AH Challenge: A Divided WWII

Bumping a dead thread ... but I'm not sure where else to put this. In any case, I'm interested in turning this into a full-fledged timeline. Nevertheless, it would be the first proper one I have done and I'm hesitant to start it because of that. I want it to be done right. Does anyone know of any sources out there that could be of help, or even some willing souls to collaborate on it with me?

Sources are very intriguing and it is often better to go against the common myths than to rely on them.

I'm reading Goebbels' Diary at the moment, and whilst it was obviously edited and abridged by the Allies, I can more or less assume that what is published as what he says is his own words, just not always all of them. Its very interesting in what was taking his attention, just in March 1942 - the alleged Moelders Letter, Field Marshal Mackensen's involvement in it, the Indian Nationalist Bose, loose talk about the 'Yellow Peril' inveigling against Germany's Japanese allies, a British bombing raid on Renault factories in Paris which killed several hundred Frenchmen and which Goebbels hoped to use as a propaganda coup, and his hatred of the apparently eternal Winter which started early and ended late and was screwing up all their plans.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Bumping a dead thread ... but I'm not sure where else to put this. In any case, I'm interested in turning this into a full-fledged timeline. Nevertheless, it would be the first proper one I have done and I'm hesitant to start it because of that. I want it to be done right. Does anyone know of any sources out there that could be of help, or even some willing souls to collaborate on it with me?

In terms of a timeline, what do we have so far ?

The idea of...

Halifax PM instead of Churchill
Britain hangs on but less charismatically
No Lend-Lease
The US doesn't clamp down on doing business with the Axis in Autumn 1941
(due to IBM-related pressure on the State Dept, which comes at a time with less fraught relations with Germany since the understanding with Britain is not nearly so developed)
Britain fights on in the W Desert, but probably has to adopt defensive positions within Egypt as it doesn't get the US-made tanks that helped it in OTL
Britain also tries to help the USSR, but the convoys to Murmansk are much smaller than OTL since Britain isn't getting stuff from the USA, and has far less to spare
The RAF and the Luftwaffe remain basically on a par, able to bomb each other and able to interdict each other equally

Pearl Harbour and Japanese sweep through E Asia changes things
The US and Britain are now co-belligerents
US loosens restrictions on credit and arms to Britain, allowing them from 1942 onwards to begin to build up reserves and refit their forces with US-made aircraft, tanks etc
This probably comes at a good time for the desert campaign, perhaps saving Egypt from a thrust on Cairo

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
(This is NOT supposed to be a full time line. I'm merely attempting to gather everything together that has been said on this thread into a more discernible format to make it easier for people to comment on and criticize. And sorry, Grey Wolf--I was working on this and I didn't see your posts until this posted.)

OK, so it's 1941 and the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor. We have the "this day will leave in infamy" speech from FDR, but things have diverged in Europe from OTL. IBM has had a better time lobbying for cooperation, and there is less of an idea in the US of Germany being dangerous to its own safety. Furthermore, Lord Halifax accepted the offer of PMship when offered; while Winston Churchill remains a trusted member of Halifax's cabinet, FDR and his advisers aren't convinced that Britain is in the fight for the long term.

Simply put, America goes to war against Japan but there are no hostilities between Germany and the United States. Japan, for the moment, continues on its OTL path and attacks both British, French, Dutch, and American holdings in the Pacific. This leads to an interesting situation for the governments of Britain and the US, as they consider each other allies only in the Pacific front. British forces in the Pacific, however, have been tasked with defending India, Southeast Asia, and Australia as their main goals, and thus there is not a massive amount of cooperation between the two powers. There are some newspaper articles in the US reporting that FDR would like to have a casus belli against Nazi Germany, but public support remains against a war with the Nazis.

Britain, lacking a strong American ally in Europe, begins to dig deeper into the pockets of its Empire. In return for men and material, GB begins to parcel out dominion status to its holdings across the world. Such nations as Kenya, India, and Nigeria all agree to the plan. In India, however, there is a great deal of controversy over the issue, with many leading Indian politicians advocating full independence instead of mere dominion status. Despite their differing ideologies, both Mahatma Ghandi and Subhash Bose resign from the Indian National Congress. (OOC: How feasible is it for Bose to play a bigger role against the UK in this TL, perhaps leading a larger, more successful Indian National Army that is involved in guerrilla actions inside India?)

