As in the title, what would the effects be of Britain surrendering in 1942, after having fought more or less alone since the fall of france? If neither the USA nor the USSR are in the war, how is the war fought in 41 & 42?. In a situation where Barbarossa and the attack on Pearl Harbor have not yet happened what do you think the effect on British and American politics would be, and what would the terms of the peace likely be?
Effects of 1942 Brittish surrender?
- Thread starter Vylon Disigma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- britain ww2 ww2 aftermath
If by 1942 the British fail to bring the USA into the war and Germany never goes to war with the USSR, then we might have, because of war weariness, a negotiated peace. The treaty will probably have German annexations recognized and some allied (not British) colonies taken by the Germans. If Germany ends up in a war with the USSR and/or the US, Britain will re-enter the war. If not, there will be a three-way cold war.
You'd have to find a way of 'butterflying' Pearl Harbour (to avoid bringing the US into the conflict as even co-belligerent rather than ally) but assuming that condition holds, I think your scenario is plausible.
I suppose Hitler launches Barbarossa in May 1943, against a somewhat better prepared USSR and a Stalin expecting an attack.
I await the debate between Wiking and ObsessedNuker as to how this Barbarossa43 would turn out with genuine interest. My WAG is the Red Army gets pushed back as OTL but holds the Germans somewhere close to the OTL Dec41 line. Thereafter probably some going and froing with neither party able to knock the other out.
Barbarossa 43 may turn out a disaster for the Nazis.
For one, the Russians would have adapted into a modern fighting force (T34Ms, monoplaces, etcetera.)
Second, with the purge over, some of the new Soviet commanders would be a little more confident.
Third, no way Hitler can keep a full war footing after a year of peace. The Nazis had trouble selling the war and its sacrifices to begin with, what sold it to the German people is that it was a battle for their very survival. If Germany knocks Britain out of the war by 42, it would be hard to justify totler krieg between Summer 42 to Summer 43.
Fourth, German tank designs, though good and improving by 43, would be somewhat underpowered and stunted without hard lessons learned in Russia in 41.
However, with butterflies, the preceding may not turn out to be the case. Due to butterflies, Britain may have left the war due to an ATL bombing of Baku and disasters in North Africa. Let's pretend they fight on to December 42. The Germans would not immediately demobilize in a few months, so this may provide a window for Hitler to press his political advantage for another foreign adventure. Russia, with even more men on the OTL 41 border with Germany and its allies, may be foolish enough not to have adapted doctrine--while the Germans thanks to lessons in France do have improved Panzer divisions and at this point have decommissioned their Panzers Is and IIs (replaced by mostly 50mm Panzer III3 and IVs, though some long barrel 75mm Panzer IVs would be out due to experiences against Matildas and formidable French armor.) The Italian contribution may be more significant, and maybe with more butterflies German licenses to build Panzer IVs may help Hungary and Romania update a bit ATL.
If Rommel pulled a rabbit out of his butt and captured the British supply dump on Nov 24, 1941 by sheer luck, perhaps German planning for Barbarossa 43 is a little more in keeping with the lessons of France and Africa--out flanking the enemy and winning via encirclements. IOTL, a double envelopment of Ukraine was removed in the early phases of Barbarossa's planning. Have von Rudenstedt maintain the plan for double envelopment, and have Rommel fighting in the Baltic states (where in OTL von Leeb failed to take initiative at several crucial times), and we may see (with luck and Russian incompetence) the flower of the Russian army defeated in the field on all fronts--it is not impossible.
As we can see, however, the Russians winning takes little luck, while the Germans winning takes gross incompetence and overperformance. Neither are impossible, but the former is more likely.
For one, the Russians would have adapted into a modern fighting force (T34Ms, monoplaces, etcetera.)
Second, with the purge over, some of the new Soviet commanders would be a little more confident.
Third, no way Hitler can keep a full war footing after a year of peace. The Nazis had trouble selling the war and its sacrifices to begin with, what sold it to the German people is that it was a battle for their very survival. If Germany knocks Britain out of the war by 42, it would be hard to justify totler krieg between Summer 42 to Summer 43.
