing decisions. Both of them know that even their combined might would be useless against any Soviet army. I honest-to-god believe this might be decided in a coin toss.
 
The Allies, if they smash up a 1940 invasion, will continue their preparations for a 1941 invasion of Germany. The interesting aspect of all this is that a 1940 defeat wrecks Germany's mechanized forces, but the Allies were not logistically or conceptually prepared for an invasion of Germany at that time, and also lacked the manpower (especially British) to pull that off. I think what happens with the Soviets is that their occupation of the Baltic States becomes a fait accompli and the USSR deliberately pretends to be on its best behavior so as to forestall a sudden war with the democracies it knows it is not at all prepared for. For their part the Allies aren't exactly likely to follow up an invasion of Germany by an invasion of the USSR. If they were hellbent on pursuing it, they *might* actually defeat the USSR in an invasion, but I don't exactly see this as happening chiefly because paying for an army and air force of the size required to defeat the USSR requires more money than one for Germany, and money the Allies aren't going to spend without the USSR abruptly pulling its own Operation White.
 
Might Britian and France go to war with the Soviet Union in order to defend Poland?

Why would they? Occupying Germany alone will prove a bit of a struggle once they encounter the inevitable Nazi version of Banzai charges and futile, senseless valor. Slogging their way through Germany's cities only to have to invade a much larger dictatorship?

I think instead they ratify the results of the M-R Pact by default and the USSR pretends its adhering to and signing the Secret Protocols never happened.
 

Archibald

Banned
I'm assuming that unless opportunities present itself for an earlier attack, the original plan to build up and attack in 1942.

If Hitler is overthrown in a coup, and the generals take over, they'll likely offer peace, but only in keeping their portion of Poland and Czeochoslovakia. Allies will refuse that, and the generals won't want to surrender. So the war goes on.
Interesting. Better than Hitler, but they remain Prussians, after all. So the war goes on.

With France holding and the Germans making less ground than they did in 1914, Italy never declares war, nor does Japan.
FDR does not run for re-election, but both US parties are pro-Allied and want to help them short of war. If the Republicans win, there will be much less help though, but it's most likely the Democrats will still win in 1940.
Isn't the situation in the Pacific bound to explodes into a US - Japan war someday ? Alternate Pacific War perhaps ?

So the Allied offensive in 1942 is finally launched. This is going to be a bloodbath, but the Germans will have a lot of economic problems without being able to pillage the wealth of western Europe, so I expect the Allies - with their superior numbers, better equipment, stronger economies, and reformed military - to push through into Germany. Allied victory is probably foreseen to occur in either 1943 or 1944 at the latest.
At that point, the Germans are probably willing to accept Allied demands when it comes to Poland and Czechoslovakia, and some kind of compromise peace is possible.
Sounds good, I like that scenario. One can imagine the french mood when they reach Berlin, something that did not happened in 1870 or 1914.
That was the war France tried to prepare for - attrition war. And German economy was on the brink of collapse.

At that point, it's hard to determine what happens next, but a lot depends on the details. It also depends on what Stalin intends to do.
Stalin typically played things conservatively and tried to mitigate the risks of war. I think he'll insist on keeping his gains during Molotov-Ribbentrop, but make concessions to the West. He may insist on keeping Ukrainian and Byelorussian land east of the Curzon line which will be the bulk of Soviet gains, but agree that majority Polish lands be returned to the Polish government now that the reasons for occupation are over. The Baltic states may still be occupied and annexed, but it's possible that Moldava was never taken by the Soviets.

If so, I suspect the Allies won't have the stomach for another major war and will reluctantly accept Soviet gains, but the situation could very well galvanize much of Europe to join an anti-Communist alliance that includes much of Eastern Europe. Hitler would be despised as a man who betrayed Europe with his maniacal deal with the Soviet Union, and the anti-Communist dictatorships of Spain and Italy ally with the Democracies.
Agree. With a troublesome Germany, and huge losses 25 years after Verdun, i can't see a war against the Soviet giant.
So we have a kind of Cold War there, without America, thought. And without nukes ? I like that. France and Great Britain, rearming (or not ?) Germany.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
Interesting. Better than Hitler, but they remain Prussians, after all. So the war goes on.
Sigh. I hate this stereotype. The Prussians are not fucking Klingons.

