WI Germany left France after the Armistice

The Nazis kind of funded their economy by looting the countries they defeated, but aside from that... I think the least Germany would want to do is to utterly demolish the Maginot line, to make a second invasion easier if the French decide to reenter, as well as a reminder that they can't just invade Germany for free. Oh, and a bit of reparations, of course. I don't think Hitler could resist the opportunity to play pan-German and restore the 1914 German-French border, either, but that's another question...

Could we perhaps see the idea of a Franco-Soviet alliance being dusted off? I mean, ideological differences aside, a Nazi Germany now enlarged with Poland would be a scary enemy for France and there's no reason for the French to believe that Germany wouldn't just pull a second Czechoslovakia and go for France again anyway. Especially if the UK seems unreliable to the French (e.g. if they think the UK might want to pull out of the war), even a center-right French government might be willing to strike a deal with the devil and enlist the Soviets to get an ally against the Germans, no?
 
What if after the French surrender the Germans said "Ok we're done. All we wanted to do was solve the Polish situation". The surrender document has France recognizing the German takeover of Poland, but otherwise returning France to the same position it was in 1939. Germany does the same with Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark and Luxemburg.


What does England do? While the government can continue I think the general population will start questioning why the war would continue.


If Germany has 3 to 4 years to consolidate their gains in Austria, Czech and Poland what kind of shape would they be in by 1943-44?
This appears politically not feasible. Germany **at a minimum** would get to annex significant portions of land, have reparations, and a demilitarized zone in Northern France. In short, OTL. The war continues.
 
These are all good points above.

I've thought for some time that a narrower occupation would have made mores sense for the Nazis. Just the coalfields on the Belgian border, Pas-de-Calais, and Alsace-Lorraine, which would have included all the Maginot forts. The u-boats and airplanes get to use French ports and bases. IOTL the u-boats re-supplied in Spanish ports, so this isn't an unreasonable demand. The French get Paris, their colonial empire, and otherwise get left alone. The Italians get nothing, they jumped in too late and were too ineffective.

I was thinking of this while considering the best way for the Axis to defeat Overlord. The way you defeat Overlord is to not be in Normandy in the first place. The British and the Americans would have to declare war on France, somehow convince the French to get back in, or go through the Pas de Calais which is more heavily defended. You free up most of the occupation forces and some air. At a minimum, the units in 19th Army can be used in Russia in 1943-4 and possibly also those in the the 7th. That is what the Nazis gain.

For the reasons stated above, the French are unlikely to get back in this scenario, they got pummeled the last time and this time the Maginot forts and the coalfields are under German control, and there is not much to stop the German forces in Pas-de_Caliais from getting into Paris. Besides, in public the German leaders promise to end the limited occupation when matters with Britain are settled.

However the big problem with this is that the Nazis don't get to loot France and as pointed out above the entire Nazi economy was based on looting countries they conquered, which is why they were so aggressive in the first place.
 
The previous post match's much of what I've previously concluded, would be the better course for Germany. One item I would add would be reparations or payments to Germany. That would be a better organized form of looting.

I do disagree that France would remain Nuetral in the longer term. As Darlan told the US ambassador in 1942; "If you come with three divisions we will fight you. If you come with twenty we will join you.". If there is something approaching the US deployment against Germany Petains government would be smart to join.
 

Deleted member 1487

French leaders had zero interest in seeing Germany as the economically dominate paper in Europe. Of more imeadiatly import, there was zero trust in the Nazi government. France would have been headed straight for a rematch after recovery.
Not so sure about that; they lost twice to Germany and won once after the most destructive war in French history that wrecked their country and then they were too weak to maintain the peace treaty, ultimately resulting in another defeat and occupation. Leaving them unoccupied would mean they could organize to cast off the treaty obligations as Germany did when the Allies left in 1930, but I highly doubt they'd want to start another war with Germany (they didn't really want to declare war at the start of WW2), rather reach a liveable accommodation with them.

