What if Hitler had offered favorable peaceterms to France?

I do sincerly hope that this "What if Thread" doesn't end up as many others - distorded and biased opinions hindering a maybe interesting point of view.

Having said that I would like to forward the following situation and would like to reach an understanding that possibly only those Forummembers who find the following 3 points historically agreeable should forward their most welcomed opinions.

1, it is agreeable that Hitlers primary vision was to wipe the Soviets of from this planet
2. The Jews, Gypsies would share the same fate
3. The Germanic race needs to dominate this planet

The scenario:

Hitler offers favorable peace terms to France in July 1940, meaning total pullout of Wehrmacht troops, Germany offers financial help to rebuild France, the only restriction imposed on France is:
a) an Army not exeeding 500,000 men
b) neutrality towards Germany
c) allowing German troops, aircrafts and ships free passage through any territory held by France

It is understood that massive propaganda will help to paint the picture of England being a warmonger who pushed the French and German people into this "unwanted war". Furthermore propaganda reaches out to the extend to highlight the Germanic blood relationship between the Frankonians and the Germans, and Hitler even offers the Southern Belgium province to France.

Now with France almost being an ally/brother of Hitler Germany or in the least neutral, what could or would have happend if Hitler besides bashing around with Britain in Africa or even neglecting Britain on behalf of landbased actions, then would have decided to attack Russia in lets say 1943?

Taking into account that the Japanese would have been kicked out of the alliance with Italy.

Regards
Kruska

 

Dont know about the propaganda stuff but france would have bitten hitlers hand off for a german withdrawal.
Germany wouldnt have to have offered any aid and could have demandeded france kept its army down to 100,000.
Could have demanded french overseas interests too .

 

Your assumptions looks not too different from history, I don't think that a French government "friendlier" than Vichy was historically very likely.
Leaving the French in control of the Channel area was possible but would leave Germany without any capability for hurting England, the subs need those Biscay Bay bases. Alsace-Lorraine that still had a significant Germanic population would be politically very hard for Hitler not to take.
France didn't need help rebuilding, the campaign was short and not particularly destructive.
Does Germany also retreat from Belgium and Netherlands ?
If we assume England stays in the war we have Germany all powerful on land and Britain with complete naval mastery. The lack of a long range air force in both camps in 1940 would also remove the air war without the Germans across the Channel, at least a year of "phoney war" will follow in the West.

Will this change anything East? Stalin was rearming as fast as he could, IMO a 1943 invasion would probably fare non better than the 1941 did even adding some French "anti communist volunteers" to the Axis pool.

If Hitler manages to get France friendlier the best thing he can do is NOT to limit the French Army's size and rely on it use it to cover his back in the west while he turns East, after Mers-El-Kebir that was not altogether impossible. So we still get a 1941 Barbarossa with possibly some more troops but without the plunder from France .... (especially trucks) don't know if it could work better than historically.

 

Hello T.O.S.

thanks for you post, I truly appreciate it.

I do believe that a friendly terms armistice would provide a far better cooperation/friendship towards France then the in general not appreciated Vichy government by the French people.

In my asumtion Hitler could keep all occupied territories, and forward an exchange of the Alsace with the Wallonia Part of Belgium. Thus compensating France and further herorising himself in Germany in regards to the Alsace solution and "as a true man of Peace" (Sounds horrible - but politics need to be dirty). Norway might be settled in a simmilar manner as France as to withdrawing in exchange for neutrality and a Hitler-friendly government.

You are correct that England and Hitler would acctualy continue on the basis of a phoney war - or hostilities might most likely cease due to England having lost its direction for war. In the event of England trying to close in on Stalin - an open commie thread would be exposed to the Nazis and neutral France / Norway etc. which would have worked out fine for the Nazis.

Most important factor would be to gain France as a diplomatic ally and friend towards the USA - thus ridding or depriving England from further support or turning the US into a nonfavourable position towards Hitler.

If it would be wise to limit France's military is a good argument and one needs to think about that.

With the occupied territories in 1940 such as 1/2 Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Czeck, Austria and Poland, Hitler would have achieved a powerfull resource pool for later military adventures. Colliding interests of the French with the Italians could be manipuated into seizing Tirolia from Italy. - not necessarily but possible.

A Greater Germany would be declared upon the occupied territories - and handing them benefits (being Germanics) which would contribute to a higher livingstyle as they enjoyed before such as the Germans benefited in the 40-42 aera. That Nazi propaganda then harvests its benefits in the "new Greater Germany" is understood.

