If an early peace lets them avoid getting occupied then that is already a pretty big win for the British given how bad their strategic situation is in 1944. If they try to hold out for keeping their nukes as well they are likely to lose everything.
I doubt the British in TL-191 had any meaningful bioweapon capability because if they did then Churchill would have certainly used it after London was nuked.
I think it is borderline ASB for Britain not to have had a meaningful bioweapon capability, they had one OTL after all. Britain made peace, what, a week after London was nuked? I sort of envision Edward and company intervening before Churchill went too far. At that point Britain is the first great power to drop out, Germany has other fish to fry.
That may be true for the U.S., but I doubt the Germans care that much about checking the Japanese Empire. (If anything a strong Japanese Empire is in Germany's interest as it doesn't threaten any German interests and is a potential counterweight to the U.S.)
A fair point, though Britain can also serve as an anti-American counterweight (I believe Hitler envisioned it as such) I suppose it comes down to how you envisioned WWI to have ended, I think Germany would want her Pacific colonies back, but it is fair to assume that Japan annexed them post-war.
Assuming the British are even willing to keep fighting against Japan. The British populace is clear very war weary by 1944 (or else they wouldn't have stood for Churchill being booted from power). As such any British government that insists on keeping the war going in the east is likely to be very short lived. (Think what happened to Kerensky in OTL once he took power and didn't immediately get Russia out of the First World War.)
I would have to disagree with you there, we have no real means of judging British enthusiasm, but given that they voted for Churchill and Mosley....
The downfall of Churchill was very explicitly a court intrigue, the King did it with other politicians. I don't recall any indications of public support for it (then again, if we did receive any they would have just been US propaganda).
Given how long the war has been ongoing and OTL I think Britain could be expected to keep fighting the Japanese. They have to as the Japanese clearly intend to conquer Australia and India. This is a defensive war, the British public wouldn't stand for letting that land fall to Japan, and I don't think the US can force Japan to quit either.
But the British only nuked Hamburg after the Germans had already nuked Paris and Petrograd, so I'm sure they still believe the Germans are at fault for the war going nuclear. And do you really think the British people are going to be more upset about losing Ireland and Canada than losing London??? Or even care about losing Ireland and Canada at all when compared to losing London? Even aside from London being both the British political and financial capital, OTL the Greater London area had about 1/6 of Britain's total population in 1941. It was enormously important to the British people, so they will definitely hold a massive grudge against the people that destroyed it.
Britain may be forced to cozy up to the Germans for real-politic reasons, but they can probably get a better deal from the US, since Britain is a much more useful potential ally for the US than it is for Germany.
I think nuclear weapons won't be viewed as all that serious given that both sides used them, they won't have the same moral quality that we assign to nuclear weapons OTL.
Also don't overestimate the size of nuclear weapons, just one nuke was dropped on London.
Are you familiar with nuke map?
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ It's fun, I'm not sure you can see it when you click the link but I used a Hiroshima bomb to hit Westminster and the blast doesn't even reach Hyde Park.
I really doubt that the Germans would be able to drop their bomb on Westminster, probably they'd just hit a part of London no one cares about. I just don't think the nuking would be that big a deal.
And even putting aside the German nuclear attacks (which already gets us into "other than that, how did you enjoy the play Mrs. Lincoln?" territory), the U.S. barely laid a glove on the British during the SGW. Pretty much all of Britain's ground fighting was against the Germans, which means the lion's share of British military casualties in the war also would have been caused by the Germans.
That is entirely true, and Germany clearly proved it can beat Britain up, but on the other hand Britain didn't do too badly against the Yanks....
Except the British financial capital has been destroyed. And Britain is unlikely to be receiving any Marshall Plan style aid in TL-191. (Both Germany and the U.S. have their own extensive war damage to repair, so it is doubtful either country will have extra money to send to Britain.) So how exactly is Britain going to afford to pay for fighting a series of colonial wars? (Much less afford to fight a lengthy conventional war against an undistracted Japanese Empire that is considerably more powerful than its OTL counterpart?)
Also the Tories are going to be absolutely destroyed in the next election. Do you really think the incoming Labour Government is going to be interested in trying to hold onto India or Malaysia or Egypt?
As I noted London's not in as bad a shape as one might think (probably) in terms of Labour, even assuming they win (I would expect some sort of national government or if need be military dictatorship sponsored by the king would be likely give the ongoing crisis) Labour was historically not as anti-imperialist as some think.
I mean they had a majority government for over 5 years and still most of the Empire was lost by Macmillan.
It is actually quite interesting to look at Labour policy regarding say Palestine, they were determined to hold it (largely to secure Suez) even in 1948 in the face of some pretty stiff opposition.
And I just don't think they'd be willing to give up India and Australia to Japanese 'tyranny'. I also think Labour probably got itself caught up in the wartime government same as historically so they can't put all the blame on other parties.
And Independent Labour would probably be too radical to really succeed electorally.
What were you envisioning the CNP as? I agree with your thoughts that any Canadians that want to work within the US political system will probably become Republicans.
I think I thought that people were saying the CNP would be something like the Bloc Quebecois or the SNP, a regular political party that was nationalist, and I really can't see the point of that in the US system.
I still think Canadians and Southerners electing the Republican party to power is the most plausible and frankly hilarious option though.