Two alternate history questions based on avoiding the 1940 Fall of France

[WolfBear]

So, I've got a couple of alternate history questions that are based on avoiding the 1940 Fall of France:

1. Without the Fall of France, just how long does it take for Hitler to get overthrown and/or assassinated by internal opponents of his? And would the new Schwarze Kapelle-led German government actually agree to make peace on Franco-British terms?

Or are you thinking of Hitler having the luck of the devil in this TL just like he had in our TL and thus still surviving all assassination attempts on him?

2. Just how much less severe will the Holocaust be in a no-Fall-of-France TL? And what effect does it have on the Zionist movement in the post-World War II years and decades?

Thoughts on all of this?

 

[History Learner]

On another forum, someone contextualized the Fall of France in a way I had never considered before, in which he argued it was deterministic in a pretty clear cut way. Consider it as a replay of World War I EXCEPT:

• There's no Eastern Front, so the WWI Ostheer is available for duty in the West continuously
• The core of the Austro-Hungarian military power (in the form of Austria and Czechia) is also focused in the West
• The BEF is ~20% of its size

In that regard, the German success in 1940, while still amazing, doesn't seem as miraculous. Sickle Cut definitely engendered success far beyond expectations, but given the arrangement of the economics and forces at play, even if they failed to achieve decisive success in 1940 it was likely they would in 1941. Like nuclear war, the only winning move for the Anglo-French was not to play for several more years.

 

[WolfBear]

On another forum, someone contextualized the Fall of France in a way I had never considered before, in which he argued it was deterministic in a pretty clear cut way. Consider it as a replay of World War I EXCEPT:

• There's no Eastern Front, so the WWI Ostheer is available for duty in the West continuously
• The core of the Austro-Hungarian military power (in the form of Austria and Czechia) is also focused in the West
• The BEF is ~20% of its size

In that regard, the German success in 1940, while still amazing, doesn't seem as miraculous. Sickle Cut definitely engendered success far beyond expectations, but given the arrangement of the economics and forces at play, even if they failed to achieve decisive success in 1940 it was likely they would in 1941. Like nuclear war, the only winning move for the Anglo-French was not to play for several more years.

Yeah, in the long(er)-run, the situation for the Anglo-French should have been much better (as per Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction), but in 1940 and maybe 1941 as well, the Anglo-French weren't completely invulnerable. I've also noticed this. In 1940, the French lacked a strong hand in the East (Russia) like they had between 1914 and 1917 in real life, and it also didn't help them that the US remained neutral in 1939-1940 whereas it played a large role in 1918 in real life once there was no longer any Russian Front in WWI.

I would presume that the Germans still had to keep some troops in the East as a precautionary measure, but probably not that much all things being considered.

The BEF was 20% of its 1918 size in 1940? Is that what you're saying here?

 

[History Learner]

Yeah, in the long(er)-run, the situation for the Anglo-French should have been much better (as per Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction), but in 1940 and maybe 1941 as well, the Anglo-French weren't completely invulnerable. I've also noticed this. In 1940, the French lacked a strong hand in the East (Russia) like they had between 1914 and 1917 in real life, and it also didn't help them that the US remained neutral in 1939-1940 whereas it played a large role in 1918 in real life once there was no longer any Russian Front in WWI.

I would presume that the Germans still had to keep some troops in the East as a precautionary measure, but probably not that much all things being considered.

The BEF was 20% of its 1918 size in 1940? Is that what you're saying here?

Yes I think for the BEF, and the Germans kept about 20-25 Divisions in the West but in 1918 they literally had like ~60 in the East even after transfers. The Germans attacked France with about as many men as they went into Russia with in 1941, if that tells you anything. As for the longer run, Tooze takes a very fatalistic approach to 1940 being the cut off that I don't share in the same sense he does. I think the real danger for the Germans was in failing to finish France off fast enough they would be a in bad spot come 1942 when Stalin finishes his reforms.

