Was it in France's best interests to quickly lose in 1940?

[WolfBear]

I've been thinking about this a lot over the last couple of years:

Was it in France's best interests to quickly lose in 1940?

(I know, this isn't an alternate history question, but it does require one to think about alternate history.)

I mean, sure, France did get occupied by Nazi Germany for four years, but it then ended up being liberated by the Western Allies and enjoyed decades of prosperity (and high birth rates) afterwards (in contrast to the Eastern European countries which had to endure Communist rule for half a century after the end of World War II). Also, Yes, it is a huge tragedy that some French people lost their lives in the Holocaust (about 75,000 of them), Allied air raids (about 69,000 of them), and--in the case of people from Alsace-Lorraine--being drafted into the German Army and serving on the Eastern Front (the malgre-nous--of whom about 32,000 were killed in action and of whom 5,000 to 10,000 are believed to have died in captivity). However, in a scenario where France doesn't fall in 1940, these French deaths which occurred in our TL would have to be balanced against the deaths that French military personnel would endure in a continued Franco-British war against Germany.

Even if the Schwarze Kapelle would have successfully overthrown Hitler and the Nazis in either late 1940 or early 1941 in this TL (remember, no Fall of France = much less prestige for Hitler), it is not clear that they and the Franco-British would have immediately been able to agree on mutually acceptable peace terms. I mean, even Weimar German politicians absolutely loathed the Polish Corridor and hoped to reacquire it one day (either through diplomacy or through force), and even if Britain and France agree to the idea of holding a plebiscite in the Polish Corridor and other disputed areas, there would still be questions like who gets to vote in this plebiscite and whether this plebiscite would be winner-take-all or there would be a partition of this territory in the event of a split decision. Indeed, the Schwarze Kapelle might insist on limiting participation in plebiscites to people who lived in these territories in 1918 or before whereas Britain and France might insist on allowing everyone who lived in these territories up to 1939 to vote in these plebiscites.

Anyway, my overall point here is that even in the event of a successful Schwarze Kapelle coup, the war might not immediately end and thus Britain and France might need to endure (a lot) more bleeding before the war will be over. In contrast, in our TL, Germany ended up being totally defeated with a relatively small number of French deaths (even if one includes the French people who were killed in the Holocaust, in Allied air raids, et cetera). Indeed, in spite of losing in 1940, France ended up being treated as a victorious country at the end of World War II in 1945--including getting a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

Also, Yes, France could have kept its colonial empire a bit longer if it hadn't fallen in 1940. However, I don't see it being much of a benefit for France to continue ruling over tens of millions of non-French people. Thus, I don't see it as being much of a loss for France to lose its colonial empire.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this? Specifically, do you agree that, counter-intuitively, it was in France's best interests to lose in 1940?

[SolomonW]

Post by WolfBear
Anyway, what are your thoughts on this? Specifically, do you agree that, counter-intuitively, it was in France's best interests to lose in 1940?

If France had held, it probably would not have been a long war as Germany
would have collapsed economically.

France lost in ww2 about 600,000 which is more then Britain and in ww1 she
lost about 350,000. Plus it took years for France to politically recover.
So I cannot see it in her best interest based on this.

[David Tenner]

Post by SolomonW

Post by WolfBear
Anyway, what are your thoughts on this? Specifically, do you agree
that, counter-intuitively, it was in France's best interests to lose in
1940?

If France had held, it probably would not have been a long war as
Germany would have collapsed economically.
France lost in ww2 about 600,000 which is more then Britain and in ww1
she lost about 350,000. Plus it took years for France to politically
recover. So I cannot see it in her best interest based on this.

What?! In World War I, France lost 1,697,000 to 1,737,800 persons due to
war-related causes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
Where did you get the 350,000 figure?

France's losses in World War II were 1.44 percent of the 1939 population--no
doubt a serious loss. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
But in World War I, she lost 4.29-4.39% of her population...

[SolomonW]

Post by David Tenner

Post by SolomonW

Post by WolfBear
Anyway, what are your thoughts on this? Specifically, do you agree
that, counter-intuitively, it was in France's best interests to lose in
1940?

If France had held, it probably would not have been a long war as
Germany would have collapsed economically.
France lost in ww2 about 600,000 which is more then Britain and in ww1
she lost about 350,000. Plus it took years for France to politically
recover. So I cannot see it in her best interest based on this.