Isn't the situation in the Pacific bound to explodes into a US - Japan war someday ? Alternate Pacific War perhaps ?
An American-Nippon war is nigh unavoidable without an earlier PoD.

Sounds good, I like that scenario. One can imagine the french mood when they reach Berlin, something that did not happened in 1870 or 1914.
That was the war France tried to prepare for - attrition war. And German economy was on the brink of collapse.
I doubt it would be so easy. It's a long way from Metz to Berlin, and OTL's later war years showed, the Germans were extremely capable & competent in fighting a defensive wa.

Agree. With a troublesome Germany, and huge losses 25 years after Verdun, i can't see a war against the Soviet giant.
So we have a kind of Cold War there, without America, thought. And without nukes ? I like that. France and Great Britain, rearming (or not ?) Germany.
The question is not if Franco-Britain would invade the Soviet Union, the question is if the Soviet Union will bring Germany into its sphere.

As I said, the options for the allies are all grim. The devil you know or the devil you don't? At the very least, Germany can be controlled to some extent. Perhaps some secret clauses in the Allied-German peace treaty to ensure that Germany gets a watered down Mitteleuropa. Why would they care if Poland, some Baltic States and a few Ukrainian crumbs end up being nothing more than extensions of various German companies to later be sold back to the Fatherland?
 

Archibald

Banned
Sigh. I hate this stereotype. The Prussians are not fucking Klingons.
I don't understand a single word of that sentence. Incidentally, I'm tempted by a rough timeline of all this.

I'm sure there will be gapping holes there; after all, I'm a space geek above anything else. Military matters are not my cup of tea. Feel free to patches the holes, then. This is only a tentative draft.

1940
May, 14
Bad day for the Wehrmacht in Sedan. Their bridgehead aborted; and worse, surprise is lost, since even the fossil french generals understood something big happened in the Ardennes. Now they are sending reinforcements.

June - July


More Hannut, more Gembloux, more Stonne bloody stalemates. To the German generals, that war is turning into another WW1; they attack, the french resist, they both bleed to death. With a notable difference: it can't last four years, per lack of reserves on both sides. No meat grinder this time - once was enough.

Late May Mussolini don't moves by an inch. He is too frightened, and after all hitler spent most of the time humiliating him.

After a last bloody stalemate, the generals ask for a ceasefire. Hitler is evidently mad with rage.

August

A fragile ceasefire happens; noone thinks it could last very long.

September
Civil war breaks out in Germany, first between the varied nazis factions, then between the SS and Wehrmacht. The generals ultimately won that battle, and asks for surrender, with peace terms.

October
The peace terms are deemed unacceptable by both France (Reynaud) and Great Britain (Churchill)*. War will goes on, although both adversaries are so far exhausted noone can exploit the other weakness.
*POD is after May 10, 1940 so Chamberlain and Daladier are out.

1941
France and Great Britain are rearming, full steam, thanks to Arsenal America. Scores of Curtiss P-40, Douglas DB-7, Martin 167 and B-24 Liberators fill important gaps within the French Air Force.
Since Germans mechanized forces were badly mauled, and an anglo-french invasion of the fatherland will happens sooner or later, only token German forces occupations are left in Belgium and the Netherlands.

1942
Spring
Anglo-French offensive from the Maginot line in the direction of the Saar and Ruhr. After rapid initial progresses, the offensive soon run into fierce, if not desperate, German resistance. The Wehrmacht is slowly destroyed and pushed inland, at a very, very high cost reminiscent of WW1. Final victory is not expected before 1944 at best...

1943
Now it is the Pacific that erupts into a war. America goes to to war against Japan. It will last for years.

1944

Stalin is a happy man. Germany, France and Great Britain are bleeding themseves to death, while his Red Army is fine, thanks.

Or he waits a little longer and jump on them from Poland.

Or he waits for the Allies to reach Berlin, cleanup the mess, and turn Germany into a puppet, buffer state. Then a communist coup would do the job - surviving Germans are rather angry at Great Britain and France (how surprising !)

NOTE
Collaterals victims of that alt-WWII: the atomic bomb, the aircraft carrier, and the jet fighter. All are set back by months, if not years...
 
Top