DBWI: Britain didn't sue for peace in 1940

The Reichskommissariats still would have been subdivided and subdivided into smaller provinces, leading to the same feudalized, neo-medieval outcome as OTL. If Reichskommissars had been able to determine policy over up to 40-80 million people in their territory, that would have been seen as too much of a threat by Hitler (and later Heydrich). Nazi rule demanded absolute, totalitarian control over every inch of territory.
It's scary to think if the technocrats got their way and re-industrialized the RKs, Germany would be the sole superpower today

So, how would India have been affected by Britain fighting on and why?
If Britain kept fighting then India would still be under British rule today...if they won that is
 
So, how would India have been affected by Britain fighting on and why?

If Britain kept fighting then India would still be under British rule today...if they won that is

I'd have to respectfully disagree. By 1940, direct British rule on the subcontinent was already wildly unpopular and the perceived legitimacy of the Raj at an all time low. The very fact that Germany's peace terms allowed GB to keep the Empire intact (indeed, obligated them to secure the co-operation of the Dominions and the territorial integrity of its colonies, lest Germany lose access to Imperial raw materials via the opening up of British trade or lead to a situation of disputed sovereignty which might have lead to an early Nipponese-German Schism over British territories in Asia) and the German guarantee against American, Soviet, and Chinese aggression that allowed for their rule to last as long as it did. If Britain had fought on... which would have inevitably lead to a war with the Japanese, they'd have either lost it or had to expend so many resources I doubt they'd be able to resist the inevitable post-war rebellion.

In all likelihood, India would be a far less stable, prosperous region if the collapse of the Raj haden't been "Controlled" through the transitional Anglo-Hindustani government and its eventual re-organization into the Union of Princely States/Hindustan. The chaos of a Muslim-Hindu civil war, rather than the suppression of the Hindu nationalist movement and the instillation of the (mostly Muslim) mercantile and political elites from those races traditionally favored by the British would have destroyed any chance of Hyderabad's and New Dehli's leadership in the "Armory of the Empire" industrialization and infrastructure expansion project. Given how weak a British victory (after a long, hard fought war) or Japanese presence on the fringes of their newly acquired territories would have been, its hard to see how they could manage the ethno-linguistic and religious tensions to produce anything more than a patchwork mess out of that region.
 
Yes, unfortunately this is correct. :(

Of course, what saved the lives of some Central Asians was the fact that Turkey opened its doors to them as well as the fact that Stalin reluctantly allowed them to emigrate to Turkey. :)

In the early years, yes. Thankfully, many eventually found new homes in the Caucuses and Turkey's new "Border Rectifications" in former Vichy Syria and Mosul. Granted, that just put the local rebellious Kurds and Armenians at the end of the game of genocidal musical chairs... but that's the logical result of Lebensraum. There just isen't enough room for everybody. Still, like in India its hard to see how the ethno-lingustic anarchy that was the Near East could have become anything close to peaceful, prosperous, or stable without all that population movement... we might have hundreds of petty tribal cheifdoms and sheikhs if it'd just been allowed to fragment naturally.
 
I'd have to respectfully disagree. By 1940, direct British rule on the subcontinent was already wildly unpopular and the perceived legitimacy of the Raj at an all time low. The very fact that Germany's peace terms allowed GB to keep the Empire intact (indeed, obligated them to secure the co-operation of the Dominions and the territorial integrity of its colonies, lest Germany lose access to Imperial raw materials via the opening up of British trade or lead to a situation of disputed sovereignty which might have lead to an early Nipponese-German Schism over British territories in Asia) and the German guarantee against American, Soviet, and Chinese aggression that allowed for their rule to last as long as it did. If Britain had fought on... which would have inevitably lead to a war with the Japanese, they'd have either lost it or had to expend so many resources I doubt they'd be able to resist the inevitable post-war rebellion.

In all likelihood, India would be a far less stable, prosperous region if the collapse of the Raj haden't been "Controlled" through the transitional Anglo-Hindustani government and its eventual re-organization into the Union of Princely States/Hindustan. The chaos of a Muslim-Hindu civil war, rather than the suppression of the Hindu nationalist movement and the instillation of the (mostly Muslim) mercantile and political elites from those races traditionally favored by the British would have destroyed any chance of Hyderabad's and New Dehli's leadership in the "Armory of the Empire" industrialization and infrastructure expansion project. Given how weak a British victory (after a long, hard fought war) or Japanese presence on the fringes of their newly acquired territories would have been, its hard to see how they could manage the ethno-linguistic and religious tensions to produce anything more than a patchwork mess out of that region.

India was the British Empire, they'd do anything to keep it. An unlikely victory over Germany if they fought on would revive British prestige in India
 
Hindu nationalist movement
Good thing the Hindu nationalists never came to power. If the RSS hadn't been cracked down upon by the British authorities, the Muslim League would have been aiming for an independent Muslim state as opposed to Muslim autonomy in a federal India as the RSS being destroyed made Muslims feel more comfortable living in a united, secular, and federal India.
 
