The ultimate what-if!

We all know that after the fall of france england refused an armistance w/ germany. But what if, regardless of the british decision, acted as if, there was no war with britain at all? Returned all their POW's, and just let them be? Britain probably wouldve laid off the germans, at least for a while. With the British not threatened , the US wouldnt have entered the war in europe as soon as they did. AND, when germany invaded russia, the UK, wouldnt have done anything. And, if the germans integrated frace into the reich, as they had 30% of the population's support in 1940, and respected the french, thereby instead of getting slave laborers, they wouldve gotten workers who cared about what they were doing. Combing this with research, and we got ourselves a whole new ballgame.

 

someone must have something to say

 

I think one factor would have upset this scenario - Winston Churchill. Whatever his faults, and whatever criticisms have been levelled at the man, he realised at a very early stage the evils of Nazism and was absolutely determined to fight it.

Agreed, if others such as Halifax had been in charge, things would have been very difficult. But Churchill pulled everyone along with him into the fight, telling his Cabinet - what was it ? Something like
'they'd carry on until every one of them lay on the floor choking on their own blood if need be' ?

Sorry if this one isn't as thought-out as usual - nearly midnight & I'm off to bed !

 

I think it would have been very, very useful for both peoples. Because it was a shame that we fought each other being so similar...

Obviously, the 100% of the Wehrmacht (including OKH, OKL, OKM and WSS) would have been thrown onto the USSR and certainly the things which could have happened are in the thread about "If there would not have been an allied bombing campaign". It is almost the same. Except that Germany could have got a lot of petrol from many other places and it would have influentiated in the East a bit.

 

I wouldve thought this would get more hits

 

Sometimes work, sometimes doesn't...

 

Indeed Hitler had many good thoughts of England, at least he spoke kindly of them right before "battle of Britain", and wished for peace. That would have been quite a gesture if they had released all the british prisoners, anyway. I think Churchill would have doubled his whisky doze of the day anyway for the shock.

If Hitler had been more patient it might have slipped to something like " you do what you want I don´t care" but probably nothing else. Then again French hate everybody who don´t speak french so that settles that part. So nothing of mutual Grossdeutschland probably would have never evolved, but some kind of bond I believe. There were lots of hatred towards jews in many european countries incl England and France, so the ideology might have sunken in very well.

Great idea anyway!

 

The main issue here is the starting premise for the "what if?"... I'd agree with Martin, I don't think the English would have backed down. It would be one thing if France had not fallen... when only Poland had been beaten, there would have been some chance that the other allies would have sat out the war. But once France fell as quickly as it did, that was enough of a shock to compell the allies against the germans. And if the germans had not attempted the BoB, this would have just left the RAF free to begin some sort of campaign.
And here's another issue. Again, the resources stockpiled by the germans for russia were the amount they believed they would need. Thus even if the germans had not attempted the BoB, and even in the (incredibly implausible) scenario that Britian DID sit back and do nothing, there is nothing to suggest that they would have amassed any more resources before attacking russia. The german resurce and logistical problems did not appear until the battle with russia was well underway... We need to keep in mind that the german high command believed that their logistics were sufficient... and after the defeat of France, what was there to suggest otherwise? Had the germans not attempted the BoB, they would have still felt even more "invincible"... if anything, they would have likely stockpiled less supplies to invade russia...
And if the only difference for the germans in russia was more planes and experienced pilots, I can't imagine any scenarion where that minor a difference coulf have tipped the balance... More air attacks on Moscow? Wouldn't help the troops advancing on the ground... Drop more supplies to ground troops? This negates the more lanes and piltos advantage, and air-dropped supplies never worked especially well...

As it was, the US did not really make it's presence felt in the europaen theater until 1942... and by this point the germans were already beginning to have problems in russia. So even if the US's entry into the war had been delayed by months, the germans would have only had slightly more available, since they still would have been fighting the British.
And keep in mind, it was Pearl Harbor that caused official US entry into the war... so the "What If?" would also have to include a japanese postponement of that attack to work...

the "ultimate" what if? might be a bit presumptious...

[ 18. November 2002, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: CrazyD ]

 

I have to agree with Martin too. Churchill was the mover and shaker in the British government. So I can't see him giving up the fight just like that.

If the Germans had conquered France and then released all their British prisoners, and didn't bomb or attack any British interests... Channel Isles etc.)I think he would have had a harder time motivating the country against Germany, but I can't see him giving up the idea.

Mind you, during the "Phoney War" or Sitzkrieg, when nothing much happened between Britain and Germany, apparently there was a lot of hope in the public's eyes that all out war could be avoided and some compromise found.

