WI: Vichy France an Axis belligerant and no Free French
- Thread starter Eurofed
- Start date
Perhaps the greatest error EuroFed makes is overguessing Hitler as a Leader.
He sucked.
This is a guy who's orders of no retreat utterly ruined Germany's thin lines against the Soviet Union, and not a man is going to make full use of his allies in any event. Indeed, Hitler isn't going to accept any peace deal with Stalin, assuming Stalin would make one--he rejected Brest-Litovsk in 1941, in OTL. He will not somehow see himself to making a similar peace deal in 1943.
The Red Army will not run out of soldiers, nor will it. Even if the Soviets were truly beaten in 1942 (not 1941, as French Forces would not be deployed in force in the Soviet Union, again thanks to Hitler's considerable incompetence) and lost Moscow, the Soviets could very well fall back to Kubeychev. If Stalin's nerve breaks he will ask for US Forces and US Commanders to take up the fight.
EuroFed's metaphor of the Soviet Union turning into Nationalist China's fight against Japan is apt, as is the likely outcome--a long and hard Soviet Victory as Germany is left guarding thousands of square miles of endless territory. The Soviet Union's post war position could definitely be impacted, but let's end the charade of Hitler getting a peace deal--he'd never sign one and he'd never ask for one.
Hitler wanted Germany wiped off of Earth in his last days--he'd have rather the German people had gone extinct than forced into a peace deal. Eurofed would be wise to recognize this as an impossibility. This says nothing about the direction of Case Blue--the Caucasus--being unable to knock out the Soviet Union in the first place. Soviet Oil Wells will be inoperable for months and Aran's point regarding Caspian Shipping is well considered. A victory at Stalingrad--and perhaps an extension of the campaign to Astrakhan--would simply get rolled back in the 1942 winter counter offensive. Do not forget that the Soviets had huge numbers massed for this counter attack, which punched through lines guarded by Romanian forces to ensnare German divisions.
Finally, by 1942, Hitler was moving to take full control of his armed forces. If EuroFed needs a last reason why Germany would be doomed to lose, this would be it.
EDIT: In what world does Nazi Germany, of all nations, launch joint R&D Projects? It isn't this one...
He sucked.
This is a guy who's orders of no retreat utterly ruined Germany's thin lines against the Soviet Union, and not a man is going to make full use of his allies in any event. Indeed, Hitler isn't going to accept any peace deal with Stalin, assuming Stalin would make one--he rejected Brest-Litovsk in 1941, in OTL. He will not somehow see himself to making a similar peace deal in 1943.
The Red Army will not run out of soldiers, nor will it. Even if the Soviets were truly beaten in 1942 (not 1941, as French Forces would not be deployed in force in the Soviet Union, again thanks to Hitler's considerable incompetence) and lost Moscow, the Soviets could very well fall back to Kubeychev. If Stalin's nerve breaks he will ask for US Forces and US Commanders to take up the fight.
EuroFed's metaphor of the Soviet Union turning into Nationalist China's fight against Japan is apt, as is the likely outcome--a long and hard Soviet Victory as Germany is left guarding thousands of square miles of endless territory. The Soviet Union's post war position could definitely be impacted, but let's end the charade of Hitler getting a peace deal--he'd never sign one and he'd never ask for one.
Hitler wanted Germany wiped off of Earth in his last days--he'd have rather the German people had gone extinct than forced into a peace deal. Eurofed would be wise to recognize this as an impossibility. This says nothing about the direction of Case Blue--the Caucasus--being unable to knock out the Soviet Union in the first place. Soviet Oil Wells will be inoperable for months and Aran's point regarding Caspian Shipping is well considered. A victory at Stalingrad--and perhaps an extension of the campaign to Astrakhan--would simply get rolled back in the 1942 winter counter offensive. Do not forget that the Soviets had huge numbers massed for this counter attack, which punched through lines guarded by Romanian forces to ensnare German divisions.