What?! In World War I, France lost 1,697,000 to 1,737,800 persons due to
war-related causes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
Where did you get the 350,000 figure?
France's losses in World War II were 1.44 percent of the 1939 population--no
doubt a serious loss. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
But in World War I, she lost 4.29-4.39% of her population...

You are correct, I looked at civilian deaths and ignored the rest.

[jerry kraus]

Post by WolfBear
Was it in France's best interests to quickly lose in 1940?
(I know, this isn't an alternate history question, but it does require one to think about alternate history.)
I mean, sure, France did get occupied by Nazi Germany for four years, but it then ended up being liberated by the Western Allies and enjoyed decades of prosperity (and high birth rates) afterwards (in contrast to the Eastern European countries which had to endure Communist rule for half a century after the end of World War II). Also, Yes, it is a huge tragedy that some French people lost their lives in the Holocaust (about 75,000 of them), Allied air raids (about 69,000 of them), and--in the case of people from Alsace-Lorraine--being drafted into the German Army and serving on the Eastern Front (the malgre-nous--of whom about 32,000 were killed in action and of whom 5,000 to 10,000 are believed to have died in captivity). However, in a scenario where France doesn't fall in 1940, these French deaths which occurred in our TL would have to be balanced against the deaths that French military personnel would endure in a continued Franco-British war against Germany.
Even if the Schwarze Kapelle would have successfully overthrown Hitler and the Nazis in either late 1940 or early 1941 in this TL (remember, no Fall of France = much less prestige for Hitler), it is not clear that they and the Franco-British would have immediately been able to agree on mutually acceptable peace terms. I mean, even Weimar German politicians absolutely loathed the Polish Corridor and hoped to reacquire it one day (either through diplomacy or through force), and even if Britain and France agree to the idea of holding a plebiscite in the Polish Corridor and other disputed areas, there would still be questions like who gets to vote in this plebiscite and whether this plebiscite would be winner-take-all or there would be a partition of this territory in the event of a split decision. Indeed, the Schwarze Kapelle might insist on limiting participation in plebiscites to people who lived in these territories in 1918 or before whereas Britain and France might insist on allowing everyone who lived in these territories up to 1939 to vote in these plebiscites.
Anyway, my overall point here is that even in the event of a successful Schwarze Kapelle coup, the war might not immediately end and thus Britain and France might need to endure (a lot) more bleeding before the war will be over. In contrast, in our TL, Germany ended up being totally defeated with a relatively small number of French deaths (even if one includes the French people who were killed in the Holocaust, in Allied air raids, et cetera). Indeed, in spite of losing in 1940, France ended up being treated as a victorious country at the end of World War II in 1945--including getting a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.
Also, Yes, France could have kept its colonial empire a bit longer if it hadn't fallen in 1940. However, I don't see it being much of a benefit for France to continue ruling over tens of millions of non-French people. Thus, I don't see it as being much of a loss for France to lose its colonial empire.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on this? Specifically, do you agree that, counter-intuitively, it was in France's best interests to lose in 1940?

Wolf, as I've suggested before, both Britain and France were quite determined NOT to have another Western Front, after WWI. They'd lost millions of men, they weren't going to do THAT again, for sure! So, if Germany and Russia were quite determined to have another go, why, by all means! But, there would only be an Eastern Front this time. And, that's exactly what was arranged. Basically, Germany defeated both Britain and France in 1940, and everyone knew it. Or, at least both Britain and France agreed to a "conditional surrender". Not only was Dunkirk NOT a glorious military escape by the British, why, the Nazis virtually gave them an honor guard to escort them back to Britain! I'm sure if Hitler had had the ships, he would have been quite happy to send the British troops back to Dover on first class luxury liners, with wine and caviar, to boot!

That's exactly why the French fought so hard against the American troops invading Casablanca, in 1942, while they never lifted a finger against the Nazis. The Nazis were willing to let the French keep their Empire, the Americans were a threat to it, and wanted it destroyed! And, now that French and Germany rule together a United Europe, we can see precisely what was really going on at the beginning of WWII in Europe. Britain was pulling out, with German approval, and France and Germany were reuniting as a common Empire, as they were at the time of Charlemagne. The Americans temporarily upset the apple-cart, by getting involved, but, only temporarily, as we can now see, indeed.

[Eric Van De Hey]

Post by jerry kraus
Wolf, as I've suggested before, both Britain and France were quite determined NOT to have another Western Front, after WWI. They'd lost millions of men, they weren't going to do THAT again, for sure! So, if Germany and Russia were quite determined to have another go, why, by all means! But, there would only be an Eastern Front this time.

