Consequences of early Nazi defeat.

WW2 starts in Septembre 1939 Germany attacks Poland, takes west Poland, Russia takes east Poland
In 1940 German attack France thru Belguim, France resists, Counter attacks,
By Septembre 1941 Germany has Surrendered.
Japan never occupies Indo China, The US doesn't impose the Embargo

?What happens to Airplane and Naval development?

Whe Have Tarranto, but No Pearl. The Aircraft Carrier has to continue to compete with the Battleship.

No Electro Boats, OTL the Allies and Russia were still using the German 1946 U-Boat plans to design Subs till the early 1960's. Here ATL?????

No ME 262, No War forced Jet development. Do whe still get the P-51, & the B-29/B-36.
No Giant runways for the B-29 built all over the world. The China Clipper is still the Queen of the Trans oceanic Passenger Service.
 
Globally the European colonial Empires will live several decades longer. Some perhaps turing into global economical and political federations. That will probably mean not only much more investment from Europe to the 3rd world but also the 3rd world having much better access to European markets. Not at least Africa might look a lot better by 2009.
Probably also no war in Vietnam.
With RN, French, and Dutch help, the war only to 1944. No A-bomb. Blockade, starvation, invasion, more ugliness.
I'd doubt it even lasts that long.
No post-war resurgence. Soviets come in at the last to make their land grab, maybe including Hokkaido. Hello, Dystopia.
Without the percieved need for SU aid, FDR is unlikely to insist on it, or want it, so no August Storm, whence no Korean War & no PRC (Chiang wins CCW).

Without the Nazi threat, probably the Bomb is developed much later, perhaps in reaction to Sov adventures in Eastern Europe. It's likely it's used widely by both sides when it does appear, turning much of Poland, Germany, & the Ukraine into a radioactive wasteland,:eek: & probably London, New York, Moscow, DC, Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, & elsewhere into irradiated parking lots.:eek:
 
What about a POD where the WAllies grow a pair and call Hitler on his bluff during the Sudetenland crisis. ther germans were definetly not in a position to threaten the French and British at this point, it might have avoided the whole WWII scenario alltogether.
 

nbcman

Donor
Japan is the big loser.
No Soviet-Japanese non-agression pact of '41 and if the Japanese even look crosseyed at the Soviets they get an avalance over the manchurian border regardless if the Soviets have a 300+ division or a 500+ division army.
No way to occupy French Indochina without war.
National suicide if the Japanese attempt a war with France, UK, Dutch, USA, and China with a hungry Soviet bear waiting over the border.

Their best bet is to wind down the war against China and to try to join an anti-communist alliance like Redbeard has stated earlier in the thread.

Also, the impetus for the development of nukes is slowed. It will take WWIII to convince the warring powers to devote enough resources to complete their research.
 
Also what about the USSR. Now if there had been a plan to attack Germany in the weeks after the invasion of Poland maybe Stalin does nothing and forgets the deal to carve up Poland.

However if events were different but not until 1940 the question is would Britain and France carry on the War to liberate Eastern Poland from Stalin or would things be left as they were or would Stalin give up occupied Poland?
I am not so optimistic as some of the posters on the ability of the Anglo-French forces to quickly defeat Germany. However, it seems likely that the Allies would have gained aerial superiority from late summer and that, given the low German tank production, German offensive capability would have fallen off at around the same time. Thus by early 1941, the BEF is becoming a large force (I mentioned earlier that a large starting BEF is the most probable POD for this thread) and the French Army is learning to react more rapidly. There is still no quick military victory in sight but, with American support, eventual allied victory seems very likely. A German military coup d'état is the only likely route to Allied victory in early 1941, so lets assume that an Operation Valkyre works and is followed by negotiations.

Clearly the Allies will demand free Poland and Czechoslovakia and Germany will concede. Allied forces could be transported to Danzig or could even pass through Germany to Western Poland. However, the German's have a fairly strong negotiating position because, without their help, it could be quite hard to recreate Poland. Our problem is that we need to understand the evolution of Allied thinking over the winter of 1940-1. The war aims of 1939-40 were to stop Hitler. What are Allied war aims in 1941? Does a successful military coup change the Allied view of Germany? What about Austria? Note that by 1941, Anglo-French finances are likely to be in a bad way. Thus American opinion is critical but likely to be veering back to isolation as the German problem is apparently resolved.

