If France doesn't fall in 1940 & the Allies win WWII, do they force Hungary to withdraw from its 1938-1939 territorial gains?

[WolfBear]

If France doesn't fall in 1940 (due to it having more troops stationed near the Ardennes) and the Allies (Anglo-French) subsequently win World War II (I am thinking of a scenario where either Hitler survives a SK-led coup or the SK launch a successful coup but fail to agree to peace terms acceptable to the Anglo-French--thus necessitating a long, drawn-out war). Anyway, after they defeat Germany in this TL, do the victorious Anglo-French give Hungary an ultimatum to withdraw from its territorial gains in Czechoslovakia from 1938-1939 (specifically Subcarpathian Ruthenia and the Hungarian-majority territories in southern Slovakia)?

After all, Hungary is a military pipsqueak in comparison to Britain and France and thus really doesn't have an effective way of resisting Britain's and France's will--especially after Germany's defeat. (True, Hungary will remain neutral in World War II in this TL, but Britain and France will still remember Hungary's participation in the breakup of Czechoslovakia in 1938-1939).

Anyway, any thoughts on this?

Also, as a side note, if Hungary and the Soviet Union will view the war in Western Europe as an opportunity for them to demand territorial concessions from Romania--with Hungary getting Northern Transylvania and the Soviet Union getting Bessarabia and northern Bukovina--are the Anglo-French going to do anything about this Hungarian-Soviet aggression against Romania after they will defeat Germany in this TL?

[Insane Ranter]

Post by WolfBear
If France doesn't fall in 1940 (due to it having more troops stationed near the Ardennes) and the Allies (Anglo-French) subsequently win World War II (I am thinking of a scenario where either Hitler survives a SK-led coup or the SK launch a successful coup but fail to agree to peace terms acceptable to the Anglo-French--thus necessitating a long, drawn-out war). Anyway, after they defeat Germany in this TL, do the victorious Anglo-French give Hungary an ultimatum to withdraw from its territorial gains in Czechoslovakia from 1938-1939 (specifically Subcarpathian Ruthenia and the Hungarian-majority territories in southern Slovakia)?
After all, Hungary is a military pipsqueak in comparison to Britain and France and thus really doesn't have an effective way of resisting Britain's and France's will--especially after Germany's defeat. (True, Hungary will remain neutral in World War II in this TL, but Britain and France will still remember Hungary's participation in the breakup of Czechoslovakia in 1938-1939).
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Also, as a side note, if Hungary and the Soviet Union will view the war in Western Europe as an opportunity for them to demand territorial concessions from Romania--with Hungary getting Northern Transylvania and the Soviet Union getting Bessarabia and northern Bukovina--are the Anglo-French going to do anything about this Hungarian-Soviet aggression against Romania after they will defeat Germany in this TL?

The war ends in 1940?
The Yugoslav lands of course are not an issue.
Transylvania given in the Second Vienna award stay. The Allies do not want a war between Hungry and Romania. I think this keeps the tensions down.
The parts of Czech are told to be given back. Granted this might still end up in in a split of Czechs and Slovaks.

I'm not sure how the Hungarians say no. Would the Allies be able to get troops through Germany into Austria and then fight Hungry if refused.

I'll let someone else cover the Russia part...

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:00:01 -0700 (PDT), Insane Ranter

Post by Insane Ranter
The war ends in 1940?
The Yugoslav lands of course are not an issue.
Transylvania given in the Second Vienna award stay. The Allies do not want a war between Hungry and Romania. I think this keeps the tensions down.
The parts of Czech are told to be given back. Granted this might still end up in in a split of Czechs and Slovaks.
I'm not sure how the Hungarians say no. Would the Allies be able to get troops through Germany into Austria and then fight Hungry if refused.
I'll let someone else cover the Russia part...

If the Soviet Union is never invaded Romania retains the prestige it
had in 1920-25 for being the main reason for the overthrow of Bela
Kun.

Munich (Oct 1938) is undone to the benefit of the Czechs, and I see
Romania getting Transylvania back. They may or may not have to cede
Bessarabia to the Soviets to get it back but they will get it back.

I cannot imagine the Slovaks denying the Red Army crossing rights to
get to Hungary if push comes to shove.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Insane Ranter
Transylvania given in the Second Vienna award stay.

