How plausible would be knocking UK from war before december 1941?

How to you think?


  • Total voters
    80
let us assume that the armistice was signed in September 1940 and Barbarossa goes off in early June 1941 a little ahead of OTL.
1. There may be some PoWs still in German hands, certainly the most valuable ones such as senior officers, pilots, etc would be the last to come home. Even if all are home by now many were demobilized and would not be happy about being recalled.
2. Britain is in bad financial shape - expenditures and "cash and carry" from September 1939 through September 1940 have drained cash reserves, and there were necessary expenses of rebuilding bombing damage and air defenses which would be a major priority, as well as rebuilding the RN losses. North Africa/Egypt and the Far East have needed resources as well.
3. As pointed out, blockading France would mean war with Vichy, absent that blockade Germany can still access the world, of course shipments through Italy will be there as well.
4. No matter what Roosevelt might want to do, there is no way the US Congress (and population) will support the UK going back to war with Germany to "save" the USSR. For much of the US Stalin was not much better (if at all) than Hitler.

In this scenario Britain in June, 1941 is much weaker than June, 1941 OTL and is not going to have the USA giving much help. OTL (and probably ITTL) the USA was in a military buildup which was fueled by worries about Japan as much or more so than Germany. There were voices raised against sending much to the UK when US troops were short of basics. And what can the UK do? They can try and send supplies to the USSR but losses will be significant enroute, and they can't replace shipping losses with "Liberty" ships here. Also, how do they pay for the supplies they send...will the Soviets pay in cash (stolen Spanish gold perhaps) or will the average Britisher decide they want more austerity to support the USSR (I doubt it). They can attack German bases in France, Holland, Belgium, Norway but especially in France (and perhaps Norway as well) the "local" military will respond against these raids (sea or air). Because the RAF will have had to concentrate more on air defense/fighters with British/Commonwealth construction, and no US aircraft to speak of, resource limitations means Bomber Command ITTL will be much smaller than 1941 OTL. The means to do deep attacks/attacks on Germany even as nuisance raids will be quite limited.

If you make the assumption that things went badly enough for the UK to accept a gentle armistice in fall of 1940, then the UK of summer 1941 absent LL and strong US support simply is in no condition to go back to war with Germany without cutting its own throat. IMHO the reason the USA supported the USSR in 1941 was because the USSR was seen as being an ally to "plucky Britain", so one swallowed any misgivings about Stalin. That would not be the case if Britain went back to war to try and save Stalin.
 
What if the UK signed an armistice in 1940 and Hitler invades the USSR in June 1941. The public in the US and UK initially have no desire to get involved since both Hitler and Stalin are seen as evil.

The USSR does worse than OTL and Leningrad and Moscow fall, but the USSR doesn't surrender. Germany runs into logistical problems and isn't able to fully defeat the USSR and the USSR isn't able to push the Germans back. Then around 1943 Nazi war crimes start creeping into the public, a few defectors/escapees tell their tales, someone is able to sneak photos out of concentration camps, etc. Could that then sway public opinion in the US and UK to enter the war against Germany?
 
Halifax is the guy prior to Churchill taking over and reworking the war cabinet and he was open to anything that didn't impede British rearmament, while AFAIK the terms Hitler had in mind did not; he was willing to write off the continent for peace.

Why do people keep assuming Halifax could ever have gotten the position? One of the reasons he was deemed unacceptable was because he was seen as an appeaser. The idea that he somehow hesitated and Churchill stole the job out from under him is nonsense.
 
Plus without losses of the BoB/Blitz they'd have over 2300 aircraft and crews saved from that alone. That was more combat aircraft than they used for Barbarossa IOTL!

That would make for an interesting WI in and of itself, if there had been no Battle of Britain and the Luftwaffe had had those planes on hand for the Eastern Front.
 

Deleted member 1487

Why do people keep assuming Halifax could ever have gotten the position? One of the reasons he was deemed unacceptable was because he was seen as an appeaser. The idea that he somehow hesitated and Churchill stole the job out from under him is nonsense.
Because everyone involved in the war cabinet said it was either Halifax or Churchill and it was only the fact that Halifax stood aside in favor of Churchill that prevented him from getting the job; he was acceptable to Labour's leadership and the Tories, as well as the King. His peerage was considered no problem. The only one that Labour would not work under was Chamberlain. If Churchill is dead then there is no one else in the War Cabinet that could replace Chamberlain, they have no other option but Halifax because they were only able to appoint someone in the cabinet to replace the PM.
IOTL Labour only turned against Halifax once Churchill 'did not demure' and Halifax did.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Pact


Unless Japan opts out of the Pact ITTL, which I doubt given their position vis-a-vis the US, then Japan is in it. Italy certainly was all in on the Tripartite Pact and wouldn't/couldn't ignore it.

You'll note that the Tripartite Pact was after your POD, so I disregarded it. It might happen, or it might not, given the very different global situation and prolonged negotiations for the actual peace treaty. After all, with France crushed and Britain defeated and isolated, is such a treaty even necessary?

Whether Italy and Japan pay any attention to it is another question. Certainly Mussolini was happy to ignore the Pact of Steel when it suited him, and Japan didn't lift a finger to help Germany until it suited them. That's the nature of nationalist powers, after all - they don't make reliable allies.