OTL the nazis made a half hearted attempt at that. They instituted the police state, but for the rest of it the French were of uneven reliability. Some collaborated, others became active in the underground, a few deserted to the Free French. Most wished the Germans would stop bothering them & cheated the occupiers when they could.
Yeah this is a very similar likely response if left unoccupied; the French would find any way to subvert any and all treaty provisions, which lack enforcement mechanisms. But it would be hard for them not to realize they were no longer a global power, just a regional one with a shaky empire.
 

Deleted member 94680

The northern half of France was occupied to fight Britain from, no? If you somehow remove Britain from the War (which is nigh-on ASB) then the need for the Occupied Zone goes away.
 
These are all good points above.

I've thought for some time that a narrower occupation would have made mores sense for the Nazis. Just the coalfields on the Belgian border, Pas-de-Calais, and Alsace-Lorraine, which would have included all the Maginot forts. The u-boats and airplanes get to use French ports and bases. IOTL the u-boats re-supplied in Spanish ports, so this isn't an unreasonable demand. The French get Paris, their colonial empire, and otherwise get left alone. The Italians get nothing, they jumped in too late and were too ineffective.

I was thinking of this while considering the best way for the Axis to defeat Overlord. The way you defeat Overlord is to not be in Normandy in the first place. The British and the Americans would have to declare war on France, somehow convince the French to get back in, or go through the Pas de Calais which is more heavily defended. You free up most of the occupation forces and some air. At a minimum, the units in 19th Army can be used in Russia in 1943-4 and possibly also those in the the 7th. That is what the Nazis gain.

For the reasons stated above, the French are unlikely to get back in this scenario, they got pummeled the last time and this time the Maginot forts and the coalfields are under German control, and there is not much to stop the German forces in Pas-de_Caliais from getting into Paris. Besides, in public the German leaders promise to end the limited occupation when matters with Britain are settled.

However the big problem with this is that the Nazis don't get to loot France and as pointed out above the entire Nazi economy was based on looting countries they conquered, which is why they were so aggressive in the first place.

Without French trucks and fuel there can be no Barbarossa. So, even if a reparations-paying france pays more dividends in the mid term, Hitler had bad health and wanted to conquer Russia before Morell's drugs killed him (see Wiking's Morrel thread.)

Hence, a non-drug addled Hitler might ahve went with what you proposed, but in reality such a Hitler would have stopped after 1938's gains.
 

Deleted member 1487

Without French trucks and fuel there can be no Barbarossa. So, even if a reparations-paying france pays more dividends in the mid term, Hitler had bad health and wanted to conquer Russia before Morell's drugs killed him (see Wiking's Morrel thread.)

Hence, a non-drug addled Hitler might ahve went with what you proposed, but in reality such a Hitler would have stopped after 1938's gains.
According to "Blitzed" Hitler didn't start taking narcotics until after Barbarossa started and only did the first time because he was really sick and trying to travel in Russia to talk to his generals. Then he got addicted. The author used Morrell's copious notes to write the chapter on Hitler's drug use.
 
According to "Blitzed" Hitler didn't start taking narcotics until after Barbarossa started and only did the first time because he was really sick and trying to travel in Russia to talk to his generals. Then he got addicted. The author used Morrell's copious notes to write the chapter on Hitler's drug use.
But, wasn't he taking other wonderful medicines before then? I cannot nail down a date but meth appears to have started in the 1930s http://www.historyextra.com/feature/second-world-war/when-hitler-took-cocaine
 
German permission for the Japanese occupation of French Indochina is less likely here. If that does not occur, then a US/Brit trade embargo of Japan is unlikely in 1941, which postphones or waives off entirely a Pacific war.
 
I've thought for some time that a narrower occupation would have made mores sense for the Nazis. Just the coalfields on the Belgian border, Pas-de-Calais, and Alsace-Lorraine, which would have included all the Maginot forts. The French get Paris, their colonial empire, and otherwise get left alone.

I was thinking of this while considering the best way for the Axis to defeat Overlord. The way you defeat Overlord is to not be in Normandy in the first place. The British and the Americans would have to declare war on France, somehow convince the French to get back in, or go through the Pas de Calais which is more heavily defended.

