What would had been the best course of action for Germany after defeating France?

[Anti-GrammarNazi]

As we know after the fall of France Germany was at its peak. Only to lose it because of continued British belligerance and Barbarossa, specially Barbarossa.

So, what would had been the best Germany could had done after defeating France?

If necessary you can kill Hitler to create the POD, as we know Barbarossa was never going to go away with him.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Surrender

 

[Catspoke]

Really just play the long game against Britain. Submarine warfare, Commerce raiding by sea and air, S-boats in the channel, air mining. Germany could stick to air bombing military targets and not invite retaliation (plus trying to look reasonable).

Don't even think about trying Sea Lion. Any Battle of Britain should be a light version. Keep economic disruptions minimal and reduce attrition. With the bases Germany already has the war cost to Britain is enormous, just living month to month.

Politically come to some sort of reasonable peace with anyone willing to make it. (France, Belgium). (trying to look reasonable again). 1913 boundaries plus reparations, 20 year occupation of Briery basin, military restrictions, return of POWs etc (occupation to continue until general peace).

Support Italy to the extent that you have to only (In such a TL Italy may not invade Greece as Germany does not have to move into Romania).

In short, reduce your overall war cost, be willing to play out several years, Britain has to make peace eventually. Politically settle for a 1913 in the west and a free hand in the east. Be politically reasonable and don't try to escalate (helps keep USA out).

 

[Anti-GrammarNazi]

Really just play the long game against Britain. Submarine warfare, Commerce raiding by sea and air, S-boats in the channel, air mining. Germany could stick to air bombing military targets and not invite retaliation (plus trying to look reasonable).

Don't even think about trying Sea Lion. Any Battle of Britain should be a light version. Keep economic disruptions minimal and reduce attrition. With the bases Germany already has the war cost to Britain is enormous, just living month to month.

Politically come to some sort of reasonable peace with anyone willing to make it. (France, Belgium). (trying to look reasonable again). 1913 boundaries plus reparations, 20 year occupation of Briery basin, military restrictions, return of POWs etc (occupation to continue until general peace).

Support Italy to the extent that you have to only (In such a TL Italy may not invade Greece as Germany does not have to move into Romania).

In short, reduce your overall war cost, be willing to play out several years, Britain has to make peace eventually. Politically settle for a 1913 in the west and a free hand in the east. Be politically reasonable and don't try to escalate (helps keep USA out).

What if Stalin unilaterally attacks first while you are playing the long game against the Brits?

 

[Catspoke]

What if Stalin unilaterally attacks first while you are playing the long game against the Brits?

He won't. Stalin is conservative politically OTL. The German army is completely unoccupied. 90% of the Luftwaffe could be brought east in a pinch. The Soviets have already secured important gains.

Certainly the Soviets will bargain for better trading conditions as they grow stronger though.

If the long game fails, Japan and the USA come in as OTL. The Soviets may attack to pick up cheap spoils, but only after an Allied army is on the ground in France. But this is a 1945 kind of thing.

 

[Garrison]

Really just play the long game against Britain. Submarine warfare, Commerce raiding by sea and air, S-boats in the channel, air mining. Germany could stick to air bombing military targets and not invite retaliation (plus trying to look reasonable).

Problem is that Germany's economy is creaking at the seams in 1940, they don't have the means to play the long game. The acquisition of Western Europe actually makes matters worse as it adds a whole extra bunch of industrial capacity dependent on imported raw materials.

 

[TruthfulPanda]

What if Stalin unilaterally attacks first while you are playing the long game against the Brits?

After settling matters in the West along the lines suggested by Catspoke prepare better for the strike East in 1941.
And win.

 

[Catspoke]

Problem is that Germany's economy is creaking at the seams in 1940, they don't have the means to play the long game. The acquisition of Western Europe actually makes matters worse as it adds a whole extra bunch of industrial capacity dependent on imported raw materials.

I am thinking they lasted until 1945 in this situation. In this TL they can import oil, cotton etc.. from the Soviet Union in exchange for manufactured goods, so they could do this longer or forever.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

After settling matters in the West along the lines suggested by Catspoke prepare better for the strike East in 1941.
And win.

... while Stalin is reforming, reinforcing, and refitting/modernizing the Red Army to digest the lessons of the Winter War, recover from the purges, and shift the army to adapt to the advent of Blitzkrieg tactics they've observed in the German campaigns at the same time. And can do so faster with a much higher end potential than Germany can hope to match in the long run. The longer Germany waits, the more and more the balance of power tips in the Soviet's favor against the success of any Barbarossa, and if that threat evaporates they can hold Berlin hostage at any point by threatening to turn off the raw resources tap.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Follow the air strategy put forth in "Most Dangerous Enemy" and they'd probably be able to defeat the RAF. Then launch a full on 'Transport Plan' air campaign against England. Strafe anything that moves and bomb major transport nodes. Collapse the fragile rail system and shut down coastal shipping, while keeping up commando raids.

