What if Hitler had offered favorable peaceterms to France?

Hello Sloniksp,

thanks, and I truly hope that this tread stays objective and continues to be an interesting one.

So if the above is agreeable/feasable the question would be, would Hitler have continued to seek more prosperous alliances such as with Iraq/Iran and Turkey - also far closer to those people he hated so much - even though not being around in big numbers there at the time.

And how is the USA going to react towards Hitler in regards to his Nazi stance in Europe and his expanding policy in the Middle East, till that day in 1943??

Regards
Kruska

 

What of Hitlers policies towards Jews,Gypsies,Slavs...?

Would he still grab the Jews from all of the conquered nations?

 

Hello Sloniksp,

Please see my intro post for this thread.

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

In order as not to distort history, and therefore keeping this "What if" as close as possible to reality - the only change would be the "friendship" to France and a "maybe" delay of Barbarossa to 1943.

The postponed attack on Russia would give him the time to work out things with the USA - at the same time neutralizing England, get the German warindustry into gear and opening up a timeframe of about 2 years to see or utilize chances in the Middle East (Oil,Oil) and towards Turkey - to secure the southern target of his primary objective.

Regards
Kruska

 

Interesting scenario, Kruska.
Withdrawing from France after defeating the French Army could turn into a diplomatic coup for Hitler if handled carefully.
I agree that such a move could help isolate England diplomatically from France. Hitler's stooges could conceivably claim that England was the warmonger, like what was pointed out earlier in this thread.
And if this scenario is paired with the British attack on the French fleet before the Germans had started withdrawing or announced its intention to withdraw, the French would indeed be in a sour mood against the English.
Your what if is feasible and I have to admit, I have never considered this particular scenario.
As for the US getting involved in the war with Germany, I say French neutrality won't diminish Roosevelt's resolve. With Britain on the ropes, it would further justify sending aid to the beleaguered English.

If Hitler wanted to pressure England to agree to a peace treaty, a German withdrawal from France could be very persuasive, I think.

However, I don't think this would benefit Hitler at all if he sends his troops to invade the USSR unilaterally.
It would reopen the wounds that have not yet completely healed in the two or three years after the war in the Western Front ended. And that would be very risky for Hitler and his stooges. Not only would he throw away all the political and diplomatic prestige he had gained, he would be leaving himself open to a stab in the back from France. I would certainly think that there would be elements in France who would still want to strike back at Germany despite Germany's withdrawal. And a German invasion of the USSR would certainly be an occasion for France to get even for her humiliation in German hands, at least in the minds of a segment of the French population and government.
That's a risk that Hitler would not ignore because Hitler himself had thought of betraying alliances and treaties.
However, there is one way, what I would call a "politically acceptable" (note the quotation marks) way to justify a German action against the USSR.
And that is if the Communist Party in Germany and Communist sympathizers in England and France create trouble and disorder. In this instance, I assume that the British had been politically pressured to agree to peace terms after France declared neutrality and Germany withdraws from France. Britain and France would gladly let Germany and the USSR beat each other to a pulp. At an appropriate time, Britain and France, collectively or individually, would take advantage of the situation to the detriment of the USSR and Hitler.
The wild card here is the United States.

 

Hello Falcon Jun,

Quote: The wild card here is the United States.

Exactly, this is what I am trying to further evalute.

I would tend to believe,

1. The French would not have turned on Hitler, even him attacking Russia
"Why risk another disaster against Germany?"
2. The British couldn't do much besides "attacking France?" or sending Bombers into Germany - which would have had little impact and even would have contributed further on the image of them being the warmongers.
3. Nobody liked Stalin or communism on behalf of the established governments in Western Europe.
4. How strong was the US and southerners influence within the US and US government at that time e.g. (America First Commitee) in contra to the England/Anglo friendly Franklin Roosevelt?
During his presidency he had vetoed 600 times against Congress!!!
5. Would it be feasable for the US to vote for another more Hitler friendly president in 1940?
The republican nominee in November 1940 Wendell Willkie, AFAIK had German parents, and it was the situation about the war with France that made it possible for Roosevelt to candidate for a 3rd. period.

Regards
Kruska

 

"Don't forget those Southerners"


I take great offence partner.