Finally, by 1942, Hitler was moving to take full control of his armed forces. If EuroFed needs a last reason why Germany would be doomed to lose, this would be it.
EDIT: In what world does Nazi Germany, of all nations, launch joint R&D Projects? It isn't this one...
Eurofed
Banned
They can still move a sizable chunk, if not all.
Malta is going to be conquered very soon, and the Italo-French shall have aero-naval supremacy in the Mediterranean. This shall ease Afrika Korps logistical troubles significantly, if not radically. Of course, such supremacy makes Axis conquest of Alexandria and Suez much easier, after such logistical troubles shall be a distant memory.
In this scenario, the picture is radically different.
Britain would also need to reconquer Iraq from the philo-Axis nationalists, by the way. The reasons you list may all well be good justifications why British losses are limited to Egypt-Sudan-Somaliland in the end, but I really see no way Britain is going to keep North Africa (and conquer Ethiopia) ITTL. Of course, if the Axis gets a clue and swamps Syria and Lebanon with troops by sea and air, Britain shall have much more troubles conquering it, and reconquering Iraq. It is going to be a race. Moreover, ITTL Italian attack on Greece could easily be butterflied away. If Mussolini is confident that he's going to get Malta and Egypt soon with Franco-German help, he's not going to invade Greece, he may invade Yugoslavia instead at the very most. Greece stays an Axis-friendly neutral, no British in Crete, Axis paratroopers are free to be used (and Hitler shall be much more confident in using them) on Malta, Tobruk, Alexandria, Suez, Cyprus, Iraq
Again you disregard logisitics and underestimate allied strength in the Middle-East. Really you would think that if they were in such dire traits they would reinforce the place
Which means that depending on the outcome of the race for Syria and Lebanon, they get to keep Iran with Soviet help, or everything east of Suez. No way they are going to keep North Africa, however.
Sure
Read my post above.
Those Blue Max statements are fanciful Sovietwank with Stalin assumed to pull soldiers, plans, and tanks outta his butt 24/7 in good old Sverdlovsk. If the Axis reaches the Volga line, the Soviet Union is killed as a valid military opponent. They shall be down to Nationalist China levels of effectiveness or worse, with a fraction of Chinese manpower. There is no way that the USSR can move enough industry, and certainly not the population, in Siberia to remain a valid conventional military opponent. They can wage a rather big guerrilla like the Chinese did with the Japanese, but that's all. Forget about the magical Ural factories, they would need at least the Star Wars cloning facilities, too.
Note that I'm not necessarily assuming that this Axis would reach the Volga line (although I absolutely assume they get Stalingrad in 1942 at the very least) and while I agree that the Soviets are not going to accept a Volga or Urals peace (while they most definitely accept a B-L one in 1942-43). But It does not matter. If Stalin is pushed beyond the Volga, he's as effective as Chiang and Mao.
Taking Stalingrad and wrecking Uranus radically changes the face of the Eastern front in 1942-43. The Axis enters 1943 entrenched on the Don, Volga, and Northern Caucasus, and with the resources to make a credible threat to Moscow.
Not after the USSR is crushed, and the Axis industrial production is redirected on air defense, no, sorry.
Eurofed
Banned
The Mediterranean French Fleet remained wholly loyal to Vichy until Germany invaded Vichy after Torch, then they sunk the ships. ITTL, when France and Germany sign a peace and alliance treaty, they shall remain loyal to the government and support Axis military effort in the Mediterranean. In combination with the Italian Regia Marina, they can easily seize naval supremacy in the Mediterranean. That fleet is the one I was referring in my statement, and it is the one that matters in terms of greately bettering Axis position in the threater. The other fleets do not matter, they are lost to the British one way or another anyway, IOTL or ITTL. But by doing away with them, Churchill can prevent the Axis from gaining supremacy in the Atantic, North Sea, and the Channel, he cannot so in the Mediterranean.
