Reverse Barbarossa 1941

Eurofed

Banned
So in other words, provided the exile governments promise to do nothing against the Reich, and pass anti-Semitic laws (and presumably other gleichschaltet measures), the Reich will promise to leave them alone, just as it had promised before the war started.

It is not an issue of trust, it is that in those conditions, the deal simply looks like the lesser evil alternative.

Consider that in this scenario, Vichy France shifts from semi-occupied country to second fascist junior partner of Nazi Germany with Italy. Netherlands finds itself in the strategic vise between Nazi Germany and Fascist France, the likelihood of recovering complete independence with British help looks rather dim at this point, as it does British victory and American entry in the war themselves (Soviet victory looks just as bad, and for most worse, than Nazi victory). Moreover, to many Dutch, the possibility of ending military occupation and recovering some autonomy as satellites, and the gain of Flanders, looks like a tempting deal, so the government-in-exile fears that if they say no, a purely fascist government shall take over and entrench with genuine popular appeal like it happened in France. Similar reasoning occurs for the Norwegian government-in-exile, added to the genuine fear that if they refuse compromise, the Germans may simply entrust Norway to Sweden as a "protectorate".
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
This well may be the WORST time for Stalin to invade. A year earlier and the German army is mostly in France, a year later (If the Nazis wait another year) the USSR is stronger.

Stalin ITTL decides to heed the warnings about a coming German invasion, so he hasn't the leisure to wait until 1942-43 to complete the restructuring of the Red Army. And he doesn't strike in 1940 since he always planned for war in 1942-43. The only real mistake he does here is to choose a pre-emptive attack instead of a prepared defensive war, but given his overestimation of the Red Army's capability in 1939-41, and his paranoid personality, it's a quite plausible development.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Sorry, but Hitler is who he is. A carpet-chewing madman with serious ego issues. When things went well, he was happy, but as soon as he had some adversity, he went bonkers. Nothing in this POD changes his personality or his mental stability. Its only a matter of time.

This is true, but as you mention it, if things are going to go better than OTL, his personality and mental problems are going to surface lesser and later and mess things up accordingly. I can foresee this happening with the treatment of Russian civilians. While the PoD determines butterflies that led him to accept less murderous and politically damning alternatives of dealing with Jews and Poles, the problem is going to resurface later as the Axis reaches deep within Russia. As it concerns the management of military matters themselves, if the Russian campagin unfolds with greater success, he shall have simply less opportuntiy to mess up things. And the PoD simply butterfly away any realistic opportuntiy for his worst mistake, declaration of war to the USA.
 
Stalin ITTL decides to heed the warnings about a coming German invasion, so he hasn't the leisure to wait until 1942-43 to complete the restructuring of the Red Army. And he doesn't strike in 1940 since he always planned for war in 1942-43. The only real mistake he does here is to choose a pre-emptive attack instead of a prepared defensive war, but given his overestimation of the Red Army's capability in 1939-41, and his paranoid personality, it's a quite plausible development.

I'm not saying it is impossible for him to do so but that it would be the worst time to do so and he would probably get mulched at the starting point.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Hitting Finland hard right off the bat might bring Sweden into the war, but the loss of Finland means that Soviet Forces only need to worry about a few far northern points of contact.

Hitting Romania hard as well is also doable, overrunning the Ploesti oil fields would be critical, but also well within the reach of the Soviet offensives against undergeared Romanian Forces.

The Wehrmacht is going to hit the Reds back hard--but they're now without much oil. While Germany can almost certainly roll the Red Army backward, ultimately the Soviets are in far stronger shape across the board. Indeed, a Balkan Sweep might be in the cards for the Soviets; figure that if Romania collapses, Bulgaria never actually DoWed the Soviet Union, and Serbia and Greece are both restive.

It'll get hairy for the Soviets, but probably not as bad as OTL. The Soviet Union simply has the strength to win this war, and with Germany out its oil supply and facing the Red Army without other fronts to distract it, they can at best hold a line and cut a seperate peace with the West.