 

Kruska hello. Your references to " those Southerners" also puzzled me.
I know little of US internal politics pre WW2. I thought the pro Germany support was mainly in the North with perhaps some sympathy among the German descended farmers of the mid west states. There are other questions but I think I may be premature and I wish to see which way the thread goes. I am not normally a fan of What If but this has caught my interest.

 

I believe he is making a "sideways" reference to the KKK, which while it was southern in origin, was a nationwide organiztion by the time the Nazis came to power in Germany. It was they (the KKK), who came to the aid of the German American Bund (in the northeast) when they wished to rent Madison Square Garden for a "rally".

The Bund couldn't come up with either the rent money, nor the guaranteed attendence figures. The KKK made up about 2/3 of the audience that one night, and both groups had to be protected from the American citizens outside the Garden when the rally ended. New York's Finest (police) made barrier between the Nazis, the KKK, and other New York City residents so they could leave.

I think that is what "Kruska" was referring to, if I am incorrect, feel free to correct me. I haven't read the whole thread as it diverted away from the original topic.

 

Thank you brndirt.1 for that.
I was ignorant of what you have told me. I was puzzled because way back in your Civil War the British supported the Confederacy from the sidelines.It was the cotton, the lack of it caused hardship in our northen mill towns. We encouraged blockade runners.I did not think there was any underlying dislike for Britain in the South apart from perhaps the desire to continue an isolationist policy in some quarters
Back to What If Europe of 1941.

 

Hello rhs, brndirt1 and Cowboybob,

it is not so much about the KKK which was just as well a absolute minority of (racist idiots) like the initial Nazi bunch in the 1920th. However their seeds grew on a conservative and racist mind.

When we (Bundeswehr -German army) had our traing at Fort Sill Oklahoma we were totally amazed to find out that till 1966/69 black soldiers were seperated in quarters and common rooms such as the cantina.

I remember being told from elder Germans, that in 1945 and onward the blacks were totally amazed that those Nazis (Germans in general) were actually to a certain degree more openminded and friendly to the black GI's then their own white brother in arms.

So that there was a strong racial issue in the US in the 30's till the late 60's is a fact - see Kennedy forcing via national guard southern governers to allow black student to enter white schools - see Martin Luther King.

Now some others maybe Americans wo are more knowledgable on the subject might help to clear my forwardings as being realistic on this issue or not.

IMO the Nazis would have had a good ground in most of the USA - especially in the southern states to bring in their harvest. Independently of this the main issue to me is however 3 other views.

1. Roosevelt could only go for a 3rd period due to the war of Hitler, but specifically the situation France made it happen.
2. If Roosevelt could not have candidated for a 3rd. period - then the republican nominee in November 1940 Wendell Willkie, who had German parents might have been elected as President of the USA in November 1940.
3. Business and $$ -The aid to Great Britain was at the time (no interest collection yet) not really a profitable business - however a German - and US business cooperation would be profitable from the start.
Why not let Hughes build/produce Messerschmidt's for Germany and even for the USAF?
If I am not totally missinformed there had already been a signed contract for a US company to build German submarines in 1938/39?

So let me come back to the question of the USA being the 'Wild Card" (as falcon jun) already formulated.

Could a friendly reaction towards France - brought the US closer to Germany? or at least kept them in a real neutrality?

Regards
Kruska

 

"Kruska", I'm not going to get into the latent "Jim Crow" treatment of the Afro-Americans of the sixties, that is a blot which should only be acknowledged, not justified.

Let’s not neglect that even though Hitler was dismissed as a bit of a "nut" when Mein Kampf was published, there were copies on the desks of every major politician of the thirties. FDR, Churchill, and Stalin. Many were well thumbed, with underlining as Hitler came to power and started to implement exactly the "world view" he had espoused in writing.