I'm just going to call bull over this entire thread.
Vichy as an Axis Belligerent hardly means that they're throw their own forces against the Soviet Union. Hell, it doesn't even mean that they'd DoW the Soviet Union!
General Zod/EuroFed just continues the same old Naziwank ideas and cherrypicking PoDs. There is no mention of Hitler's staggering incompetence, or the use of multinational forces by nations that would never co-operate at such as scale. Vichy France moving into Egypt and then losing their own colonies is absurd.
Whatever IGE wants to claim about SovWank, it is a staggering omission of details to the contrary that belie his arguments. A Stronger Case Blue and the Axis reach Baku--only to get beaten in a much larger encirclement for their efforts. The Soviets didn't launch military operations to fail, and Eurofed's assumption that they'd just launch a loser military operation ignores basic Soviet Military strategy. If the Caucausaus is indeed so heavily fortified, than what about an operation in a different part of the front?
I'll repeat myself. Betting on the guy whose litany of bad calls utterly screwed the Eastern Front in OTL is a bad bet. Germany might have been able to do what EuroFed suggests--but not a Germany run by a completely insane National Socialist Wacko with a massively inefficient military industrial complex and his idiotic answers to military problems.
The Soviets historically fielded large numbers of divisions, crap about cloning apparati to the contrary. Germany, though didn't make masterful use of teamwork to win the war, and Hitler did louse up military strategy in 1942 and later.
I think a search of historical posts by EuroFed, General Zod, and one more alias which I have reason to conceal, will reveal that this a very tired record that is getting played once again.
Vichy as an Axis Belligerent hardly means that they're throw their own forces against the Soviet Union. Hell, it doesn't even mean that they'd DoW the Soviet Union!
General Zod/EuroFed just continues the same old Naziwank ideas and cherrypicking PoDs. There is no mention of Hitler's staggering incompetence, or the use of multinational forces by nations that would never co-operate at such as scale. Vichy France moving into Egypt and then losing their own colonies is absurd.
Whatever IGE wants to claim about SovWank, it is a staggering omission of details to the contrary that belie his arguments. A Stronger Case Blue and the Axis reach Baku--only to get beaten in a much larger encirclement for their efforts. The Soviets didn't launch military operations to fail, and Eurofed's assumption that they'd just launch a loser military operation ignores basic Soviet Military strategy. If the Caucausaus is indeed so heavily fortified, than what about an operation in a different part of the front?
I'll repeat myself. Betting on the guy whose litany of bad calls utterly screwed the Eastern Front in OTL is a bad bet. Germany might have been able to do what EuroFed suggests--but not a Germany run by a completely insane National Socialist Wacko with a massively inefficient military industrial complex and his idiotic answers to military problems.
The Soviets historically fielded large numbers of divisions, crap about cloning apparati to the contrary. Germany, though didn't make masterful use of teamwork to win the war, and Hitler did louse up military strategy in 1942 and later.
I think a search of historical posts by EuroFed, General Zod, and one more alias which I have reason to conceal, will reveal that this a very tired record that is getting played once again.
Eurofed
Banned
He was ready to take the Dniepr border before Zitadelle.
I suppose that Yoda is going to lend him some Stormtrooper cloning factories, because after Russia is pushed beyond the Volga, it is left no decent manpower center. With Central Asia, Rump Russia is at the very best a big and empty Spain, and in Siberia, what is Stalin going to draft, bears and wolves ?
And start breaking down, as they have no more the manpower and industrial base to maintain a valid fight.
I'm appalled at the double standard you apply between Hitler and Stalin treusting their allies.
But ITTL Operation Uranus meets efficient French divisions, not to mention the German division that can be spared and used to man the Don and Volga since Stalingrad fell months before. The Soviet offensive shall be stalemated and pushed back.
Your argument is just tired old Sovietwank and the arbitrary expectation that Hitler shall find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, no matter how good the odds.
