WI: The UK fights on after a Dunkirk disaster?

[Joriz Castillo]

How would Britain fare if they decide to continue the war against Germany if they lose almost the entire BEF at Dunkirk except a few thousand with all the men and equipment lost? This also includes prominent officers such as Montgomery, Brooke, and Auchinleck.

How would North Africa and the Far East fare with little British troops available?

 

[Garrison]

How would Britain fare if they decide to continue the war against Germany if they lose almost the entire BEF at Dunkirk except a few thousand with all the men and equipment lost? This also includes prominent officers such as Montgomery, Brooke and Auchinleck.

Well they planned to fight on anyway since no one expected to rescue the BEF. There is also the large number soldiers south of the pocket with a chance of escaping, the last of them didn't get out until August and there's the forces destined for the second BEF that I suppose wouldn't be sent in the event of such a collapse so 3rd Royal Tank Regiment probably isn't wasted at Calais.

 

[David Floyd]

I mean, Germany still can't invade Britain, and Axis logistics still suck in Africa.

Maybe it goes better for the UK, if they don't have the available forces to land in Greece and focus on alt-Compass instead.

Obviously, a failed evacuation isn't a better outcome. Just saying that butterflies can be odd.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

We are looking at 200,000 men tops assuming that none of the BEF gets away (which is some feat but whatever)

It would be a serious loss to the expanding British army but it would eventually number 3 million and in total including all armed forces and the rest of the Empire about 10 million men would be armed and equipped before the whole disgusting thing was over.

But yes it changes little - as mentioned the then British Government (or indeed anyone else outside of Adm Ramsey and his subordinates and I doubt they expected it to be as successful as it was) did not expect much of the BEF to be saved when the decision was made to keep fighting.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

I mean, Germany still can't invade Britain, and Axis logistics still suck in Africa.

Maybe it goes better for the UK, if they don't have the available forces to land in Greece and focus on alt-Compass instead.

Obviously, a failed evacuation isn't a better outcome. Just saying that butterflies can be odd.

I don't see how it would go better. The British troops at Operation Compass were the best of the British. What happens next is the British are forced to focus more on North Africa than other theaters. Singapore would fall even faster as the British 18th and Australian 8th divisions would be in North Africa. The Japanese 25th army would probably use it's full strength against the Americans or Chinese.

 

[Garrison]

I don't see how it would go better. The British troops at Operation Compass were the best of the British. What happens next is the British are forced to focus more on North Africa than other theaters. Singapore would fall even faster as the British 18th and Australian 8th divisions would be in North Africa. The Japanese 25th army would probably use it's full strength against the Americans or Chinese.

Yes, but focusing on North Africa without distractions like Greece is a plus. The loss of Singapore, well that was going to happen anyway so no net loss. And how is any Japanese Army going to be deployed against the Americans after the Philippines fall? Japanese logistics are even worse than the Germans.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

Yes, but focusing on North Africa without distractions like Greece is a plus. The loss of Singapore, well that was going to happen anyway so no net loss. And how is any Japanese Army going to be deployed against the Americans after the Philippines fall? Japanese logistics are even worse than the Germans.

Said divisions were redeployed OTL

 

[Garrison]

Said divisions were redeployed OTL

To where? Unless they are somehow going to deployed across the pacific how will they be deployed against the USA?

 

[Look More Closely Later]

WI: The UK fights on after a Dunkirk disaster?
The UK was planning to fight on before the Dunkirk evacuation of the original timeline, regardless of whether the evacuation was successful or not, but that was before Italy entered the war and the French surrender.
I think I might have commented previously in one of these threads that it seems to me that it's basically up to Jinnah, Nehru, and Gandhi if they want to bail London out on terms that the Indian Congress approves of, as to whether the UK, with a manpower crunch coming faster and harder than in the original timeline, can fight on after Vichy France signs an armistice.

Edit:
Other people's mileage will vary.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

To where? Unless they are somehow going to deployed across the pacific how will they be deployed against the USA?

5th IJA division was transferred to fight the Americans in the Philippines before being moved to the the New Guinea campaign where they were heavily involved in, before being moved to the Dutch East Indies

18th IJA division was transferred to the Philippines then to Guadalcanal, before being transferred to fight the British in Burma

 

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

How would Britain fare if they decide to continue the war against Germany if they lose almost the entire BEF at Dunkirk except a few thousand with all the men and equipment lost? This also includes prominent officers such as Montgomery, Brooke, and Auchinleck.

Considering there was a full mobilization after Germany invaded Poland

. . . pretty good IMO!

The only problem was the BEF leaving their equipment in France.

This was soon replaced with home built and Canadian & USA produced arms.

Ref: "Invasion 1940"

 

[wcv215]

5th IJA division was transferred to fight the Americans in the Philippines before being moved to the the New Guinea campaign where they were heavily involved in, before being moved to the Dutch East Indies

18th IJA division was transferred to the Philippines then to Guadalcanal, before being transferred to fight the British in Burma

That doesn’t address the question. Where are the Japanese going to deploy the full force of their strength against the Americans after the primary American forces in the region, that is to say the Philippines, fall?