I've said it elsewhere, but to repeat myself, the best move for the Anglo-French was not to declare war in 1939 and instead encourage Barbarossa '40 as much as possible while continuing their own rebuilding.

 

[WolfBear]

Yes I think for the BEF, and the Germans kept about 20-25 Divisions in the West but in 1918 they literally had like ~60 in the East even after transfers. The Germans attacked France with about as many men as they went into Russia with in 1941, if that tells you anything. As for the longer run, Tooze takes a very fatalistic approach to 1940 being the cut off that I don't share in the same sense he does. I think the real danger for the Germans was in failing to finish France off fast enough they would be a in bad spot come 1942 when Stalin finishes his reforms.

I've said it elsewhere, but to repeat myself, the best move for the Anglo-French was not to declare war in 1939 and instead encourage Barbarossa '40 as much as possible while continuing their own rebuilding.

Do you have a link to the specific post on the other forum that you were talking about in your first post here?

As for your suggestion in your second paragraph here, Yes, very possibly, but if Hitler succeeds, then the Soviet people very likely get severely screwed over.

 

[stevep]

On another forum, someone contextualized the Fall of France in a way I had never considered before, in which he argued it was deterministic in a pretty clear cut way. Consider it as a replay of World War I EXCEPT:

• There's no Eastern Front, so the WWI Ostheer is available for duty in the West continuously
• The core of the Austro-Hungarian military power (in the form of Austria and Czechia) is also focused in the West
• The BEF is ~20% of its size

In that regard, the German success in 1940, while still amazing, doesn't seem as miraculous. Sickle Cut definitely engendered success far beyond expectations, but given the arrangement of the economics and forces at play, even if they failed to achieve decisive success in 1940 it was likely they would in 1941. Like nuclear war, the only winning move for the Anglo-French was not to play for several more years.

Apart from the fact that the allies don't have much choice on the issue you also need to remember that:
a) Germany didn't have the same depth of forces it had in 1914 either. Or relative economic strength for that matter.
b) France, against a non-sickle cut attack has a much better defensive position and strategy than it had in 1914.
c) The Germany economy is a hell of a lot weaker and without loot from France and possibly also a deeply contested Belgium its going to struggle to maintain a major war effort even if Stalin is even more generous than OTL. Your mis-quoting Tooze as he pointed out Hitler's Germany was largely living off loot from its conquests a couple of years prior to 1940.

A check in Belgium with heavy German losses and a long and costly WWI like slog looking likely and things look less than rosy for the regime. They can tighten the repression on the ordinary population further for a while but the military and big business could be different matters.

 

[sillygoose]

On another forum, someone contextualized the Fall of France in a way I had never considered before, in which he argued it was deterministic in a pretty clear cut way. Consider it as a replay of World War I EXCEPT:

• There's no Eastern Front, so the WWI Ostheer is available for duty in the West continuously
• The core of the Austro-Hungarian military power (in the form of Austria and Czechia) is also focused in the West
• The BEF is ~20% of its size

In that regard, the German success in 1940, while still amazing, doesn't seem as miraculous. Sickle Cut definitely engendered success far beyond expectations, but given the arrangement of the economics and forces at play, even if they failed to achieve decisive success in 1940 it was likely they would in 1941.

Problem with that viewpoint is the Heer was both smaller, less well trained, and less well equipped (both in quality and quantity of weapons) than their 1914 counterparts especially relative to the French. What was different was the German air force was larger and more prepared as well as better organized and trained than the Allied air forces deployed to France in 1940 combined. That was the big difference from WW1. Well that and it had more radios and doctrine as well as number of armored divisions. Plus the invasion plan was less predictable and deception operations were more successful. And there were SF operations that were not available in 1914. BTW the BEF in 1940 was actually larger than the force in 1914 and much better equipped.

Anyway the point probably should be that comparing 1914 to 1940 is not helpful because the situation was quite a bit different, so much so that comparing them might well be impossible overall.