Even though Hitler "made nice" for the world press after he was appointed Chancellor, his opinion of both Great Britain and France had been published. And since he was a creature of "habit" when it came to his aims for a "new world order", they shouldn’t be ignored even in a "what-if". As per Great Britain he had written in Mein Kampf, in the mid-twenties that:

"...Only children could have thought that they could get their bananas in the 'peaceful contest of nations' by friendly and moral conduct and constant emphasis on their peaceful intentions, as they so high-soundingly and unctuously babbled; in other words, without ever having to take up arms. No: if we chose this road, England would some day inevitably become our enemy. It was more than senseless-but quite in keeping with our own innocence-to wax indignant over the fact that England should one day take the liberty to oppose our peaceful activity with the brutality of a violent egoist." "...The talk about the 'peaceful economic' conquest of the world was possibly the greatest nonsense which has ever been exalted to be a guiding principle of state policy." (Mein Kampf p.143)

And then later he opined that; "…on this point we must achieve full clarity: The inexorable mortal enemy of the German people is and remains France." (Mein Kampf p.619)


It appears to myself that Hitler's own concept of Social Darwinism seems to break down (in my mind) like this; ideally, every nation state should be able to feed itself, but the population of every industrial based nation eventually tends to exceed the density at which this is possible in times of both health and peace, especially if their borders are set.

This reality leaves three options open for Hitler: population control, which seems morally un-acceptable in a basically Christian society (Germany at the time) Catholic south, Protestant north; or emigration, which in itself generally loses the best people at the expense of the prosperity of the state; or expansion into less well defended areas to gain land for food production, i.e. "If land was desired in Europe, it could be obtained by and large only at the expense of Russia, and this meant that the new Reich must again set itself on the march along the road of the Teutonic Knights of old, to obtain by the German sword sod for the German plow and daily bread for the nations." (Mein Kampf, p.140)

And remember the first edition of Mein Kampf was written while Hitler was in prison after the failed "Beer Hall Putsch", and after Adolf had been introduced to Karl Haushofer. Haushofer was the globally respected "geopolitical" professor who mentored Rudolf Hess, and was the author of Lebensraum as a concept. Hitler just copied it, and we all know that once his mind had chosen a goal, he rarely altered in acquiring that goal.

As to Kruska’s other points, let me start here:

1.) Yes, it was without doubt Hitler and Nazi military aggression, disregard of treaties, disregard of pacts, and outright lies which kept FDR in the picture for a third term. Hitler’s past promises had proven themselves to be empty shells, why would another promise gain more traction than those which had been broken or ignored?

2.) Wendell Willkie, while the son of an German immigrant father, was not pro-German. He fought in WW1 as a first lieutenant, even though for a short period. Willkie, who was a lifelong Democrat until he switched parties in 1939 may have been the Democratic rather than Republican candidate in 1940 if FDR hadn’t run. As a lawyer and then president of the Commonwealth and Southern Corp., a giant utility holding company which was literally driven out of business by the TVA, he may not have been a Republican candidate for president if FDR had not "hinted" he would accept the Democratic Nomination. In his campaign he (Willkie) remained anti-Axis and endorsed President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's foreign policy, such as selling war material to the allied powers and building up our military, he did attack some of the New Deal as wasteful and "socialist leaning". Willkie did not condemn all New Deal programs, and he supported those programs that he felt could not be run better by private enterprise. His objection was that the government had unfair advantages over private businesses, and thus should avoid competing directly against them. After his defeat in the election he (Willkie) toured the world as a Roosevelt supporter during the early years of the war. Later he wrote One World (1943), which was a best-selling plea for postwar international cooperation such as happened with the formation of the UN. The treatment of France and Belgium, no matter how benign, would have simply been one more "brick in the wall" against the Fascist/Nazi/Militaristic Japanese powers, no matter who was in the Oval Office.

3.) The sale of goods to the belligerents had been extremely profitable before Lend-Lease. The second Neutrality Act was "Cash and Carry", which swelled the American coffers with European and Soviet gold bullion. At the beginning of 1940, America was the holder of the bulk of the world's gold. Then Ford, GM, IBM, ITT, Auto-Car, Chrysler, International Harvester, duPont, DOW, and AT&T had all been making money from the Soviets, Germans, Italians, and Japanese. Well, they had been until those nations attacked certain areas and had their deposits frozen, and trade suspended. The Soviet gold deposit was "unfrozen" the day after the Nazis invaded in 1941, and it was used to immediately purchase weapons and get them shipped before Lend-Lease was accepted by Congress for Soviet application. Willkie would have, without doubt acted the same. He (Willkie), as a businessman wouldn't have missed the opportunity to make a buck and halt German aggression.

