As for the specifics of the invasion: October and November are not great times of year to move around off road. Switzerland is not suited to armies with tanks and artillery to move around, but it is suited for light infantry with those long wooden shoe things. Your best point of comparison could be the Soviet/Finnish Winter War, only with added mountains to slow advances. The Winter War was over 3 months in duration, and the Soviets had limited objectives. I can't see a complete overrunning of Switzerland in less than that, and 6 months is probably not unrealistic.
Just a little comment on your depiction of the Winter War: the Soviets had "limited objectives" only inasmuch as Finland was a small country, given that the original plan was the occupation and puppetization/annexation of the whole nation.
I'm open to correction, because it's not an area I'm particularly familiar with, but my understanding was that the initial Soviet demands were moving the border on the Karelian isthmus by a significant amount, the Finns removing the existing fortifications on the isthmus, transferal of islands in the Gulf of Finland, and Finland leasing the Hanko Peninsula for 30 years.
It's a major ask, and one that would have been difficult/impossible to accept, but I haven't come across anything that suggested that it was planned to annex the whole of Finland.
Without the Kriegsmarine surface fleet to deal with, the Royal Navy (and the other Commonwealth Navies) are able to focus entirely on combating the U-Boat threat, and consequently U-Boat losses are significantly lower in this timeline.Another question, what aare the U Boat losses like compared to OTL?
Without the Kriegsmarine surface fleet to deal with, the Royal Navy (and the other Commonwealth Navies) are able to focus entirely on combating the U-Boat threat, and consequently U-Boat losses are significantly lower in this timeline.
Higher you mean?
I'll probably have to re-think the Battle of the Atlantic in future updates then. My thinking was that, with the Kriegsmarine's surface fleet neutralised for the time being, the British Government would focus less on dealing with surface engagements (as there would be fewer) and instead greater energy would be put into confronting the U-Boats (i.e. the creation of more effective Bombes to decipher the Enigma code used by U-Boats).If you mean, the UK looses fewer ships, I'm not so sure. Even in the "real world", after the Norway campaign, the Kriegsmarine surface fleet was a paper tiger; it was always reduced to hit-and-run tactics. Here, despite the massacre of Sealion, I assume the Bismarck and Tirpitz are still intact, (they were commissoned only in 1941), so those are potential headaches. With the loss of the surface ships, I'd bet the surge of U-boot construction would start sooner. Add the fact that the RN was very short on ASW escorts and Coastal Command was almost an afterthought, the UK was not prepared for an U-boot war As for using fleet units for ASW warfare... the loss of HMS Courageous showed what a bad idea this was...
I'll probably have to re-think the Battle of the Atlantic in future updates then. My thinking was that, with the Kriegsmarine's surface fleet neutralised for the time being, the British Government would focus less on dealing with surface engagements (as there would be fewer) and instead greater energy would be put into confronting the U-Boats (i.e. the creation of more effective Bombes to decipher the Enigma code used by U-Boats).
But if my thinking on this is wrong, then I am more than willing to change the future updates.
Oh, I am aware that the first Bombe was developed before the POD, yet I was thinking that the British would be able to establish more effective bombes quicker in this timeline.Note that, afaik, the first british Bombe was up and running in March 1940. Vital as the "Enigma war" was, it was often crippled by the RN/RAF's lack of means to actually use the information aquired: ships, crews, weapons, long range aircraft and their weapons...
I'll duly modify the post to increase the time taken by the Japanese to start drilling the oil - I must admit that one flaw I am finding in my timeline thus far is that I am rather optimistic on the timescale on which events take place. I'll try and fix that in the future.With regard to your Japanese summary, you've got oil discovered in October 1941, and it being a productive field by mid 1942. Right. Minimum figures follow. Tough conditions, such as climate, terrain, or hostile population, will lengthen these. Pre-drilling usually takes 6 months. Drilling to access the oil, 1-2 months. Then you've got to refine the stuff, transport it, and so on. Typically, using modern techniques, it's 2-5 years to go from: "Oh, look at this nice black stuff" to "Now we've got stuff we can use." If the Japanese discover oil in Oct 1941, we can probably reckon that, given the circumstances of the situation, and assuming no interruptions, they'll be able to start using it by Oct 1945.