Like nuclear war, the only winning move for the Anglo-French was not to play for several more years.

Really at all. There was no reason for them to actually fight Germany at all given that the only result would be the fatal weakening of everyone involved and the US taking over the global order. Plus the war then radicalized everyone and resulted in a heap of war crimes all around and Poland ending up under the control of a foreign dictatorship virtually no matter what the outcome of the war. All totally avoidable through negotiation.

I've said it elsewhere, but to repeat myself, the best move for the Anglo-French was not to declare war in 1939 and instead encourage Barbarossa '40 as much as possible while continuing their own rebuilding.

I've seen several historians claim that is exactly what Chamberlain was trying to do during his tenure, but was stymied by the war party and media who forced his hand against Germany, since there was panic that Germany would win quickly in the east and then be the strongest power in the world and the public will would not exist to fight them.

 

[WolfBear]

Apart from the fact that the allies don't have much choice on the issue you also need to remember that:
a) Germany didn't have the same depth of forces it had in 1914 either. Or relative economic strength for that matter.
b) France, against a non-sickle cut attack has a much better defensive position and strategy than it had in 1914.
c) The Germany economy is a hell of a lot weaker and without loot from France and possibly also a deeply contested Belgium its going to struggle to maintain a major war effort even if Stalin is even more generous than OTL. Your mis-quoting Tooze as he pointed out Hitler's Germany was largely living off loot from its conquests a couple of years prior to 1940.

A check in Belgium with heavy German losses and a long and costly WWI like slog looking likely and things look less than rosy for the regime. They can tighten the repression on the ordinary population further for a while but the military and big business could be different matters.

Welcome back, Steve!

 

[stevep]

Welcome back, Steve!

Sorry been unwell for a few weeks, nothing serious but a persistent cough that meant I wasn't sleeping much and feeling totally knackered. So I took a break from most of my sites for a week or so. Different treatment seems to be sorting it out so trying to catch up.

PS Have to disagree with other posters. Hitler was never going to allow France as a major power in his rear while contemplating an attack on the Soviets. Even without his desire for revenge for 1918 and also to regain territory. Mind you even if they did risk that and the western powers had done nothing while Germany and Italy went wild could Germany win in the east without the loot from France and the Low Countries?

 

[WolfBear]

Sorry been unwell for a few weeks, nothing serious but a persistent cough that meant I wasn't sleeping much and feeling totally knackered. So I took a break from most of my sites for a week or so. Different treatment seems to be sorting it out so trying to catch up.

PS Have to disagree with other posters. Hitler was never going to allow France as a major power in his rear while contemplating an attack on the Soviets. Even without his desire for revenge for 1918 and also to regain territory. Mind you even if they did risk that and the western powers had done nothing while Germany and Italy went wild could Germany win in the east without the loot from France and the Low Countries?

I hope that you will continue getting treatment for your cough and also continue extensively discussing this issue with your doctors. Check your lungs! Maybe something is wrong with them and/or off about them! Just as a precautionary measure, I mean. It's MUCH better to be safe rather than sorry, after all!

Could Germany win in the East without French and Benelux loot? Possibly not, especially without their motorized vehicles. But would the West actually know this ahead of time?

 

[stevep]

I hope that you will continue getting treatment for your cough and also continue extensively discussing this issue with your doctors. Check your lungs! Maybe something is wrong with them and/or off about them! Just as a precautionary measure, I mean. It's MUCH better to be safe rather than sorry, after all!

Thanks for the concern. The 1st doctor I saw did say my chest seemed clear but arranged an X ray which I've seen had. Still got a bit of a cough and a snotty nose but the medicine I'm taking now, which is supposed to counter the issue of excess acid in the stomach seems to be working pretty damned well so hopefully that's it.

Could Germany win in the East without French and Benelux loot? Possibly not, especially without their motorized vehicles. But would the West actually know this ahead of time?