If Germany has not defeated France at all,
much less in OTL's stunning blitzkrieg,
Germany does not have the prestige to impose
the Second Vienna Award.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by WolfBear
If France doesn't fall in 1940 (due to it having more troops stationed near the Ardennes) and the Allies (Anglo-French) subsequently win World War II (I am thinking of a scenario where either Hitler survives a SK-led coup or the SK launch a successful coup but fail to agree to peace terms acceptable to the Anglo-French--thus necessitating a long, drawn-out war). Anyway, after they defeat Germany in this TL, do the victorious Anglo-French give Hungary an ultimatum to withdraw from its territorial gains in Czechoslovakia from 1938-1939 (specifically Subcarpathian Ruthenia and the Hungarian-majority territories in southern Slovakia)?
After all, Hungary is a military pipsqueak in comparison to Britain and France and thus really doesn't have an effective way of resisting Britain's and France's will--especially after Germany's defeat. (True, Hungary will remain neutral in World War II in this TL, but Britain and France will still remember Hungary's participation in the breakup of Czechoslovakia in 1938-1939).
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Also, as a side note, if Hungary and the Soviet Union will view the war in Western Europe as an opportunity for them to demand territorial concessions from Romania--with Hungary getting Northern Transylvania and the Soviet Union getting Bessarabia and northern Bukovina--are the Anglo-French going to do anything about this Hungarian-Soviet aggression against Romania after they will defeat Germany in this TL?

All of the stuff you mention ONLY comes into play if Germany
capitulates before attacking the Soviets.

If the Soviet Union either repels the German attack or attacks
themselves after a stalemate in the west then the decision is made in
Moscow with Paris London and Washington having little to say about it
for obvious geographical reasons.

London might grumble a lot but in the end that doesn't put them in a
position to do much about what's going on in eastern Europe any more
than it did in OTL's last year of the war.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by The Horny Goat
All of the stuff you mention ONLY comes into play if
Germany capitulates before attacking the Soviets.

If France doesn't fall, Germany is not going
to attack the USSR. Therefore,

"Germany capitulates before attacking the Soviets"

is not an additional condition.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 17:18:21 -0500, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by The Horny Goat
All of the stuff you mention ONLY comes into play if
Germany capitulates before attacking the Soviets.

If France doesn't fall, Germany is not going
to attack the USSR. Therefore,
"Germany capitulates before attacking the Soviets"
is not an additional condition.

Well yes and no - I was deliberately cagey with my wording because if
France doesn't fall to Germany there is a more than negligible chance
that Russia might attack Germany not vice versa.

Now if this happened in 1941 (or in 1942 with Russia not involved in
military action in 1941) in my opinion this is a very bad move by
Stalin as if we assume a WW1 style static front in the west then (1)
Germany has fewer troops in the east than in OTL BUT (2) the Red Army
is not significantly higher in quality than it was at the Winter War.

On the other hand, OTL's Wehrmacht had most of the supply line for the
panzer divisions on captured French and Czech vehicles (which wouldn't
be available in nearly the numbers that were available after the fall
of France) while on the other hand most of the new equipment the Red
Army had wasn't available until Aug-Sept 1941 and a lot of that was
rushed earlier than it should have been due to early disasters.

A A Vlasov WASN'T initially a German mole - he was a distinguished
Soviet officer forced into a premature attack near Leningrad in early
1942 which turned out to be a Soviet disaster since the reserves WERE
NOT THERE to support the Soviet offensive with the result that
Vlasov's army was captured (including him) and he was wined and dined
until he 'came over' to the Germans.

In my opinion even without a fall of France in 1940, a Soviet attack
in 1939-40 on German positions in Poland would have led to a nasty war
of attrition that would not have ended well for Russia.

That doesn't mean a Nazi "Astrakhan - Murmansk line or a line 1000km
east of the proverbial Astrakhan-Aurea side but I would think it would
be more to the advantage of Germany than Russia - and one has to
question how much American and British aid they could count on if they
themselves had attacked first especcially if they had previously taken
part in a partition of Poland!

(Uh yes I have wargamed this and if the Soviets do not quickly
disengage and quickly retreat they get chopped to pieces by a
qualitatively superior German force and then lose the territory they
neede to retreat from anyways.

A Soviet 1940-41 victory that brings them to the 1919-39 German /
Polish boundary is not rmeotely in the cards!