I have amended so as to allow Japan to secure rubber from Thailand, thereby solving that issue. In regards to the European colonies in SE Asia, Japan is somewhat reluctant to attack them for the time being, due to the display of strength made by the Allies during 1941 against Germany, and, consequently, the Japanese are worried that attacking the Allies would leave them in a similar position to Germany - enduring costly and humiliating defeats.The other thing you don't mention is what Japan's doing about SE Asia. It's leaving America alone. OK. What about Malaya, Singapore, Burma, Dutch East Indies, French Indochina, etc? Are these being left alone? If so, why? Japan still needs stuff like rubber, etc. If not, what are they doing about places like the Philippines? Relying on the USA not stirring itself while it attacks - which would be rash given how vulnerable its lines of supply are. Or doing something about the Philippines, which promptly brings the USA into the war.
This won't be the last update on East Asia, and this question will be answered then.And if nothing is being done in SE Asia, then the IJN are sitting around, twiddling their thumbs, while the IJA is busy winning glory (of a sort) in China. Cooperation between the IJA and the IJN was not great, and if the IJA is doing things, then the IJN has also got to play, and obviously, the two aren't going to work together or anything silly like that.
The Portuguese and British held strong historical ties (the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance being the oldest in the world), and the two often found themselves as allies in conflicts against a common foe. However, Portugal had initially declared neutrality when war broke out, fearing that Fransisco Franco’s Spain, believed to be an Axis ally by many, would proceed to declare war on Portugal and open up a further front in the war – yet the Nazi invasion of Switzerland disturbed Franco just as much as the leaders of the other neutral nations of Europe, and so the prospect of Spain joining the Axis appeared distant at best. So, on November the 26th, Portugal declared war on Germany and Italy, and interned all German and Italian shipping in Portuguese ports.
Shortly after the Portuguese declaration of war, Churchill travelled to Lisbon
I'll duly modify the post to increase the time taken by the Japanese to start drilling the oil - I must admit that one flaw I am finding in my timeline thus far is that I am rather optimistic on the timescale on which events take place. I'll try and fix that in the future.
Portugal actually did a lot to support the Allies in our timeline - when Britain requested that the Royal Navy be allowed to use the Azores' facilities in 1943, Portugal duly provided such facilities. Although I will update the post based on your final paragraph, so as to give Portugal a greater incentive to be committed to the Allied cause.This... this is unlikely at best, tbh. We simply did not have any way to even begin to fight Germany, even in this timeline. Note that, even in the real world, Salazar stuck to near-complete neutrality rigth untill late 1943, when the agreement to use the Lajes airbase was signed. And we supplied Germany with vital raw materials untill 1944. Also never forget this simple, basic fact: Salazar was a fascist dictator. In terms of idiology and politics, he had far more in common with Hitler & Mussolini than with Churchill. Two days after Hitler died, Salazar order all Portuguese flags to be flown at half-mast; officially due to the "death of a foreign head of state". Yeah...
And there were a lot of people with conections to the regime making a lot of money supplying germany, specially with tungsten.
So, just because it looked as if Germany was gobling up neutrals, I don't see Portugal, a country cooperating and supplying Germany, going to the allies. Quite the contrary, I see Salazar doing it's best to improve relations with Germany, with increases in supplies and maybe even suggesting basing rights.
Also, I doubt Franco would declare war on us without first receiving massive amounts of supplies and equipment from Germany. Spain was a wreck after the civil war and depended too much on trade with neutrals (specially the US, for oil) to risk this.
The only way I see as joining the allies, here, is if Churchill promised a couple of UK divisions, some RAF squadrons and severall hundred aircraft and tanks to reequip us. And by promise, I mean all of this arriving in Lisboa the very next day of the declaration of war.
Portugal actually did a lot to support the Allies in our timeline - when Britain requested that the Royal Navy be allowed to use the Azores' facilities in 1943, Portugal duly provided such facilities. Although I will update the post based on your final paragraph, so as to give Portugal a greater incentive to be committed to the Allied cause.
Do you reckon I ought to remove Portugal joining the war, then?We did not have much support, apart from some hidden diplomacy. When he tried to buy Spits or Hurricanes in 1939, all we got were a few Gladiators. And, again, the Azores deal was only done in 1943, pretty much a "shotgun wedding". And even then, for some weird reason, it was signed only with the UK; the US only came latter on, in 1944