Not sure what either west or Soviets would think of the balance of power between the Germans and Soviets in the scenario proposed. Germany doesn't have the victory in Poland - which did highlight a number of issues - let alone the spectacular victories in the west in 1940 while I doubt that Stalin will go for Finland here, although he might possibly have a preventive invasion of Latvia and Estonia - to put some distance between a possible German attack and Leningrad. Hitler will no doubt be confident of success given his racial delusions and if we get anything like the early Barbarossa successes that will be reinforced. However what happens from there could go any one of a number of ways.

The west will be diplomatically weak having failed to support Poland but presumably will still be rearming, especially at sea. Plus they won't want either dictatorship willing big - especially quickly. So at the very least Germany has to consider a western attack while the bulk of their forces are somewhere deep in Russia and without any fighting with them will have no clear idea of the strength of the western powers.

Germany does have the big advantage that it can trade with the rest of the world but this depends on it having something to buy stuff with and that could be an issue, which is another unknown.

 

[WolfBear]

Thanks for the concern. The 1st doctor I saw did say my chest seemed clear but arranged an X ray which I've seen had. Still got a bit of a cough and a snotty nose but the medicine I'm taking now, which is supposed to counter the issue of excess acid in the stomach seems to be working pretty damned well so hopefully that's it.



Not sure what either west or Soviets would think of the balance of power between the Germans and Soviets in the scenario proposed. Germany doesn't have the victory in Poland - which did highlight a number of issues - let alone the spectacular victories in the west in 1940 while I doubt that Stalin will go for Finland here, although he might possibly have a preventive invasion of Latvia and Estonia - to put some distance between a possible German attack and Leningrad. Hitler will no doubt be confident of success given his racial delusions and if we get anything like the early Barbarossa successes that will be reinforced. However what happens from there could go any one of a number of ways.

The west will be diplomatically weak having failed to support Poland but presumably will still be rearming, especially at sea. Plus they won't want either dictatorship willing big - especially quickly. So at the very least Germany has to consider a western attack while the bulk of their forces are somewhere deep in Russia and without any fighting with them will have no clear idea of the strength of the western powers.

Germany does have the big advantage that it can trade with the rest of the world but this depends on it having something to buy stuff with and that could be an issue, which is another unknown.

Germany has the Siegfried Line to provide defense in the West. And just how much money did Germany have right before the start of the war? I mean financial reserves.

Apart from the fact that the allies don't have much choice on the issue you also need to remember that:
a) Germany didn't have the same depth of forces it had in 1914 either. Or relative economic strength for that matter.
b) France, against a non-sickle cut attack has a much better defensive position and strategy than it had in 1914.
c) The Germany economy is a hell of a lot weaker and without loot from France and possibly also a deeply contested Belgium its going to struggle to maintain a major war effort even if Stalin is even more generous than OTL. Your mis-quoting Tooze as he pointed out Hitler's Germany was largely living off loot from its conquests a couple of years prior to 1940.

A check in Belgium with heavy German losses and a long and costly WWI like slog looking likely and things look less than rosy for the regime. They can tighten the repression on the ordinary population further for a while but the military and big business could be different matters.

How long do you think until Hitler and the Nazis get overthrown by the Schwarze Kapelle?

 

[stevep]

Germany has the Siegfried Line to provide defense in the West. And just how much money did Germany have right before the start of the war? I mean financial reserves.

Yes and by 1939/40 it was a serious defensive position.

In terms of fiscal resources I think relatively few. The military expansion had been so large and rapid it seems that for many German citizens they were worse off in ~1939 than in say 1935 - going largely by Tooze's Wages of Destruction and it was staggering from conquest to conquest living very much off the loot and other resources gained.

How long do you think until Hitler and the Nazis get overthrown by the Schwarze Kapelle?

Don't have the slightest idea. In any rational system, or even a probabilistic one given how many assassination attempts Hitler survived he shouldn't have lasted until 1940.

 

[WolfBear]

Yes and by 1939/40 it was a serious defensive position.

