Neutral France

[Admiral Beez]

France makes no guarantees to Poland, nor permits the BEF to enter French territory. How long (beyond May 1940) before Germany (or Italy) invades France anyway? What does the French military look like if it gets a year's extension into 1941? Interestingly, there seems to no formal mutual defence or cooperation agreement or alliance between Britain and France before war was declared in Sept 1939. So, a neutral France is not such a stretch.

 

[MikeMeech]

France makes no guarantees to Poland, nor permits the BEF to enter French territory. How long (beyond May 1940) before Germany (or Italy) invades France anyway? What does the French military look like if it gets a year's extension into 1941? Interestingly, there seems to no formal mutual defence or cooperation agreement or alliance between Britain and France before war was declared in Sept 1939. So, a neutral France is not such a stretch.

Hi
If France is 'neutral' they would not need to 'permit' or not the BEF to enter French territory, in the real time line they were only there because of the requests and pressures from the French government for Britain to send them! The UK government had spent a lot of effort during the late 1930s trying to avoid a large continental commitment (to avoid a rerun of WW1) so if France is neutral that pressure on Britain is removed, however, it does not mean Germany does not attack France as neutrality did not protect the Dutch, Belgians, Danes or Norway (none of whom guaranteed Poland). It is probable that if there is an extension of 'peace' into 1941 then it is more likely that France will be trying to get bigger commitments from the UK for both troops on the ground, air support and equipment. Would it be enough time to solve the French industrial problems which had political division at its roots or not would be a major factor?

Mike

 

[buffnut453]

It's an interesting question.

Hitler's strategy was always to establish autarky (i.e. German self-reliance) by taking over land and industry in eastern neighbours, thus providing the Germanic peoples with "lebensraum" or living space...obviously, this was at the expense of the "untermensch" particularly the Slavic peoples.

Presumably, if France wants to remain neutral, then it won't guarantee Poland. That means the conquest of Poland would be carried out with zero interference by any other European power. With no alliance between the UK and France, there would be no need for Hitler to turn west after taking Poland. The primary reason for the invasion of the low countries and France was to prevent a two-front war which, ironically, is precisely what happened on the real timeline.

Unfettered by other European powers, the logical outcome would be an earlier start to Barbarossa, perhaps as early as 1940. That would give Stalin less time to rebuild after his purge of 1937-38.

M MikeMeech is also correct, however, that neutrality may not have protected France from German invasion. It just would have been a less combat-intensive operation, likely involving the elevation of pro-German politicians in Paris who might "invite" German forces into France and secure extensive trade deals with Berlin that would help the Nazi war effort.

Meanwhile, Great Britain can afford to sit on the sidelines and not lift a finger to either defend or liberate Europe. TBH, from a UK perspective, this scenario is pretty attractive.

 

[Humblebee]

I think for this scenario to work, France would obviously need a pro-Fascist government, OK with German domination of the Continent ( a view held by some French right wingers). Such a government might focus on naval/ colonial and air forces, to confront "les Anglo-Saxons". I'm assuming there's no Nazi-Soviet Pact here as there is no need for it. Realistically, without the Anglo French guarantee of Poland ( worthless as that was), Poland probably agrees to give up the corridor and Silesia etc. So no German Polish war. Barbarossa does come early then, but with a much less battle tested Wehrmacht.

 

[Frog]

To keep a long story short, because of Hitler's long time hatred of France, and resentment against the Versaille Treaty, neutrality would have meant nothing to him.

 

[buffnut453]

To keep a long story short, because of Hitler's long time hatred of France, and resentment against the Versaille Treaty, neutrality would have meant nothing to him.

I suspect that's the crux of why a neutral France was always going to be a non-starter. Just too much bad blood between the countries.

We always need to suspend disbelief in these "what if" discussions...so, if France tried to remain neutral, how would Hitler exact his revenge for the Versailles Treaty? Helping to advance sympathetic politicians in France is one path, then having those quislings sign off on policies that would cede Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, and perhaps refund Great War reparations or, as noted above, extract highly-favourable trade terms that aided the Nazi expansionist agenda.

I'm sure there are other options available, including an outright invasion of France by Germany...although that would make France very swiftly non-neutral.

I'd welcome any other thoughts/ideas you may have, bearing in mind there are a lot of assumptions behind any "what if" scenario.

 

[Frog]

I suspect that's the crux of why a neutral France was always going to be a non-starter. Just too much bad blood between the countries.