In Europe, GB finds itself unable to launch a full-scale invasion of continental Europe by its lonesome, despite an influx of Imperial soldiers and foodstuffs. British politicians decide to concentrate on the North African front, with the long-term goal of keeping the Suez viable. (OOC: How tenuous would the coalition government be in this TL? If British troops suffer too many defeats, would the government begin to fracture?) The Germans also begin to see the North African front as one of the most important fields of war--the Nazi leadership recognizes that without the Suez Canal, GB would be hard put to continue its war. (OOC: Without American tanks, does Britain stand a chance on the North African front? Could we see Hitler opening up a front in the Middle East?) The British do manage to launch a series of Dieppe-style raids on mainland Europe; the first few are dismal failures, but as the British Army learns from its mistakes the raids become more and more successful.

On the Eastern Front, the war looks dim for the Soviet Union. Stalin is determined to fight on and Russian forces have been able to inflict some minor defeats on the German army, but the vast Russian steppes give the Germans space to recoup and reorganize. The Germans have been able to capture and hold Rostov, and are at the gates of Moscow as winter sets in. (OOC: Would the Soviets be able to pull off a Winter Offensive without American Lend-Lease?) Leningrad's situation seems bleak at best, although Stalin remains adamant that the city not fall. GB remains supportive of its Russian ally, but back channels in Parliament are skeptical of Russia remaining in the war. (OOC: Where would the most feasible location for Cripps in this TL? Furthermore, how cranky would Stalin get with the British over opening a second front?)

[So there you have it. Sound good? Any comments/criticism? I'm really interested in this as a viable TL and I'm thinking about keeping this thread open as long as possible. With GB and SU on the ropes and America concentrating on Japan and Japan only, where do we see this TL going? I can see an earlier, quicker defeat of Japan without the use of atomic weapons--is it too optimistic that Japan would surrender without an invasion? Would the Americans accept a conditional surrender of the Japanese Empire? I'm also interested in Britain and the United States becoming closer and closer as time goes on, with American public support of joining the European war rising slowly.]
 
(OOC: Would the Soviets be able to pull off a Winter Offensive without American Lend-Lease?)
Lend-lease started to arrive in substantial amounts much later (around mid-1942 to early 1943). Although argument can be made that Stalin was burning through his resources IOTL knowing that Americans will replenish his stockpiles.
 
Stalin will defiantly have to play it safer with there being no option of second front in Europe opening up anytime soon. And he will have to conserve resources too.
 
As to how the Allies would do: Without the generous American credits they were given, Britain will soon be more or less out of it. The Soviets, I imagine, would probably still win in the end, but it'd be a bloodier and more drawn-out affair.

Stalin is fucked as Hitler can throw an additional four million men into the fight, not only that:

Hundreds of thousands of lendlease trucks means much of Stalin's Artillery park can not be moved where it needs to be quickly, not to mention supplies, his secret Biological warfare teams, men, etc.

Food that would keep his army fed is not available and many will die or be incapacitated of starvation and malnutrition.

Lack of new planes, aluminum to make new planes, and AVGas that the Soviets can not refine themselves, means that the Red Airforce will not be able to play as much with the Luftwaffe.

Lack of reliable phone lines means many Soviet Attacks will fall apart due to Soviet Commanders inability to coordinate their units.

Dale Cozort has written a good scenario regarding the full consequences. I suggest you read it.
 
I was wondering whether the British could manage to go for Morocco/Algiers ? Its a stretch as they're being pushed back in Egypt, but one could imagine some bright spark seeing the openng of a second African front as a way to relieve the pressure, and to get some good news. If they go in together with de Gaulle, then it could be portrayed as Free France reclaiming the territories perhaps ?

It would force the Germans to divert forces to the theatre, either relieving the attack on Egypt or helping the Soviets to some degree (perhaps serving as the promise that keeps them from throwing in the towel ?). The Royal Navy certainly has the strength to power-project and the initial Axis response would be down to some u-boats and whatever part of the Italian Navy felt like engaging (which is probably none of it, but who knows ?). This could, in fact, as a prod to complete the Italian carriers and give them the ability to fight back in the Western Med if the British succeed in reaching Algiers

If this comes after a British-US agreement on credit/armaments (due to co-belligerent status in the Far East) then Britain needs perhaps only to find the manpower, and that could come increasingly from the dominions - especially since without the prospect of US forces in Europe, there is no point building up an invasion force within the British Isles

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
OK, Britain had its own contingency plan for an invasion of NW Africa, Gymnast (and the original for OTL Torch was called Super-Gymnast nidicating the original Gymnast would've been British-led not US)

The questions are :-


-1- Would Halifax as PM prevent Mers-el-Kebir or was it either inevitable anyway or going to happen because Churchill is First Lord of the Admiralty ?