I think if Halifax, or even Chamberlain (if he hadn't resigned) were in power instead of Churchill, then with no aggressiveness from Germany, peace may have come about. There would have still been resentment against the German occupation of France and the Low Countries but if the Germans had handled the populations of those countries differently, then Britain under anyone else but Churchill may have been quite happy to let things cool down.

Especially if Germany DIDN'T come to Italy's aid in Greece and North Africa, etc., and just let the British kick the Italians back to where they came from. A victory against the Italian fascist regime may have helped sooth Britains loss of face in Europe.

And if Germany hadn't declared war on the US alongside Japan. Then, in theory, a lot more of her resources could have been channelled against the Russians. And, with the US technically neutral to Germany, since there would be no European War, with a bit of fancy politics, Germany may have been able to arrange trade and arms deals with the US. Imagine, as well as Germany building her own tanks, planes etc. the US government in a armaments/trade deal supplies Germany with Shermans, B-17 bombers, etc. in exchange for say, rocket or jet technology, like the US did for Britain and Russia. And doesn't supply the Russians with any Lend Lease equipment, at all.

That could possibly have helped Germany win her war against the Russians.

Now there's a "what if".

_________________

Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fall, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age…. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.' - Winston Churchill

 

The best way for Hitler to neutralise the threat from Britain was to make a lasting peace with the conquered countries of Western Europe!

A deal could have been struck with the Vichy French, who were angry at Britain for attacking their fleet in Oran. The Belgian and Dutch governments-in-exile would be only too happy to make peace in exchange for their neutral status being restored.

If Hitler had played peacemaker and evacuated German forces from all the countries of Western Europe, including Norway, on the condition that they declared neutrality and did not allow British troops on their territory, the Europeans would have been relieved and overjoyed.

Mussolini would have had to go along with Hitler's peace initiative, and probably would have had to give up all the territory he had occupied - he was too weak to fight Britain alone. And if he was stupid enough to try, Hitler could just abandon him to his fate.

If this had been done, Britain would have been back in the position she was in September 1939, but without France and Poland to help her. She would be relatively safe from German attack, but Germany would have a buffer of neutral states between herself and Britain.

What could Britain have done about this? Try to occupy the now freshly-neutral countries of Western Europe in order to attack Germany? Fly RAF bombers through neutral airspace? Intefere in French affairs by trying to overthrow Petain and put Charles De Gaulle in power?

The United States would not have been supportive of this kind of action - a peace treaty is a peace treaty as far as the Americans were concerned. The American people would come to see Britain as needlessly prolonging the war, out of a lust for revenge. Churchill's predictions of doom would appear to have been proved groundless.

The only thing Britain would have left to fight Germany for, legitimately, is Poland. But with Western Europe neutral, how is Britain supposed to reach Germany in order to fight her?

Separated from her enemy (except by sea and air to a short and very heavy defended stretch of North Sea coastline) Britain's war would be fruitless, and would simply fizzle out in time.

Even if Britain fought to overthrow Mussolini, the outcome of the Italian campaigns of WWI and WWII show that Britain could not have invaded Germany from the south successfully, not without American help.

[ 18. November 2002, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: vonManstein39 ]

 

First off, the whole idea of Hitler "playing peacemaker" is pretty far fetched...
I also think the idea that Europeans would have been "overjoyed" is pretty far fetched as well... So after conquering Poland and France, the germans then just withdraw? And somehow everyone comes to peace with germany??? What about resistance in the previously conquered countries?
And this idea would also mean that the germans would lose access to the North Sea ports in Norway and the Channel ports in France. This would essentially mean no u-boat war, no?
This suggests that Western European countries... after being BEATEN by the nazis... would be more likely to side with the nazis over England??? Uhhhhh....

Uhhh...how exactly did France and Poland help England???

And again... the US was brought into the war by PEARL HARBOR. This seems to just be ignored here... the US entered the war because of a japanese attack. What would have changed here??? Again, this what if also requires that the japanese NOT attack Peral Harbor...

These "peacemaking" scenarios seem to completely ignore Hitler! It seems ridiculous to speak of Hitler suddenly becoming peaceful with France, Poland, England, any of the above... How does an army conquer a country then just leave? The germans would not be able to make use of any of the new terrain or resources acquired. And moreover, what in the world would make all these conquered people suddenly "become peaceful"? This seems to assume that there would be "no hard feelings"... Which history has shown to never happen! What country has been conquered only to turn around and embrace their conquerors???

 

CrazyD:

Hitler's intention in going to war in September 1939 was to conquer Poland. That's it. Nothing more. He didn't want a general war AT THAT TIME - he thought the West would let him have Poland.