Well, this is an interesting point. While I disgree with you on the ultimate outcome (in this scenario, IMO the best outcome they can hope for is a Brest-Litovsk peace, with no US cobelligerance or even Land-Lease to them, and the larger Axis), the points you make on the degree of initial Soviet success are interesting. Sincerely I am myself rather uncertain on that, how deep would the 1941 Red Army penetrate at the wings (Finland and Romania) before he suffers the inevitable strategic counterattack ? In Poland I think the Soviets never have a serious chance of a breakthrough.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Churchill refuses the renewed peace offer from the Axis. He is able to hold onto power by calling the British people’s attention to the Napoleonic precedent, how the Nazi Empire represents a nastier reincarnation of Napoleonic domination of Europe and how Britain defeated it in alliance with Russia at the height of its power. He is however unable to crush the appeal of the pro-German, anti-Soviet peace faction, which remains strong and staunchily opposes the British-Russian alliance. Churchill is able to gather a majority in the Parliament and the country to support his continuation of the war and (rather more controversially) the alliance with Russia, but the days when he got the near-unanimous support of the whole country are over.

He engineers the combined Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran to open up a reliable way of sending British adi to the USSR. However, the amounftof aid he can send this way is sadly quite limited: the US Congress has banned American aid to the Soviets, and although Churchill is able to divert a limited part of Land-Lease supplies meant for Britain to Stalin, this is limited by dire British need for such aid and fraught to risk political backlash backlash from American and British who oppose his pro-Soviet policy. Iran is quickly invaded and overrun and its territory is divided between the Soviet zone of occupation in the North and the British in the South. Although the operation is a complete success, it increases the opposition in America to British cooperation with the USSR, despite Roosevelt’s efforts.

Negotiations between Soviets and Japanese about a non-aggression pact and commercial treaty drag out without getting nowhere. Since the reopening of the trade between DEI and Japan, the Japanese industry is already getting most of what they need, and the Japanese government has got less interested in getting Soviet trade. The IJA has got the upper hand in its fight with IJN and the government and high command have picked the Strike North option and are bidding time to shift a sizable part of the IJA from China to Manchuria (even if the calls of the moderates for a compromise peace with Chiang fall on deaf ears for now, the overconfident Japanese militarists are confident they can tackle both teathers at once). Stalin himself has been bidding time as well, but once he got reports from his spies that the Japanese are preparing to attack, he orders a pre-emptive attack on Japan.

The heavily equipped Red Army forces take the lighty armored Japanese army, gearing up for their own attack, by surprise, they make deep inroads into Manchuria, the Soviet Far East offensive appears to be one of the biggest Russian successes of the war so far, even if it is keeping precious resources from the more important European theater.

In the Eastern front, the Soviets have made significant territorial gains in southern Finland, but the determined Finnish-Swedish resistance are stonewalling a Soviet strategic breakthrough, and the Germans and French are starting to redeploy to butter up their defense. In the Baltics and Poland, the Soviets are finding themselves more and more pushed back beyond their pre-war lines, as Axis forces (mainly Germans and French in these theaters) enflank and envelop them. In the Southern theater, the Soviets have managed to overrun Moldavia and most of Wallachia, including the precious Ploesti oilfields and Bucharest. The Romanian army is forced to retreat on the Carpathians, but German-Italian-Hungarian troops are redeploying in greater and greater numbers from Serbia and Greece and buffer up successful resistance. Hitler panics about the loss of the oilfields and orders a crash expansion of the synthetic fuel program and a reconquest of Romania at all costs. He is also enraged about British stubborn refusal of his peace offers and orders plans to be drafted in order to hit British power somehow. Several options are reviewed but due to current main deployment of Axis forces against Russia and the fuel concerns, the option that gets most approval is an aeronaval attack against Gibraltar and Malta. Franco still refuses to join the war against Britain, unless other Axis countries fulfill his exorbitant supplies requests, so plans for Gibralter have to be postponed. Plans for a combined Italo-German attack on Malta go in full gear, however. Petain so far declines to join the war against Britain, too, but guarantees Hitler and Mussolini that if the UK makes any other act of hostility against France like Mers-El-Kabir, he will declare war.

In America, the position of Roosevelt remains stable but difficult, he keeps a strong personal popularity but some of his most radical pro-Allies policies meet overwhelming opposition. While sympathy for Britain remains strong, and Land-lease to Britain goes with limited opposition, the vast majority of the US public remains fiercely committed to isolationism and hostile to his interventionist and pro-Soviet stance. Most Americans think the USSR is just a bad or worse threat than the fascist powers and support the efforts of the Congress to keep America safe from involvement in European conflicts and to ban trade and aid for the Soviet Union. The Axis finds very real lovers apart from the fringe of fascist sympathizers, especially due to its racist policies, but many find that the argument of “fighting to protect Europe from Bolshevism” has some merit. Roosevelt’s efforts to engineer a casus belli with Nazi Germany by using Presidential powers to order an undeclared naval war alongside Britain in the Atlantic consistently fail since Hitler has sent strict orders to avoid any provocations by the USN and the American public, mindful of how such a issue already led them to war in WWI, remains skeptical about the issue of German attacks on British trade.
 
