Effects of 1942 Brittish surrender?
- Thread starter Vylon Disigma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- britain ww2 ww2 aftermath
Deleted member 1487
German surface fleet. Plus with the war over the French fleet would be usable as well. Uboats too could be used to pickets, while there would be air patrols and radio intercepts to enable an economy of surface ships to intercept merchant shipping. Same way the Germans confronted the Arctic convoys IOTL minus the shooting.
Sounds like the easiest way to pull Britain back into the war, assaulting British merchant ships on the high seas.
Deleted member 1487
A blockade wouldn't mean assaulting them. Just signaling for them to submit to inspection per international law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraband
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Declaration_concerning_the_Laws_of_Naval_War
Yes, but the purpose of the RN has always been to maintain the freedom of the seas for the merchant navy. The Germans might get away with it the first time they tried, the second time would find the RN playing escort duties all the way to Russia.
Also as your link notes, both the UK and Germany ignored the London Declaration in WWI.
Deleted member 1487
If Britain was compelled to exit WW2 by negotiated peace, what makes you think they'd want to restart it?
To finish the job.
If the UK has been forced out of the war in 42 due to it stalemating, as soon as it all kicks off on the eastern front, the U.K. will be supporting Russia for all its worth. U.K. Foreign policy has always been to prevent a continental hegemony forming and so like with Napoleon, bankroll the opposition.
Deleted member 1487
Why leave the war at all if they were capable of finishing the job? Plus any government that had to make peace is going to be toppled in the next election and the nation will probably be in an economic mess.
Because the UK by itself isn't able to finish the job but when nazi germany invades the ussr, the situation becomes very different. There is a massive difference between being in a war which is a never ending stalemate and that has a negotiated settlement which reflects that and one that has become very winnable.
Deleted member 1487
Given the Axis pact Britain resuming the war would bring Italy and Japan right in, which would be a worse situation than they left behind, plus still no financial support from the US.
1) I would guess that a White Peace has resulted from a stalemate. The BCE can't 'finish the job' alone and it is not getting enough support from the US to keep it fighting alone. It may break with the US over the latter's demands for it to join the embargo against Japan, preferring to appease Japan rather than risk it starting a third front.
2) The war government was one of national unity. Either all members signed off on the decision to seek peace or those that didn't left the government. They'd have to campaign to resume the war in a post war election and the POD sort of assumes they don't win. YET.
3) I doubt that the UK and imperial economies would be in a mess. No debts to the US and the peace time government may not be obliged to go along with the Lend Lease conditions that opened up the imperial markets to US goods. Trade with the Empire, S.America Europe etc. can resume. No doubt sterling debt would be high but that's far more manageable than FCY debt. Probably in a much better place than 1945/6.
A lot depends on the conditions of the peace settlement as to what the UK could do in the event of Barbarossa43. Would it even want to help the USSR? Maybe, but perhaps it's either unable to do so (unfavourable peace deal) or doesn't need to (Germany agrees to withdraw from most of Western Europe whilst ensuring friendly regimes there - "Finlandisation" rather than Warsaw Pact style control).
Interesting prospects there. Can we get such a White Peace in early 1941?
That's a very interesting reading of the Tripartite Pact that you are making.
Article 3 is the important one with "They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War". As the UK was involved in the European war when this was signed, Japan is only getting involved if it wants to, not because it is treaty bound.
Now if there is still an US oil embargo on Japan, I would personally think they have more than enough to be worrying about, what with the US looming and a never ending war in China.
Deleted member 1487
The treaty would reflect the changed situation of peace after the deal with Britain. If Britain makes peace, then the government in exile of the Dutch would too...which means DEI oil becomes available to Japan, though Japan would be concerned with US intentions in the future. If the Germans held their oil lifeline via the Dutch, they'd be obligated to help in the case of British reentry.
Deleted member 94680
Why would the soviet military improve in the two years between OTL Barbarossa and ATL Barbarossa with no fighting but the nazi military stagnate and fail to improve? T-34s were only truly mass produced once the Nazis invaded, before the fighting proved their quality, there was still resistance to their becoming the main tank.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Well, they have time to recover from the purges and absorb the massive influx of fresh manpower into her ranks and wider strategic structure. The Red Army diden't really have anywhere to go BUT up. The Germans, on the other hand, are running their war machine at least partially on reserves of currency and weapons caches plundered from defeated/annexed nations. Those will attriate down, and the Soviets will have had time to see German tactics in action and prepare and train their men in suitable countermeasures.