We always need to suspend disbelief in these "what if" discussions...so, if France tried to remain neutral, how would Hitler exact his revenge for the Versailles Treaty? Helping to advance sympathetic politicians in France is one path, then having those quislings sign off on policies that would cede Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, and perhaps refund Great War reparations or, as noted above, extract highly-favourable trade terms that aided the Nazi expansionist agenda.

I'm sure there are other options available, including an outright invasion of France by Germany...although that would make France very swiftly non-neutral.

I'd welcome any other thoughts/ideas you may have, bearing in mind there are a lot of assumptions behind any "what if" scenario.

Hitler hatred of France was obsessive. In his Political testament he signed shortly before his suicide he stated :
''Twenty-five years ago I wrote what I thought. France remains the eternal enemy of the German people.''
Neutral or not, France would still have been one of his targets.
The problem with ennemies is you can't selectect them.

 

[Admiral Beez]

With no alliance between the UK and France, there would be no need for Hitler to turn west after taking Poland.

Doesn't Germany need to pillage westward to obtain the resources to go eastward?

Looking at the French Air Force, does an extra year of peace see a larger force of Dewoitine D.520 and Arsenal VG-33 replace the hodgepodge of older types. What of the Bloch MB.700 and SNCAC NC-600? And then there's the newer twin engined strike aircraft, such as the prototype-only Latécoère 570.

 

[Howard Gibson]

France makes no guarantees to Poland, nor permits the BEF to enter French territory. How long (beyond May 1940) before Germany (or Italy) invades France anyway? What does the French military look like if it gets a year's extension into 1941? Interestingly, there seems to no formal mutual defence or cooperation agreement or alliance between Britain and France before war was declared in Sept 1939. So, a neutral France is not such a stretch.

If France stays out of the (early) war, why would Germany attack it? France's army was large and well trained. As noted in other postings, time would have helped them bring more advanced aircraft into service. From the German's point of view, the Blitzkrieg was a miracle. A few more blitzkriegs out east might have persuaded the French army to be more mobile.

 

[buffnut453]

Doesn't Germany need to pillage westward to obtain the resources to go eastward?

In a word, no. The push west was primarily to avoid a 2-front war with Britain and France rather than to obtain resources for the push east.

As F Frog has observed, retribution against France was definitely a motivator. However, I'd argue that, in the short term, the push west actually consumed more resources than it freed up.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

In a word, no. The push west was primarily to avoid a 2-front war with Britain and France rather than to obtain resources for the push east.

As F Frog has observed, retribution against France was definitely a motivator. However, I'd argue that, in the short term, the push west actually consumed more resources than it freed up.

And to be clear, the push East was stupid because no matter how many resources you had, you didn't have the manpower to attain and hold the A-A line. Looking at a map, Russia gets broader as you go East, meaning the further you go, not only do you need more manpower to protect longer supply lines, you need more men simply to man the front.

Barbarossa was in the end a political gamble which failed. Hitler believed his attack would cause a political catastrophe. He was wrong.

 

[swampyankee]

If France stays out of the (early) war, why would Germany attack it? France's army was large and well trained. As noted in other postings, time would have helped them bring more advanced aircraft into service. From the German's point of view, the Blitzkrieg was a miracle. A few more blitzkriegs out east might have persuaded the French army to be more mobile.

Why wouldn't Germany attack it? Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium were neutral.

I think one needs to provide a more positive reason for Germany not to invade France than French neutrality, one that has to overcome Hitler's personal antipathy to a country that beat Germany*, took Alsace-Lorraine, and forced a humiliating treaty on Germany. And don't forget all that loot: France was rich.

 

[Frog]

Why wouldn't Germany attack it? Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium were neutral.

I think one needs to provide a more positive reason for Germany not to invade France than French neutrality, one that has to overcome Hitler's personal antipathy to a country that beat Germany*, took Alsace-Lorraine, and forced a humiliating treaty on Germany. And don't forget all that loot: France was rich.

Re-took Alsace (french since 1748 + Mulhouse in 1798) and Lorraine (french since 1766))...

 

[Admiral Beez]

Why wouldn't Germany attack it? Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium were neutral.

So was Switzerland and Sweden. France declared war on Germany, not the other way round. Of course France was on the menu, but perhaps Hitler has a Russia-first strategy.

 

[buffnut453]

And to be clear, the push East was stupid because no matter how many resources you had, you didn't have the manpower to attain and hold the A-A line. Looking at a map, Russia gets broader as you go East, meaning the further you go, not only do you need more manpower to protect longer supply lines, you need more men simply to man the front.

