>>18716884
Berlin-Moscow Pact becomes real.

>>18716949
Resulting Japan slowly withdrawing Axis pact and joined Anglo-Freach side?

the more i learn about france's "surrender", the more it seems like it was actually a defection

>>18716973
qrd?
I read it as the germans were in a position to destroy the army so france capitulated to save it.

>>18716884
The only thing that changes is more French dead and more of France destroyed in the beginning of the war, they still lose badly

>>18717001
are you familiar with it? with the fall of france?
from my reading, the national government basically collapsed due to indecision after the germans bypassed the maginot line and then they decided to appoint petain as the prime minister, who then proceeded to hand over the country to the germans. why he did that and what the prior government officials were expecting petain to do, i do not know. another interesting thing to note is that de gaulle was basically a random nobody with no claim whatsoever to any sort of political leadership in france but he worked his ass off to drive the germans out because he felt a patriotic duty and that alone was apparently enough to give him legitimacy as the leader of france in the eyes of the allies

>>18717012
>the national government basically collapsed due to indecision after the germans bypassed the maginot line and then they decided to appoint petain as the prime minister, who then proceeded to hand over the country to the germans
They treat him as a traitor but genuinely what was he supposed to do? Keeping on fighting meant more destruction and deaths for the same outcome

>>18717026
that's what i've been wondering for a while. it's said that they gave up because the germans were right on paris' doorstep so any french orders to the major military command posts most likely would have been intercepted by the germans before they reached their destination (from what i understand), so military action was out of the question in that regard... i think even if they tried to sneak orders out via civilians or spies or something that would have been far too slow so again, no good... i'm also unsure if they had enough time to escape to north africa or britain or even retreat into france's interior to regroup but at the rate that the germans were rolling in, i doubt it

i'm not sure, i'll have to read into it more

>>18717006
How do they lose completely? Is Rommel going to capture Algeria with the British 8th army at his back?

>>18717026
>but genuinely what was he supposed to do?
Well the option was not to surrender.
The Polish and Norwegian among others didnt surrender. They kept fighting.

>Keeping on fighting meant more destruction and deaths for the same outcome
If everyone had that attitude then Axis would have won.

>>18717031
There is literally nothing they could have done, the worst part is that they even considered that the Germans might come through the Ardennes but they thought they would be able to see them coming and in time push them back because it would take a long time to get through the forest

>>18717045
They literally captured the document plans for the German offensive.
They just thought it was a deception ploy.

It's still amazign how not one of them thought "maybe we should at least scout the Ardenne, just in case, or put two extra divisions at Sedan... just in case".

>>18717042
>If everyone had that attitude then Axis would have won.
The Germans encircled their main armies and were past all the prepared defenses the French had, there was quite literally no line to defend and they had no reserves left

>>18717058
So?
Do you literally not understand the premise of the OP?
Poland, Norway, Netherlands etc never surrendered despite their country having been overrun. This greatly contributed to the allied cause. Norway had one of the largest navies in the world at the time and became a lifeline to supply Britain. This was despite the fact that that Norway the country was occupied.

I mean are you low IQ or something?
France had an empire of 1/4 of the world which was out of reach from the Axis.
And you act like it was an impossibility for them to continue the war.

>>18717063
>And you act like it was an impossibility for them to continue the war.
They did, from Africa

>>18717063
>I mean are you low IQ or something?
I've been pantied and sissified

>>18717088
No they didnt. The overwhelming majority of the French empire and all overseas divisions remained loyal to the vichy government.
They had to be slowly 'convinced' over time to join the allies.

In my OP, I'm talking about no surrender whatsoever, and the entire empire is merged with the allied cause from the onset of summer 1940, which means Italian Libya would have to face French divisions from the east and British divisions from the west, and that the French navy at Mers in Algeria joins with Royal Navy.

>>18717094
See>>18717091

>>18717094
>No they didnt. The overwhelming majority of the French empire and all overseas divisions remained loyal to the vichy government.
>They had to be slowly 'convinced' over time to join the allies.
this is the part that really gets me. it's like the french really were allied with the germans but pretended not to be. take the attack on mers-el-kebir for instance, the british gave the french navy a very fair ultimatum but instead of sailing the ships to britain to help them fight against the germans, the french admiral felt offended that the british would send a lower ranking (cannot remember the rank, sorry) officer to negotiate with him and just because of that, he said no deal and the british sunk the fleet

>>18716884
>How does ww2 change? How does the Axis handle it?
Well, considering that Libya is threatened from 2 sides and the Italians were not having fun in the summer of 1940 I can assume Hitler sends the Afrika Korps even sooner than February 1941, probably by autumn of 1940, however if the British and French are smart and fast enough they could take Libya methinks since the French Navy+Royal Navy can probably completely hamper the logistics of the Italians to Libya, what is assured is a much swifter victory in North Africa, however if the Allies don't take Lybia before the Germans arrive, I'm not sure what the Germans would do, and I'm not sure if Rommel would be sent either, realistically whoever is sent would be told to stabilize the defense, but I'm inclined to believe if Rommel was sent, he'd try to take Tunisia and knock the French out somehow

>>18717122
Also I believe Greece would not be invaded in October of 1940 since the threat to Libya would be much bigger, it would be postponed

>>18717122
> but I'm inclined to believe if Rommel was sent, he'd try to take Tunisia and knock the French out somehow
This would make the most sense, since the French would likely be a much weaker target than the British. They would be less equipted and less organised immedaitely after the fall of France proper.
It would also be far easier to strike west because the infrastructure and geography is much better than the almost open desert between Libya and Egypt, supported by a single dirt road.
It's also the fact that Tunis is in relatively close proximity to Tripoli, and Tunis is a very large port that can actually sustain very large operations in N.Africa (the Tripoli port was rather small and its the main reason why Rommel IRL could only field 3-4 divisions.