Well, this is an interesting point. While I disgree with you on the ultimate outcome (in this scenario, IMO the best outcome they can hope for is a Brest-Litovsk peace, with no US cobelligerance or even Land-Lease to them, and the larger Axis), the points you make on the degree of initial Soviet success are interesting. Sincerely I am myself rather uncertain on that, how deep would the 1941 Red Army penetrate at the wings (Finland and Romania) before he suffers the inevitable strategic counterattack ? In Poland I think the Soviets never have a serious chance of a breakthrough.


Developments in the Balkans can easily become a massive mess. Soviet Forces are likely to pound right through Romania, Finland has been stripped of its defenses and Helsinki is perilously close to the revised border.

While Poland and the Baltic States are going to be hard to hold against Germany, Germany may find itself without an answer to attacks on the wings. The Soviets can then redeploy those forces to deal with a hard thrust to the center.

Thing is, Sweden's forces are going to be trying to move into a pile of ice in Northern Finland, while the Balkans are going to wind up in some kind of Soviet Puppet/Ally government. Germany has not committed massive forces in the Balkans, and this is going to hurt them as the Soviets promptly throw a Serbian Socialist Government into the Fray.

If Germany hits at the center instead of being forced to spread out to cover the flanks, it runs the risk of Soviet forces marching on Hungary and Austria before too long. The Center push is the only thing Germany has to play, and while some success is going to be present, this drive would reach Smolensk at best. It would be hard to call this 1941 campaign any kind of Axis victory; the Soviets would be in clear position to address this offensive and the Germans would be running out of fuel.

Or, the Germans are forced to move into Romania, giving ground in Poland itself to try to secure Ploesti Oil. In either case, the Soviets are going to be up a great deal in Winter 1941 compared to OTL, and yeah, a Balkan Sweep is going to raise serious problems for the Axis. I don't doubt that Germany will lose this war, because Hitler is going to assume command--and then screw his country.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Developments in the Balkans can easily become a massive mess. Soviet Forces are likely to pound right through Romania, Finland has been stripped of its defenses and Helsinki is perilously close to the revised border.

While Poland and the Baltic States are going to be hard to hold against Germany, Germany may find itself without an answer to attacks on the wings. The Soviets can then redeploy those forces to deal with a hard thrust to the center.

Thing is, Sweden's forces are going to be trying to move into a pile of ice in Northern Finland, while the Balkans are going to wind up in some kind of Soviet Puppet/Ally government. Germany has not committed massive forces in the Balkans, and this is going to hurt them as the Soviets promptly throw a Serbian Socialist Government into the Fray.

If Germany hits at the center instead of being forced to spread out to cover the flanks, it runs the risk of Soviet forces marching on Hungary and Austria before too long. The Center push is the only thing Germany has to play, and while some success is going to be present, this drive would reach Smolensk at best. It would be hard to call this 1941 campaign any kind of Axis victory; the Soviets would be in clear position to address this offensive and the Germans would be running out of fuel.

Are your calculations taking into account all the extra troops that the Axis are getting from France ? I doubt it.


I don't doubt that Germany will lose this war, because Hitler is going to assume command--and then screw his country.

Assuming this shall be the decisive factor to this extent is imprudent IMO. Russia has serious problems here as well: no Land-Lease whatsoever, no hope for an American second front, it faces a larger Axis, has a second front with Japan. And Hitler is not immortal, there is no guarantee that the amazing luck that IOTL protected him from all the many assassination attempts shall hold in every TL. Actually, I think this should not be expected.
 
It is not an issue of trust, it is that in those conditions, the deal simply looks like the lesser evil alternative.