I notice you've suggested that before.

But you also suggested that Stalin only wanted peace and security from "that Lunatic Hitler', while copiously ignoring the twentysome years of secret German rearmament helped along by the Soviets.

While also talking about an "arrangement" while ignoring how the independent states of Central and Eastern Europe blocked any such "repeat" until they were eliminated (by an arrangement between the Soviets and the Third Reich).

So forgive me if I'm not particularly sold on your "explanations" because you seem to come across as a Stalin apologist.

Post by jerry kraus
And, that's exactly what was arranged. Basically, Germany defeated both > Britain and France in 1940, and everyone knew it.

I'm sorry, but WHAAAAAAAT?

This is wrong on So many levels. SO Many.

For one, if the Western Allies were determined not to fight another Western Front like WWI it doesn't explain why they EXTENSIVELY modeled their doctrine, deployments, and unit structure on doing EXACTA-FREAKING-LUTELY-THAT. Now sure, they didn't want or intend it to take so damn long or cause so much damage, but the fact remains that their doctrine was fundamentalyl based off of the Western Front of WW (and mid war at that).

Complete with trench lines, tank-infantry conflation, systematic mapping, fortress line construction, planning to see them head through Belgium, and not being able to move quickly enough. This was one reason why Operation SIckle-Cut was so powerful. It hit the Western Allies

Secondly, it's VERY obvious that the outcome of Fall Gelb was surprising to just about everybody, INCLUDING the victors. Churchill's shock at hearing that the French had no reserve after the breakthrough at Sedan is archtypical, but it' that way for a damn good reason. Few expected the Axis to come through the Ardennes, and NOBODY on the Allied side expected them to come through in such *force*, especially in terms of armored, mechanized, and motorized units.

While for the NatSocs themselves, the shock caused by how *fast* the collapse of the Nineth and Fifth French Armies happened was well noted. Especially after initial signs indicated they might run into problems since the Netherlands proved to be a marginally tougher nut to crack than originally planned, Luftwaffe losses were high, and the wholesale bombing of Rotterdam was ultimately what they needed to fix it.

Post by jerry kraus
Or, at least both Britain and France agreed to a "conditional surrender".

Which is something Britain never did, even if it came close. And whil france did as DeGaulle showed, there was a fair bit of momentum to oppose it.

Post by jerry kraus
Not only was Dunkirk NOT a glorious military escape by the British,

Eh, few escapes are.

But comparatively?

Post by jerry kraus
why, the Nazis virtually gave them an honor guard to escort them back to
Britain!

Remind me never to trust your opinion on proper conduct for Honor Guards. I don't wnat mine to bomb, shell, assault, or otherwise muck around.

Post by jerry kraus
I'm sure if Hitler had had the ships, he would have been quite happy to send > the British troops back to Dover on first class luxury liners, with wine and
caviar, to boot!

You're sure of an awful lot of stuff that has no apparently evidence.

It's true that Hitler had an interest in making Britain come to terms, and it's hard to explain some of the commands he made, let alone justify them. However, what people tend to forget is that Dunkirk was just ONE of SEVERAL evacuations being conducted all along the Channel Coast without anywhere near the kind of Pressure applied to Dunkirk.

We also

Post by jerry kraus
That's exactly why the French fought so hard against the American troops
invading Casablanca, in 1942, while they never lifted a finger against the > Nazis.

Have you ever even FARQING STUDIED Operation Torch or the 1940 campaign? Because it sure as heck does not SOUND like it.

Going off of Wikipedia (which will suffice for a quich check), the Western Allies and Vichy troops suffered about 3-4,000 battlefield casualties between them during Operation Torch.

Or about a week's time.

That is nearly as many as the French and Germans inflicted on each other at the Hannut-Gembloux Gap between March 11th to March 15th, ALONE. Not counting in the massive air campaign going on overhead, or the rest of the Belgian campaign, the ineffectual French deployment in the Netherlands, the rest of the Battle of France, or the stalwart defense of the Alps against Mussolini's Johnny Come Lately act. Oh yeah, and of course the Saar Offensive of 1939 or the French involvement in Norway.

France's performance against the Nazis in 1940 was not impressive, but the idea that they did not lift a finger against the Axis is NOTHING BUT UNJUSTIFIABLE LIBEL.

And the idea that they fought harder against the US in Torch than in 1940 is utterly ludicrous.

Post by jerry kraus
The Nazis were willing to let the French keep their Empire, the Americans were > a threat to it, and wanted it destroyed!

