France fights on - better or worse for the Nazi Germany?

[tomo pauk]

There is a number of 'France fights on' topics on the 'net, there is even a forum dedicated to the idea. So let's say French retreat as much of manpower and gear to the N. Africa, wreck what they cannot carry and what they have time to wreck, and continue to fight from late Spring of 1940 on.
Is this situation better for Germany or worse?

 

[SaparotRob]

It would have to be worse for Germany methinks. The French Fleet at Mers El Kabir sails with the RN, or at least holidays in Martinique. The ill will between France and Britain isn't increased. Would Rommel now have to protect a longer supply line in North Africa now that French colonial forces aren't his "allies"?

 

[Admiral Beez]

If the French defend Paris like the Russians did Moscow, Leningrad and especially Stalingrad, where no quarter was given, where every French man and woman fought for every square mile and block…. Then the Germans will be in trouble. Mind you, if France has this mindset they would have marched into the Rhineland when the Germans tried to remilitarize in 1936.

 

[tomo pauk]

France fighting on = no Lend Lease, while Germany does not attack the Soviet Union?

 

[Just Schmidt]

France fighting on = no Lend Lease, while Germany does not attack the Soviet Union?

it's always perilous to second guess the Austrian corporal, but if metropolitan France is abandoned, whatever French forces sit across in North Africa will probably not seem very likely to launch an invasion in 1941. Thus the window for crushing the Soviet union and securing oil and food in the east (as i believe was always the ultimate goal) will still seem open. Remember that it was supposed to require no more than six weeks of fighting.

When the Wehrmacht grounds to a halt in front of Moscow, things will suddenly look very much bleaker than historically, especially if lend lease becomes a thing anyway and Japan draws the US into the war. Hitlers decision to declare war on the US in December was so ill advised historically, that it quite possibly takes place anyway. If that is the case, the war may end well before 1945.

But as always, the butterfly effect blurs the vision for each day after the end of June 1940.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

France fighting on = no Lend Lease, while Germany does not attack the Soviet Union?

I think France and England would have seen lend lease, the Soviet Union no as Germany would not have attacked if they were still dealing with resistance from the west. Overall I think in this scenario the war would have lasted longer.

 

[Civettone]

Sorry to answer with a question, but in this scenario, has Italy entered the fray?

If yes, there will be a frontline and a clear avenue for Germany to attack and finish the job.
If not, maybe Hitler will consider France the same way he did Britain in 1940, which is, out of the race and easy to contain while he marches off to Russia?

Interestingly, I remember 15-20 years ago having a long debate with a Swedish guy who claimed that France could have continued the fight indefinitely as long as the Americans were supplying them with the material.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Sorry to answer with a question, but in this scenario, has Italy entered the fray?

If Italy doesn't enter the war and France fights on, the British have no North African distraction. This likely puts more Australian divisions in Malaya. FIC won't roll over to Japan in Sept 1940.

If Italy remains neutral and metropolitan France fights to the bitter end, Germany won't take the entirety of France until October or November 1940. The forces, expenses and brutality necessary to completely defeat and then occupy France will distract significant resources needed for Barbarossa. On the plus side Germany needn't divert forces to Libya or Greece, but Barbarossa will be hard pressed to begin in June 1941.

I wouldn't be surprised if a desperate Hitler doesnt commence unrestricted U-Boat ops by Dec 1940, meaning war with the USA by January 1940. This will terrify Japan as they see the eleven Essex class already ordered rushed to keel laying and joined by a dozen more orders, forcing Japan to advance their plans or surrender to US demands in China.

If I was Japan, see the US bristling to kick someones ass I'd be calling my old allies in London and offering to join the fight against Germany in exchange for a friendly voice at the table with Washington.

 

[tomo pauk]

Overall I think in this scenario the war would have lasted longer.

My thoughts exactly.
At the end, targets in Germany would've been listed for atomic bombs use.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Another issue with Hitler.... if France fights on he's got absolutist dictators on both his southern and eastern borders, both of whom think they should be the toughest man on the block. If was only two decades earlier that the Italians were fighting the Germans. And Hitler's violation of the Munich and other agreements should demonstrate to Mussolini that the 1939 Pact of Steel is of dodgy worth.

