How long would it take after a failed German invasion of France in 1940 for Hitler to get ousted or killed?

[Futurist]

How long would it take after a failed German invasion of France in 1940 for Hitler to get ousted or killed by internal opponents of his?

[Mark in Cleveland, Tn.]

The same is realy what happened, one time late 44 maybe, maybe not.

[Carl Schwamberger]

It depends on how bad the failure is, & the ability of the Allies to counter attack in 1941.

[Futurist]

It depends on how bad the failure is, & the ability of the Allies to counter attack in 1941.

What if the failure is actually fairly modest and the Allies counterattack in 1941 but fail to make significant gains--instead being stuck in something resembling trench warfare?

[Carl Schwamberger]

It depends on how bad the failure is, & the ability of the Allies to counter attack in 1941.

What if the failure is actually fairly modest and the Allies counterattack in 1941 but fail to make significant gains--instead being stuck in something resembling trench warfare?

I don't know the details of French strategy, but since their primary offensive, or series of offensives vs Germany were not expected until 1942 1941 setbacks may not have meant much.

The French were trying to avoid the traditional image of WWI on the ground battle. Not reproduce it. The 1942 offensives were to take advantage of a expected collapsing German economy and declining morale. As in the autumn of 1918. And they intended to reproduce the best aspects of the latter 1918 offensives. Fire power, mechanization, air power, effective planning, skilled execution.

In 1939 the French consolidated all atomic research under a single agency, & brought as many physicists as they could find together. Including many of the refugee physicists of Europe. The also contracted NORSK HTDRO for all the Heavy Water production. In March 1940 all the Heavy Water stored at NORSK HYDRO was shipped to France. Draw your own conclusions as to what the French might do it the Germans are not near defeat in 1942.

[Futurist]

It depends on how bad the failure is, & the ability of the Allies to counter attack in 1941.

What if the failure is actually fairly modest and the Allies counterattack in 1941 but fail to make significant gains--instead being stuck in something resembling trench warfare?

I don't know the details of French strategy, but since their primary offensive, or series of offensives vs Germany were not expected until 1942 1941 setbacks may not have meant much.

The French were trying to avoid the traditional image of WWI on the ground battle. Not reproduce it. The 1942 offensives were to take advantage of a expected collapsing German economy and declining morale. As in the autumn of 1918. And they intended to reproduce the best aspects of the latter 1918 offensives. Fire power, mechanization, air power, effective planning, skilled execution.

In 1939 the French consolidated all atomic research under a single agency, & brought as many physicists as they could find together. Including many of the refugee physicists of Europe. The also contracted NORSK HTDRO for all the Heavy Water production. In March 1940 all the Heavy Water stored at NORSK HYDRO was shipped to France. Draw your own conclusions as to what the French might do it the Germans are not near defeat in 1942.

Do you think that the French were capable of building nukes in this scenario earlier than the US (a much larger country) built them in real life? I mean, sure, France could try building nukes, but is it actually going to be successful?

In real life, it took France 16 years after its liberation to build nukes and Britain eight years more than the US (but also eight years less than France) to build nukes.

[Futurist]

BTW, while Britain and France might have very well thought otherwise, I don't think that declining morale is something that Germany is going to have to worry about in WWII even if France isn't knocked out of the war. After all, Hitler was able to maintain a fierce, tight, and totalitarian grip on his country right up to the very end--which is why Western observers were surprised that Germans consistently had high morale in fighting up to the very last moments of the war.

Granted, the lack of Soviet participation in WWII in this scenario might reduce German morale a bit, but even this I doubt considering that Germans (to my knowledge) still aggressively fought even against the Anglo-Americans in real life. Of course, the Anglo-Americans demanded unconstitutional surrender from Germany in real life; if the Anglo-French offered more generous peace terms to Germany, then maybe German morale would have indeed been lessened and reduced. I still think that the best shot that the Anglo-French had for a quick end to the war would have been for a successful anti-Nazi coup to occur in Germany, though. Of course, even a post-Nazi conservative German leadership would have probably been unwilling to roll over and unconditionally accept Anglo-French terms unless it was crystal-clear that Germany was going to get decisively defeated and occupied otherwise. After all, German conservatives probably disliked the Polish Corridor just as much as the Nazis did--if not even more so.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Do you think that the French were capable of building nukes in this scenario earlier than the US (a much larger country) built them in real life? I mean, sure, France could try building nukes, but is it actually going to be successful?

In real life, it took France 16 years after its liberation to build nukes and Britain eight years more than the US (but also eight years less than France) to build nukes.

Try is the operative word here. & I have no idea if any of the physicists assembled then were thinking of bombs. The USN started atomic power research the same year, 1939. Maybe some day I'll review exactly who was involved in the French project & what their thinking was & where their previous research had placed them. I did recently run across a description of a British Brigadier General running a escape operation for the refugee physicists in France in June 1940. He had carte blanche to do what ever it took to get them aboard a ship away from the Germans and preferably to England.

Given the attitude of many of the French leaders its probable they would have tried had the physicists claimed it possible. While some leaders like Gamelin wished to avoid senseless bloodshed others were out to put down Germany permanently, and saw only shedding French blood as senseless.. Its also likely it would end up a joint project between the two Allied nations. Perhaps with others involved, the Belgians had a producing Uranium mine & were importing bulk quantities of unrefined Uranium ore.

[Futurist]

What exactly were French physicists thinking of if not atomic bombs?

[Russ3Z]

What exactly were French physicists thinking of if not atomic bombs?

Atomic power plants would be a significant gain for a country that is a net energy importer, reducing the effects of a German submarine campaign. It might also help in the case of a German occupation of the coal-producing regions near the border.

[Futurist]

Thanks!

Of course, without nukes, France is likely going to have a long road ahead of it if it wants to win the war--unless of course anti-Nazis in Germany stage a successful group and agree to Anglo-French peace terms shortly afterwards.

[Carl Schwamberger]

What exactly were French physicists thinking of if not atomic bombs?

Atomic power plants would be a significant gain for a country that is a net energy importer, reducing the effects of a German submarine campaign. It might also help in the case of a German occupation of the coal-producing regions near the border.

Witness Frances post war nuclear power program. Heavy on electric generation.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Thanks!

Of course, without nukes, France is likely going to have a long road ahead of it if it wants to win the war--unless of course anti-Nazis in Germany stage a successful group and agree to Anglo-French peace terms shortly afterwards.

I would guess that was part of the plan. Collapse the economy, break the demoralized army, negotiate with the new government.

[Futurist]

Thanks!

Of course, without nukes, France is likely going to have a long road ahead of it if it wants to win the war--unless of course anti-Nazis in Germany stage a successful group and agree to Anglo-French peace terms shortly afterwards.

I would guess that was part of the plan. Collapse the economy, break the demoralized army, negotiate with the new government.

The "agree to Anglo-French peace terms shortly afterwards" might be the difficult part, though. I would think that a non-Nazi German leadership would need to conclude that they could not bleed the Anglo-French to exhaustion in order to acquire better terms. The German leadership needs to be aware that, regardless of anything, Britain and France are not going to moderate their peace terms.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Probably depends on how bad conditions are in Germany, and what folk think conditions will deteriorate to in the coming months or year.

Theres also a question of what happens as assorted political groups in Germany reemerge, or if they do. The 'discipline' imposed by the nazi party & Gestapo tended to mask that underneath the 'Germans' were not a solid mass of like thinking Aryans. My guess is the social/political groups of 1919-1934 are still there with similar agendas.

Theres a lot of ways the war can end & a large part of it depends on the actual situation inside Germany.