1938 the glove is picked up....

1938 Hitlers ambitions know no bounds....unfortunately for him he is facing a far more confident UK that had managed its affairs more effectively with regard to Ireland, management of the Great Depression, the formation of the RAF, governence of India and coordination of the Empire. The result is that Hitlers gambit does not work, his bluff is called and his demands for the Sudetenland are spurned with great disdain by Chamberlain. Britain mobilises.

UK military- 5 regular divisions -all extensively mechanised using Universal Carriers (not the OTL Carrier but rather something similar to the Canadian Bobcat), 2 regular armoured divisions- again all mechanised, tanks due to the retention of the EMF are more developed along the lines of the Cromwell.

Post Boer War the Corps of Scouts had been established and still exists. The Corps provides company sized formations of highly motivated snipers, scouts and raiders.

During the Great War the RTC had been formed, now in 1938 it comprises 24 regular battalions (3 in Singapore, 3 in India, 3 in Burma, 6 in Egypt and Middle East, 9 in Britain) and 24 TA battalions (all Britain). The Machine Gun Corps also still exists with 5 bns in UK, 1 in Hong Kong, 1 in Singapore, 1 in Burma, 2 in India, 2 in Middle East, also with several squadrons and companies-again 24 TA battalions plus independent sqdns and companies.

All cavalry and Yeomanry regiments have been converted to either Armoured Car regiments, Armoured Recconaissance or to Tank role (31 regular regiments split as 3 armoured recce, 10 armoured car and 18 tank) (Yeomanry units also to artillery and signals roles as OTL)

1930s Britain established the Experimental Airborne Force and as a result has 4 Airborne Brigades (1 Egypt, 1 India, 2 in UK) each with 3 para battalions, a signals sqdn, engineers sqdn, RASC company, RAOC company, Field ambulance, RA A/T battery, RA light battery, RA AA battery, RA Observer Unit, Scout Corps company, MGC company (Vickers MMG's, and heavy mortars) RTC squadron with light tanks (think Alecto vehicles)
The army also has been involved in the development of mountain warfare operations and possesses a single mountain brigade similarly organised to the Airborne Brigades.

12 TA Divisions (1st line) and 12 second line TA divisions, 5 TA armoured brigades.

Other changes- There is now proper coordination and command of artillery taking into account all the lessons learnt in WW1 along with the development and over 10 years operation of armoured divisions. The 25 pounder is in full service complete with a self propelled version. The 5.5" howitzer is also in full service as is the 7.2" Heavy. A 9.2" Super Heavy is also in use. Again fully mechanised variants are either in service or in development.
Anti aircraft artillery is split between indidual units at local level (20mm Oerlirkons), and area (RA and RAF AAAC with Bofors 40mm, 3.7" and 5.25" heavies). RAF AA Command has been in existence since 1932.
Anti Tank artillery- The 6 pounder is the standard anti tank gun-again due to the retention and practical experience of operating an armoured division force. Boys anti tank rifle still exisits.

Small arms- 38 Webley is being slowly replaced by the 9mm self loading Browning Ingliss. the FEN (for Fn ENfield) self loading rifle is slowly entering service with a 10 round magazine although the 30 round magazine of the also recently introduced Bren can also be used (the FEN is the original FN SLR rifle first developed in 1935 and shown to the UK in 1936 that a lot later on led to the famous FN L1A1 SLR). The UK is also using its own 9mm SMG following the needs of the Experimental Airborne Force. The old bolt action Lee Enfield is retained for snipers and reserve use.
Others- 2" mortar, No36 and No69 grenades, No85 WP, No75. British army is wearing more appropriate clothing and new webbing (the 37 pattern looks more like the 44 pattern, the helmet is the No3 rather than the Brodie except for airborne, mountain and raiding forces who have a cropped down lid akin to the OTL Airborne forces Mk2 pattern, armoured forces have a similiar lid but with basic strap, armoured forces also have the pixie suit-remember the Brits are now expert in armoured warfare even down to whats best for crew comfort)

RAF- the RAF was still formed in 1918 BUT despite protestations from some the RN decided to retain control of all maritime air operations thus the RNAS still exists alongside the RAF. The RAF therefore carries out strategic air operations, tactical support to the army and air defence of the UK and territories. There is greater consideration towards higher calibre cannon on fighters (ie Hurricanes with 20mm...), plus due to the formation of the Experimental Airborne Force there is also something akin to the OTL Hastings, Beverley and Valetta flying in this TL. (Beverley design based on the OTL Hamilcar glider, Valetta on the OTL Wellington). The RAF has also gained the ground air defence role from the RA forming the RAF Anti Aircraft Artillery Corps. The RAF has also formed a small infantry/armoured car force for airfield defence-the RAF Regiment although this regiment has also gained the role of field engineering enabling the RAF to repair damaged airfields and also build defences.