Eurofed
Banned
The unbelievable amount of ad hominem hostility you get from WWII Britwankers and Sovietwankers (not to mention Slav nationalist psychoes like Hurgan) is one of the main reasons why I soon gave up writing WWII TLs, and it seems nothing is really going to change, sadly. If you aren't ready to agree that everything shall always turn right for the Allies, especially the invincible Soviets that only failed to fulfill their destiny of reaching the Channel because of the American nukes spoilsport, and everything shall turn wrong for the Axis, you are a Naziwanker, and if you don't give up, it never takes long before they switch from calling you a Naziwanker, to a Nazi sympathizer.
Eurofed
Banned
Ever heard of the 2nd and 3rd Battle of Kharkov ? Or Operation Mars ?
They may easily try, but in no other point of the front they would get as favorable conditions for a strategic breakout as in the OTL Uranus, which ITTL don't exist. They may still go on with Operation Mars, but Germans were expecting and ready for a Soviet counteroffensive against Army Group Center in late 1942. The Germans are pushed back towards Smolensk and lose the Rzhev salient, and that's the end of it.
EuroFed, I strongly suspect you've been banned from this website previously. Now, I have suspicions only on this point, and I'm not going to make a large deal out of this, but have you considered that some of the statements you've made--like Hitler being good for Germany until 1938--would indeed sound like being a Nazi Sympathizer?
If this is all just a misunderstanding, I try to be a reasonable person, but I think I and many others have good grounds to raise these points. So I'd like to hear it.
Eurofed
Banned
I don't remember making any such statements, but my viewpoint on the issue is:
As it concerns Germany's domestic policies, the damage that the Nazi regime did up to 1938 is relatively light, as the standard of dictatorships go, and most importantly can be repaired rather quickly and effectively.
The Nazis put the state back into order after the early 1930s economic and political chaos, but any other strong and effective government could have done the same, including a stabilized Weimar or the rather more likely alternative to Hitler and Weimar of a sane conservative-nationalist authoritarian regime. The Nazis stabilized the economy by means that would have damaged it if war didn't happen in 1939, but it is nothing that cannot be cured by temporarily slowing the pace of rearmament.
If the Nazis are toppled and democracy and rule of law are restored in late 1938, say in the form of a neo-Kaiserreich, democratic political parties, federal autonomies, and the civil rights of Jews can be restored almost overnight (the Jews only suffered legal discrimination at this point). The German Communists were a rotten bunch of Stalinist bastards any bit as dangerous as the Nazis, good riddance to them by whatever means.
As it concerns foreign policy, no country had been unfairly abused or oppressed up to Munich. Germany's actions and claims up to Munich were a just redress of the wrongs of Versailles, and the fulfillment of the national self-determination of German Austrians and Sudetenfolk that the Entente had trampled in 1919. Even if a madman later used them as a stepping stone for his genocidal crusade, this does not change the fact that those actions were by themselves just and beneficial for Germany and for Europe, if the madman hadn't existed or had dropped dead immediately after.
Therefore, hand me a TL where a non-Nazi, non-Communist Germany fulfills the same objectives that Nazi Germany did in 1933-38, and I eagerly sign it.
If this isn't available, I deem that the optimal point for Germany, Europe, and the world for the supremely beneficial result of getting rid of the Nazis was immediately after Munich, such in the OW's TL which I pretty much regard as my realistic optimal WWII scenario.
They would have done the dirty but necessary work of undoing Versailles and crushing the German Communists, the damage they wrought was still quite limited and reversible, we get a strong and satisfied (well, there is still the critical matter of undoing the 1919-21 border with Poland, which cannot stand, but anyone but Hiter could do it without a general war and without turning Poland into a genocidal wasteland) Germany that is ready to be a peaceful and productive member of Europe and a valid check to Stalin, whatever the other genocidal madman does.