For the reasons stated above, the French are unlikely to get back in this scenario, they got pummeled the last time and this time the Maginot forts and the coalfields are under German control, and there is not much to stop the German forces in Pas-de_Caliais from getting into Paris.

The previous post match's much of what I've previously concluded, would be the better course for Germany. One item I would add would be reparations or payments to Germany. That would be a better organized form of looting.

German permission for the Japanese occupation of French Indochina is less likely here. If that does not occur, then a US/Brit trade embargo of Japan is unlikely in 1941, which postphones or waives off entirely a Pacific war.

Maginot_Line_ln-en_svg.svg.png

my scenario is always a re-oriented Maginot Line as the border in the East, with Nord Pas-de-Calais in the North as occupied territory until gold reserves, etc. were turned over, although they probably would insist on a littoral area all the way to (occupied) Brest?
 
The Germans don't really need to occupy Brest. They might want ports for the u-boats to operate out of, but for that they just need the French to give German ships the right to operate out of French ports. To carry on the war against Britain, all they really need is that and Pas de Calais.
 
These are all good points above.

I've thought for some time that a narrower occupation would have made mores sense for the Nazis. Just the coalfields on the Belgian border, Pas-de-Calais, and Alsace-Lorraine, which would have included all the Maginot forts. The u-boats and airplanes get to use French ports and bases. IOTL the u-boats re-supplied in Spanish ports, so this isn't an unreasonable demand. The French get Paris, their colonial empire, and otherwise get left alone. The Italians get nothing, they jumped in too late and were too ineffective.

I was thinking of this while considering the best way for the Axis to defeat Overlord. The way you defeat Overlord is to not be in Normandy in the first place. The British and the Americans would have to declare war on France, somehow convince the French to get back in, or go through the Pas de Calais which is more heavily defended. You free up most of the occupation forces and some air. At a minimum, the units in 19th Army can be used in Russia in 1943-4 and possibly also those in the the 7th. That is what the Nazis gain.

For the reasons stated above, the French are unlikely to get back in this scenario, they got pummeled the last time and this time the Maginot forts and the coalfields are under German control, and there is not much to stop the German forces in Pas-de_Caliais from getting into Paris. Besides, in public the German leaders promise to end the limited occupation when matters with Britain are settled.

However the big problem with this is that the Nazis don't get to loot France and as pointed out above the entire Nazi economy was based on looting countries they conquered, which is why they were so aggressive in the first place.

You are going down my line of thinking. If Germany doesn't do to France what France did to Germany after WWI I think it has the chance to change the mindset in France. Now Germany has to be tremendously forgiving and do everything it can to put France back on it's feet. A "independent" France that would stand up to GB is what Germany needed. Then if Britain tried something like operation Catapult they would risk France joining Germany "for real". The other thing I could see Germany doing is setting up some sort of economic agreement with the French to expand the rubber production and bring rubber imports for Germany.
 
View attachment 344970

my scenario is always a re-oriented Maginot Line as the border in the East, with Nord Pas-de-Calais in the North as occupied territory until gold reserves, etc. were turned over, although they probably would insist on a littoral area all the way to (occupied) Brest?

The Germans don't really need to occupy Brest. They might want ports for the u-boats to operate out of, but for that they just need the French to give German ships the right to operate out of French ports. To carry on the war against Britain, all they really need is that and Pas de Calais.

they had to build those huge u-boat bunkers and also secure the surrounding areas, do not think they would just use French ports as though they were operating cargo ships. now under this scenario they are vacating majority of French territory so it is possible they have foregone use of French Atlantic ports for the u-boats.

if they left the Channel Islands there would be additional huge savings of men and materials used to fortify those.

looking at the map my question would be if the Allies would land in France? (facing the fortifications that would be there)
 
They needed to loot France, they weren't passing that up, they need the money to kick off the next phase, not cheap waging war, they need to defang the military, tax the population and pinch everything not nailed down. But maybe they occupy less?
 
So if the Germans left France and Britain continues the war the Germans would be based from Denmark and Norway to Belgium. Would we be looking at an east coast version of the USM?
 
Top