 

[special ed]

If France fights on, the Japanese would have to fight for Indochina. The Bearn and those SBCs and others interned would not be island bound.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

France stays in the war from North Africa, the struggle in that theater probably doesn't happen, securing the Med becomes much easier even if Italy does join in (but I doubt they will). Kriegsmarine adopts the risk-fleet approach earlier, making the Atlantic passage safer. I think Hitler goes ahead with Barbarossa if metro France is fully occupied. Tensions in the Pacific take longer to rise if FIC isn't occupied, as the American oil embargo doesn't happen so soon.

 

[Just Schmidt]

Just one point, as Italy historically declared war on the 10th of June they are, when France 'decides' not to surrender, already in the war. We may change that, of course, but otherwise Italy is probably in for a far worse scenario, having to contend also with the french fleet. Rommel may not even get to North Africa, which, otoh, in the short run may be a slight improvement for Germany.

 

[tomo pauk]

The real winners of the 'FFO' scenario seem to be the Soviets.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The real winners of the 'FFO' scenario seem to be the Soviets.

And Japan, if circumstances mask the illusions they took for opportunities so to keep them out of the war.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

And Japan, if circumstances mask the illusions they took for opportunities so to keep them out of the war.

Right, the Japanese only moved in on FIC because Vichy France was a puppet that didn't have the authority to command defending against the Japanese. That removes the oil motivation for the Japanese to go to war since the American oil embargo is not instigated.

Of course, that could and probably would happen later for other points of friction, but it still buys Japan a year or two more to stockpile oil, complete ships, and perfect plans. The beat-down will still happen because, after all, twelve Essexes and ten modern battleships have a gravity all their own. But the French standing up and remaining in the fight probably delays the onset of the Pacific war by quite some time.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Of course, that could and probably would happen later for other points of friction, but it still buys Japan a year or two more to stockpile oil, complete ships, and perfect plans. The beat-down will still happen because, after all, twelve Essexes and ten modern battleships have a gravity all their own. But the French standing up and remaining in the fight probably delays the onset of the Pacific war by quite some time.

As the Japanese people tire of shortages of food (even without sanctions, much of Japan's GDP was going to the military) and of their sons being shipped to die to China they may by 1940-41 begin demanding a new government. If the people are ignored Japan could end up with a Communist revolution on its hands. Much like how Germany had to go to war or collapse internally.

 

[Dimlee]

If the French defend Paris like the Russians did Moscow, Leningrad and especially Stalingrad, where no quarter was given, where every French man and woman fought for every square mile and block…. Then the Germans will be in trouble. Mind you, if France has this mindset they would have marched into the Rhineland when the Germans tried to remilitarize in 1936.

Just to set the record straight...
The Soviets (not just Russians) defended Moscow so well, that German scouts entered the city limits without opposition in October. NKVD troops and fresh reserves from the east restored the situation. If only France had NKVD and some extra 100 mln population in 1940.
As for Leningrad, - the Soviets prepared to abandon it and to blow up buildings and infrastructure (like they did earlier in Kyiv, for example). They moved most of the fuel and food stocks away leaving thousands of citizens to the death of hunger. Germans decided not to enter the city and Finns (who had even better chances due to weaker Soviet defences) did not have such plans at all.
So, many quarters were given and no, not every man and woman fought for every mile. (Actually, many men and women of the USSR fought on the German side). Otherwise, Wehrmacht could not march so fast in summer-autumn 1941.

Stalingrad is a different story, of course.

 

[Dimlee]

The real winners of the 'FFO' scenario seem to be the Soviets.

That was exactly what the Soviets planned for. Capitalist countries fight each other to death and Red Army enters as the liberator. The fall of France was an unexpected and unpleasant surprise for the Kremlin.

 

[The Basket]

Like my old Citroen.

This is a non-starter.