What if Germany withdrew from France after its surrender?

[historygeek2021]

That wouldn't be a withdrawal from France then. It would just be a lesser occupation zone, i.e., the effective annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, which even the most far-right French politicians (Laval) would never accept, and would provoke another war with France at the earliest opportunity (i.e., when most of the German army was in Russia).

The discussion has already identified war in the USSR as incompatible with a strategy of withdrawal from France. So was the Battle of Britain, or a more effective War of the Atlantic. KDF33 hit the nail on the head by saying that what the OP is proposing is a limited war strategy intended to prevent a total war.

Conflating the occupation of the Maginot Line with annexing Alsace-Lorraine seems a bit of a reach.

So then Germany is back in its 1914 position stuck between a hostile France and Russia, at war with Britain and hostile with the United States. Its friends are a handful of minor European countries and Japan. Not a great spot to to be in.

[MarkF617]

KDF,

If you do a search you will find many threads all showing that the Mediterranean option would not work. The North African ports were being maxed out just supplying Rommel with what he had in the OTL and the supply lines along the North Africa were very vulnerable to RAF attack.
Did Salin look to join the pact? I believe his terms were
basically Finland, Romania and access to the Bosphorus, terms he knew Hitler could not accept (no time now but I'll look up exact terms later).

I'll get back to the other points later when I have more time.

Thanks

Mark.

[MarkF617]

Sorry, Bulgaria not Romania, but it would leave Romania very vulnerable and Hitler was very sensitive about the oil fields, It also puts Soviet troops in striking range of the Dardanelles, a Russian aim for centuries. There is no way he'll let Stalin into the Balkans.

More later

Thanks

Mark.

[MarkF617]

Just a quick thought, what are Japan's options in this scenario? You would have a strong France in SE Asia and a strong Soviet Union in the north not distracted by a German invasion.
Also no occupation of Indochina means no oil embargo so no reason to attack the oil fields of DEI and Burma.

I'll address individual posts later.

Thanks

Mark

[glenn239]

So in this German utopean Europe what happens when Britain doesn't give up? What happens in a couple of years when the Soviets are fully re-organised and fully equipped with T34s and KVs, modern aircraft and roll across the inter Polish border?

When you say that Stalin will roll across the Polish border, you are making a direct admission that the British cannot win the war on their own. Otherwise, why tell me about T-34 tank armies?

I see a future in this ATL with a sizable British landing in the Balkans (one of Churchill's pet wants) and simultaneously with a Soviet thrust towards Romania and East Prussia. France will probably also attack at this point (as they have not been disarmed or restricted) giving Germany no hope. And that's if the Americans only provide lend lease aid not direct intervention.

So the British can invade Greece provided the Soviets cover for them. But what if the Soviets decide they don't want the British in Greece? And who said anything about France not having been disarmed?

[glenn239]

Just a quick thought, what are Japan's options in this scenario?

To be driven out of China and Korea by Stalin, of course.

[glenn239]

So then Germany is back in its 1914 position stuck between a hostile France and Russia, at war with Britain and hostile with the United States. Its friends are a handful of minor European countries and Japan. Not a great spot to to be in.

The French army will be in no position to contemplate war with Germany, as much of its equipment would be held in Germany until Britain made peace, and the German occupation of about 24 forts of the Maginot Line would end any talk in Paris of war. The French navy - which will be at full strength - would be capable of escorting French convoys in the Atlantic and through the Med, and could be supplied with the fuel oil to do so. Germany would, of course, have to conquer Gibraltar to give the French navy full access to the Atlantic. Shall the British go to war with France at sea, or shall the British watch their continental blockade whither due to the French navy? Does either choice hurt Germany? When the British attack the French in Syria and the French government in Paris requests of the Axis Powers a joint expedition to retake Syria, what shall Germany's answer be? How far do you think Churchill can press this France at Dakar and other places before the French start to push back on a scale that is beyond the historic case?

In terms of the Soviet Union I would surmise that Stalin will make the Middle East and Persian Gulf Soviet, (and thereby dominate about 70% of the world's oil resources), and eject Japan from China and Korea, (and thereby reverse the decision of the 1905 war). You will notice that neither of these things moves the British war against Germany forward one inch.

[MarkF617]

The scenario stated above says France is given back all territory and is left as a great power. There is no talk of disarming and no restrictions on what can be built and no reparations. In short returnef to pre war status. Are we changing the rules now?
As for Stalin, he knows a war with Germany is coming sooner or later so would be a fool to send most of his forces all over the east leaving himself open to attack. Stalin was no fool.
Of course I am admitting Britain couldn't win alone but neithet could Germany defeat Britain. That is why Hitler invaded the Soviet Union so Britain would have no hope of continental help and give up.