RN- The RN as a result of retaining a major element of air operations is more carrier tolerant (see other threads on how this could play out) and also very proactive with coastal MPA. Probably more development of airships and long range amphibious aircraft. The RM have formed Fleet Operations Brigades to provide amphibious infantry raiders, small boat crews and engineering support (port damage repair etc) to the fleet. The RCN, RAN, RIN (etc) have also received their own contingents of RM as RM(C), RM(A), etc.

In terms of Imperial Defence Canada, Australia, NZ and SA raise regular forces in similar numbers to present day rather than the small regular cadres as OTL with backing of far larger militias. Each is responsible for supplying a third of that force for Imperial Service (OK so maybe this requires another POD in the 1870s to be effective...). India orbat is pretty as OTL except with some alterations to individual equipment as for British forces.

The game is afoot.....how will this revitalised and boosted Britain fare? Will there be an Army putsch againt Uncle Adolf? Will there be a confrontation against Uncle Joe to support the plucky Finns? Will Mussolini dare to face the Lion? What does the present UK in this world look like?
 
Last edited:
The Brits didn't really need to be better prepared. All they had to do was not get a realistic version of Germany's military strength, instead of one based in fantasy.
 
Finance

I do like this , I realy do. A few questions though.If the allies won WW1 as in our time line what has happened to the finacial and social turmoil that also happened as a result ? [and helped Hitler to power!]
I'm assuming Eire remains in the commonwealth and India assumes some sort of self government
Also there appears to be much more military involvement in the Empire, which means more political/ financial ties within and between the parts of it [not just everyone looking to Whitehall for leadership]
So possibly the dreams of imperial federation are revived?
All this military hardware is going to take a LOT of effort so there will be no policy in the U.K of 'No war in the next ten years' from the early twenties on, therefore a policy of 'never again' turns into 'never again because we will be far to big to mess with'?
This also means a different policy with regards to Japan and the USA
Plus side is that all this manufacturing means more jobs/economic activity not only in the north of the UK but everwhere so no Jarrow march and no wobblies in the USA
Military strengh such as you have described does not appear in isolation there will be changes everwhere before they can happen.
That said I love the idea of putting Adolf on trial in say 1943/44?
Have fun with your idea
 
All this extra stuff is superfluous, like Red said, the British just needed to realize that no matter how unprepared they were, the Germans were even worse.

Someone would need to cover France (mobilization would almost assuredly have imploded the French economy) but both could probaly do it if they negotiated a deal with the USA (likely involves Pacific concessions from France and bases elsewhere from Britain) to cover them financially.
 
The British actually wouldn't even really need to fight. In '38 a group of Wehrmacht generals was ready to attempt a coup against Hitler if he'd started a war over Czechoslovakia/the Sudetenland, and even contacted the allies (Britain/France) with this proposal. All the British (and French) had to do would be to take the Wehrmacht officers up on their offer, and block Hitler's demands.
At worst, the coup fails, Hitler is short a few officers, and might even pull a Stalin on his military leadership in a fit of paranoia.
At best, either the Nazis are replaced by a more sensible military junta the British can reason and negotiate with, or Germany descends into civil unrest, or even war, as the various fractions struggle for control.

- Kelenas
 
The best thing France can do is begin mobilization in August so that once war starts it may be in a position to launch an offensive in the Saar. Quite the stretch really but it's better than nothing.
 
impossible?

All this extra stuff is superfluous, like Red said, the British just needed to realize that no matter how unprepared they were, the Germans were even worse.