Hitler didn't declare war on France, France declared war on him. Once he was at war, he had to attack France, that was the only way to end the French threat.

All Hitler has to say is: "We invaded you because we had no choice, not because we wanted to - the British and French declared war on us, and would have used your territory to attack us."

So after having beaten the French, if he'd signed a peace treaty with them, the war between Germany and France would be OVER. Naturally the French would have to pay some reparations, they would expect that, having lost a war. And he would have a Vichy French government, led by Petain, which would be grudgingly friendly to Germany. Normal trade would be resumed.

The French would be upset with the British if they continued the war, because that would intefere with France's peaceful trade.

Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway never wanted to fight Germany, they fought because they were attacked. And they were attacked because of the Allied declaration of war on Germany in 1939. End of German occupation, end of grievance.

German forces withdraw from choice, not because they are beaten. If France or the small countries let the British in to continue the war, the Germans will simply beat them again - and they know that. So why would they want to go on fighting - because the British asked them to? Answer - no, they wouldn't, they'd want peace.

This is the best way to make peace - beat the living daylights out of the enemy, make them expect the absolute worst, and then treat them generously and honourably. Basic psychology - they are so surprised and relieved that things aren't going to be as bad as they feared, that they find themselves feeling grateful toward their conquerers. The Byzantine Empire used similar policies to considerable effect.

None of the Western European countries gave a damn about Poland, they were fighting for their own interests, not Poland's. So that's no reason to continue the war either.

No U-boat war, no attacks on England whatsoever. England keeps attacking Germany, and she looks petty and vengeful - the peace treaty was good enough for the rest of Europe, why isn't it good enough for Britain? US stops sending aid to Churchill the Warmonger - Britain is eventually forced to stop attacking Germany.

The United States declared war on Germany because Hitler declared war on the United States, NOT because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor! Hitler could have condemned the Japanese attack and the US would not have declared war on Germany, at least not until the Americans were winning in the Pacific. If Western Europe and Germany had made peace, the US would have had little excuse to attack Germany.

 

So you are assuming that Hitler had no plans for France, Britian, or Russia???
And this was AFTER Hitler had already "annexed" the sudentland and czechloslovakia?
Clearly, Hitler had bigger plans than Poland.

Ummm... Wrong again.
"on 27 September he (Hitler) warned the commander-in-cheif of the three services that he intended to attack in the west shortly; and on 9 October, even before France and Britian had rejected his peace offer, Hitler issued Fuhrer Directive No. 6 for a western offensive." p. 54-55
"... he announced to Halder that the attack in the West would begin in the first week of May..." p. 64.
Hitler attacked France as part of the blitz through the west. No idea where the French pre-emtively attacked the germans...

What do you mean here??? Invaded- because of no choice???

Sheesh...
This makes no sense- if you conquer a country, you can simply take whatever you want- why trade??? You are saying, let me get this straight... The germans conquer France, then remove all troops- so they can trade with France? And then France would have gotten mad at Britian for attacking germany- because it would disrupt trade?

And end of german domination!!! What's the point of conquering a country if you don't take advantage of the territory and resources?

Read what I said- the US ENTERED the war because of Pearl Harbor. Not declared war on germany, ENTERED.
And Hitler and the Japanese were allies, correct? So now you've got the US in the war on the side against Hitler. Regardless of the specifics, the US would have sided with England eventually. This is an assumption we can make safely!

 

Quite amusing to read! CrazyD, you are thinking almost exactly like Bismarck, wheras vManstein you are thinking a bit like.. was it General Winfort? The name was something like that.

After Sedan in 1870 Bismark and the French CINC were discussing surrender of the French troops. The French suggested that the French armies leave the field of battle under arms and vow on their honour not to serve against Prussia or another German country in this war. They said that this would make France endlessly grateful.

Bismarck replied that all French soldiers and officers were going to go to Germany as POWs and that Germany would annex Elsaß-Lothringen.

The French were aghast and said that this would be such an affront to the French people that the war would continue between Germany and France for hundreds of years. He once again tried to come back to his proposal, stressing the gratitude of the French people.

Bismarck said that nations are not grateful. Kings can be grateful to another king, but nations do not have feelings. Nations have interests. It is in our interest to defend our western border. We are going to annex Elsaß-Lothringen.

 

CrazyD:

Hitler thought the British and French were bluffing when they said they would fight Germany if he attacked Poland. He only wanted to fight Poland in September 1939, not the West as well.