Barbarossa was in the end a political gamble which failed. Hitler believed his attack would cause a political catastrophe. He was wrong.

The push east was entirely aligned with Hitler's racial thinking. The problem was the he didn't define what "done" looked like. There were 2 competing goals: lebensraum and annihilation of the Communist USSR. The former could be achieved with even relatively modest advances eastwards. The latter required domination of the entire country, which was never feasible.

Of course France was on the menu, but perhaps Hitler has a Russia-first strategy.

Yes, Hitler's #1 desire was to push east to gain lebensraum and subjugate the Slavic races. He could have achieved that far more quickly, and with more resources, if France isn't standing in the way.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Yes, Hitler's #1 desire was to push east to gain lebensraum and subjugate the Slavic races. He could have achieved that far more quickly, and with more resources, if France isn't standing in the way.

And France has to know they're next, so by end of 1941 should have expedited their rearmament. What's Britain and Italy up to with a neutral France? Surely the former would not have guaranteed Poland's security singlehandedly, while the latter may have joined Barbarossa or stayed out. Presumably Norway is still free and trading with Germany.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The push east was entirely aligned with Hitler's racial thinking. The problem was the he didn't define what "done" looked like.

I get that, it is still a blunder of the first order. Glad his vision of the world and his place in it compelled him to engage in such idiocy.

 

[Shortround6]

A whole bunch of things.

France's army was large and well trained.

Large yes, well trained is certainly debatable or on whose scale of training?

As noted in other postings, time would have helped them bring more advanced aircraft into service.

The Germans were not sitting still either. For example (and not the only one) they started work on the Bf 109F in the spring of 1940, They were working on the DB 601E engine in the spring/summer of 1940. It took almost a year. Germans filled in with the DB 601N. 109F-1/2s were showing up in the winter/spring of 1941. Building planes that could equal the 109E was not going to end well.
Same for Tanks. The MK III with the short 50mm was going into production in late summer of 1940. Not as a response to what happened in France in May/June but as normal progression.

Why wouldn't Germany attack it? Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium were neutral.

They were but in two cases they were just in the way, not a goal in their own right.
Norway and the iron ore (Swedish ore) route was the main goal for attacking Denmark. It allowed for basing planes around 150-200 miles closer to Norway, also made guarding the ore ships easier. Luxembourg was easier to drive through rather than go around.
Likewise Belgium and Holland were the 'easy way' for Germany to attack France. Armies were getting bigger than they were in 1870-71 (and 1914) and needed more room/space.

Re-took Alsace (french since 1748 + Mulhouse in 1798) and Lorraine (french since 1766))...

I am being lazy but without a European history course I don't think I can follow the history of Alsace-Lorraine. Germany stole/liberated them in 1871 and kept them until 1919?
I haven't look back any further to see any swaps going back and forth in the Napoleonic era.

So was Switzerland and Sweden

Both Countries appear to have been more trouble to conquer than they would repay in captured resources/riches. Both were willing to trade with Germany and in the case of Switzerland, allow large scale rail transport between Germany and Italy. Both had relative large armies and geography and weather in their favor.
Granted Germany did have to pay for the Swedish iron ore but trying to seize the mines by force was going to be very long and very difficult.

France declared war on Germany, not the other way round.

The Europeans played this game for many, many years.
Who Declared war first?
Who Mobilized first? Partial or full?
Who had a soldier put his foot over the line?

It took months to get to that point.

What's Britain and Italy up to with a neutral France?

Perhaps Britain has a much smaller army. Without a treaty obligation for a BEF, they need a lot fewer divisions.
This may mean more money for the Navy and/or RAF.

For Italy in may depend on how much Mussolini wants some of the French colonies.

There are other things going on besides the German interests.

 

[swampyankee]

Re-took Alsace (french since 1748 + Mulhouse in 1798) and Lorraine (french since 1766))...

Well, yes. Alsace-Lorraine probably changed possession more often than a hockey puck

 

[swampyankee]

France had a lot of doctrinal and concomitant organizational problems in its army and air force. I doubt if these would improve in a neutral France.

Again, France was hated by Hitler and his minions and rich. Even the French right, some extreme elements of which may have welcomed German help in suppressing the left (as did the government of France in 1871), was mostly not in favor of becoming German puppets or even allies, and independent neutrality would not have been accepted by Hitler. Why trade when you can steal?