Britain makes peace after Dunkirk impact on Barbarossa

Yet in 1941 phase in efforts for the He177, Ju288, and Me210 were made and then cancelled due to the technical failures of those aircraft. I haven't seen any thing in the history of those aircraft that they were cancelled or stopped development in 1940; I think Goering/Udet may have cancelled long term research projects in general, but probably exempted new aircraft models due in 1941-42 as it seems development work on them continued uninterrupted in 1940-42, as they were all supposed to be ready in 1941-42.

Becker does quote Udet from a statement after the western campaign: " The war is over! To hell with all our aircraft projects-theyll no longer be needed." & Bekker refers specifically to a February 1940 from Goering concerning conservation of materials for aircraft production. This included cancellation of long term projects. Note that Bekker does not say the R & D of the current new models was canceled, but that production contracts were. ie: How in early 1940 Heinkel was contracted to produce 120 He177 from the summer of 1940, but the contract was soon suspended.

What I am seeing here are multiple tensions limiting resources & a management B or C team making some bad decisions along the way. Udets management skills and Goering increasing inability to cope with tough decisions seem to be at work here.
 

Deleted member 1487

Becker does quote Udet from a statement after the western campaign: " The war is over! To hell with all our aircraft projects-theyll no longer be needed." & Bekker refers specifically to a February 1940 from Goering concerning conservation of materials for aircraft production. This included cancellation of long term projects. Note that Bekker does not say the R & D of the current new models was canceled, but that production contracts were. ie: How in early 1940 Heinkel was contracted to produce 120 He177 from the summer of 1940, but the contract was soon suspended.

What I am seeing here are multiple tensions limiting resources & a management B or C team making some bad decisions along the way. Udets management skills and Goering increasing inability to cope with tough decisions seem to be at work here.
I can double check in the history of the HE177 I have, but it was nowhere near production ready in 1940, so it is surprising that there was any production orders to cancel. At that point the V2 prototype was starting testing and quickly lost in a dive test and at a minimum at least a year was expected before any production could be started, especially given the early engine fires. But perhaps Udet ordered them long before they entered testing like he did with the Me210 (he ordered 1000 before the prototype was even first flown), which led to the mess in 1941 when it turned out to be a dud. Udet might have said something crazy like you're quoting, but likely it had very little practical impact in 1940 on actual production.

Without a doubt Udet was a massive drag on production as evidenced by the large increases Milch achieved upon his replacement of Udet. Goering's decisions don't seem to have been the cause of Luftwaffe production failures (other than having promoted Udet) as he delegated actual management and mostly focused on big picture issues like deciding to prioritize payments to the USSR to ensure raw material flow.

In terms of how this would impact production given the OP it is tougher to say as we don't really know how German leadership would source or pay for raw materials without the war with Britain and blockade of Europe, especially as they'd have to make final peace deals with occupied Europe and that means a limit on the looting they got away with IOTL of those countries under the cover of the continuing war and the crazy armistice terms. How much priority does Germany put on exports to pay for imports and how much is saved by no war in Europe from mid-1940 to mid-1941? How much would they have to produce for civilians given that it would have been a return to peace time? How much would they get in reparation payments from the defeated European nations in the final deals once they have access to their gold stocks in US banks and their empires again? There are tons of butterflies and questions unanswered by OP that would be necessary to give an educated guess. One thing is probably certain, Stalin would be a lot more paranoid about a German build up in the East if Britain was out of the war especially without a Balkan invasion (unlikely in Greece due to the Brits not being in the war to land troops in Crete, and probably unlikely in Yugoslavia due to Britain being out of the war and less credible if they try to foster an army revolt against the Regent).
 

elkarlo

Banned
I'd favor a lot of smaller company-regiment size operations to assist the motorized forces in seizing specific operational objectives: bridges, railway junctions, fortresses, HQ, airfields, ports. If one insists on a focused operation, then I'd use them in combination with amphibious operations to seize Estonian ports. Thus when the lead elements of Army Group North arrive in August a sea route, ports, airbases, and a forward supply dump are in place to assist in the capture of Leningrad
I'm sure. So many bridges as well as choke points that could have been seized. This has had me curious for years.
 
So, you have Britain making peace in the summer of 1940 - before the BoB, perhaps pays an indemnity for damage caused to Germany. Therefore the blockade of Germany is ended, US industrialists arrive in Berlin to do 'deals' (however much FDR disagrees with them). And Goering announces the sad news of Udet's death after a flight back from a German Military Mission to Britain - inspecting RAF facilities.
Milch is tasked with reducing the proliferation of projects, and while doing so - is amazed at all the waste he encounters!!