Hitler was planning for the general war to start in 1941 or 1942, when the German armed forces would be fully rearmed and modernised. Even then he only wanted to fight France and Russia - he didn't want to fight Britain at all. In 1939 the Panzer arm and the Kreigsmarine were nowhere near ready for WWII. Germany was lucky to beat the Allies in May 1940 with so few medium tanks, and would not have done so if the French hadn't been incompetent.

By your own statement you say that Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht to prepare to attack France on 27 September 1939. That is AFTER France's declaration of war on 3 September 1939, is it not? Declaring war on someone IS attacking them - did you expect Hitler not to respond to this? Of course he ordered an invasion, that was the only way to end the war, other than evacuating Poland. For Germany to sit on the defensive against France indefinitely would be to invite disaster - Britain and France together were stronger than Germany.

And by the way France did invade a small area of southern Germany in September 1939, as a token gesture of support to the Poles. OK?

As far as Germany and Japan are concerned:
Article III of the Tripartiate Pact (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/triparti.htm) states:
"They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict. "

Key phrase is 'attacked by'. Germany was obligated to come to Japan's aid if the USA attacked Japan - BUT NOT if Japan attacked the USA, which is what actually happened! Hitler did not HAVE TO declare war on the USA because of that treaty, he did it because he CHOSE TO.

If Germany evacuated Western Europe, and there was no unrestricted U-boat war, then Germany would be no threat to the USA, so why would the USA join Britain and attack Germany then? Most of the American people did not want war with Germany, not if it could be avoided. Without Nazi occupation of Western Europe, and no U-boat war, the American people would remain solidly against getting involved in a European war - which leaves Britain on her own.

And I think you underestimate the amount of anti-British feeling in France after the British attacked the French fleet in Oran and killed 1500 French sailors - that was France's Pearl Harbor. The French, except for DeGaulle, would be very reluctant to trust the British after that - that's what turned Vichy France pro-German.

 

Right on France- the French declared war on germany. But they were in no sense "at war"... France was simply waiting behind the maginot line. The French did advance into some german territory right along the border- but they pulled back after less than one week.
Not really an attack...

My problem is with the huge assumptions...

Assumption...

generalization about Vichy France applied to all of france...

no... attacking someone is attacking someone. A declaration of war is only that...

This one I'd really like explained...

If we can rely on these vague assumptions about what people "would have done" or "wanted", then I'll add one- the US would have eventually wound up at war with Germany. The Nazi conquests simply would have eventually galvanized the US.

Andreas... good analogy! And when it comes to war, who do you trust, the germans or the French! This idea that you conquer a nation... then kiss their ass so they trade with you??? Is that French?

And... none of these replies have addressed the resource issue in regards to russia. Again, the german armies stockpiled the resources and supplies they though necessary to win the war in russia. So even if this whole scenario with germany getting warm and fuzzy with France was to take place, the germans would still be facing and insurmountable challenge in the east.

 

Assumption...

I've explained this. If the Germans are back behind their own border, and there is no unrestricted submarine war, what reason does the US government and the American people have to want to fight Hitler? Poland? Who cares about little Poland. The Jews? The Holocaust hasn't started yet, and the US don't know that there's going to be one. So what's left to be mad about?

generalization about Vichy France applied to all of france...

If the Germans give Occupied France back to the Vichy French government, then all of France is Vichy. Right?

no... attacking someone is attacking someone. A declaration of war is only that...

Nobody declares war on anybody if they DON'T intend to attack them at some stage. Otherwise why declare war?

This one I'd really like explained...

The Vichy French government has successfully persuaded the Germans to withdraw, despite having their butts kicked in the war. Staying on good terms with Hitler is advisable, otherwise the French will have their butts kicked again. War is bad for normal trade, Britain continuing the war hurts the European economies because of the British naval blockade of Germany.

If we can rely on these vague assumptions about what people "would have done" or "wanted", then I'll add one- the US would have eventually wound up at war with Germany. The Nazi conquests simply would have eventually galvanized the US.

Conquest of who, exactly? Western Europe has been evacuated. Mussolini doesn't want to risk ending up fighting Britain on his own, so no invasion of Greece. Most Americans haven't even heard of Yugoslavia. So the US would not want to fight Germany until Germany invaded Russia. After that, yes, Roosevelt would want to be involved, but only if Britain is still in the war by then. No way is America going to take on Germany without British help! But persuading the American people to care about Russia is difficult without a direct declaration of war on the US by Germany. Even after the Japanese attack on the US, US public pressure would have been for a Japan First strategy, as MacArthur and King wanted.

Andreas... good analogy! And when it comes to war, who do you trust, the germans or the French! This idea that you conquer a nation... then kiss their ass so they trade with you??? Is that French?