Landon (1936), and Willkie were staunch Protestant Christians and were appalled at the Japanese treatment of the Chinese, as well as the German treatment of opposition partys through the thirties (the Jewish treatment was unknown), but the euthanasia of those persons whose life, "was not worth living" was known in the west. That wouldn't be forgiven either.

 

Hello brndirt1,

thanks for some very interesting background information in regards to Wendell Willkie, - which would make a political support for Hitler most unlikely - unless he and Roosevelt would have been gripped by the Adolf-France situation.

In your post you are running up the facts about Hitler being judged - however the What if France might have changed that.

The "What if" in regards to buddy, buddy with France would however have seriously destablealized the unilateral verdict about Adolf. Which you support in your post by pointing out the general verdict and judgement towards Hitler by the opposing parties.

The sale of goods didn't really take place before July 1940 besides a little bit England and France, as such a profitable business with Adolf might still weigh in. But lets agree that the business towards the allies might still cash in more bucks.

So how would America have reacted towards Hitler if France would play in diplomatically in favour for Adolf?

Could the American public (Lindbergh) still be influenced by the Nazis?

Please keep in mind that the US did not declare war on Hitler before he did. And that was 1 1/2 years after France and 1/2 year after Barbarossa.

The What if forwards an attack on Russia not before 1943.

Regards
Kruska

 

This is interesting.....

 

Just to rain on your parade a bit more, I dunno about this "Kruska": "The sale of goods didn't really take place before July 1940 besides a little bit England and France, as such a profitable business with Adolf might still weigh in. But lets agree that the business towards the allies might still cash in more bucks."

This economic report from the first quarter of 1940 seems to fly in the face of that position:

Aircraft and shipbuilders strained to fill war orders, and automakers had a better winter than last. So did Electric Auto-Lite, which makes accessories for all three. Its net: $2,485,480, up 53.3%.

Anaconda Copper has sold its share of 250,000 tons of copper sent to France alone since World War II began, is still exporting it. Its net: $10,400,000, up 182%.

With better business, U. S. businessmen need more telephones, have made 7% more toll calls than last year. A. T. & T. netted $46,048,069, up 15.9%.

Bituminous coal swings with the production index and the price of fuel oil. Both factors favored M. A. Hanna Co., which netted $390,238, up 126.7%.

To U. S. papermakers Mathieson Alkali has been selling salt cake they (the US papermakers) used to buy from Germany. Its net: $364,142, up 124.9%.

Railroads bought long-deferred modern equipment when traffic picked up last fall. Westinghouse Air Brake delivered these orders in 1940's first quarter, netted $1,847,140, up 362.9%.

Steelmakers, now down to 60% of capacity, were for a time strained enough to need new firebrick. Harbison-Walker Refractories netted $379,600, up 82.9%.

From May 1940, Time:

EARNINGS: Paradox of the First Quarter - TIME

And in the vein of America perhaps wishing to do "business" with Hitler, it should be remembered that in late April of 1940, the U. S. awoke to find itself minus a $500,000-a-day export trade. Choking off the seaborne trade of the three Scandinavians as the USSR had already choked the commerce of America’s good customer Finland. Hitler now (almost overnight), cut more than 5% from U. S. export trade, nearly 4% from her imports.

After Hitler invaded Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, and France; Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. went down at dawn to throw the switches freezing Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourg bank balances so that Nazi plunder may not include approximately $1,076,000,000 Dutch, $296,000,000 Belgian, and $14,000,000 Luxembourger investments in the U. S. Last week, Department of Commerce figures on U. S. foreign trade for 1940—3 first quarter enabled businessmen to assess the realities. Exports were way up: 51% ahead of the first quarter of 1939.

No. 1 war exporter is the aircraft industry; its first-quarter sales abroad were up 225% to $66,816,000. Its chief customers are England and France. Next most important war baby is the machine-tool industry, whose numerous small plants were rushed nearly to capacity by foreign buyers even before World War II began. Its first-quarter exports amounted to $48,014,000, up 76% from the first quarter of 1939. Of this, the Allies are now accounting for about half, but Russia and Japan were still substantial buyers of about $10,000,000 for the quarter.