The demand for Soviet supplies is reduced, but not their demand for increasing 'spheres of influence. Any 'peace dividend' is quickly reversed.
 
.... Therefore the blockade of Germany is ended, US industrialists arrive in Berlin to do 'deals' ...

And are disappointed in the limits on the ability to receive cash payments. The Germans want more credit, complex barter deals, and payments with currency from reparations and conquored nations, or gold bullion of disputed ownership.
 
So, you have Britain making peace in the summer of 1940 - before the BoB, perhaps pays an indemnity for damage caused to Germany. Therefore the blockade of Germany is ended, US industrialists arrive in Berlin to do 'deals' (however much FDR disagrees with them).

The demand for Soviet supplies is reduced, but not their demand for increasing 'spheres of influence. Any 'peace dividend' is quickly reversed.

And are disappointed in the limits on the ability to receive cash payments. The Germans want more credit, complex barter deals, and payments with currency from reparations and conquored nations, or gold bullion of disputed ownership.

can envision the huge loans discussed pre-war being made? the Dutch and Belgian colonies placed under British and French protectorates while the metropolitan Netherlands and Belgium remain occupied? the result? they are basically drained to pay for everything?

(ninja'd by Carl)

still think the Balkans are invaded by 1941 prior to any invasion of USSR? (or some scenario not technically invasion)
 
still think the Balkans are invaded by 1941 prior to any invasion of USSR? (or some scenario not technically invasion)

Less likely for Yugoslavia to change its mind. Hence, Germany gets access to the raw materials in Yugoslavia. Italy and Greece is anybody's guess.
 
still think the Balkans are invaded by 1941 prior to any invasion of USSR? (or some scenario not technically invasion)

Less likely for Yugoslavia to change its mind. Hence, Germany gets access to the raw materials in Yugoslavia. Italy and Greece is anybody's guess.

the "glue pot" of the Balkans ... just wonder the effects of having defeated GB (for a while) on the territorial revisions? and Turkey would not be signing any agreement with the Allies, so their neutral stance might be untenable.
 

Deleted member 1487

Out of curiosity what was the real reason then?
For the military production dips in late 1940? I cited Tooze before, Goering ordered cuts to military production to make exports (a lot of it actually military equipment) to pay for their part of the Soviet-German commercial agreement and ensure Stalin kept the raw materials/food/oil flowing.
 
The question that always bugged me with this scenario is how does Germany explain its buildup on the Eastern frontier if they can't pull the excuse of keeping them out of range of the RAF? Would Stalin still be as blind to Hitler's intentions as he was IOTL? Would peace negotiations be complete before the launch of the invasion? If the British see the obvious signs of an impending invasion like they did historically, how would they react?
 
For the military production dips in late 1940?
No, what was the real reason the German economy "didn't mobilize" until 1944?

Would Stalin still be as blind to Hitler's intentions as he was IOTL?
Who knows. Stalin was so deluded that if OTL was on ah.com the OP would get pages of hysteric screaming that Stalin behaving this way is completely ASB and a stupid plot tool for the Germans. If the Germans can make up a stupid excuse such as "getting our entire army out of RAF range" then they can change it to something equally fallacious as "we're suppressing Polish rebels, why yes we do need massive ammunition dumps in East Prussia and the amassing of the Luftwaffe for this, they're causing us a lot of trouble you know" and Stalin might believe it.
 
The question that always bugged me with this scenario is how does Germany explain its buildup on the Eastern frontier if they can't pull the excuse of keeping them out of range of the RAF?

Surely this excuse was risible even at the time. Stalin believed it because he desperately wanted to believe it.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Say the UK makes peace after Dunkirk
When and how will/would this peace take place ?

Well, let's say Dunkirk becomes the desaster feared off and not 340.000 are saved by a merely 3.400 (will there be a "Second BEF" be sent by the cabinet on 6th June as a ... political gesture as IOTL ?).
The british goverment of whoever at that point of time might ask for an armistice somehwere between 5th and 10th June (do they coordinate/council with the french ?).

Conditions will surely include the lifting of every blockade, by surface as well as subs forces. in northern waters as well as worldwide (East-Asia ...).
Also most likely the retreat of naval forces : british to their home harbours, french to ... North-Africa or elsewhere, just not metropolitan France (a toad the germans might be prepared to swallow as IOTL also)(Given the "no-fighting" status of all participants for the time being I highly doubt the Brits would pull an Operation Catapult ITTL).
That would free trade already considerably ... esp. for the germans from about midth June onwards (see below).