Thanks

Mark.

[MarkF617]

A clash between Germany and the Soviet Union was inevitable. Both sides knew this. The Soviets were massivly expanding with new weapon types starting to come off the assembly lines. If Hitler waits until 1942 or later he will be to late and the Soviets too strong. He has to hit them in 1941 before the there are too many of the latest weapons available and whilst they are disorganised from the massive expansion. With hindsight we can see they were already too late but at the time from their point of view it was the best time to attack.
As far as I can see tjete is no way Barbarossa would not happen. Could someone please explain why it was removed from this scenario or are we just making it easier for Germany to win?

Thanks

Mark.

[MarkF617]

I believe the majority of the world's oil in 1941 was in the Americas.

Thanks

Mark.

[historygeek2021]

I believe the majority of the world's oil in 1941 was in the Americas.

Thanks

Mark.

A lot more than the majority. From John Ellis' WW2 Databook:

Ellis oil.png

[historygeek2021]

So then Germany is back in its 1914 position stuck between a hostile France and Russia, at war with Britain and hostile with the United States. Its friends are a handful of minor European countries and Japan. Not a great spot to to be in.

The French army will be in no position to contemplate war with Germany, as much of its equipment would be held in Germany until Britain made peace, and the German occupation of about 24 forts of the Maginot Line would end any talk in Paris of war. The French navy - which will be at full strength - would be capable of escorting French convoys in the Atlantic and through the Med, and could be supplied with the fuel oil to do so. Germany would, of course, have to conquer Gibraltar to give the French navy full access to the Atlantic. Shall the British go to war with France at sea, or shall the British watch their continental blockade whither due to the French navy? Does either choice hurt Germany? When the British attack the French in Syria and the French government in Paris requests of the Axis Powers a joint expedition to retake Syria, what shall Germany's answer be? How far do you think Churchill can press this France at Dakar and other places before the French start to push back on a scale that is beyond the historic case?

In terms of the Soviet Union I would surmise that Stalin will make the Middle East and Persian Gulf Soviet, (and thereby dominate about 70% of the world's oil resources), and eject Japan from China and Korea, (and thereby reverse the decision of the 1905 war). You will notice that neither of these things moves the British war against Germany forward one inch.

This is just hoping that everything goes well for Germany: France doesn't mind Germany occupying the Maginot Line and is too scared to fight. Britain sues for peace with Germany but goes to war with France for some reason. Russia abandons its historical interest in the Baltic and the Balkans for some reason, and instead chooses to go to war with Britain in the Middle East (which held only a small portion of the world's oil at the time), and the United States does nothing. And Germany does nothing - it's content with Poland, I guess. Nazis are no longer Nazis. French are no longer French. Russians are no longer Russians. What an ATL.

[MarkF617]

My thoughts exactly. It's getting a little bizarre. To be honest there was no way in hell Germany was going to just give France back and gain nothing, not even Alsace and Lorraine, no reparations, nothing. I think if Hitler tried it he wouldn't be in power or even alive to carry it out.
But let's be realistic here, one of Hitlers maon ambitions was to humble France. Does anyone really believe he would just tell them "don't do it again?"

Thanks

Mark.

[glenn239]

I believe the majority of the world's oil in 1941 was in the Americas.

I said the majority of the worlds reserves of oil were in the Middle East and Soviet Union, not production.

[glenn239]

A clash between Germany and the Soviet Union was inevitable. Both sides knew this.

A Soviet attack on Germany was not inevitable, so when you treat it as such, it is taken that you understand that the British had no means to finish the war and that you're looking around for arguments to say that the war must turn out one way and not another. Germany attacked the USSR, not the other way around, and the German attack on the Soviet Union was Hitler's fatal mistake.

The Soviets were massivly expanding with new weapon types starting to come off the assembly lines. If Hitler waits until 1942 or later he will be to late and the Soviets too strong. He has to hit them in 1941 before the there are too many of the latest weapons available and whilst they are disorganised from the massive expansion. With hindsight we can see they were already too late but at the time from their point of view it was the best time to attack.

That Soviet Army Stalin was building would have been strong enough to guard the Western frontier against Germany, and eject the British from the Middle East and the Japanese from Korea and China. The only real question is whether the British or the Japanese go into the buzz saw first.