In this scenario, the idea that a Japan would throw away the British and Dutch oil and steel that it's reliant on and enter a war with not just Britain but also the USA (because, you know, the Philippines are kind of in the way) just to help out a Germany that can offer virtually no support in return is close to absurd. There's simply nothing in it for Japan. Nor is making the UK and USA co-belligerents such a great idea for Germany, and particularly not for Japan. So in this situation, I suspect both Japan and Italy would either do nothing (more likely) or (less likely because it commits them to a course of action) state that the war was caused by Germany's violation of the peace treaty and thus there is no requirement to assist Germany.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

You'll note that the Tripartite Pact was after your POD, so I disregarded it. It might happen, or it might not, given the very different global situation and prolonged negotiations for the actual peace treaty. After all, with France crushed and Britain defeated and isolated, is such a treaty even necessary?
Yes, for just this situation. Germany would want it as a deterrent, so would Japan. Italy too would want to have an alliance system just in case. Everyone knew Britain would recover eventually and it would be willing to take on three great powers around the world.

Whether Italy and Japan pay any attention to it is another question. Certainly Mussolini was happy to ignore the Pact of Steel when it suited him, and Japan didn't lift a finger to help Germany until it suited them. That's the nature of nationalist powers, after all - they don't make reliable allies.
The PoS was a defensive treaty, Hitler started an offensive war so it wasn't applicable; by the letter of the PoS he would have to join the fight against Britain because Britain made no guarantee on Soviet independence. Mussolini could argue Hitler effectively DoWed the Allies in 1939 by attacking Poland, which was a defensive ally of the Allies, but he couldn't make that argument against the British in 1941; also he couldn't sit out the war with Stalin for ideological reasons, which means war against Britain. Also the Brits would have to blockade Italy to avoid them transshipping to Germany, which they did in 1940 that pushed Italy into war with the Allies. Japan was not required to help Germany by treaty prior to the Axis Pact,

In this scenario, the idea that a Japan would throw away the British oil and steel that it's reliant on and enter a war with not just Britain but also the USA (because, you know, the Philippines are kind of in the way) just to help out a Germany that can offer virtually no support in return is close to absurd. There's simply nothing in it for Japan. Nor is making the UK and USA co-belligerents such a great idea for Germany, and particularly not for Japan.
What British oil? That would be coming from the DEI, which Germany dominates. Likely too Germany organizes a way to sell steel to Japan as part of the Axis treaty. The Japanese aren't going to trust Britain to help them and if they do buy steel from the Brits they'd get much more than that when they attack Britain in 1941; they could scoop up all their rubber and more. They thought the US was coming anyway, so they wouldn't really care about not pissing them off. Also with the DEI under the German thumb they don't need to invade that and the PI isn't a big threat against their thrust against Malaya.
 
Of course Mussolini could argue that Hitler attacking the Soviets represented German aggression not covered by a treaty. It simply depends on whether he wants war with Britain. If he does, then he invokes the treaty. If not, he finds an excuse not to do so - just like he did in 1939. Just like it wasn't in Franco's interest to join the war OTL. Your idea of how this works is entirely back to front - fascist powers go to war when they think it's in their interests, not because a scrap of paper tells them to and particularly not if they think they're being manipulated or taken advantage of by a rival power.

Germany is 9000 km from the Dutch East Indies. It most certainly does not dominate them or have any control over the shipment of oil from there to Japan, no more than it did after conquering the Netherlands in 1940!
 

Deleted member 1487

Of course Mussolini could argue that Hitler attacking the Soviets represented German aggression not covered by a treaty. It simply depends on whether he wants war with Britain. If he does, then he invokes the treaty. If not, he finds an excuse not to do so - just like he did in 1939. Just like it wasn't in Franco's interest to join the war OTL. Your idea of how this works is entirely back to front - fascist powers go to war when they think it's in their interests, not because a scrap of paper tells them to and particularly not if they think they're being manipulated or taken advantage of by a rival power.

Germany is 9000 km from the Dutch East Indies. It most certainly does not dominate them or have any control over the shipment of oil from there to Japan, no more than it did after conquering the Netherlands in 1940!
Legally speaking its a different situation in 1941 than in 1939 and politically its pretty much impossible not to join Germany in the war on Communism. Personally too Mussolini was pretty much desperate to fight his archnemesis in the East and stupidly sent an entire army there IOTL despite needing every man against Britain. Also pissing Hitler off would be bad news for Mussolini in the long run, especially if he assumes Hitler will win in the East (which everyone assumed IOTL, even the Soviets up to a point) as his wrath will come at the Italians when he's ready. I just don't see how the Italians can sit out Britain resuming hostilities even if they specifically don't include the Italians.

A Netherlands that makes peace with Germany in 1940 will effectively follow Hitler's demands on who the DEI sells to.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Britain's strategy since the rise of nation states in Europe

Britain's strategy since the rise of nation states in Europe has been to resist any continental hegemon; as has been said:

Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

More seriously, given the realities of German policy under Hitler, seems rather unlikely the British would ever pack it; especially with the Treaty of Amiens precedent.

Best,
 
A government in the Netherlands can say what it likes, but that may bear no resemblance to what the Dutch in the DEI, who are the ones in possession of the oil, actually do. And in any case, any trade in oil is reliant on the goodwill of the British in Singapore.

The Japanese may think that they can capture the DEI and restore access to its oil fairly quickly. But they already have access to it! It's crazy to think that Japan would go to war with the US and UK to get something that it already has access to, just for the privilege of being a German satellite.
 
Top