What if Germany withdrew from France after its surrender?

[Erwinn]

If France stays intact there is a big possibility of them becoming Communist.

Vichy did not go communist so I would assume an intact France would not do so either.

Vichy is a German puppet. Therefore Vichy has to be Fascist because Germans won't allow anything else than that.

There is a reason France Communist Party was banned in 1939 and after the occupation ended in '44, it became a powerful force. It was one of the leading parties in '45-'46 elections.

[glenn239]

Vichy is a German puppet. Therefore Vichy has to be Fascist because Germans won't allow anything else than that.

There is a reason France Communist Party was banned in 1939 and after the occupation ended in '44, it became a powerful force. It was one of the leading parties in '45-'46 elections.

If Germany bails from France the idea is to keep the war limited and the US and USSR neutral. A French communist party would no doubt be a headache if it somehow arose during wartime, but more in the context of how this would interfere with the strategic objective of a limited war than anything a French communist party would bring to the table itself.

[Wat Tyler]

Presumably Germany would need to keep troops close to it's western border to ensure France kept their word and didn't either restart the war or allow access to British , Commonwealth and possibly US forces should they enter the war ?
If the Soviets do move south and east i assume following their poor showing in Finland they'd do so in considerable force . How much would be left in western Russia ? Presumably less than the OTL and with that spreading of their forces would that not make Barbarossa more likely as it would give Germany a much better chance?
If nothing else it would make for an interesting line up of sides in the war. Assuming Britain hasn't sued for peace they would find themselves at war with both Germany and Russia who may themselves be at war with each other.

[nuyt]

If there is peace with the USSR, the French communist party will remain as it is: peaceful. Once there would be a Barbarossa, Stalin would order European communists to start a resistance campaign. Communist parties in those days were completely dependent on the USSR.

So this should work on paper, although no doubt Vichy would have some internal resistance to deal with. But if no Barbarossa, that can be done without outside help.

[nuyt]

BY the way, what will happen to the Low Countries in this scenario. I'd say the British would want to include a German withdrawal from BE and NL in the peace accord. And if there are enough guarantees that these will remain neutral, why would Germany still want to be there?

That opens up more aspects of this scenario: a Dutch East Indies that will be better protected by the motherland (More troops, arms, vessels by 1942) and less reason to invade for the Japanese. Will there be a PH?

[glenn239]

Presumably Germany would need to keep troops close to it's western border to ensure France kept their word and didn't either restart the war or allow access to British , Commonwealth and possibly US forces should they enter the war ?

Certainly so. That's why they'd need to hold the Maginot Line and some slice of the French army's artillery and armor parks. The idea being that the US does not have to enter the war because Germany is not in possession of France.

If the Soviets do move south and east i assume following their poor showing in Finland they'd do so in considerable force . How much would be left in western Russia ? Presumably less than the OTL and with that spreading of their forces would that not make Barbarossa more likely as it would give Germany a much better chance?

Stalin's agenda for 1941-1942 we can glean from his demands in negotiations in November 1940. He wanted Bulgaria and Turkey in his sphere, and intended to inflict some further territorial settlement on the Finns. (But not conquered, since Stalin in 1944 would prove content with allowing Finland to stay mostly unoccupied at a moment he could have kept the war going and overrun the whole country in 1945 if he wished). After that he signalled interest in the Persian Gulf region, (which meant the occupation of Iran) and in the Far East, (which meant he was seeking complications with Japan).

None of this was fatal to German interests.

[glenn239]

BY the way, what will happen to the Low Countries in this scenario. I'd say the British would want to include a German withdrawal from BE and NL in the peace accord. And if there are enough guarantees that these will remain neutral, why would Germany still want to be there?

Britain wasn't going to make peace whether Germany withdrew from Belgium or not, so the question was, would the logic that made a withdrawal from France prove feasible for Belgium and Holland too?

That opens up more aspects of this scenario: a Dutch East Indies that will be better protected by the motherland (More troops, arms, vessels by 1942) and less reason to invade for the Japanese. Will there be a PH?

Good question. A Pearl Harbor could undo any European neutrality strategy as the US declares war on Germany.

[nuyt]

re the Low Countries:
as someone else wrote, the countries could be economically (or actually far more important: monitary) linked to Germany and focus their defences on air and coast (and colonies), so Germany would be a bit safer from the West and the industries as well as agribusiness could be linked with Germany's economy.

re PH:
if the Soviets turn their attention southwards, including to the Far East, that might prevent a PH. The Japanese would focus more on the defence of China/Manchuria and build up their army with heavier weapons, tanks, etc., while the Navy faction would loose a bit of influence.