Broadly agreed, but the US was at least willing to keep France on as an independent country. The Axis were not.

Post by jerry kraus
And, now that French and Germany rule together a United Europe, we can see > precisely what was really going on at the beginning of WWII in Europe.
Britain was pulling out, with German approval, and France and Germany were > reuniting as a common Empire, as they were at the time of Charlemagne.

Again, have you actually studied any of the things you're namedropping? Because it doesn't sound like it.

I am not a great lover of the EU, but the idea that EU politics today are on par with the "New Order" the Reich established in 1940 underlines ignorance of both.

Likewise, in 1940 FRANCE AND GERMANY DID NOT UNITE AS A COMMON EMPIRE WHATSOEVER. We know this because even in the parts of France directly occupied by the Germans (most of them) the region was nominally independent under Vichy. Vichy was forced into vassalage under Germany -and ultimately had its autonomy destroyed altogether after Torch- but it remained utterly un-annexed outside of Alsace-Lorriane. It was treated as a conquered vassal, not a new part of the Reich. We know this because we can compare and contrast to how the Reich did treat areas it viewed as new parts of the Empire. Such as Poland. Or what sane people called Poland but the Reich called the "Territory of the General Government" because they were hell bent on denying Poland ever existed.

And again, Britain was not interested in pulling out of Europe. This wasn't the Splendid Isolation of the late 19th century, and even if it was Britain would not have cottoned to indefinitely ceding the Channel Ports.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Eric Van De Hey
You're sure of an awful lot of stuff that has no apparently evidence.

He certainly is. Arguing with Mr. Kraus is about as
useful as wrestling with a pig. I killfiled him
long ago.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by Eric Van De Hey
I am not a great lover of the EU, but the idea that EU politics today
are on par with the "New Order" the Reich established in 1940 underlines
ignorance of both.

If you read the 'Daily Express', the 'Daily Mail', or the 'Sun', you
might think otherwise. I doubt that jerry reads these particular rags,
because I doubt they're available where he is, but he might conceivably
see them online.

[Eric Van De Hey]

Post by Pete Barrett
If you read the 'Daily Express', the 'Daily Mail', or the 'Sun', you
might think otherwise. I doubt that jerry reads these particular rags,
because I doubt they're available where he is, but he might conceivably
see them online.
--
Pete BARRETT

I periodically read those rags (and far worse, and I'm not just talking about the Guardian, but actual Neo-Fascist, Communist, and Islamist stuff) and I don't think he is the kind who would read the Mail.

For whatever the Mail's sins, it isn't the kind to softpeddle Stalin's atrocities and culpability for WWII. Which seems to be Jerry's entire shtick.

[Eric Van De Hey]

Post by WolfBear
Was it in France's best interests to quickly lose in 1940?

In a word, no.

Post by WolfBear
(I know, this isn't an alternate history question, but it does require one to think about alternate history.)
I mean, sure, France did get occupied by Nazi Germany for four years, but it then ended up being liberated by the Western Allies and enjoyed decades of prosperity (and high birth rates) afterwards (in contrast to the Eastern European countries which had to endure Communist rule for half a century after the end of World War II). Also, Yes, it is a huge tragedy that some French people lost their lives in the Holocaust (about 75,000 of them), Allied air raids (about 69,000 of them), and--in the case of people from Alsace-Lorraine--being drafted into the German Army and serving on the Eastern Front (the malgre-nous--of whom about 32,000 were killed in action and of whom 5,000 to 10,000 are believed to have died in captivity). However, in a scenario where France doesn't fall in 1940, these French deaths which occurred in our TL would have to be balanced against the deaths that French military personnel would endure in a continued Franco-British war against Germany.

All of this is undermined by the deaths caused by incestuous infighting between Vichy and the Free French- and combat between Vichy and the Western Allies-, the staggering misappropriation that the Germans made of French goods by requisitions, the weakening of France's colonial hold, and longstnading damage to ts Navy, Air Force, industry, and perhaps most damningly of all Society.

Germany was so much weaker in 1940 relative to 1914 in regards to its enemies, at least in terms of sheer headcount and whatnot. A France that did not quit may have taken a higher military death rate, but it would also have remained a Great Power, avoided the kind of carve up of its colonies in the course of the war, and been in a better position to keep asserting its place as a Great Power.

France in 1946 was greatly hurt in all of these things.