Resistance would be met and dealt with in the same manner as in Germany before. Thus getting closer to a homogenous European Nazi society.

That Russia as you pointed out correctly would upgrade its military is understood, however I do tend to believe that without British and US support the Russian army would be not be much of a match for the troops of Greater Germany.
Since a temporary alliance with the eastern countries - benefiting of German military hardware supplies/purchases for almost 3 years would strenghten their armies enormously. Plus the availlability of a majority of those divisions that were wasted as occupation forces in real history.

So if we find the above as agreeable then the outcome of a war between Greater Germany and Russian needs to be discussed, and the propability of a neutral USA as well as Hitler not backing the Italians.
Let the British have Lybia so what (no one knew about the oil). British interference in the Balkan/ Greece area would not be likely and if yes Hitler could stretch out his hands to a new ally = Turkey, even earlier.

Regards
Kruska

 

Hello macker33,

I think you got it wrong - the "What if" implies a total reverse of Hitlers agressive and totally unskillfull diplomatic procederes. He was far to impatient and historywise backminded and and thus got himself entangled without any chance of escape from the highly developed British diplomatic skills.

Regards
Kruska

 

To me this is a good scenario. The French really were not in a fighting mood. They did feel that the British abandoned them. So if Hitler offered them their independance in exchange of a guaranteed neutrality stance, I think they would have taken it and honored it.

If Hitler did the same with the low countries, he could have made it look like the British were the ones who wanted the war. Hitler could always declare that he invaded those countries as a matter of survival because of the declaration of war by France and Britain. Now that he war was over, he would sign peace treaties with them, free the POWs and move on. Hitler could then turn his full force against the Russians of which nobody really supported. Britain could really not do much on its own against Hitler, at least on the ground.

But alas, Hitler's greed took precedence.

 

wow totally agree with what you said.

 

Hello PzJgr,

thanks for the contribution it is highly appreciated.

Let me say very clearly IMO, fortunatly Hitler was not a diplomat, otherwise Europe would have turned into a real Nazi mess - to my believe.

You forwarded "If Hitler did the same with the low countries", my scenario implies this by declaring a "new greater Germany". Question might be would an anexation have worked out or would a pullout from those countries been a better move?

So PzJgr, and fast1 what would you estimate to be the better move?

Regards
Kruska

 

There was no real benefit for Germany if those areas were annexed. Hitler would have looked better if he stuck with his antibolshevik stance and probably would have received more support from the global community. That community may perhaps have forgiven him for taking Poland and Czechoslavkia in exchange for taking down the Russian communist state. All of the agricultural land and mineral resources would have been a benefit to Germany. This is the reason why those who fought for Germany in the East volunteered.

But alas again, Hitler bit off more than he could chew.

 

Hello PzJgr,

good point there, and I tend to agree.

However the thread would become too unrealistic if we would implement such political and diplomatical wisdom on Hitler.

So for the further scenario I would like to forward the change that exept for France, Hitler would have kept the other countries occupied - imposing Nazi doctrin in those countries.

Regards
Kruska

 

Given this scenario and nothing else changing, it would make it more difficult for the allies to choose a landing spot. Not too many choice spots along the low countries. It would mean a push up from Italy or the Balkans. That would not be a bad idea since it would have kept the Russians out of those countries and perhaps could have resulted in a more stronger case for freeing Poland.

 

Hello PzJgr,

Now I think you are already a bit ahead of the scenario.

I think one would need to evaluate according to the present situation - see above, if the US would remain neutral till Hitler attacks the Soviet Union in 1943 or not. And how would be their position towards Hitler after he invaded Russia. Since England on her own would have been in no position to undertake any meanfull military steps against Hitler.

As such there would be no allies to do what so ever.

Regards
Kruska

 

Well you did say that Hitler was not to have political wisdom. The Japanese would still have attacked the US and thus Hitler would have declared war on the US.

 

Yes that is what I said, but it doesn't include that he would not be able to utilize chances given to him. Also the scenario states clearly that Hitler "engages" France as ist diplomatic vassall towards the US and since he does not intend to attack Russia before 1943 there is absolutly no need for him to declare war on the US. Even despite an accord with Japan - even despite an accord with Russia he still broke it right?

The reason why he declard war on the US was because he was a crazy bas... for one but also due to the open support given by the US to England and Russia.