Fourth, German tank designs, though good and improving by 43, would be somewhat underpowered and stunted without hard lessons learned in Russia in 41.
However, with butterflies, the preceding may not turn out to be the case. Due to butterflies, Britain may have left the war due to an ATL bombing of Baku and disasters in North Africa. Let's pretend they fight on to December 42. The Germans would not immediately demobilize in a few months, so this may provide a window for Hitler to press his political advantage for another foreign adventure. Russia, with even more men on the OTL 41 border with Germany and its allies, may be foolish enough not to have adapted doctrine--while the Germans thanks to lessons in France do have improved Panzer divisions and at this point have decommissioned their Panzers Is and IIs (replaced by mostly 50mm Panzer III3 and IVs, though some long barrel 75mm Panzer IVs would be out due to experiences against Matildas and formidable French armor.) The Italian contribution may be more significant, and maybe with more butterflies German licenses to build Panzer IVs may help Hungary and Romania update a bit ATL.
If Rommel pulled a rabbit out of his butt and captured the British supply dump on Nov 24, 1941 by sheer luck, perhaps German planning for Barbarossa 43 is a little more in keeping with the lessons of France and Africa--out flanking the enemy and winning via encirclements. IOTL, a double envelopment of Ukraine was removed in the early phases of Barbarossa's planning. Have von Rudenstedt maintain the plan for double envelopment, and have Rommel fighting in the Baltic states (where in OTL von Leeb failed to take initiative at several crucial times), and we may see (with luck and Russian incompetence) the flower of the Russian army defeated in the field on all fronts--it is not impossible.
As we can see, however, the Russians winning takes little luck, while the Germans winning takes gross incompetence and overperformance. Neither are impossible, but the former is more likely.
Deleted member 1487
I actually brought that up on another forum and we had a blow out of course and it included some other knowledgeable posters including a guy from Russia. The thing is 1941 was nearly the best time for a German invasion given the relative force correlations, as by 1943 the Soviets would be much more ready for war and would do much better. After 1942 an invasion of the USSR would be a really bad idea for Hitler even without any other front and I think Hitler even understood that, which is why he was so gung ho about war in 1941, as it was really the only chance to catch the Soviets with their pants down. The Soviets do not get pushed back like IOTL in 1943 or even in 1942.
Why? They made the M3 'Grease Gun' IOTL in 1942:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_submachine_gun
Thanks for the response. I'm inclined to agree with you after thinking it through a bit more. The German advantage in tactics and training will be less than in 1941 and offset by a Soviet advantage in tank quality (T-34 vs late model PzIII) and better preparation. Or would Germany have introduced a new tank by 1943 anyway?
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Well, that depends on a few factors: are the British surrendering to the Germans only? In that case, the war has been pretty much an air scuffle only for the past 2 years (Assuming a particular large aquatic mammal hasn't gotten surgery recently), so the "surrender" probably isen't so much a capitulation as a "Peace with Honor". The Germans would have likely allowed a fairly large chunk of the Empire to remain intact; provided the Axis would be allowed to purchase Imperial resources and the Brits agreed not to meddle with Fascist territories. In these circumstances, London would probably be more or less content just to lick her wounds, and Germany, Italy, Japan and Co. have breathing space to stabilize control over their new territories. Vichy is probably pulled fully into the Axis powers (Germany dosen't need to occupy Northern or Western France anymore if Britain is out of the war, and can afford to be more 'generous'), and the rhetoric can be shifted into full Anti-Communist mode.
Now, if Japan has attacked British positions in Asia, than a British surrender is probably only going to come out of complete desperation and result in the Empire being mangled. In that case, things are probably going to look a lot messier for the Axis: Guriellas are going to be more common, the Imperial economy is going to be shattered and her trade links broken, meaning no easy access to its resources by Axis nations, new systems are going to have to be imposed by military occupation, tying down administrative and military resources that would have otherwise been available for other uses, ect. Britain itself is also going to be rather resentful, and will use what resources it has left to either prepare to strike at an oppritune moment or, if not allowed to, at least subtly resist Axis efforts to exproperate her resources.