Consider that in this scenario, Vichy France shifts from semi-occupied country to second fascist junior partner of Nazi Germany with Italy. Netherlands finds itself in the strategic vise between Nazi Germany and Fascist France, the likelihood of recovering complete independence with British help looks rather dim at this point, as it does British victory and American entry in the war themselves (Soviet victory looks just as bad, and for most worse, than Nazi victory). Moreover, to many Dutch, the possibility of ending military occupation and recovering some autonomy as satellites, and the gain of Flanders, looks like a tempting deal, so the government-in-exile fears that if they say no, a purely fascist government shall take over and entrench with genuine popular appeal like it happened in France. Similar reasoning occurs for the Norwegian government-in-exile, added to the genuine fear that if they refuse compromise, the Germans may simply entrust Norway to Sweden as a "protectorate".

In other words, their offer consists of an even more complete surrender. This doesn't seem like anything even remotely acceptable.

Are you thinking that the Jewish Lobby in Britain will push for the peace plan because they will be getting Madagascar as a Jewish Homeland? Since the Madagascar Plan would have had completely de-naturalized Jews (i.e., with no citizenship of any state) under the control of an SS officer, it's hard to imagine this as anything other than an extermination plan.
 
Well, given that you've got a French-German alliance in the cards, this is no longer a question of "WI Stalin hits first" but a matter of "Authorial Fiat", where the author wants Stalin to lose and Hitler to win.

I refer to this as "PoD Drift", since it essentially means changing around the PoD to get a desired outcome. I'd note, however, that a French-German Alliance is probably the stuff of video games, not real life. However strong the desires of Laval and Petain to back the Reich, it makes zero sense that France wants its men and children to die in a war against the Soviet Union, which actually had some level of reproachement prewar.

To help you screw over the Soviets, I recommend that Stalin gets killed by the Politburo after the war effort stalls, and then the Soviet Union breaks down in the middle of the fighting--it is perhaps the most plausible way to destroy that nation.
 
I think it certainly POSSIBLE for France to join the Axis but I don't think that equates to a massive contribution to the Eastern Front. There were those in Berlin who EXPECTED that France would be raised to this level, whilst there were those in Vichy who wanted it. They could easily sell it on the basis of getting civil governance of the rest of their country back BUT if this meant that they had to send troops to fight GERMANY's war, it would break down very quickly.

BUT France has its own interests and its own war, and raised to a member of the Axis, it can go about screwing with Great Britain and playing a secondary imperial role in N Africa

If you think joining the Axis NECESSITATES a huge commitment to the Eastern Front, have a look at Bulgaria

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Eurofed

Banned
In other words, their offer consists of an even more complete surrender. This doesn't seem like anything even remotely acceptable.

What other perspective they would have ? Without American entry in the war, Britain pulling a successful Overlord is totally unrealistic, even more so after Vichy France joins the Axis, and even in the case Stalin would win a total victory, Bolshevik occupation of Western Europe looks even less desirable to most. German vassaldom looks like a better deal than continued military occupation.

Since the Madagascar Plan would have had completely de-naturalized Jews (i.e., with no citizenship of any state) under the control of an SS officer, it's hard to imagine this as anything other than an extermination plan.

Madagascar is more than enough remote and peripheral to Nazi imperial interests that they can be easily persuaded, either by their own moderates, or by Western governments at the peace negotiation table, to leave the deported Jews to their own devices. Granted that, Jewish Madagascar would quickly evolve to African Israel with the support of the Western Jewish lobbies. The Nazis would still not like it on point of principle, but it's on the other side of the world as far as they are concerned, once the Jews are dumped off Europe the issue is settled even for the vast majority of the Nazis.
 
The Soviet attack will, I expect, be defeated eventually, but its going to be a hell of a fight.

I see you're having the Germans attack Malta. If youre planning for them to actually succeed, then I suggest you dont have the Germans participate very much in the attack and do NOT occupy the islands. Leave that to the Italians. The Italians were viewed as 'friendly' and not really wanting to harm the Maltese, while the Germans were seen as the 'evil masterminds' of all the suffering. The British were not popular either, though, so I could see an Italian 'liberation' attack working.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Well, given that you've got a French-German alliance in the cards, this is no longer a question of "WI Stalin hits first" but a matter of "Authorial Fiat", where the author wants Stalin to lose and Hitler to win.

A fascist French-German alliance was a plausible outcome after Vichy and before German occupation of southern France. The PoD of Stalin hitting first creates the political conditions where the Vichy regime, which already had a strong popular backing, can successfully sell it to the French people as defending Western/Christian Europe from the Bolshevik Asian hordes, and the price to alow France claim its rightful role as an great power in the new European/World Order after the corrupted Third Republic led it to ruin in a senseless war to foster the interests of demo-judo-socialist lobbies and all that kind of propaganda.