However, there will be two seperate armistices around 15th June (plus-minus) as well as two seperate peace-treaty negotiations starting 1st week of July. Hitler would be keen on keeping the 'bloody french frog-eating loosers' apart from the still by him somewhat admired, nearly full germanic british hoped-for racial bretheren.
The (former ?) allies might communicate and try to coordinate their negotiations but ... faced with rather very different demands (almost brutal against the french, rather 'amicable' to the Brits) it might be questionable how much 'weight' the brits might put on the scales to considerably liften the burden of and for the french.

"Best case" a peace-treaty between the British Empire and the Great(er) German Empire will be signed end of July, comming into effect beginning August. So completly "free world trade" in contemporary war-less conditions from August onwards.
There might be some for Britain rather low indemnities to be payed, considerably more to be paid or extracted from France (btw. : how much did France and Britain 'owes' at that point of time the US for ordered war matereialy ?).
There will also be some kind of definition of 'spheres of influence' :
-the continent (Europe from Atlantic to the Ural, from the North Cape to ... the Ararat) for Germany and
-the seas including all other colonial territories (Africa, middle East, India (including todays Pakistan and Mianmar), Southeast Asia for Britain ... aside some 'stakes' for Germany in the DEI territories.​

Possibly the germans would accept some kind of 'formal' reconsitution of the former neutrals, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmarck, Norway, though these would be veery closely ... 'tied' to the german continental Hegemon in military and foreign policy matters. ...for the "price" - maybe between others - of the Congo going to Britain and perhaps Rest-of-France (though a Vichy-like Rest-of-France might not be the most wanted "partner" for Britain).

Oh, and ofc for the Britains to "meddle" anywhere on the Balkans, Scandinavia and esp. the SU would not be allowed to happen.

Would Britain rejoin the war at some point
Would IMHO depend on the size of the indemnities and eventually developing opportunities and possible other developing ... engagements (Japan ?).
And ofc relations with the US.
Without any other substantial losses I rather doubt the british would like to be engaded again or be the engaging party themself. Tough also without a doubt they WILL prepare for another round of being attacked.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Would the Soviet Union receive land-lease
With Britain having made and signed a peace-treaty I actually don't see anything resembling lend-and-lease comming into existence at all, aside maybe some "favorable terms" of paying their bills for Britain and France.
ITTL the "Reds-Scare" would without the threat-of-live to the british bretheren become more ... prominent.

So I don't see how FDR should manage to install any kind of 'special' anti-axis trade/commerce legislation, i.e. disallowing kind of 'barter-trade' or similar credit arrangements for german trade possibly still lacking enough cash (though there will be some ... extracted from France). The US industry will be rather eager to trade with the hugely increased economic space the Greater German Empire and its annexes has become.

What would be the impact on operation Barbarossa
With the above the russian imports loose much (?) of their importance for Germany ... what in turn might lead to a different german approach to paying their bills to the russians as well as the in Octobre 1940 becomming necessary negotiations for a prolongation of the German-Soviet Commercial agreement of February 1940.
What might have some influence on the production policies of Göring.

However, IMHO Hitler would prepare for Barbarossa most liekly as IOTL : to beginn late spring/early summer 1941.
For a 'run' on the SU still in 1940 ... ? Even Hitler knew, that the material had to be replaced and replentished after France.
Though - as already said - most likely without a Balkan-"distraction" as GB would most likely stay this early after the peace not meddle as much there (Jugoslavia, Greece and in its wake Crete) as it did IOTL.
OTOH Hitler would most liekly keep Mussolini away from any adventures in northern Africa against the GB holdings (Egypt, Sudan), who might be occupied by digesting his Balkan-grabs (parts of Greece, maybe also some parts of Jugoslavia on ... "peacefull" terms like another, "third Vienna Award").

Now ... THE BIG BLACK-RED BOX is ofc ... Stalin.
Without Germany being 'occupied' by its rather dilletantic efforts of trying to paly the thread of an inavasion of Britain ...
Without the IOTL rather desperatly needed resources and resulting dependency of germany on him ...
... could and would he still keep his wanted 'believe' ?
... and if not : what would have he done different, not aiding the encircling tatics of the germans ?
 

Deleted member 1487

No, what was the real reason the German economy "didn't mobilize" until 1944?
They did of course. Production increased for a variety of reasons over the course of the war until peaking in some categories in 1944 despite the bombing.
 