Basically, Germany is only failing to improve relative to the Soviets, due mainly to limits on resources and somewhat inefficent organization of industry
While if the UK and Germany come to some sort of peace in 1942, the debts of the UK to the USA certainly won't be anything like what they were in 1945 OTL. However when the war started sales to the UK were CASH and CARRY, with emphasis on the cash. One reason LL to the UK was started was that the UK had run out of cash. The bases for destroyers deal was done that way because the UK could not pay for the destroyers except at scrap metal rates. Ending the war in 1942 will slow the expenses, also the UK will want to keep modernizing to prevent the chance of Hitler jumping on them which means defense budgets won't go back to pre-1938/39 levels. Furthermore the UK has to purchase certain goods, food for an example, from overseas/non-Imperial sources. The UK will certainly be cash poor.
As far as the UK wanting to "finish the job" if Germany attacks Russia in 1943, no way. First off the reality is the UK without US manpower as well as a lot of US logistic support - food, petroleum, the C-47's to drop paratroopers, and much more, simply cannot invade France successfully. If the war stops in 1942, would the RN have as many ASW ships in 1943 as OTL or would they have slowed building programs. If the US is not cranking out merchant ships like OTL, if the British renew the war will they win the Battle of the Atlantic as their merchant marine is sunk without replacement, and will the Dutch, Norwegian, Greek, etc flagged merchants that carried on OTL not return home, or be sold and not be available when the war resumes. While the USN was not the primary force in the Atlantic until later in the war, every bit helps and this battle of the Atlantic will be UK only. Politically it would be suicide for any government.
If the UK is out by 1942, and the USA not in/never in this means the governments in exile of many occupied countries will gradually lose force and many of those who fought on may decide to return home or demob and make a new life. DeGaulle will become a nonentity, branded a traitor in France by a Vichy government that is seen as having been correct in deciding to throw in the sponge and not count on perfidious Albion to rescue them. Finally, while the Russians will be better off in 1943 than 1941, so will the Germans. The Russians may have better equipment and some better fixed defenses, however in one way they may be worse off. When things turned to crap for them they brought back quite a few officers and engineers from the GULAG. Some of those have surely died or been shot between 1941 and 1943, the command/skill situation in the military is not much improved if at all from OTL 1941 and anything the engineers designed between 1941 and 1943 hasn't happened.
As far as the UK wanting to "finish the job" if Germany attacks Russia in 1943, no way. First off the reality is the UK without US manpower as well as a lot of US logistic support - food, petroleum, the C-47's to drop paratroopers, and much more, simply cannot invade France successfully. If the war stops in 1942, would the RN have as many ASW ships in 1943 as OTL or would they have slowed building programs. If the US is not cranking out merchant ships like OTL, if the British renew the war will they win the Battle of the Atlantic as their merchant marine is sunk without replacement, and will the Dutch, Norwegian, Greek, etc flagged merchants that carried on OTL not return home, or be sold and not be available when the war resumes. While the USN was not the primary force in the Atlantic until later in the war, every bit helps and this battle of the Atlantic will be UK only. Politically it would be suicide for any government.
If the UK is out by 1942, and the USA not in/never in this means the governments in exile of many occupied countries will gradually lose force and many of those who fought on may decide to return home or demob and make a new life. DeGaulle will become a nonentity, branded a traitor in France by a Vichy government that is seen as having been correct in deciding to throw in the sponge and not count on perfidious Albion to rescue them. Finally, while the Russians will be better off in 1943 than 1941, so will the Germans. The Russians may have better equipment and some better fixed defenses, however in one way they may be worse off. When things turned to crap for them they brought back quite a few officers and engineers from the GULAG. Some of those have surely died or been shot between 1941 and 1943, the command/skill situation in the military is not much improved if at all from OTL 1941 and anything the engineers designed between 1941 and 1943 hasn't happened.
thaddeus
Donor
what is reason GB drops out of the war? that kind of answers question the politics of GB and US, and the terms?
(and under the OP US and USSR are not in the war, no invasion of USSR has yet occurred and no bombing of Pearl Harbor)
What If Germany reaches some type of accord with Vichy regime, backing them over Japan in Indochina, reverting to their support of China also. any military conflict might appear to US public like Europeans battling over colonies?
(and under the OP US and USSR are not in the war, no invasion of USSR has yet occurred and no bombing of Pearl Harbor)
What If Germany reaches some type of accord with Vichy regime, backing them over Japan in Indochina, reverting to their support of China also. any military conflict might appear to US public like Europeans battling over colonies?
