Europe's Borders without the Fall of France and a 1940 German defeat?

[Jackson Lennock]

Looking at this thread, the general agreement seemed to be that without the Fall of France the Germans would either be pushed back into Germany quickly and the military might have ousted Hitler if things really went poorly. Army Commander in Chief Walther von Brauhitsch and General Staff Chief Franz Halder discussed a coup against Hitler in November 1939, and agreed it would have required a setback (which never came).

So here's the scenario: The Fall of France does not occur, many German troops with shoestring logistics are captured. OTL 2.1 million of 3.3 million allied men were killed, captured or wounded (64%) compared to 180,000 Germans killed, missing, or wounded out of 3.5 million. Apply the allied percentage to Germany's circumstance, and that's ~2.25 million killed, missing, captured, or wounded. Germany's fiscal situation and ammo stocks OTL weren't great, so they lucked out a lot with the Fall of France. The Germans are forced back into Germany, and the allies even march into the Rhineland when the German military coups Hitler. There is internal instability in Germany, with civil conflict breaking out between the coup-plotters and Nazis.

What are Europe's borders in the aftermath?


At a minimum, Germany will be forced out of Austria and Czechia I assume. But could France seize Saarland or parts of Rhineland?
Could the Western Allies carve up Germany - like the creation of Rhenish and Bavarian Republics?
How much lands would Poland acquire from Germany? The Polish Government in exile was mainly interested in East Prussia, Upper Silesia, and Eastern Pomerania

On the one hand, Germany hasn't acted as reprehensibly as OTL, and so the expected penalty may be lesser. But on the other hand, much of the reason for not breaking up Germany to a greater degree was because of the hope for a strong West Germany to balance against the Soviets and East Germany - which would not be the issue at stake here. Plus the Germans' conduct in Poland and the Netherlands were already pretty reprehensible and beyond the pale. On the other other hand, if the Germans collapse into a civil war, the Soviets might press west.

Would there be mass expulsions of Germans from places like Czechoslovakia like OTL?

Could Hungary jump in and seize Slovakia and/or Burgenland?

 

[raharris1973]

At a minimum, Germany will be forced out of Austria and Czechia I assume.

I would assume as well

But could France seize Saarland or parts of Rhineland?

Maybe - Saarland more likely than Rhineland.

Could the Western Allies carve up Germany - like the creation of Rhenish and Bavarian Republics?

Maybe - they would have to enforce it by bayonet and gun like the OTL post-WWII partition, but like it OTL, it could be eased if the Soviets are threatening from the east and the alternative to obeying looks like being abandoned to the Soviets. A Bavarian republic may stand a chance of being upheld perhaps if the Italians are a late entrant on the Allied side and want to influence this part of Germany as their own sphere of influence.

How much lands would Poland acquire from Germany? The Polish Government in exile was mainly interested in East Prussia, Upper Silesia, and Eastern Pomerania

As much land as the circumstances allow them to grab. And the circumstances are mainly out of Polish hands, but in the hands of the Western Allies, and whatever they can and will impose on the Germans, and possibly whatever the Soviet Union.

Would there be mass expulsions of Germans from places like Czechoslovakia like OTL?

As much as the Czechs can get away with.

Could Hungary jump in and seize Slovakia and/or Burgenland?

I would see this as dumb and unwelcome adventurism that the Allies would oppose since they are publicly committing to restore Czechoslovakia and Austria. Hungary could try to "earn" the lands by going to war against Germany as the tide turns against them, joining the Allies, but that would be a bold choice. Maybe Mussolini would try to embolden Horthy to pursue such a hare-brained adventure of revisionism, but I doubt it would happen. Even Mussolini would probably know trying to revise the Trianon borders would just irritate the Allies and conservative Austro-Catholics he's trying to be friendly with post-war.

What the OP has side-stepped is the Soviet Union's role, if any.

Based on the lack of any discussion, the default assumptions we should make on the OP intent would be that:

a) The Molotov-Ribbentropp Nonaggression Pact and secret protocols happened like in OTL, and Soviet foreign policy followed its OTL course through the summer of 1940 (through the annexation of the Baltic states and Bessarabia and northern Bukovina).

and

b) When the Allies successfully fended off the Nazi assault in the west, defeated the Germans, conquered Germany, and liberated occupied lands, the Soviet Union stood still, not moving westward of the new territories gained by the summer of 1940 under the M-R pact, not intervening to assault and take territory from the Germans, nor intervening to assist the Germans or oppose the Allies.

------

In my opinion, assumption b) the Soviets taking an inert, passive stance, when the tide turns and the Allies are crushing Germany is less probable than the Soviets becoming involved in that late stage on the anti-German side.

I think the Soviets would probably turn against the collapsing or declining Germans, seeking to occupy East Prussia, liberate Poland, liberate Slovakia, etc. The Soviets may not have the skill or head start to be the first to reach Berlin. But I imagine substantial participation would give the Soviets a say over boundaries in the east, and Soviet priorities would probably entail supporting Polish expansion in the west to 'compensate' Poland for 'accepting' revision of the Soviet-Polish border to the west, but with some type of German territory or territories left over east of the Oder-Neisse line to serve as a Socialist zone of Germany or Soviet bargaining chip.