However strong the desires of Laval and Petain to back the Reich, it makes zero sense that France wants its men and children to die in a war against the Soviet Union, which actually had some level of reproachement prewar.

Such kinds of tentative reapprochment mirror the ones that Weimar Germany and Soviet Russia had in the 1920s. They mean zero to the Vichy Regime, which was fiercely anti-Communist. About the masses, defending Europe from a Soviet Union that has demonstrably attacked first is one the few good ways by which a French government may make an alliance with Germany popular.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I think it certainly POSSIBLE for France to join the Axis but I don't think that equates to a massive contribution to the Eastern Front.

At the very least, anything up to matching Italy's OTL level of contribution in 1941-42 seems appropriate, given the very smilar ideological basis of Fascist Italy and Vichy France, and the PoD of Russia attacking first. Given the latter, maybe expanding OTL levels a bit, i.e. 250,000 to 300,000 Italians and French.

There were those in Berlin who EXPECTED that France would be raised to this level, whilst there were those in Vichy who wanted it. They could easily sell it on the basis of getting civil governance of the rest of their country back BUT if this meant that they had to send troops to fight GERMANY's war, it would break down very quickly.

Given that Stalin attacked first all along his border, Petain and Laval would have an easy time selling it as the war of Western/Christian/Fascist Europe, not just Germany.

BUT France has its own interests and its own war, and raised to a member of the Axis, it can go about screwing with Great Britain and playing a secondary imperial role in N Africa.

This is an interesting thought, indeed in this scenario, I would be expecting that eventually France joins the war with Britain, but in my expectations, given the ideological base of the regime, and recent history, they would committ to the anti-Bolshevik crusade frist, then pick up a fight with UK (slightly later), when Churchill gives them a decent casus belli a la Mers-el-Kabir. Given Churchill M.O., it is reasonable to expect that sooner or later he would mess up with some French colony, assuming Vichy France is a lost cause, and then Petain and Laval would have their casus belli.

Anyway, let's explore this angle. I was assuming that eventually Churchill would seize Syria and Lebanon when the Axis occupies Malta and/or Crete (or maybe Gibraltar, Franco could change his mind eventually), or anti-British unrest surfaces in Iraq, and this would be the casus belli. What worthy contribution could France give to the Axis fight in the Mediterranean ?

If you think joining the Axis NECESSITATES a huge commitment to the Eastern Front, have a look at Bulgaria.

Bulgaria was much less strong and much, much more Russophile than Vichy France.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The Soviet attack will, I expect, be defeated eventually, but its going to be a hell of a fight.

I see you're having the Germans attack Malta. If youre planning for them to actually succeed, then I suggest you dont have the Germans participate very much in the attack and do NOT occupy the islands. Leave that to the Italians. The Italians were viewed as 'friendly' and not really wanting to harm the Maltese, while the Germans were seen as the 'evil masterminds' of all the suffering. The British were not popular either, though, so I could see an Italian 'liberation' attack working.

Well, I expect that in order to succeed, the Axis conquest of Malta ought to be a combined Italo-German aeronaval amphibious-airborne effort. Italy had rather good airbone and amphibious troops, but I am doubtful they woyuld be able to succeed alone. However, in all likelihood, Hitler would be quite happy to leave the occupation of Malta to the Italians alone, it is an old Italian irredentist claim and nazi Germany has no expansionist stake in Malta. The Germans would simply use it as an airbase alongside the Italians, so your point would be fulfilled.

What would be really interesting, IMO, is that the Italo-German occupation of Malta would occur *before* OTL Operation Mercur, in all likelihood with much lesser casualties, so Hitler doesn't lose faith in airborne troops and likely both Mussolini and him greenlight their expansion, which opens all kinds of juicy options for the Axis in the Mediterranean. After Malta, the next Axis target would still have to be Crete (as long as Malta is British and Ploesti stays in Soviet hands, having Crete is not that important to the xis, but after they conquer both, they need to conquer Crete next). Even so, an Operation Merkur that comes after Malta maybe doesn't impress Hitler as much, so he keeps airborne troops an option.