The Russians had the T34-76 prior to Barbarossa, with no German invasion, (yet), there would be no reason for the T-34 to be up-gunned or improved as they wouldn't have faced the German tanks. Same with aircraft like the IL2. It would probably still be the basic single seat version, so yes, maybe the PO-2 and early Mig-1/3 and the Lagg-3, but no LA-5 or 7 because what they have is good enough. This is the flip side to your point 4:
A point I agree with in full. After all, if the tanks were good enough to deal with the British and French, (The French at least HAD superior tanks, even the Germans recognised this), so why change? The same works for the Soviets. What they have is "Good Enough", and they can have lots of it. Vehicles and weapons developed by 1943 due to the hard lessons won't be developed yet, because the hard lessons haven't be learned yet. So no T34-85, nor Panzer V or VI. Infact you might not even have the Panzer IV with the 75mm HV guns, just the short barrelled 75mm howitzer. Same with Aircraft. the ME-109E would have been good for the the job and the F Variant would still be on the drawing board for example.
I disagree with this quite strongly. Without Barbarossa, the purges, soft, (i.e. sent to the gulags, demotion, sacking, reassigning to Siberia to count trees or aid Mao etc), rather than hard, still leaves you with an officer corps that prizes Political reliability and adherence to dogma over initiative and ability. You may find the odd one or two officers who have initiative and ability, but they will be the exception, not the rule, and slavishly obeying orders from STAVKA will be seen as a path to promotion. If anything, the quality of the Soviet military command will be lower than the OTL Start point of Barbarossa, as there is no war to enable a more Darwinian approach to command. Again, this applies to both Nazi Germany and Russia as Germany was heading down the same path. The overall quality of German officers, which higher than the USSR due to their recent combat experience, I would have no issue surmising that the party apparatus would turn it's eyes on those less, "loyal". Especially due to point 3, (dealt with 4th because... reasons).
Nazi Germany had not yet engaged in a total war economy, not to the extent of Great Britain, and there was still a comparatively high proportion of consumer output until OTL post Stalingrad when the writing was pretty much on the wall, with or without the Allies opening a Second Front in Europe.
If Barbarossa is delayed following a period of rest and refitting following a successful French campaign and pushing Britain out of the war, I can see Hitler suffering from a very acute and terminal case of victory disease, with Goebbels pushing the line, I would say that within a few months of victory in the west, then "incidents" would happen and very soon, a brief period of "yay peace", Goebbels would soon turn into "OMG those filthy Soviets"! And the wheels would start turning to allow Hitler to loose the German forces, (maybe by now even more indoctrinated into Nazi ideology), against the Soviets at a point when one 5 year plan had finished, (with I suspect, as much success as previous 5 year plans), and the Soviets "ready" for the invasion. However, with victory in the west, there's no need to change the economy towards total war so victory and consumer spending, plus the prospect of German expansion in the near future*, I can imagine the German people being quite supportive of a new war in the east, after all, they're only fighting Slavs and Communists, not as if they're fighting anyone competent is it?**
*And we know how that turned out OTL.
** Victory disease and stupid, (both with hindsight and by our standards), racial propaganda really set them up for a fall...
What are the terms of surrender? Hitler didn't seem like he wanted to return the Channel Islands and, even if he overestimated how extreme the desire to regain them was (part of why a tenth or so of the resources of the Atlantic Wall went into the Channel Islands) I would say that any reactionary or conservative government would want to regain their little bit of Normandy. They were basically the only remaining possessions that the first King of England had before he became King of England. Depends if they go the Norman William route, rather than the Briton Arthur. I expect Parliament would stay as it was, without any Norsefire-style fascists taking over. Back to terms, though. If reparations are involved, would it be for a former German colony, Malta and Suez, or some general reparations? I can see the Nazis doing some unofficial reparations or something, which in a 'sign of good faith' would be delivered in British ships. Probably a bunch of raw materials, tropical products, and luxury goods to be sold to a German business or organization at a set price, at a set quantity of so many tons. I imagine it would be a very lucrative business that the many dueling organizations in the Reich would want to get a piece of.
I'd like to see them try and intern British ships with the RN still being the RN
"It takes three years to build a ship, three centuries to build a tradition." Admiral of the Fleet Viscount Cunningham
"It takes three years to build a ship, three centuries to build a tradition." Admiral of the Fleet Viscount Cunningham