Post by WolfBear
Even if the Schwarze Kapelle would have successfully overthrown Hitler and the > Nazis in either late 1940 or early 1941 in this TL (remember, no Fall of
France = much less prestige for Hitler), it is not clear that they and the
Franco-British would have immediately been able to agree on mutually
acceptable peace terms.

Sure, but with the Soviet threat to the East, an unconquered Western Europe, and the prospect of both French colonies- along with those of the other Allies- coming online and the lingering threat of the US they are going to be locked in a position where they are not going to have many good answers other tan peace.

It's hard to understate how much damage the Fall of France caused, *especially* to French prestige and from the idea that it signalled the historical inevitability of a Nazi victory which caused splits throughout society and the Allied governments between those trying to get the best deal possible and those fighting on.

Post by WolfBear
I mean, even Weimar German politicians absolutely
loathed the Polish Corridor and hoped to reacquire it one day (either through > diplomacy or through force), and even if Britain and France agree to the idea > of holding a plebiscite in the Polish Corridor and other disputed areas, there > would still be questions like who gets to vote in this plebiscite and whether > this plebiscite would be winner-take-all or there would be a partition of this > territory in the event of a split decision.

Vae Victus. Woe to the Vanquished. Even if the Black Orchestra or some subset of it is able to take over without doing too much damage to the regime they are inheriting, they are still very much on the short end of the stick. And their bargaining power is going to be limited, much like France's was after 1940.

Post by WolfBear
Indeed, the Schwarze Kapelle might insist on limiting participation in
plebiscites to people who lived in these territories in 1918 or before whereas
Britain and France might insist on allowing everyone who lived in these
territories up to 1939 to vote in these plebiscites.

I doubt the BO would want the former, since they remembered the partition of Silesia and remembered why the old Imperial Government suppressed voting in Posen and other places for so long.

But in terms of "insisting", the Allies can say "No no, We Insist." And try to strenghten the naval blockade ala 1918.

Which is going to force the Reich to either lean more heavily on Soviet aid, try to shop around for neutral support fromthe likes of Romania and so on, or give in.

Post by WolfBear
Anyway, my overall point here is that even in the event of a successful
Schwarze Kapelle coup, the war might not immediately end and thus Britain and > France might need to endure (a lot) more bleeding before the war will be over.

Which is probably going to be less bleeding than they ultimately did.

Post by WolfBear
In contrast, in our TL, Germany ended up being totally defeated with a >relatively small number of French deaths (even if one includes the French >people who were killed in the Holocaust, in Allied air raids, et cetera).

Admiral Cunningham's quote about building a reputation comes to mind. There was an awful lot more damage that could come than from simple human losses alone. Especially when you can spread those out using colonial troops.

The truth is, the outcome of WWII for France directly caused staggering losses in manpower (from the collaborator v. Resistance gap, teh Holocaust, war deaths, exiles, and so on), and indirectly in the loss of the empire (which was helped by the loss of face).

Post by WolfBear
Indeed, in spite of losing in 1940, France ended up being treated as a >victorious country at the end of World War II in 1945--including getting a
permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

Which was a poor consolation compared to having to deal with US, UK, and Soviet influence pushing it towards having to let go of colony after colony, starting with Syria-Lebanon, then French Indochina, and ultimately Algeria.

Post by WolfBear
Also, Yes, France could have kept its colonial empire a bit longer if it
hadn't fallen in 1940.

To say the least.

Post by WolfBear
However, I don't see it being much of a benefit for France to continue ruling > over tens of millions of non-French people. Thus, I don't see it as being much > of a loss for France to lose its colonial empire.

Nevermind how you can use those non-French people to do things like spit bullets out or catch some? (One of the most remarkable preformances in 1940 came from Moroccan units fighting in hedgehogs)? How they can be extra workers, laborers, etc?

Nevermind the added influence France could gain from either forging the French Union or decolonizing more on its terms?

Nevermind the absolutely staggering loss of prestige and the morale damage it caused?

Post by WolfBear
Anyway, what are your thoughts on this? Specifically, do you agree that, >counter-intuitively, it was in France's best interests to lose in 1940?

No, especially since I doubt the NSDAP's ability to fight a "long war" without having a secured (or at least RELATIVELY secured) Western flank.

[Rob]

It was perhaps in the best interest of French soldiers and French Gentile males of military service age. For everybody else, the whole non-draft eligible population, it was not.

[WolfBear]

Post by Rob
It was perhaps in the best interest of French soldiers and French Gentile males of military service age. For everybody else, the whole non-draft eligible population, it was not.

This appears to be accurate.