-2- What if it doesn't happen ?

-3- If it does happen, then what is Britain's greeting going to be when they invade Vichy NW Africa ? Would it be made better or worse by having de Gaulle along ?

-4- If it does not happen (Mers) then is Britain's greeting better, or does the Vichy fleet prevent the landings ?

Or ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
In Europe, GB finds itself unable to launch a full-scale invasion of continental Europe by its lonesome, despite an influx of Imperial soldiers and foodstuffs. British politicians decide to concentrate on the North African front, with the long-term goal of keeping the Suez viable. (OOC: How tenuous would the coalition government be in this TL? If British troops suffer too many defeats, would the government begin to fracture?) The Germans also begin to see the North African front as one of the most important fields of war--the Nazi leadership recognizes that without the Suez Canal, GB would be hard put to continue its war. (OOC: Without American tanks, does Britain stand a chance on the North African front? Could we see Hitler opening up a front in the Middle East?) The British do manage to launch a series of Dieppe-style raids on mainland Europe; the first few are dismal failures, but as the British Army learns from its mistakes the raids become more and more successful.
Canada had its own version of the Grant/Sherman that never saw action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_tank
The fist version had the same 2 pdr popgun that some of the British tanks had, but the second had the 57mm 6pdr which was quite effective (being a higher velocity gun than the US 75)

Certainly Canada wouldn't have had the production capacity of the US, but we did have a Sherman equivalent before the US did! (remember the Grants had their gun in a sponson not in a turrent)
 
Easy. Have the Canadians arrive a month earlier and assemble behind Luxemburg. When the Germans attack through the Ardennes, the Canadians bottle up the four German armored divisions on those winding little roads in the hills. No loss of France, the US doesn't get into the war because the Allies don't need them.
 
Tony Williams in 'The Foresight War' has no Mers-el-Kebir and the Vichy French fleet stay out of German hands, as well as not oppose the Allied landings. I've asked him a couple of questions by PM, if he has the time available to answer. If not, I'll pop them somewhere as a separate post

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
OK, my attempt to forge something out of the above, with thanks to Tony Williams and to Dathi THorfinnsson for the tank

- - -

Halifax refuses to give permission for Mers-el-Kebir to be attacked, so the French Med fleet remains intact, though largely based in N Africa. The seizures of ships in English ports and at Alexandria look like they logically HAVE to go ahead to avoid intra-ship conflict and chaos. The ships though are handed over to French crews of the Fighting French as much as possible, afterwards tho (as per OTL I think)

OK, fighting on their own as OTL in 1941, is Britain still going to get involved in Greece ? With Halifax as PM instead of Churchill the answer looks more like "No" - however, Churchill is presumably still First Lord of the Admiralty, so its possible that Halifax compromises and sends SOMETHING to Metaxas's aid, just not as much as per OTL. Maybe he focuses on sending them air support or something, perhaps with a naval element...

N Africa doesn't collapse as badly as in OTL, but without the influx of US-provided goodies, the Germans steadily gain the advantage. Canadian-produced Ram tanks, and Canadian forces steadily reinforce Egypt as Rommel gears up for a big push in mid 1942

Britain and the USA are now co-belligerents in the Far East, but the lack of Lend-Lease, and the USA not having imposed so severe trading sanctions on US companies with Axis satellites, means that Hitler is not of the mind that the USA will enter the war inevitably, and is willing to sit back and see what happens - to angry Japanese protests, he points out that Japan abandoned its Anti-Comintern Pact obligations when it did not attack the USSR at the start of Barbarossa

El Alamein is more of a draw in this TL - for a start, Montgomery probably isn't yet in command of the Allied forces (since without the Greek debacle his predecessor has put on a better show). Axis forces look like they will remain entrenched on the Egyptian border, at least

Britain therefore chooses to open a Second Front, activating Operation Gymnast in N Africa. Without the bad blood of Mers-el-Kebir things are different from OTL. On the one hand, de Gaulle has been more political than military in his campaigns against the W African Vichy colonies, and his association with Britain is not viewed as being in league with the Devil. Thus, his involvement in Gymnast, along with Canadians of both linguistic heritages, and an influx of Canadian-built equipment, results in the initial landings being successful

The Germans react as per OTL sending von Arnim to Tunis with an army. Here, though, the other flank of the Axis forces is more firmly anchored on the Egyptian border and not retreating quickly West as per OTL. There are thus TWO N African campaigns that look likely to remain separate for the foreseeable future


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I really have a problem with Japan attacking both the US and the UK in Asia, and America not getting involved with lend lease to the UK (and thereby indirectly supplying the USSR) in Europe.
Not saying it's ASB, but I'd have to see a fricking HUGE butterfly wandering through the history books.
 