 

[Catspoke]

Follow the air strategy put forth in "Most Dangerous Enemy" and they'd probably be able to defeat the RAF. Then launch a full on 'Transport Plan' air campaign against England. Strafe anything that moves and bomb major transport nodes. Collapse the fragile rail system and shut down coastal shipping, while keeping up commando raids.

At $9.99 on Kindle. I am going to get that tonight and read it, looks interesting.

It just seems like the number of fighters on each side, the short ranges of German fighters, the smallish bomb loads the Germans can carry. Compared to the ratio of strengths and weapons available to the Allies in Pointblank and beyond (where the Germans were able to produce and move stuff around still). That winning an air campaign (meaning I guess Germany defeats Britain by air and can still do the east in 1941) with Germany here just doesn't "feel" right, although the Germans can do better than OTL (and win a multi year grind).

 

[Garrison]

... while Stalin is reforming, reinforcing, and refitting/modernizing the Red Army to digest the lessons of the Winter War, recover from the purges, and shift the army to adapt to the advent of Blitzkrieg tactics they've observed in the German campaigns at the same time. And can do so faster with a much higher end potential than Germany can hope to match in the long run. The longer Germany waits, the more and more the balance of power tips in the Soviet's favor against the success of any Barbarossa, and if that threat evaporates they can hold Berlin hostage at any point by threatening to turn off the raw resources tap.

And Hitler was well aware of this, simply depending on Soviet willingness to co-operate in the long term was a non-starter, indeed he believed that one major reason for Britain hanging in the war was the expectation that the USSR would turn on Germany, which was one of the rationales behind Barbarossa. There is no way Hitler is just going to simply abandon the entire basis of his political philosophy either, the ultimate fate of the USSR was preordained by his entire world view. Yes Germany hung on until 1945 OTL, they did so by the use of slave labour, mass starvation and destroying the civilian economy of Germany.

 

[TruthfulPanda]

indeed he believed that one major reason for Britain hanging in the war was the expectation that the USSR would turn on Germany,

IMO he was correct.
The UK had been trying to set up a Soviet-German clash since at least 1939, throwing Poland under the bus if necessary.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

At $9.99 on Kindle. I am going to get that tonight and read it, looks interesting.

It just seems like the number of fighters on each side, the short ranges of German fighters, the smallish bomb loads the Germans can carry. Compared to the ratio of strengths and weapons available to the Allies in Pointblank and beyond (where the Germans were able to produce and move stuff around still). That winning an air campaign (meaning I guess Germany defeats Britain by air and can still do the east in 1941) with Germany here just doesn't "feel" right, although the Germans can do better than OTL (and win a multi year grind).

Germany is larger than England, plus the rail net is much denser. The air defense system is also far less dense in 1940-41 than it was in Germany in 1943, especially if this is post-defeat of the RAF in England.

 

[NHBL]

If you must do Barbarosa, launch it earlier, as soon as the mud season is over. To do this, sacrifice Africa if need be

 

[wtw]

Dismember France, give every ethnic minority independence and enough arms to keep them loyal to Germany. France must be made weak as possible which frees up German troops.

 

[Anti-GrammarNazi]

If you must do Barbarosa, launch it earlier, as soon as the mud season is over. To do this, sacrifice Africa if need be

Well as I stated in the OP, it is not necessary. You can kill Hitler if needed. I am just asking what is the best course of action for Germany here.

About Barbarossa I wonder if a more rational Germany (which likely means Hitler is dead) could perhaps launch a Barbarossa based entirely on toppling Stalin, revive nationalism in the Soviet Republics (like Ukraine) and put the population of the USSR in its economic sphere rather than a direct occupation.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

As we know after the fall of France Germany was at its peak. Only to lose it because of continued British belligerance and Barbarossa, specially Barbarossa.

So, what would had been the best Germany could had done after defeating France?

If necessary you can kill Hitler to create the POD, as we know Barbarossa was never going to go away with him.

Try to bring the UK to terms via Politics, Air attack, blockade and bluff - with no UK at its back (and by extension the rest of the world) there is no distractions or blockade and Germany's entire might can go East.

But this is pretty much what they did OTL but I still think it was the best thing they could have done given their long term war aims.

The best thing for Germany of course would have been to jack the whole thing in

 

[GDIS Pathe]

Really just play the long game against Britain. Submarine warfare, Commerce raiding by sea and air, S-boats in the channel, air mining. Germany could stick to air bombing military targets and not invite retaliation (plus trying to look reasonable).

Lend-lease will probably keep Britain in and then wait until a significant fleet unit gets torpd and then boom casus bell the the US enters the war

 

[miketr]

There are two options.

1) Do a real peace offer vs UK. Make clear that while there will be border adjustments in west, arms limition and reparations Germany is willing to end te war. Set date and and place for peace talks, Vienna perhaps and invite everyone but Poland. If UK doesnt show slow walk the talks for a bit.

Sooner or later UK has to come to the table after June 1940 Germany has the economic edge. It might be 1942.

2) Go all in on tryin to rush Mediterranean, UK has very few units there in July 1940. Maybe things collapse if Italy and Germany just dog pile in. 6 months made a major difference in terms of UK combat power.

Michael