I agree Totaly. In 1938 the Nazi armed forces were ''all mouth and no trousers'' as my grandmother used to say and it is true that there was much unease in Germany not only in the military about Hitlers policy direction -in our timeline
However KILLER T'S time line seems to presuppose an alternate time line when these facts were not facts at all.
I would be very happy to see a time line from killer T that shows how these events occur and then we can criticise/ help as from that point on
 
why assume that the main focus would then be that of the reaction of Germany? My aim is a scenario where Britain has stood up to Germany-Adolfs bluff is called, the Heer 'remove' the stubborn corporal and return the Reich to a state of relative normality....however.....Stalin is still aquisitive towards Finland-no change there at all. Now however we have a Britain that can and is capable of doing something significant to help Finland (obviously along with plenty allies- a de nazified Germany, France, Poland)...an alternate WW2?
 
The case for the supposed coup is far weaker than some imagine and smells strongly of a certain German tendency to blame anyone and everyone for their own failings...such as having practically every military force other than the Hitler Youth prepared for something that then never happened.

As to whether Stalin has any interest in Finland without having Hitler as his partner in crime...
 
Stalin was always cautious in not provoking foes too much. He wanted deals made with other major powers to legitimize his ambitions and give him cover in case other great powers objected. Stalin is unlikely to move against any European country alone. He needs something like the M-R Pact or the wartime alliance with the US/UK.

In this scenario, he may still start negotiations with Finland on border changes, but he won't invade if the Finns back away from a deal.

Seeing that the West is serious on defense issues and exercising its power, Stalin will likely keep Litvinov as Foreign Minister and try to reach an accomodation with Britain and France as fellow "anti-fascist" powers. The USSR will continue to cooperate in the League of Nations. By buddying up to France and Britain, Stalin may hope to make some deal with them in disputes he'll have with lesser powers. I don't see France or Britain agreeing to anything in Europe or the Middle East, but they might be prone to cooperate with Stalin in any disputes with Japan, including past Russian claims in Manchuria.

With the Nazi threat over, I suspect Stalin might be willing to escalate matters in Asia with Japan. The Allies don't want war with Japan, but would probably help in any diplomatic pressure against Japan that might cause them to make peace in China. Japan - not being stupid - is going to come to terms provided the Soviets aren't too greedy, and perhaps with mediation from Britain and France that will keep Stalin moderate in any claims. It may take several more years before Japan comes to term with China, but with no war in Europe, Britain and France will increase their support to the nationalists (not too much) so that Japan will eventually agree on some kind of peace.

There may be no major war until the 1950s.
 
why assume that the main focus would then be that of the reaction of Germany? My aim is a scenario where Britain has stood up to Germany-Adolfs bluff is called, the Heer 'remove' the stubborn corporal and return the Reich to a state of relative normality....however.....Stalin is still aquisitive towards Finland-no change there at all. Now however we have a Britain that can and is capable of doing something significant to help Finland (obviously along with plenty allies- a de nazified Germany, France, Poland)...an alternate WW2?

Stalin probably wouldn't risk Finland if it was clear that the Allies were going to fight him over it, he knew a confrontation with the West was neither desirable, nor winnable in the long-term.

However if he takes a military coup against Hitler as a sign of German weakness and jumps Finland anyway, I can't say I would see the British intervening, it would probably just force the Soviets further towards the new German regime, I see no reason why the Heer would not in the end see reason and keep up the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it keeps them both from coming into conflict, and best of all lets the Germans take what they want to take while allowing the Soviets to do the same.
 
. The Allies don't want war with Japan, but would probably help in any diplomatic pressure against Japan that might cause them to make peace in China. Japan - not being stupid - is going to come to terms provided the Soviets aren't too greedy, and perhaps with mediation from Britain and France that will keep Stalin moderate in any claims.

What TL are you from? In this one Japan was stupid enough to launch a suicidal war against the US that its own analysts said was far more wealthy than they were.
 
de nazifyed Germany

obviously along with plenty allies- a de nazified Germany, France, Poland)...an alternate WW2?
Interesting So Adolf dies in a hail of luger bullets- fine never liked the bast@rd anyway But how does this de nazify germany? killing Hitler does not turn back the clock back to the Weimar republic .There is little in the way of democratic orginisations left in the country.It will take time to turn germany away from an expansionist posture and until then Poland will surely fear that this coup is a mere delay ,not the time to join in military adventurism I think
Presumably you have some other motivation in mind:confused:
 
Poland

Denazifying versus toning down the worst excesses of Hitler and co. are two very different issues
Thats true I was thinking more of post 1945 de nazification IOTL , but the term is not mine it belongs to Killer T, the originator of this time line.
So does my question still stand?
 