In terms of fiscal resources I think relatively few. The military expansion had been so large and rapid it seems that for many German citizens they were worse off in ~1939 than in say 1935 - going largely by Tooze's Wages of Destruction and it was staggering from conquest to conquest living very much off the loot and other resources gained.



Don't have the slightest idea. In any rational system, or even a probabilistic one given how many assassination attempts Hitler survived he shouldn't have lasted until 1940.

Makes sense.

Well, Yeah, and Hitler had the luck of the devil!

 

[History Learner]

Apart from the fact that the allies don't have much choice on the issue you also need to remember that:
a) Germany didn't have the same depth of forces it had in 1914 either. Or relative economic strength for that matter.
b) France, against a non-sickle cut attack has a much better defensive position and strategy than it had in 1914.
c) The Germany economy is a hell of a lot weaker and without loot from France and possibly also a deeply contested Belgium its going to struggle to maintain a major war effort even if Stalin is even more generous than OTL. Your mis-quoting Tooze as he pointed out Hitler's Germany was largely living off loot from its conquests a couple of years prior to 1940.

A check in Belgium with heavy German losses and a long and costly WWI like slog looking likely and things look less than rosy for the regime. They can tighten the repression on the ordinary population further for a while but the military and big business could be different matters.

The Allies had all the choice in the matter in going to war; we have the British leadership in private even admitting the proposals put forward by the Germans were, in the words of Chamberlain himself "attractive". As for your other arguments:

A) You're right, they don't have the same depth because they're vastly stronger relative to 1914 in economics. By 1936-two years before any annexations-Germany's war capacity already exceeded the Anglo-French combined.
B) The French do not have a better position, their industrial heartland is the front line and they have demographics that have yet to recover from World War I. As for that excellent strategy, remind us who won in 1940?
C) Germany is not weaker, by any real material factor and I'm not mis-quoting Tooze; I'm saying Tooze is wrong entirely. Even then, I don't think you're quoting him correctly in terms of your own argument, because even he makes the case they could switch to a peace economy in Mid-1939. If they were living off solely loot, as you describe, how exactly is that possible?

 

[WolfBear]

On another forum, someone contextualized the Fall of France in a way I had never considered before, in which he argued it was deterministic in a pretty clear cut way. Consider it as a replay of World War I EXCEPT:

• There's no Eastern Front, so the WWI Ostheer is available for duty in the West continuously
• The core of the Austro-Hungarian military power (in the form of Austria and Czechia) is also focused in the West
• The BEF is ~20% of its size

In that regard, the German success in 1940, while still amazing, doesn't seem as miraculous. Sickle Cut definitely engendered success far beyond expectations, but given the arrangement of the economics and forces at play, even if they failed to achieve decisive success in 1940 it was likely they would in 1941. Like nuclear war, the only winning move for the Anglo-French was not to play for several more years.

HL, can you please link to this other forum post here? Thank you.

 

[sillygoose]

A) You're right, they don't have the same depth because they're vastly stronger relative to 1914 in economics. By 1936-two years before any annexations-Germany's war capacity already exceeded the Anglo-French combined.

I've never heard that before, where are you getting that from?

 

[WolfBear]

I've never heard that before, where are you getting that from?

Yeah, I'd like to know that as well. Specifically what measure is he using for this?

 

[History Learner]

I've never heard that before, where are you getting that from?

Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. It's from the 1980s, and I think more modern research has supplanted it, but it's useful for a basic primer; case in point is that it is now known in 1940 Germany had a larger machine tool (and more modern!) stock than the United States for example.

 

[WolfBear]

Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. It's from the 1980s, and I think more modern research has supplanted it, but it's useful for a basic primer; case in point is that it is now known in 1940 Germany had a larger machine tool (and more modern!) stock than the United States for example.

What would it have required to permanently keep Germany down after the end of WWI like some Americans, such as future US Senate Majority Leader Henry Cabot Lodge, apparently wanted to do back then? In your own honest opinion, I mean.