Regards
Kruska

 

This what if is terribly open, I especially don't like the 1943 start date for Barbarossa as I can't believe the start lines would be the historical ones in 1943, in Poland yes but the Balkans, Turkey, Iran, Finland ..... not likely nothing will happen there in two years. Still I will concentrate on whether a 1943 Germany would be stronger relative to the USSR than the 1941 was.
My assumptions is Italy stays neutral or if already at war at the time of the "armistice proposal" makes a separate peace with Britain with little or no fighthing taking place. Anything else opens too many possibilites though the most likely one is that Germany with nowhere else to strike will make short work of British forces in the Med long before 1943 though it will be unable to use the Suez canal to break the RN blockade. I'm also assuming the Pacific conflict will not start, the pro-axis Dutch will sell the Japanese the oil they need so Japan has no need to gamble on a war against the USA. And the RN cannot prevent it while mantaining a European blockade.
Looking at raw materials rubber and oil, as the the RN would most likely stop any imports from outside Europe, Germany will have a problem with only Ploetsi as a source even without large scale military campaigns, and especially if implementing a "butter over guns" policy to keep the new allies happy. I seem to recall the French had pretty large rubber plantations in Vietnam but getting it to Europe would not be easy. For other essential materials, I wouldn't know, Portuguese tungsten would most likely be accessible as I can't immagine a neutral Portugal refusing to sell to France. All considered I don't think a 1943 Germany would be a lot stronger than the 1941 was.

What can Stalin do to improve his position? The Soviert officer corps is likely to be in better shape than in 1941 with two additional years to recover from the purges but an alliance with England or the US is unlikey as there was too much mutual distrust.

So when Hitler finally launches his "crusade against bolschevism" he will not be receive any immediate help. IMO it will still boil down to a contest of national will, if the Soviet regime doesn't collapse the USSR cannot be taken by force and the war will drag on for years, if it does we would all be speaking German instead of English.

Fortunately Hitler was lousy diplomat and too intent on revenge for WW1.

 

Hello T.O.S.,

these are all very good points and views - especially the Non- Japanese-US war due to Hollands change of policy since the so called allies do not exist.

I chose the 1943 scenario due to Germanys unreadyness in 1941 to warproduction - but I wouldn't have a problem with accepting another maybe more likely or suitable date.

As for the Balkans I would say that Hitler (Due to his Austrian History and clear formulations in regards to this topic in Mein Kampf) had no intention at all to go for the Balkans - the reason for him to get entangled with the Balkan was due to Mussolini and the Brits in Greece. So I think we can outrule any intentions of conquest for the Balkan vicinity before Hitler ending the existance of Russia.

I see a lot of room for Hitler though in regards to diplomatic and military actions in the Iran/Iraq and Turkey area. OIL OIL and a southern Flank to Russia.

The main question to me is for how long will the US remain neutral or might they even start to rub shoulders with Hitler (Don't forget those Southerners).

Regards
Kruska

 

I'm a little puzzled on why the Germans would need to do this.
The Germans in the treaty they signed with France in 1940 got far more out of it than they would with your scenario.
They got a neutral France, one with a government falling over itself to kept Germany sweet, a million French POWs who could be used as cheap labour, and an artificial exchange rate that meant that France was in effect giving away any materials and produce supplied to Germany.

 

While not trying to be difficult, why would Hitler want an independent, neutral France, when he can have all of France and all of her fruits for himself?? After all a neutral France with a 500,000 men army might very well be pain for Germany....

How would this benefit Hitler?

 

Hello redcoat and Sloniksp,

For one I believe that the occupation of France cost far more then Hitler got out of those French POW's.
Hitler had to defend the new German border along the atlantic and channel against England, and troops were needed to keep France supressed.

But the main reason is that in order for Hitler to wage a sucessfull war against Russia, the neutrality of the USA is essential. That goes for delivery of supplies and weapons to the Russians and even more to prevent in the worst case an active involvement of the USA.

Due to the "nature of Hitlers utmost friendly act" withdrawing from France the chance that England was left alone with inheriting the stigma of a warmonger and "actual cause for Hitlers (defensive) actions during the Blitzkrieg" would have had to my believe a very high chance of success.

This chance for success would have been to my believe at a 99% if he had decided to withdraw from all occupied countries besides Poland, Czechoslovakia and Austria.

However in order as not to distort historical realities too much in this What if, (such as Hitler suddenly becomming a master of diplomacy) I decided in acknowledging other posters to agree on only France being "liberated" from Hitlers Wehrmacht.

Maybe you have the time to read post 6-10, especially post 6,7 and 10. This could also help to clearify your welcomed questions

Regards
Kruska

 

I must say, I have never thought about it that way....


Very interesting.