Can we write the script for a meeting between Churchill, Reynaud (or Daladier) and Beck?

Meanwhile, does Stalin try to hold his gains?
 
My assumption is that the development of nuclear weapons would be postponed, perhaps to after 2010.

I fear that my Czech war dbwi was ruined by the person suggesting this being a factor in limiting the Soviet Union.

I believe that if it were clear Hitler were losing by the summer of 1940 FDR would not have run in 1940.

My guess is that a mainstream Republican would have been elected.

The big questions about that is:

Would a Republican have carried on the economic sanctions against Japan? If not I see the Japanese war in China going on for a long time

On the other had if the USA had carried on with these steps Pearl Harbor might have come as much more as bolt from the blue with a much less armed America. I still assume that the US will eventually win.
 
My assumption is that the development of nuclear weapons would be postponed, perhaps to after 2010.

I fear that my Czech war dbwi was ruined by the person suggesting this being a factor in limiting the Soviet Union.

I believe that if it were clear Hitler were losing by the summer of 1940 FDR would not have run in 1940.

My guess is that a mainstream Republican would have been elected.

The big questions about that is:

Would a Republican have carried on the economic sanctions against Japan? If not I see the Japanese war in China going on for a long time

On the other had if the USA had carried on with these steps Pearl Harbor might have come as much more as bolt from the blue with a much less armed America. I still assume that the US will eventually win.

Your assumption on nuclear weapons is quite ASB.
They were in development by 1941, and the forecasts of what they woudl so was quite enough to keep developlent going, although slowly at a lower funding level.
I'd expect the US and UK (possibly France too) to have a working device by 1950. By then planes could carry it (jets will be available)
However its quite possible they would try and keep them secret. They'd certainly get used in a war, however if both sides have them they migt come to some sort of understanding as they sort of did over poison gas. If the enemy doesnt have them, they get nuked into the ground.
 
Japan doesn't necessarily get hosed because the cold war will start earlier and they can pick which side they want to play for (their cultural makeup would seem to think the west but you never know)
 
My understanding is that the Manhatten project had a huge cost- it was comensed to a significant degree because it was (almost certainly mistakenly) believed that the Nazi regime had a serious hope of getting the bomb.
 
My understanding is that the Manhatten project had a huge cost- it was comensed to a significant degree because it was (almost certainly mistakenly) believed that the Nazi regime had a serious hope of getting the bomb.

It was also a crash program. A less urgent, longer term project could yield results with less investment if not crippled by invalid assumptions as the German one was.
 
What about a 1938 POD, in which Chamberlain does NOT sign the Munich Agreement, possibly due to a more influential Churchill, who remained untainted due to a different outcome of the Abdication Crisis.

If Hitler went ahead with an invasion, and the German generals launched a coup, that would pretty much shut down WWII.

With a friendly, or at least neutral and non-aggressive, German government, the UK and France are able to SUBSTANTIALLY reinforce French Indochina, Singapore, etc. In this scenario, there's no way Japan can launch an offensive that is as successful as in OTL, although if they did, they would enjoy some early naval victories. But with British Spitfires flooding the area, rather than being tied up in Great Britain, I don't see the IJN gaining air superiority over any major target, and I don't even think US involvement would be necessary for a Japanese defeat.
 
It was also a crash program. A less urgent, longer term project could yield results with less investment if not crippled by invalid assumptions as the German one was.

And yet, we were lucky that we made that invalid assumption, in that the human cost of an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands would have been horrifying.
 

terence

Banned
Your assumption on nuclear weapons is quite ASB.
They were in development by 1941, and the forecasts of what they woudl so was quite enough to keep developlent going, although slowly at a lower funding level.
I'd expect the US and UK (possibly France too) to have a working device by 1950. .

In December 1940---with the country at war, the MAUD committee produced its report on the feasibility and costing of producing an atom bomb. The cost at the time was said to be 25 million dollars (£5m), considered far too much for the UK to bear alone at the time. (The Manhattan project eventually consumed betwen US$2 and US$3 BILLION, depending on cost allocation).
If one looks at both the British and American government's cheapskate attitude to defence expenditures and, especially the US government's almost complete refusal to spend on science in peacetime, one wonders if any peacetime government would have 'pulled out the stops'.
The UK peacetime independent development ( with all the basic knowledge) took five years and cost £100 million (1951 money).
So I think it fair to look at practical nuclear weapons in the mid 1950s earliest.
 
Top