[glenn239]

re the Low Countries:
as someone else wrote, the countries could be economically (or actually far more important: monitary) linked to Germany and focus their defences on air and coast (and colonies), so Germany would be a bit safer from the West and the industries as well as agribusiness could be linked with Germany's economy.

It's an air defense question as I see it. Does the LW need the Low Countries to defend against RAF night raids? I would suggest yes.

if the Soviets turn their attention southwards, including to the Far East, that might prevent a PH. The Japanese would focus more on the defence of China/Manchuria and build up their army with heavier weapons, tanks, etc., while the Navy faction would loose a bit of influence.

I don't know, you're probably right. What seems more clear is that if Germany is pursuing a limited war strategy, an alliance with Japan against the US does not make sense.

[nuyt]

Would the RAF wage all out bombing campaigns to Germany in this scenario? I would say not, it will be mostly sticking closer to home and patrol the seas, together with the RN. So Germany can provide the Dutch and Belgians with additional AA fire power and supply a few hundred 88mm and 105mm AA guns to be stationed along the coast. Also the LW could supply several squadrons worth of ME109s to the Dutch and Belgian air forces. Or have them fly with Dutch/Belgian markings if there was a shortage of pilots.

Re the colonies: I think the Dutch and Belgians would face a hard time staying in touch with the colonies (Congo and the NEI), because the RN would want to inspect or block their ships, now they are so closely aligned to Germany. In a worsening strategic situation one can imagine the Brits and US taking control of the NEI (rubber, oil, etc.).

Flying there from the Low countries might be possible, just to have some key staff and personalities going back and forth. The Belgians will be able to reach Congo by air through the French territories (even a landroute might be set up) and the NEI may be reached via the ME (Turkey, Iran, Afgh.) and China/Siam, bypassing British India.

[Wat Tyler]

Re reading this thread i have to ask what the timeline for a German withdrawal would be? Presumably there would have to be a period of discussion , a period of transition as things like the maginot line is handed over and repaired or brought to German standards and i would assume the German army would stay in France until the these discussions had taken place and an agreement reached? How long would these discussions take , a month , six months or a year and what happens between Germany and Britain during that time. Do the Germans send out details to let France remain unoccupied and not at war in the hope that Britain takes up the offer of an end to a potentially long and unwinnable war too? Which begs the question that if Germany was prepared to do this after the battle of France would they have not considered a pre war diplomatic solution to secure their western border?

[glenn239]

Would the RAF wage all out bombing campaigns to Germany in this scenario? I would say not, it will be mostly sticking closer to home and patrol the seas, together with the RN.

I would not guess the RAF respects Benelux neutrality or reduces its bombing tempo.

[glenn239]

Re reading this thread i have to ask what the timeline for a German withdrawal would be? Presumably there would have to be a period of discussion , a period of transition as things like the maginot line is handed over and repaired or brought to German standards and i would assume the German army would stay in France until the these discussions had taken place and an agreement reached?

Around July 1940. Note that the historical agreement for ceasefire was not a "discussion", it was terms of armistice imposed by the Axis on the French without negotiation. The Germans would hold the Maginot Line, the Italians the Alps forts and passes.

How long would these discussions take , a month , six months or a year and what happens between Germany and Britain during that time. Do the Germans send out details to let France remain unoccupied and not at war in the hope that Britain takes up the offer of an end to a potentially long and unwinnable war too? Which begs the question that if Germany was prepared to do this after the battle of France would they have not considered a pre war diplomatic solution to secure their western border?

As above, it's not a discussion, it's terms imposed by Germany on France. But, the terms would happen to be extremely reasonable for France. The British would continue the war; the target of this gambit is the USA and USSR, not Churchill. In terms of securing this result before the war, why would France ever have agreed to that before being defeated in the first place? One thing to accept German terms after being completely defeated in battle. Quite another to do so without a shot fired.

[nuyt]

Would the RAF wage all out bombing campaigns to Germany in this scenario? I would say not, it will be mostly sticking closer to home and patrol the seas, together with the RN.

I would not guess the RAF respects Benelux neutrality or reduces its bombing tempo.

How and with what would the RAF carry out carpet bombing of Germany in 1940/41?

[glenn239]

How and with what would the RAF carry out carpet bombing of Germany in 1940/41?

They can't do that until 1943. The British under Churchill would continue to fight until at least 1945, waiting for a lucky break, so long enough for the RAF to get into full swing. If Germany backs out of Belgium and the Netherlands, IMO there's no way the RAF is respecting the neutrality of either of them for its air campaign, (or in the blockade, for that matter).