Seelöwe successful, so what?

he actual fall of Great Britain will have an effect on the US public that we can only guess at.

Ape. Sh*t.

I would predict a suddenly angry public demanding to know how Roosevelt could have let this happen and Republicans and other semi-obstructionists posturing right along with the public, posing as always having been advocates for squishing the Nazi threat.

Roosevelt's defense will have be that he had no idea the RN would decide to let the nazis across the channel just for kicks. :)

Ultimately this probably leads to a Sov-wank, and conspiracy theories during the era when Soviet influence in the US is being discovered and rooted out that Roosevelt deliberately let the Nazis take England in order to clear the ground for Soviet domination of most of Europe.
 
Better question is who is going to enforce Britain's claims over India? The Biggest source of Imperial Power is gone. Do you honestly think India's people who for the most part did not want in on the war are going to support it?

Or are they going to say to themselves that the Yoke they existed under for so long is gone and it is time to take their destiny into their own hands.

On the other hand, its actually not that hard for a military power to suppress dissent if they are brutal and ruthless. And in this scenario, the remnants of Britain might be brutal and ruthless.
 
And another thing:

Seelowe, to be successful, not in the French sense but in conquering the whole island, will require a lot of resources, even with a 1936 PoD. This means that Fall Gelb will probably be longer and bloodier than OTL. By the end of it all, the German forces will be depleted and desperate.

But that still leaves a lot of unfinished bussiness. Greece stood out without British support, and Hitler, if he committs to another lengthy fight, can kiss Barbarossa good by. I think Greece has a pretty good chance of survival.

I think that Wavell will remain loyal to the British. We have a powerful army, then, that is in Libya, and a Germany that is much less able to intervene. Malta is still British-it may just be Anglophilia, but I can see a British Egypt and Palestine surviving (though Syria-Lebanon might be hard).

The Far East IBC has commented on, but the British will be in a better position to run India and Malaya than the Dutch were to run the East Indies.

And then Barbarossa runs up against better prepared Soviets, with much weaker forces.

Naaaaaaaaaaziiiiiiiiiiiiiiscreeeeeeew!!!!!!
 
So any idea of Britain being a resistance hotbed seems farfetched. When you consider the captured Channel Islands, peaceful coexistence seems more likely, especially if the Germans behave. Resistance worked in Russia because the choice was death or resistance. If given a modicum of normalcy, most people simply endure.

Agreed, but I think the same analysis of the effectiveness of resistance against a determined military force that isn't otherwise too, too awful means that British keep India, which isn't nothing.
 
Unless handwaving Sealion somehow builds a bridge over the Channel the Nazi's are still going to have to contend with the transport problem - preventing the easy application of resources to crush British dissent, extract the fruits of British industry, and live in fear for the not-to-distant year when the USN and remaining RN cut off the forces on British soil. Or even an upemphasis to submarines by the allies would wreck havoc.

Then you have the problem that Britain runs north to south, and has plenty of convenient hills and large cities to slow movement as the rail get demolished in the British retreat. Its really not northern France, the government can fall back to Liverpool and then Glasgow. Germany would win in the end if it can squeeze its energies through the logistical choke hold of the Sealion supply route, but it would be very bloody.

Then you have next problem that a conquered Britian has added at least an extra 7-9 million peoples worth of calorie-debt to German Europes 5-10 million already. Attempt to 'Solve' these problems will very likely bring America into the war, and its much easier to sneak information out of Britain than it is France via its endless coastline and islands, especially if you have a crap navy.

Better question is who is going to enforce Britain's claims over India? The Biggest source of Imperial Power is gone. Do you honestly think India's people who for the most part did not want in on the war are going to support it?

Or are they going to say to themselves that the Yoke they existed under for so long is gone and it is time to take their destiny into their own hands.

Yes you certainly get two and a half million volunteers from people who wanted no part of the war. India was at this point simply not ready to snap its fingers and throw out the British structures, and whilst the transfer of power would immediately start it take a few years and the Indians would still support the Empires efforts.

India and Britains relationship was very complex, and your analysis is just an incorrect generalisation.
 
Then you have next problem that a conquered Britian has added at least an extra 7-9 million peoples worth of calorie-debt to German Europes 5-10 million already. Attempt to 'Solve' these problems will very likely bring America into the war, and its much easier to sneak information out of Britain than it is France via its endless coastline and islands, especially if you have a crap navy.

Hitler would try to avoid famines in england itself, he´ll have to buy even more from the Soviet-Union, anglo-saxon are considered close to Germans themselves.
That, hovewer, requires shipping and a substantial economical reorganisation in europe.
France can help feed ex-GB but can only help so much after the doirganisation of the previous year, another solution is to buy more from Stalin. That price will be equippement for new factories.
Using a significant part of the local industry to support the war effort necessitates organization and even more, ressources (coal, petrol, iron etc), something that requires even more shipping.
To get those ressources, either buy more from Stalin or expand into tropical colonial possessions, wich will take a while.
 
Hitler would try to avoid famines in england itself, he´ll have to buy even more from the Soviet-Union, anglo-saxon are considered close to Germans themselves.
That, hovewer, requires shipping and a substantial economical reorganisation in europe.
France can help feed ex-GB but can only help so much after the doirganisation of the previous year, another solution is to buy more from Stalin. That price will be equippement for new factories.
Using a significant part of the local industry to support the war effort necessitates organization and even more, ressources (coal, petrol, iron etc), something that requires even more shipping.
To get those ressources, either buy more from Stalin or expand into tropical colonial possessions, wich will take a while.

France can't help without cutbacks elsewhere, the Nazi's were already taking slightly more than it produced before they did anything silly with Britain or Russia. Considering Germany is already trading plant for food with Russia, where exactly is Germany going to magic up the resources to trade more whilst having blown its load conquering Britain and having to spend effort to control and exploit them and still building up for Barbarossa.
 
Re India, Bose was in Berlin for a while and I expect that with Britain defeated and occupied (the original assumption in the first post) that he would be a more natural leader for Indian independence than Gandhi. He would have the support of both Berlin and Tokyo, and could no doubt also play for some presents to show that he has the influence to achieve this.

As for British armies fighting on around the world - where? Egypt is almost certainly going to be having its own problems (IIRC it did in the 1920s and 1930s) and will either take complete control of its affairs, or have to be aggressively suppressed, which would lead to war.

Abyssinia and Eritrea? Would it make sense to continue to be in occupation of enemy territory when your home country is no longer at war? Who is going to make the decision to stay? Logically it could come down to the contributing colonies - is British East Africa's governor going to decide to keep the troops there, and are they going to listen to him? Is Australia going to agree to help supply them when it has a looming Japanese threat to the North?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Operation Barbarossa is thus definitively canceled in the course of 1941. No way that the axis armies reaches Moscow in 6 weeks, like what I heard from discovery channel.

Accommodation with Germany couldn't be accomplished without catastrophic long-term consequences for Britain (and the world as a whole),

One thing that really does bother me with this scenario, exactly how ? Really, the tale of England becoming the north-west section of the 3rd Reich without Seelöwe is one that really needs to be told.
 
Top