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

That doesn’t address the question. Where are the Japanese going to deploy the full force of their strength against the Americans after the primary American forces in the region, that is to say the Philippines, fall?

New Guinea and Guadalcanal. Mind you, the Japanese 25th army ran out of ammunition at Singapore they had to STEAL ammunition from reserve divisions. Here, they would still be fully armed and loaded against the Americans at such a critical time

 

[Joriz Castillo]

Back to the topic, How would Yugoslavia and Greece fare? Would they still be invaded or just be nuetrals?

 

[Look More Closely Later]

Back to the topic, How would Yugoslavia and Greece fare? Would they still be invaded or just be nuetrals?

Yugoslavia went pro-Axis if I recall the history books correctly after the Bordeaux Armistice, once it was clear that Germany was the winning side to back. Then in 1941 after the British turned up in Greece there was a change of leadership in Yugoslavia and they switched sides, only to be invaded and crushed by the Germans.
If the British have signed a ceasefire with Germany after the fall of France, instead of signing Indian Congress' terms, Yugoslavia has no reason to shift from being pro-Axis.
You'd need to ask one of the Greek history experts what Greece would do if the UK is out.

 

[Dorknought]

The worlds largest empire loses an expeditionary force...so?
Norway blunted the KM and the Battle of Britain blunted the Luftwaffe. Any attempt to use the Heer against Britain will blunt that too, "Come at me bro!"

 

[ivanotter]

One of the bigger problems might be that the experienced higher officers will not be around. If Brooke, Monty, etc etc all end up 'in the bag', the UK efforts might be more feeble. The problem was already acknowledged by Brooke, claiming that too many subalterns had fallen in WWI and those were the ones that should be copmmanders in WWII.

 

[Grey Wolf]

The main problem is morale. It's all very well for the heads of government to bluster about fighting on but a quarter of a million families just lost loved ones to death or imprisonment, Churchill's reign looks to be an utter disaster (fall of Norway, fall of France, loss of the BEF). The Luftwaffe are bombing the Channel ports and installations, ramping up for the Battle of Britain which is hardly a foregone conclusion, France is going to surrender, other British forces will either be evacuated, have to surrender, or be lost in attempting to evacuate (a huge amount were lost on one liner alone when it was sunk leaving a French port).

Against all this the Germans are going to offer terms that won't seem stupid to people like Halifax and Lloyd George. It might feel very Treaty of Amiens, but it will be appealing to many to get peace NOW even if the war has to be resumed later.

 

[ivanotter]

Churchill said the right things at the right moment. Doubtful if any other leader could have done it - or been listened to.

It is probably all correct as it is said above, but one thing (I believe) all had in common was that invasion might have been a scare, but even so ... ("i am not saying they can't invade, but i said they can't come by sea - Said about Napoleon).

It is hard to see anyone wanting to suggest or accept terms. Halifax (despite all things said) would not have been the one either.

What I can see is a 'fizzle'. Nobody can get to grips with each other so it sort of just dies out. Especially if there is no US commitment. The lack of qualified commanders would be a big drawback for UK. Also the amount of manpower available. The loss of BEF would be severe. There would be no core to build a new army around.

And if it just fizzles, nobody is going to attack anyone some 3-4 years later. Trade would probably have started again.

But that might take it a bit too far - admittedly.

(And Hitler not being Hitler as well)

 

[The Byronic Hero]

The issue isn't manpower, it's appearances. Losing 200,000 soldiers in the Dunkirk debacle could make the UK appear weak drawing a lot of unwanted attention.

Argentina could press for the Malvinas while being a benevolent neutral to the Germans.

Iraq could press harder for British withdrawal while the Turks could move in to occupy northern Iraq in order to "protect" it.

The Japanese may step up their actions in Southeast Asia earlier because the UK is clearly weak and distracted.

Egypt may even see their opportunity to finally kick out the hated British.

India may even step up protests seeing an opportunity either for more concessions or outright independence.

Italy may even go for Malta earlier. Their pressing into Egypt against minimal opposition could encourage them to press further.

Hell, the colonies may refuse to send more of their soldiers not only questioning British leadership but also the need for their boys to protect their homefront.

The US may even decide to cut their losses as the British effort appears shaky. Lindbergh and Kennedy would be even more powerful voices against supporting the UK.

The inability to meet ALL of these threats at once only makes the UK appear weaker which further emboldens which leads to the UK appearing weaker. It's a self-perpetuating problem.

Churchill can say whatever he wants but after the failures of 39-40, telling people to hold on because it'll get better when all signs say otherwise isn't going to cut it. It's especially worse because Hitler is dangling the return of said POWs in exchange for an armistice and the PM is glibly abandoning them; the same man who sacrificed numerous lives at Gallipoli. Many would question what they're fighting for as another Sitzkrieg settles in.