India was the British Empire, they'd do anything to keep it. An unlikely victory over Germany if they fought on would revive British prestige in India

In the event of said unlikely victory... what could they have done to keep it? Overpowering the Reich with what resources Britain had at the time would have bankrupted the country in terms of both money and young blood: as we can see with the German performance in the East, you certainly can't count on the German army making too many mistakes, even if we assume the British are somehow able to take control of the air. Add that to the fact that without reaching accommodation with Germany they would have almost certainly also had to fight off a Japanese attack on the Empire, and I fail to see where the British somehow come out with the power to continue imposing direct rule on the Indians. Even IOTL, the only reason they managed to keep the control they did was by building an alliance with the local ethnic 'elites'.

Good thing the Hindu nationalists never came to power. If the RSS hadn't been cracked down upon by the British authorities, the Muslim League would have been aiming for an independent Muslim state as opposed to Muslim autonomy in a federal India as the RSS being destroyed made Muslims feel more comfortable living in a united, secular, and federal India.

(OOC: Quoting just that little bit removes ALOT of context that causes your statement to kind of contradict my post. The surrounding text reads "In all likelihood, India would be a far less stable, prosperous region if the collapse of the Raj haden't been "Controlled" through the transitional Anglo-Hindustani government and its eventual re-organization into the Union of Princely States/Hindustan. The chaos of a Muslim-Hindu civil war, rather than the suppression of the Hindu nationalist movement and the instillation of the (mostly Muslim) mercantile and political elites from those races traditionally favored by the British would have destroyed any chance of Hyderabad's and New Dehli's leadership in the "Armory of the Empire" industrialization and infrastructure expansion project")
 
In the event of said unlikely victory... what could they have done to keep it? Overpowering the Reich with what resources Britain had at the time would have bankrupted the country in terms of both money and young blood: as we can see with the German performance in the East, you certainly can't count on the German army making too many mistakes, even if we assume the British are somehow able to take control of the air. Add that to the fact that without reaching accommodation with Germany they would have almost certainly also had to fight off a Japanese attack on the Empire, and I fail to see where the British somehow come out with the power to continue imposing direct rule on the Indians. Even IOTL, the only reason they managed to keep the control they did was by building an alliance with the local ethnic 'elites'.

The Americans could've helped by giving them the capital and weaponry that they needed. Imagine the small amount of weaponry the US secretly gave the USSR except on a massive scale.

You mean as a part of a Mitteleuropa Federation?

Even without it. The Federation would be just icing on the cake.
 
The British sued for peace after losing an army at Dunkirk, the French losing an army at Dunkirk, followed by Italy entering the war, and France suing for peace, all in basically a month's time. If the British and French can evacuate even a portion of their men at Dunkirk, I think the British don't pull back their remaining divisions to the French coast, and the French hold out for longer.

Germany has a harder time against the Soviet Union if Britain is still in the war. The British can liberate Norway, for instance, opening up a secure supply line to the Soviets, and forcing the Germans to fight on multiple fronts.
 
The Americans could've helped by giving them the capital and weaponry that they needed. Imagine the small amount of weaponry the US secretly gave the USSR except on a massive scale.

*Sigh* This little cliche again?

Look, we already naively bailed out the Redcoats' Empire once during The Great War with the assumption they'd respect our seat at the negotiating table and pay their debts. After Britain renegaded last time, what makes you think America would be so quickly and easily dooped again? ESPECIALLY if it happened after the fall of Germany and we'd just be subsidizing continued Imperial control for... what reason, exactly? So they could keep us out of the Indian market with their Imperial Preference after Japan was already closing off the Chinese one? Also, that aid was under the table payment in exchange for the Soviet's trans-shipping the arms to the Chinese and everybody knows it... heaven knows Congress wasen't going to risk sending ships to the Japanese-controlled coast.

Get it through your head; "The Yanks are Coming!" is a meme, nothing more. About as likely as a successful Operation Jvork (OOC: TTL's hypothetical British re-invasion of the Continent)
 
Well, the Cold War will certainly be...interesting, for lack of a better term, depending on whether or not Britain not surrendering somehow leads to a Nazi defeat or just some kind of stalemate and white peace (unlikely but not impossible, but I've seen plenty of scenarios based on this). If it's the former, you might get something like Robert Harris's Motherland novel, where instead of a cold war between the US and Germany, you have a cold war between the US and Soviets, and Europe is divided between east and west for lack of a better term. Of course the main events of that novel, if I remember correctly, where there's a crisis over Cuba over nukes (which in the novel are mentioned as having been developed during the Second World War by the US in 1945 instead of during the Third World War in 1985 like in our world) probably aren't going to happen. Don't get me wrong, it's a great novel, with tons of cool stuff like President JPK Jr's younger brother Jack Kennedy being the President instead of him, but lets be honest, the novel making Castro into a Communist instead of a diehard Fascist was frankly ridiculous.