You may notice that so far, broadly speaking, my preferred TL subjects have been bettering the outcome of America, liberal 1848 or Kaiserreich Germany, and liberal Italy in the 18th and 19th century, a neo-Carolingian Napoleonic Empire, the early Roman Empire, a unified Carolingian Empire or Hohenstaufen HRE, or getting a federal EU in the (Post) Cold War, NOT bettering the outcome of Nazi Germany in WWII, which I regard as an intellectual exercise and nothing more. I only get vocal about Sovietwanking, which I utterly despise (while Britwanking annoys me, but mostly in regards to America).
My only AH emotional interest in WWII, if the subject gets roused, is to secure an outcome in Europe that in addition to getting rid of Nazism, denies as much as possible of Europe to Leninism-Stalinism (which I do regard as bad as, or slightly worse, than Nazism), gives Germany a just and beneficial peace for it and Europe (national unity in the pre-/post-Munich borders) and speeds up Europe towards an integration that is at least as, it at all possible, more effective than OTL. This is what I want for post-WWII Europe, AH-wise.
Last edited:
Eurofed
Banned
On a more personal note, about identities and stuff, given the witch-hunting enthusiasm in this board about linking new members with supposed banned ones (well, I'm eager as anyone else about getting rid of Hurgan's paranoid and racist rants, but for some other guys, the inquisition really seems to get too far IMO), and the administrator's apparent unforgiving proclivity to ban guys on a drop of a hat in a bad day, I find your insistence about linking me with supposed old banned identities pulled out of the blue unwarranted, intrusive, hostile, and well, dangerous.
I don't think that my behavior on this broad warrants such inquisition and I would like to remain able to work on my TLs for the foreseeable future, thank you. This inquisition climate, which in my judgement loses rather more productive contributors than it gets rid of real trolls, is precisely the reason because I generally prefer to remain as private as possible about my personal identity on this borad (I only divulged my nationality at sufferance and after much insistence). That's also because I'm ignoring your question, Aranfan, sorry.
I don't think that my behavior on this broad warrants such inquisition and I would like to remain able to work on my TLs for the foreseeable future, thank you. This inquisition climate, which in my judgement loses rather more productive contributors than it gets rid of real trolls, is precisely the reason because I generally prefer to remain as private as possible about my personal identity on this borad (I only divulged my nationality at sufferance and after much insistence). That's also because I'm ignoring your question, Aranfan, sorry.
Last edited:
Wyragen-TXRG4P
Banned
Getting ride of him, why? He´s an epic lolcow!
You forgot Hitler, everything that went wrong for the axis is directly his fault, even the Russian winter. While the good old junkers, of course, where competence incarnate.
Too bad there aren´t more WW2 veterans active on AH.com.
The German economy did stabilise under weimar, only to utterly fail after 1929, it is the reason it was finally abolished. What other parties would, having taken power, formed a strong enough governement? None, they where a poathetic lot, only exception where the communists but they would have militarised Germany even more than Hitler.
ASB. Beside, even before Hitler took power, the idea of democracy and "rule of law" had already been discredited by the incompetence, treason and immobilisme of the previous system.
Hitler was incompetent, Hitler was incompetent! Yeah right, nethermind that there was a problem in the first place, out of a no-power country.
Last edited:
'kay.
And I very much doubt that Max thinks Stalin can get to the Channel. He's said elsewhere that there is zero chance of the Soviets getting farther than they did IOTL due to sheer exhaustion and manpower issues. I do, however think you are vastly underestimating Hitler's incompetence. As Max says, what is describe is possible for Germany to pull off, but only without Hitler at the Helm. If Hitler was more like Stalin and had let his generals decide military policy, I would accept your assertions, but he's not. Maybe its because I'm Jewish, but I have a higher opinion of Stalin than Hitler.