Deleted member 1487
By 1943 it would be the VK2001 and VK3001 with the VK4501 also having been completed by that time (the Tiger project).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VK_20
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/heu.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I#Another_attempt
The VK2001 series look no better a late model PzIV at first glance. Would it have been better to concentrate on the VK3001?
Deleted member 1487
Problem was German army doctrine. They had a special support tank like the Pz IV and then the main tank that did the anti-AFV work and exploitation. The VK2001 had better armor and was able to handle more weight, so could mount a 75mm cannon unlike the Pz III. For example the base weight of the PzIII was 15 tons with a max of 24. The VK2001 started at between 20-24 tons and could grow heavier from there and mount a more powerful engine. The Daimler model even had a diesel engine with rear drive to save weight. It could have been redesigned to be much more like the T-34 too, had it been selected.
IMHO the idea that if Britain comes to a white peace with Germany in 1942 - basically stop fighting, exchange prisoners, no territorial demands on the Empire, stop the blockade of Germany - with the USA not in a war with Germany and a war weary Britain, I can't see the UK jumping back in to the war if Barbarossa 1943 kicks off. Even if Britain sells military equipment or raw materials to the USSR it will be cash and carry, you would not see neutral British ships trying to evade the Kriegsmarine to deliver supplies on the Murmansk run.
A Germany with all resources directed to Barbarossa, minimal occupation forces in the west compared to OTL, and the industrial resources of the occupied countries fully engaged (as well as possibly some military units or volunteers above OTL levels) is facing a USSR on its own with no external distractions for the Germans and no LL to fill critical needs even the peacetime Soviet economy can't meet. I leave it to those with more experience to analyze how this might work out, but IMHO not obvious.
A Germany with all resources directed to Barbarossa, minimal occupation forces in the west compared to OTL, and the industrial resources of the occupied countries fully engaged (as well as possibly some military units or volunteers above OTL levels) is facing a USSR on its own with no external distractions for the Germans and no LL to fill critical needs even the peacetime Soviet economy can't meet. I leave it to those with more experience to analyze how this might work out, but IMHO not obvious.
Deleted member 1487
I pretty much agree with your assessment about the peace with Britain.
As to the USSR situation, Stalin would be ready for war, the Soviet economy would be too, the Molotov defensive Line would be much more ready, and there is virtually no way the Germans could advance nearly as far as IOTL to disrupt the Soviet economy as they did IOTL. Germany has a number of advantages it wouldn't have, but so too does the USSR, who would buy from the US and UK with it's newly opened gold mines in Siberia. Despite the weakness of the Soviet electronics industry compared to Germany, the UK, the US, and even Japan, it would be able to purchase abroad to build it up even without LL or a cutting edge R&D establishment.
End result is probably a massive blood bath and stalemate if there is war.
Would a white peace not have to allow all trade to and from Europe? Germany would have to insist on that since it would stop a British sneaky blockaded but would mean she was then free to trade with Russia unless the Km is willing to sink GB ships restarting the war in the west?
Deleted member 1487
IF they could manage it. Plus the Brits could always just do what they did with Iran as per OTL.
I'd like to see them try and intern British ships with the RN still being the RN
Sure the RN could try and force convoys through to Russia, but would they want to do so in this scenario? I agree Iran is a possibility but don't forget OTL it took a good deal of British and American pressure on the Shah to allow this to happen, as well as lots of troops and engineers to upgrade the infrastructure, provide port parties etc simply to get the supplies unloaded and through Iran to the Russian border. That took time, and cost money. Are the British going to expend that effort ITTL? Are the Americans going to do this to shore up Russia - tricky politically in the USA. Certainly any sales of "stuff" are going to be cash on the barrelhead.