Anyways, if it's the unlikely second option, where there's some kind of stalemate or white peace, where Germany still rules over Europe but Britain is independent, then you could see some huge differences in the Third World War, which I assume still happens. If the Allies had a foothold to get into Europe, it probably would have been much helpful, and maybe we could have avoided the need for looking elsewhere as a landing area, which could butterfly away the disastrous Allied defeat at the Battle of Gibraltar, which may not have even happened.
 
OOC: Did America come to blows with Japan in this TL or did they managed to stave off conflict into this alternate cold war?
 
OOC: Did America come to blows with Japan in this TL or did they managed to stave off conflict into this alternate cold war?
OOC: A previous poster mentioned the US achieving victory over Japan in early 1944. Hence why I mentioned in my post that nukes probably would not have been developed until much later, in a Third World War, as it's unlikely the Nazi's would really have been able to develop nukes of their own since they rejected much of the science behind it because of their antisemitism.
 
OOC: A previous poster mentioned the US achieving victory over Japan in early 1944. Hence why I mentioned in my post that nukes probably would not have been developed until much later, in a Third World War, as it's unlikely the Nazi's would really have been able to develop nukes of their own since they rejected much of the science behind it because of their antisemitism.
OOC: Huh. That makes things interesting in the Chinese sense, considering that while the isolationist movement would have fallen apart like OTL, Germany didn't get involved. I can see German sympathizers be a huge problem during the cold war, especially if Germany keeps a close lid on information getting out over what happened in Europe. But at the same time their sheer power would certainly scare most Americans. Business interests trying to make connections with Europe might only make this worse. I'd say whoever is working in the CIA in this TL has their work cut out for them.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
*Sigh* This little cliche again?

Look, we already naively bailed out the Redcoats' Empire once during The Great War with the assumption they'd respect our seat at the negotiating table and pay their debts. After Britain renegaded last time, what makes you think America would be so quickly and easily dooped again? ESPECIALLY if it happened after the fall of Germany and we'd just be subsidizing continued Imperial control for... what reason, exactly? So they could keep us out of the Indian market with their Imperial Preference after Japan was already closing off the Chinese one? Also, that aid was under the table payment in exchange for the Soviet's trans-shipping the arms to the Chinese and everybody knows it... heaven knows Congress wasen't going to risk sending ships to the Japanese-controlled coast.

Get it through your head; "The Yanks are Coming!" is a meme, nothing more. About as likely as a successful Operation Jvork (OOC: TTL's hypothetical British re-invasion of the Continent)
So, basically, this is just as much of a fantasy as having U.S. troops fight in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq?
 
So, basically, this is just as much of a fantasy as having U.S. troops fight in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

Well, if for some reason the Japs diden't surrender in 44' I could see the possibility of American troops landing in Korea; given the state of the Chinese military at the time that might have been what would have been required to liberate and organize the peninsula. But what on earth would American troops be doing in Indochina or the Near East? Or especially Afghanistan: that's in the middle of scenic nowhere.

Besides, there hasen't been a war in the Middle East since the Jerusalem Awards set the boundaries between the Republic of Turkey, State of Iraqi, and The Husayni Caliphate. Sure, they had to move the population around to achieve demographic-religious clarity, but the German allies were more than willing to co-operate since it prevented civil war on all their parts.
 
The British Empire (or at least the commonwealth) still exists.

India, Australia Canada and practically the rest of the commonwealth all became republics pretty damn quickly (blame Edward VIII and his Nazi sympathies for not demanding the PM stand down immediately like George VI said) after they did this and pretty quickly fell into the American sphere of influence and pretty much re-positioned all their troops and sent them against Japan and clearly that did not end well for them (since they didn't only lose Korea and Chinese territory, the Kurils, Ryuku Islands and Saikahin on top of all that). At that stage, basically any former UK ally removed themselves from the european front which basically made Barbossa harder, but made fighting on the asian front a lot easier.

Maybe less of the fascist scare in the US and western world, the UK has way less unrest and attempted uprisings, Ireland avoids the troubles and unifcation war (though that may have been inevitable but you bet the UK's peace offering pissed off a lot of the southern irish) and avoids Mosley placed as a puppet of the UK government. regions of what used to be France don't have communist uprisings and the rest of europe doesn't go into either puppet governments of Germany or getting assimilated into greater germany.

Probably don't have the two major blocs that we see today (pro US/Asia/South America/Sub-Saharan Africa/NATO allies and the Pro Germany AXIS/Europe/Northern Africa/Middle East).
 
Top