Eurofed
Banned
I would accept yours' and Max's claims if I would get specific examples of how Hitler would necessarily manage to screw up and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in this scenario, without making a generic appeal to faith in his stupidity. E.g., I would proffer that if his generals deliver Egypt to him in 1940-41, he would retain enough trust in them that he doesn't make himself supreme commander in end 1941. Otherwise, even if he does, but the Wehrmacht ends 1942 entrenched in Stalingrad, Astrakan, and northern Caucaus, he would be more willing to listen to them in 1943. Manstein had really good ideas about ways to trap and crush large chunks of the Red Army.
I only went anti-Sovietwank ballistic about Max's statements about the magical Siberian factories and the Siberian USSR remaining a valid military opponent to the Axis. Yeah, Stalin could theoretically have opened the door to a truckload of US troops to fight for him, but excuse me, is hyper-paranoid "my rule above everything else" Stalin that we are talking about making himself a vassal of the USA, with a bunch of GIs around to mess with Soviet tyranny ? Not to mention Operation Uranus or Mars that necessarily have to work nonetheless the odds, because the STAVKA war gods shall find a way to succeed, and they never launch a doomed operation, nossire.
For the record, I don't think I ever stated that French contribution would necessarily deliver the Urals border to Hitler. However, I argue that the scenario shall leave Axis in the 1943 Eastern front in a much, much stronger position, entrenched on the Don and lower Volga, with Baku cut off. Despite the valid research you delivered on the Caspian shipping route, I remain skeptical that even using it, oil delivery from Baku shall be as effective for the Russians in 1943 as OTL, when the Russians had regained a land link to Transcaucasia. Moreover, with the Germans entrenched in Northern Caucasus and Astrakan at the end of 1942, are we really so sure that the Soviets shall be able to keep Baku in 1943 ?
Maybe the Wehrmacht would be able to launch a successful bid for Moscow in 1943 from this position, maybe not, but surely the great Soviet victories and strategic advances of OTL 1943 aren't gonna happen.
The problem with your request Eurofed, is that Hitler would not necessarily snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like OTL, except for the fact that he was generally an insane moron about all things military in OTL. Therefore, any specific example of his idiocy would involve assuming a certain level of dumbness on his part.
Edit: And the faith put in Hitler's stupidity is because he was stupid OTL.
Edit: And the faith put in Hitler's stupidity is because he was stupid OTL.
Last edited:
Okay, here are some specific circumstances for Hitler to fuck things up for Germany:
Declaring War on the USA.
Refusing any peace deals Stalin might offer if Germany seems to be doing well.
Taking over if his generals aren't living up to his, probably unrealistic, expectations.
Failing to utilize troops provided by his allies.
All of these things happened OTL.
Declaring War on the USA.
Refusing any peace deals Stalin might offer if Germany seems to be doing well.
Taking over if his generals aren't living up to his, probably unrealistic, expectations.
Failing to utilize troops provided by his allies.
All of these things happened OTL.
Wyragen-TXRG4P
Banned
No preparations for a long war, Hitler did not plan much except German expansion to the east.
Starting total war effort in February 1943 when it should have started in Sept 39 or June 41 at the very latest.
Realise that plenty of Slavs fit in his racial standards, thus not underestimating the soviet-union (the asiatic hordes of the east was a common western belief at the time).
Not have such high thoughts of England, which directly resulting in the allied forces being able to escape through Dunkrig, failing to pound at england as soon as France demanded armistice.
We need some specifics here.
Is Hitler easing the terms of the treaty? For instance, allowing France a more adequate army, releasing the POWs, a more equitable economic arrangement, Alsace-Lorraine not annexed?
If not it's hard to see what France could offer other than bases in North Africa which Hitler showed no interest in until the whole North African campaign was collapsing like a deck of cards.
If so then one ironic factor is that Hitler has far less to offer Franco in terms of colonial gains. Mussolini may be irate as well. And how much of a French army is needed before Hitler becomes more, rather than less, interested in keeping a proper garrison in France?