I wonder whether a Summer-Fall Axis conquest of Malta would change the outcome of the British offensive in Libya (AOI is doomed anyway). I assume conquest of Malta lets the Afrika Corps happen as OTL. With Malta Italian, and the Axis free to make large-scale airborne operations in the Eastern Mediterranean (Alexandria ? Cyprus ? Syria ? Iraq ?), I wonder about the butterflies. Britain is still going to provoke France to war, which means its committment to the Mediterranean, too. French Syria and Lebanon are likely doomed like AOI, unless the Axis is able to send there a large amount of troops quickly, so the main contribution of France would be mostly a sizable amount of extra good-quality troops. Sadly for Petain, most of the French Navy had been lost already in 1940, but Vichy France retained control of the French Fleet in Toulon. If that were to join hands with the Italian Navy, perhaps British naval supremacy in the Mediterranean may be contested.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Note: if some of you guys think the thread title unaccurately reflects the scenario I've chosen, I can restart anotehr thead with a different title, such as "Reverse Barbarossa and a Larger Axis 1941". As far as I'm concerned, in the scenario I've devised, Vichy France and Spain joining the Axis with committment comparable to theri potential (for France as much as Italy, Spain much less because they are still screwed by the SCW) after the Soviet attack are almost a given. Swedish joining the Axis is not a given but almost so if Stalin attacks Finland again, if not they shall remain neutral. Hitler ditching the Final Solution in favor of deportation, the partition of Belgium, and the other non-fascist Western countries signing a separate peace with Germany are not a given but are wholly plausible butterflies (and very likely for Netherlands and Belgium with an Axis France). So does Japan attacking the USSR (or Stalin making pre-emptive attack on Japan), since a Soviet attack binds Japan to the Tripartite Pact much more strongly; if the DEI lifts the embargo against Japan that is a given.
 
Well, I expect that in order to succeed, the Axis conquest of Malta ought to be a combined Italo-German aeronaval amphibious-airborne effort. Italy had rather good airbone and amphibious troops, but I am doubtful they woyuld be able to succeed alone. However, in all likelihood, Hitler would be quite happy to leave the occupation of Malta to the Italians alone, it is an old Italian irredentist claim and nazi Germany has no expansionist stake in Malta. The Germans would simply use it as an airbase alongside the Italians, so your point would be fulfilled.

Sure, but the Germans better stick to attacking the British soldiers. If any dirty work is to be done to the Maltese people, try to limit it to the pro-British faction as they were hardly any anti-Italians but nearly everyone was anti-German. All this, plus a promise to try to bring back the exiled pro-Italian Nationalist Party members from Uganda, will ensure a happy Malta under Italy. It looks like a lot of work for a small island, but its a very important strategic island, too:).


Note: if some of you guys think the thread title unaccurately reflects the scenario I've chosen, I can restart anotehr thead with a different title, such as "Reverse Barbarossa and a Larger Axis 1941". As far as I'm concerned, in the scenario I've devised, Vichy France and Spain joining the Axis with committment comparable to theri potential (for France as much as Italy, Spain much less because they are still screwed by the SCW) after the Soviet attack are almost a given. Swedish joining the Axis is not a given but almost so if Stalin attacks Finland again, if not they shall remain neutral. Hitler ditching the Final Solution in favor of deportation, the partition of Belgium, and the other non-fascist Western countries signing a separate peace with Germany are not a given but are wholly plausible butterflies (and very likely for Netherlands and Belgium with an Axis France). So does Japan attacking the USSR (or Stalin making pre-emptive attack on Japan), since a Soviet attack binds Japan to the Tripartite Pact much more strongly; if the DEI lifts the embargo against Japan that is a given.

Well, I guess you want to run this into a full blown TL, so you should do that and pick a bit more of a dramatic title. Something like, The Great War against Commuism or somethig along those lines.
 
I think it certainly POSSIBLE for France to join the Axis but I don't think that equates to a massive contribution to the Eastern Front. There were those in Berlin who EXPECTED that France would be raised to this level, whilst there were those in Vichy who wanted it. They could easily sell it on the basis of getting civil governance of the rest of their country back BUT if this meant that they had to send troops to fight GERMANY's war, it would break down very quickly.

Germany ITTL requires not only a huge number of frontline troops but also occupation troops, police force, military convoys etc. Entrusting this role to vassal state troops liberates a lot of German troops for frontline duty. And if the French soldiers on occupation duty return with some loot the way the German soldiers did OTL, it can only improve the opinion of French public towards Axis membership.
Of course once it all begins to fall apart (and German war effort was bound to fall apart sooner or later for financial reasons) France will rediscover it´s affinity to the Allies.
 
Top