Assuming Britain gets the white peace Hitler was willing to give, no demands on the Empire and no reparations, he still comes out far ahead. With Britain out, no Balkan campaign, as Yugoslavia is at worst strictly neutral, but in reality has to lean towards Germany. There will still need to be occupation troops in the conquered countries, although probably smaller numbers in the west and of course no Balkan/Greek/Crete/North Africa fighting frees up huge resources for the Germans. No blockade means free access to world markets, some industrialists will be willing to do business with the Germans, even on credit but don't forget the Germans will still loot occupied countries and France will need to pay through the nose to get the Germans to reduce occupation and get POWs back - repatriating gold reserves sent overseas or merely transferring them to German custody to pay for goods ordered overseas. Factories in occupied countries will be turning out both civilian and military goods for German use, now without sabotage or occasional bombing raids.

Russia will get essentially zero support from the UK when Barbarossa kicks off (assume it does a little earlier than OTL as no Balkan campaign but still spring 1941). Britain is not going to risk running merchants to Northern Russia in the face of the KM and LW operating out of Northern Norway unless heavily escorted which means restarting the war - something the British people would not accept. Another factor is doing so would be basically at Britain's expense, who will pay for all the stuff. Going through Persia/Iran means massively upgrading the infrastructure there as OTL, and again who pays for that (and much of it was done by the USA after 12/7). If Germany has won this victory over the UK, how willing will the Persians be to be the conduit they were OTL?

Even if Stalin is expecting Germany to attack ASAP (which would be spring, 1941) he now has maybe 10 months or so to do better than he did OTL in preparing. While Hungarian and Romanian forces may be of limited value, absent the UK in the war and it being strictly an anticommunist thing, they will have no hesitation joining in and can provide rear area security, etc freeing more German forces for frontline service. With significantly increased German forces, and no LL or other assistance Russia alone is screwed. Fighting a multifront war and with Soviet production augmented by US/UK production, Germany came very close to winning. ITTL, I really don't see how the Soviets prevent Germany from getting to the A-A line or the Urals - not in one campaign season absent a collapse, but in two.
 

Deleted member 1487

Assuming Britain gets the white peace Hitler was willing to give, no demands on the Empire and no reparations, he still comes out far ahead. With Britain out, no Balkan campaign, as Yugoslavia is at worst strictly neutral, but in reality has to lean towards Germany. There will still need to be occupation troops in the conquered countries, although probably smaller numbers in the west and of course no Balkan/Greek/Crete/North Africa fighting frees up huge resources for the Germans. No blockade means free access to world markets, some industrialists will be willing to do business with the Germans, even on credit but don't forget the Germans will still loot occupied countries and France will need to pay through the nose to get the Germans to reduce occupation and get POWs back - repatriating gold reserves sent overseas or merely transferring them to German custody to pay for goods ordered overseas. Factories in occupied countries will be turning out both civilian and military goods for German use, now without sabotage or occasional bombing raids.

Russia will get essentially zero support from the UK when Barbarossa kicks off (assume it does a little earlier than OTL as no Balkan campaign but still spring 1941). Britain is not going to risk running merchants to Northern Russia in the face of the KM and LW operating out of Northern Norway unless heavily escorted which means restarting the war - something the British people would not accept. Another factor is doing so would be basically at Britain's expense, who will pay for all the stuff. Going through Persia/Iran means massively upgrading the infrastructure there as OTL, and again who pays for that (and much of it was done by the USA after 12/7). If Germany has won this victory over the UK, how willing will the Persians be to be the conduit they were OTL?

Even if Stalin is expecting Germany to attack ASAP (which would be spring, 1941) he now has maybe 10 months or so to do better than he did OTL in preparing. While Hungarian and Romanian forces may be of limited value, absent the UK in the war and it being strictly an anticommunist thing, they will have no hesitation joining in and can provide rear area security, etc freeing more German forces for frontline service. With significantly increased German forces, and no LL or other assistance Russia alone is screwed. Fighting a multifront war and with Soviet production augmented by US/UK production, Germany came very close to winning. ITTL, I really don't see how the Soviets prevent Germany from getting to the A-A line or the Urals - not in one campaign season absent a collapse, but in two.
One of the issues is how does Hitler get the German people to go along with the build up and invasion of the USSR when they already have peace and control of Europe? Supposedly this was one of Hitler's biggest fears in the event of the British agreeing to peace.
 
Even if Stalin is expecting Germany to attack ASAP (which would be spring, 1941) he now has maybe 10 months or so to do better than he did OTL in preparing
Could he do something keeping a defense position along the Stalin Line instead of the Molotov Line or behind the Dinpur and Daugava rivers
 
Top