Export of trucks & busses up 47%; electrical equipment up 24%; farm implement exports up 20% to $16,690,000. Another of the biggest export gainers was in steel products: exports up 104% to $44,889,000. But in April U. S. Steel said that the corporation, which exports more than most of the industry, was sending some 13% of its output abroad, still had plenty of idle capacity. Raw materials and semi-manufactures fared better, although among them, too, the biggest export gains were made by the groups needing foreign relief least. Pharmaceuticals were up 58% to $7,176,000, thanks mainly to Latin America, which, cut off from European drug makers, took 40% of the U. S. industry's exports.

Far & away the No. 1 material exporter was the scrap, pig iron and other semi-finished steel groups, whose shipments were up 145% to $78,494,000. Other star performers — copper, up 122% to $33,264,000; chemicals, up 145% to $21,257,000; aluminum materials, up 184% to $5,836,000. U. S. exports of tin plate scrap were $19,872,000 for the quarter, up 361% from 1939.

Exports to Germany dropped from $4,963,000 to $17,000. (Largely due to their inability to pay with gold bullion)

Moreover, daily average exports in March were lower than in February. This trend set in while Hitler's North Sea victims were still customers of the U. S. With Scandinavia, the U. S. has probably lost $44,328,000 a quarter in exports, with the Low Countries $45,628,000 more. If Italy, Spain and Japan should enter the war, $100,523,000 a quarter more might be lost.
See:

FOREIGN TRADE: State of Exports - TIME

By the time Hitler got done invading (contrary to promises not to), Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries, Luxembourg, and France the isolationist movement was a dead issue, and even leading Senators in the GOP were mentioning a third term for FDR.

No matter if Hitler had made "nice" with France, his past would so taint that it would be of no benefit for him. Hitler couldn’t afford to buy our goods (cash only, no credit), so his rise to power was a business negative in the US. Plus all the dearly held positions of the isolationists had been blown into the weeds by a lying snake named Adolf Hitler (apologies to snakes worldwide). Putting on a "sheep’s clothing" and offering France a kinder, gentler occupation wasn’t going to help rejuvenate Hitler’s image.

He (Hitler) had proven that giving into territorial demands didn’t work (Czechoslovakia), declaring neutrality didn’t work if he wanted your territory (Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Norway), non-aggression pacts didn’t work (Poland), a strong defense without massive offensive ability didn’t work (France), and the threat of air power made our oceans look less and less like a protective moat, and more like a liquid highway for enemies of democracy.

BTW, Hitler's benevolence toward the French can be deduced from this; "...To Marshal Pétain's plea, sent to Hitler through their mutual friend, Dictator Franco of Spain whom Pétain had once taught the art of war, Adolf Hitler's reply was: drop your arms or be killed. He sent for Benito Mussolini to meet him in Munich to discuss matters on June 18 (125th anniversary of Napoleon's downfall at Waterloo). Surrender, not with honor but unconditional, was reported to be the German's ultimatum to France. Meantime, the war "for which France asked" would continue.

From June 24th, 1940 Time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,764064-4,00.html

I guess one would really have to change that tiger's stripes to find a "favorable peace" in the mix.

 

Mussolini and Franco wanted big portions of the French colonial empire and Vichy swarmed of people who were hostile to Germany:they wanted their revanche :he could no trust any French.

 

Hello LJAd,

after Hitler offering favourable peace terms to France there wouldn't have been many anti-Germans left in France, especially not after they would have received the message that it was Britain that made them go to war against each other.

So not much to carve out for Musso and Franco since France would have been left intact with all its rights and priviliges.

Regards
Kruska

 

You are sure the euthanasia was known in the USA and the papers did write on it? Not many US journalists in Germany in 1940!

 

Yes, it was widely reported. And what makes you think there were few journalists in Germany in 1940? We were not yet at war with Germany, and even William Shirer remained in-country until mid-1941 (I think). The T-4 program was reported both by the Church, and foreign press, so it was widely known of, and widely condemned. That was most likely the "core reason" which prompted Hitler to never put his signature on any other document of its type. He had signed the T-4 authorization, but none for the Aktion Reinhard Camps.

 

I saw a French doc on Mein Kampf. And they played this card very hard.

It pretty much defy the thread IMO.

 

Was there no censure of the reports of foreign journalists in a country at war ?? There was a public condemnation by von Galen,but I think in 1941 .