DBWI: Hitler's invasion of France in 1940 actually succeeds?

Status
Closed

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,247
SoCal
This is a Double-Blind What-If (DBWI). It's a concept from alternatehistory.com where we pretend that the historical timeline that we live in is different from the actual historical timeline. In this scenario, we pretend that we live in a historical timeline where Hitler's invasion of France in 1940 fails and offer our thoughts as to what we think would have happened had this invasion actually succeeded.

Anyway, how do you think that history would have unfolded had Hitler's invasion of France in 1940 actually succeeded? (Please remember that this is a DBWI and thus we have to pretend like we don't know just how history unfolded over the previous 79 years in this scenario because we pretend that we're living in a world where the 1940 Nazi invasion of France failed.)

Any thoughts on this?
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,863
Stockport Cheshire UK
So you are asking for scenarios that, because it actually happened and we know what happened, are incorrect. :confused:
Sorry, this is a little too weird for me :zany:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,247
SoCal
Well then, in your alternate timeline, this is a piece of fiction that answers your question.

Battle of France - Wikipedia
Do you actually agree with this work of fiction, though? I mean, having Britain continue the fight after the loss of France seems pretty unrealistic, IMHO. It would be Britain and its empire fighting alone against the Nazis. Back in 1940, neither the USSR nor the US would have been in the war and I don't know if Britain would have had the necessary patience to wait long enough to bring one or both of these countries into the war.

BTW, having Hitler declare war on the US as a result of Pearl Harbor seems rather unrealistic. I mean, Yes, he hated the US and there was an undeclared naval conflict with the Americans in the Atlantic, but surely he would have still wanted to delay war with the US for as long as possible, no?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,247
SoCal
Mind you this part of the story seemed pretty far fetched.

Battle of Dunkirk - Wikipedia

Next you will be telling us Churchill becomes Prime Minister and L Ron Hubbard becomes a Messiah.
Churchill actually became British PM right at the start of the Battle of France. So, whether the Allies win or lose in France, Churchill is still Britain's PM. That said, though, I don't know if he would have actually been able to rally the British people behind a continuation of the war effort if France would have fallen. Maybe he would have had the USSR and/or the US already been in the war, but this certainly isn't what happened in real life.

We should be happy as Hell that France didn't fall since without France, most of Europe would have likely been under Nazi rule for an extremely long time! :( Heck, maybe Hitler would have even managed to conquer the USSR due to how badly the Soviet military performed against Finland in 1939-1940; if so, the Eastern Slavs are likely to be in for a severe world of hurt! :(
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,247
SoCal
So you are asking for scenarios that, because it actually happened and we know what happened, are incorrect. :confused:
Sorry, this is a little too weird for me :zany:
What I'm asking for is having us pretend that history took a different course in 1940 and that France didn't actually fall in 1940 and also having us pretend that we don't actually know what would have happened had France fallen in 1940. Rather, what we know in this scenario is what happened over the last 79 years had France not fallen in 1940 but not what would have happened had France fallen in 1940.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,368
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Do you actually agree with this work of fiction, though? I mean, having Britain continue the fight after the loss of France seems pretty unrealistic, IMHO. It would be Britain and its empire fighting alone against the Nazis. Back in 1940, neither the USSR nor the US would have been in the war and I don't know if Britain would have had the necessary patience to wait long enough to bring one or both of these countries into the war.

BTW, having Hitler declare war on the US as a result of Pearl Harbor seems rather unrealistic. I mean, Yes, he hated the US and there was an undeclared naval conflict with the Americans in the Atlantic, but surely he would have still wanted to delay war with the US for as long as possible, no?
Yep, I agree with it. Somehow, it has a ring of truth, cant think why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,247
SoCal
Yep, I agree with it. Somehow, it has a ring of truth, cant think why.
Yeah, it does seem vaguely realistic--which is actually scary considering that the number of murdered Jews in this work of fiction is a whopping 6 million! In real life it was several times less than that.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,247
SoCal
In real life, the Nazis were able to murder up to a million Jews under their rule in mass pogroms but ultimately the overthrow of the Nazis by the Schwarze Kapelle prevented the Jewish populations under Nazi rule from being slaughtered in their entirety. The surviving Jews in Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, et cetera largely moved to Israel after the end of World War II in real life. Also, in real life, the entire Soviet Jewish community as well as the entire Jewish community in the territories that the USSR annexed in 1939-1940 survived the war--so, in real life, the post-WWII Soviet Union had about five million Jews rather than just 2.2 million Jews. All of the Jews in Greater Hungary likewise survived the Holocaust in real life--unlike in this work of fiction, when almost all of them outside of Budapest were slaughtered. :(
 
Status
Closed