I really don't see the war continuing with Halifax as PM, i think one of the reasons he supposedly rejected the offer was because he didn't want to be the man in charge of a britain that was forced to surrender to germany


The only reason Halifax turned down the office of the PM was he felt he didn't have the military experience to be a wartime PM. Given he had a wooden left hand, he was exempt from front-line service in WW1, and though he did serve in some sort of cavalry unit, he was kept behind the lines in Belgium, supporting one of the big field hospitals, IIRC.

He quite honestly felt that Churchill would do the better job running the war, and he'd remain involved in London in the War Cabinet, and after the war he'd be an excellent position to become PM. He didn't bank on Winston sending him off to DC. Oops.
 
I really have a problem with Japan attacking both the US and the UK in Asia, and America not getting involved with lend lease to the UK (and thereby indirectly supplying the USSR) in Europe.
Not saying it's ASB, but I'd have to see a fricking HUGE butterfly wandering through the history books.

Well, could there be a Pacific-specific way of working Lend-Lease ?

Also, I was wondering whether we NEED to have Halifax feel that he has to intervene in Greece in order to prove his credentials, otherwise we could end up with the Axis chased out of N Africa before we get a proper Rommellian intervention ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Overemphasize the role of the US in WWII? :eek:

Wow. Alrighty then.

I'm not sure what the motivation for not fighting in Europe would be. The Germans were always considered the greater threat. Once Japan attacks in Asia, the US is allied with Britain - it would be impossible to maintain neutrality in Europe but be allies in Asia. How would that work? "You can have all this money and equipment, but you have to promise not to use any in Europe".

I just don't see it.

What is the most plausible way for the Second World War to be a divided fight? To be more descriptive, here is what I have in mind: the European front of the war proceeds as it did in OTL for the most part, minus any overt aggression by the US or the Axis in the North Atlantic. When the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor, the US goes to war against Japan but does not war with the other Axis powers.

I'm sure I'll get a few call-outs on here in regards to this being ASB, but I think the idea holds promise. People, especially in the States, tend to overemphasize the role of the USA in WWII; how would the European powers fare against the Axis by themselves? I think it's safe to assume that the US would defeat the Japanese ITTL as well, so how would the world look with a Pacific Ocean that is, at least during the 1940s, dominated by the USA? Finally, how would this affect post-WWII politics, especially if the USSR ends up in relatively the same position (or moreso) in Europe that they did OTL?
 
I could see Japan fighting a war with America only, not attacking the Dutch and French and British.
They still lose. In 1945 we have to decide if we want to sell the Brits a nuke or ten. Without our spending almost half of our troops, munitions, and supplies in Europe, the war with Japan just isn't going to take up that much of our industrial capability. The bottleneck is building up our navy. Until we have built that up we can't really do anything else.
Britain is going to get more supplies, the Manhattan Project is going to get more supplies, the Russians are going to get more supplies indirectly from us if we are doing LendLease with Britain, so it's bad news for Germany.
More Germans survive the war unless we decide to let the Brits nuke a dozen German cities.
 
I could see Japan fighting a war with America only, not attacking the Dutch and French and British.
They still lose. In 1945 we have to decide if we want to sell the Brits a nuke or ten. Without our spending almost half of our troops, munitions, and supplies in Europe, the war with Japan just isn't going to take up that much of our industrial capability. The bottleneck is building up our navy. Until we have built that up we can't really do anything else.
Britain is going to get more supplies, the Manhattan Project is going to get more supplies, the Russians are going to get more supplies indirectly from us if we are doing LendLease with Britain, so it's bad news for Germany.
More Germans survive the war unless we decide to let the Brits nuke a dozen German cities.

I can't see the USA selling the British any nukes ! They refused to even share the technology back to them in OTL, despite the British elements involved, hence Britain having to develop its own programme.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I could see Japan fighting a war with America only, not attacking the Dutch and French and British.
Japan needed those colonies (read: oil and other resources) much more than anything America owned outside of New World and they never had any plans to carve themselves nice piece of Pacific Coast. Their war with America was a desperate attempt to secure Pacific colonies changing hands.
 
Top