As for German competence let's not forget that one substantial obstacle to a coup by the generals was that, from 1936(Rhineland) to 1940(France) Hitler was right every time...and the German generals were wrong. Five years of consistent error left them in a very poor position to rally support when Hitler's winning streak ran out.
Is Hitler easing the terms of the treaty? For instance, allowing France a more adequate army, releasing the POWs, a more equitable economic arrangement, Alsace-Lorraine not annexed?
If not it's hard to see what France could offer other than bases in North Africa which Hitler showed no interest in until the whole North African campaign was collapsing like a deck of cards.
If so then one ironic factor is that Hitler has far less to offer Franco in terms of colonial gains. Mussolini may be irate as well. And how much of a French army is needed before Hitler becomes more, rather than less, interested in keeping a proper garrison in France?
As for German competence let's not forget that one substantial obstacle to a coup by the generals was that, from 1936(Rhineland) to 1940(France) Hitler was right every time...and the German generals were wrong. Five years of consistent error left them in a very poor position to rally support when Hitler's winning streak ran out.
WTF? Did you just ignore what I said? It is highly unlikely that Germany will trust the Vichy over Northern France. Even disregarding that the German Army looked down at the French Army during this time, the Vichy is now a turncoat. Trusting a turncoat over recentely conquered territories meant that the Vichy could possibly RETAKE all of France without a fight. Do you think that Germany would trust the Vichy that must? You must be insane.
Stop making up stuff and provide proof (aka citations) to support your claims. After the disaster at Crete Hitler pretty much turned all of his paratroopers to glorified ground troops. This in turn made sure that the only way to take Malta was through an amphibious invasion. which in a hotly contested air space (don't bullshit about Vichy Support = Air Supremacy unless) will be disastrous. The Royal Navy still rules the waves.
You do know that could work both ways right? A more likely chance of successful Axis conquest of Egypt may induce more reinforcements on the British side and maybe Tenth Army could be called in.
I call this bullshit and an extrapolation of the most insane levels. By the time the tide turned against the British, Iraq was already firmly under British control with the rebellion crushed. Ethiopia was taken with 1 South African Division and several independent East African brigades (The Abyssinian Campaigns, pg 74-77). In fact a lot of the troops used were Ethiopean regulars. The natives were heavily hostile against the Italians. The amount of force required to take Ethiopia was dismal and would not have been effected in this timelime. Also remember the Royal Navy will still control the Med. as the bulk of the remaining (remember all those ships that left to the allies? Also provide evidence on the French Navy being loyal to the Vichy) would have been destroyed at Mers-el-Kebir. The airspace would be hotly contested with no hope of sizable amount of Axis troops being able to land in Syria and Lebanon. Mussollini invaded the Balkans because he was jealous of German SUCCESS. This makes you say a complete lie.
Considering what I said above, they are going to keep North Africa.
Those Blue Max statements are fanciful Sovietwank with Stalin assumed to pull soldiers, plans, and tanks outta his butt 24/7 in good old Sverdlovsk. If the Axis reaches the Volga line, the Soviet Union is killed as a valid military opponent. They shall be down to Nationalist China levels of effectiveness or worse, with a fraction of Chinese manpower. There is no way that the USSR can move enough industry, and certainly not the population, in Siberia to remain a valid conventional military opponent. They can wage a rather big guerrilla like the Chinese did with the Japanese, but that's all. Forget about the magical Ural factories, they would need at least the Star Wars cloning facilities, too.
Quit lying. Having Vichy French as an ally would only marginally help the Nazi war effort in the East. Also I want you to provide some sources over your claims. The building of industry East of the Urals and Central Asia was already starting with Stalins 5-year plan before the war and the production of more railroads in the Soviet Union allowed Stalin to relocate many of the factories in Belarus and Ukraine before the Nazis conquered the land. Even if the magically invincible German Army had more successes in OTL it would not change the output of Soviet Union significantly. Information from Russia's War, pg 150-155.