This isn't about the French. It's about the Germans trying to wriggle their way out of the war with Britain without total capitulation, allowing them to attack Russia unhindered in the West.

And... none of these replies have addressed the resource issue in regards to russia. Again, the german armies stockpiled the resources and supplies they though necessary to win the war in russia. So even if this whole scenario with germany getting warm and fuzzy with France was to take place, the germans would still be facing and insurmountable challenge in the east.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, but if Britain is neutralised in the West, and there is no war in North Africa, that makes it easier for the Germans in Russia, doesn't it?

To fight the Germans, the British would have to ship British troops to Russia. But would Stalin want British troops in Russia? He didn't trust Churchill.

 

Mmmm... I'd say not really. Again, one of the things that often gets forgotten here is german planning. The germans planned for the campaign in Poland- and everything worked out perfectly- even better than the plan.
Again, when the germans attacked France, everthing went even better than plans had hoped for.
Now, for arguments sake (or what if?'s sake, I guess!), lets say the germans did not fight the british. So they germans are coming off of two astounding defeats that made the Wehrmacht look invincible. Look at how quickly France fell- the germans had encountered nothing to suggest that their army could be beaten! The French outnumbered the germans, they had more equipment... and yet the germans beat them in six weeks!
So without the Battle of Britian, the germans have had no "challenging" experience yet.

So then we look at russia... as it was, the germans planned for the campaign in Russia. Here's the big thing- the german high command (for the most part) believed that their plans included enough to take russia. History and hindsight shows that in fact they did not have enough stockpiles and resources to take russia.
So that's my main issue here- there would have been nothing to suggest to the germans that more preparation was needed for russia. Undoubtedly, if the british and US stayed out of Europe, the Germans would have more available to fight Russia. But, why would they use this surplus? Hitler did not even move germany to a wartime economy until 1942. Hitler and the high command only realised their shortages when they bacame problems. Thus, there is nothing to suggest that the germans would have strengthened their forces before invading russia.
And it may well be true that they would have had more availabel once the war in russia strated. But when it comes to resources and logistics, things rarely happen fast. Frameworks need to be set up, labor needs to be found, and so on. So if this scenario had occurred (US and Brit staying out), the likely outcome would have been the war in russia lasting a year or so longer. The germans would have had more available in the later years of the war, once the war eceonomy had fully kicked in, but by this time it was already too late. No matter how you cut it, the russians had more men and resources than the germans. And by the later war years, the germans were simply swamped.

Keep in mind, as it was with Britian and the US in the war, the Wehrmacht was still mainly fighting in russia. At any given time during 1941-1945 (except battle of the bulge), more than 2/3 of german forces were fighting in russia. Clearly, for the german armies, the US and BRitian were never the main enemies.

I doubt Stalin would have allowed a single British soldier into Russia to help... for that matter, I can't imagine Churchill would be willing to send a single one to help Stalin!!
Still don't think this would have effected the outcome though...

[ 19. November 2002, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: CrazyD ]

 

Another idea to have bought time for Germany would have been this: In mid to late 1942, before the 8th Air Force had come across, the Luftwaffe could have bombed the Eastern Seaboard, they had the range to go on a one way trip. If they simutaniously hit NY, Boston, Philly, Baltimore, and DC, as well as rocket barrages from u-boats. Mind you this would all happen @ night with in 15 minutes of each other. Also small commado squads would hit various bridges, power junctions, etc. The bombers would rendevous at a pre determined point with u-boats and ditch. The hornet's nest this would stir up would tie up forces destined for Europe. In short this would by Germany an entire year's worth of time to deal with Russia, then deal with the west.

 

Whoa there! That's definetely an interesting scenario you describe, derhoester... but not sure how probable it would be! True, the Luftwaffe did have the range to reach the eastern seaboard...
But think about the complications involved in putting together an operation like that...
The luftwaffe would have to assemble a huge bomber force in western France (open to attack from British bombers)... transport and support ships would have to be readied for getting the commando squads over- or a large part of the u-boat fleet. By the first option, the germans would have to cross the whole Atlantic without being caught. By the second, the subs would also have to cross unseen, and the use of subs to transport the troops would pull valuable forces away from the u-boat war against Britian.
Then once you actually assemble all the forces, the germans would need to assemble and pull the whole thing off in a tiny time window- this would leave NO room for error during the trip (unlikely).
And you're talking about hitting FIVE cities at once- this would involve an absolutely incredible amount of luck!

Considering that the germans (wisely!) decided against Sealion, the invasion of England, I can't imagine an idea like this even being possible, let alone practical!

definetely in interesting scenario though!