The thing with the Nazis was at least in their early days they knew how to make and break their alliances. Oddly enough at one point the Nazis were quite close to Poland of all places to the point of backing the Poles in their disputes with the government of Lithuania.

The problem with relations between any German regime, Nazi, fascist, militarist, or even communist with the Polish governmentis the Polish corridor along with the Upper Silesia dispute. The problem with a new German regime is that it will need some way to legitimize itself as Hitler's successor, antisemitism will largely remain in place (a bunch of conservative old generals aren't going to hold progressive views on the Jewish question), though the most extreme Nazis will either be sidelined or in the worst cases arrested. One of the easiest ways to do this is to find alternatives to militaristic expansion, but in the same way to satisfy German revanchist claims against territory now under Polish rule.

The new regime will probably be pro-Allied, not in the sense of any serious solidarity, but out of the realization that nobody will trust Germany after Hitler's mad, but failed attempt to seize Czech territories by force. More likely than not, the Allies will try to make sure the Germans are pointed towards the Soviet Union rather than towards Britain, France, or Czechoslovakia.
 
new germany

More likely than not, the Allies will try to make sure the Germans are pointed towards the Soviet Union rather than towards Britain, France, or Czechoslovakia
yes this makes better sense [sorry killer t] Not so much a 'Nazi light', but nazism with a camoflague net over it.
Fallout from this sceanario is
1/ Its going to make Stalins paranoia much worse
2/ its going to scare the crap out of Poland like you said the gohts of Versailles havnt been laid
3/ THIS WILL LEAD TO WW2
Best possible outcome so far as UK and France are concerned is that Germany and USSR fight it out and neutralise each other
Any other outcome i.e a German OR a USSR victory does not bear thinking about.
 
USSR victory is basically going to look like OTL with more Soviet satellite states.

German victory without Hitler probably means the loss of Czechoslovakia, parts of Poland claimed by Germany and a German Alsace-Lorraine, without Hitler it's not pleasant but it's not horrific and nightmarish either.
 
german victory

German victory without Hitler probably means the loss of Czechoslovakia, parts of Poland claimed by Germany and a German Alsace-Lorraine, without Hitler it's not pleasant but it's not horrific and nightmarish either

It is a nightmare.If Germany keeps these areas ,after a few years of replacing losses[made much easier because of a greater economic base] Then they keep on marching from about 1950 on ,this time with nuclear weapons and jet bombers:eek:
Or possibly we get cold war version 2?
 
German victory without Hitler probably means the loss of Czechoslovakia, parts of Poland claimed by Germany and a German Alsace-Lorraine, without Hitler it's not pleasant but it's not horrific and nightmarish either

It is a nightmare.If Germany keeps these areas ,after a few years of replacing losses[made much easier because of a greater economic base] Then they keep on marching from about 1950 on ,this time with nuclear weapons and jet bombers:eek:
Or possibly we get cold war version 2?

Not really, the Czechs give them gold and industry (huge amounts thereof), and the Polish land satisfies their territorial claims, but you seem to be assuming that they are operating in a vacuum in which neither the Soviet Union nor the Western Allies notice that Germany is expanding and plan accordingly. Germany will probably lose a war against the Western Allies, Germany will probably lose a war against the Soviet Union, which has the industry and manpower to crush them completely if they get a chance to build up, which with German expansionism threatening to bring the Wehrmacht to the Soviet doorstep, they most certainly will do.

Germany will absolutely, unequivocally lose a war against the Western Allies along with a more powerful Soviet Union, they won't make it to the 1950's without an alliance with one or both of them, much more likely to be the Soviet Union, once Poland gets knocked out the W. Allies aren't going to tolerate the Germans, who at that point have more in common with an international pariah state like the USSR than anyone else.

Basically it is probably the Soviets that have the most to gain from all of this, without Hitler Germany won't jump the USSR, and without Barbarossa to throw a weakened Red Army into the grinder, Timoshenko gets to make his Red Army reforms, industry will be expanded further, and generally the Germans are a big nation duking it out with a titan, Germany is a major power, but the USSR is a superpower.
 
Top