Once Britain leaves, they are out of the war, which is why they didn't make peace IOTL. India wouldn't rejoin the war with them, the US would never support them materially, politically the Tory party would get wiped out in the next election (which was coming due to the wartime cancellation of elections being moot) for having made peace, Britain's finances were a mess, actually declaring war without a triggering event like a guarantee of a nation's sovereignty being violated or attack on Britain wouldn't be possible in the 20th century (this isn't the Napoleonic Wars, modern democracy doesn't work the same way), and it would take at least until 1942 in total peace to rebuild the military, while the Axis pact means declaring war on Germany automatically triggers war with Japan and Italy...which Britain would not willingly do. So for Britain it was stay in to the end or accept that the war was really over for the long term in 1940. Which is why they stayed in. Now it is possible they would have dropped out if the BEF was destroyed, in that case they certainly will not be ready to go to war again in 1942 from just a material/organizational position, let alone the strategic/political stuff. So if they are out in 1940 then Germany has a window of probably about 4-5 years where Britain will be unable to do much to resist German expansion in the East, while with India the empire is starting to unravel....over a failed Dunkirk evacuation or whatever, what do they do afterwards? Assuming this does not change the general course of the war (Germany attacks the U.S.S.R. in 1941), would they re-enter the war at some point, a bit like what happened after the Treaty of Amiens in the early 19th century? I'd be willing to say that they would, but I'd like to hear your opinions.
Also, could someone chime in on whether or not the 1940 General Election would have been held in this situation? If so, what would have been the probable result?
His stated idea of a 'disadvantageous peace' was one that saw major territorial losses and/or military restrictions with an indemnity. He did not consider ceding continental Europe to Hitler as a disadvantageous peace. Given Hitler's statements that he wanted to work out a deal with Britain for spheres of influence and to rule the world with the British empire, Germany having their empire on the continent, likely his idea of peace meshed well with Halifax's.And remember that even Halifax believed that Continued War was preferable to a disadvantageous Peace
I am far from peace so early on ... only armistices.
Hitler woud not outright "forbade" Mussolini to take action on the french border ... nor would have the means to do so ... remember the ill-fated, unwanted italian attack in the balkans.
On the timing ... I am definitly not sure about, only assumptions, suggestions.
But the Germans/Hitler will seperate Britain and France and not deal with them together at the same package.
As there are seperate armistices, the reasons for the Brits, as said, are still the same to humiliate the french Navy. The possible reactions of France are my ... suggestions.
I think its a case of only blaming the actual government what the opposition says and does is nearly irrelevant.So the Tory party - who'd campaigned on more rearmament - loses to Labour, who'd done everything they could to reduce military spending, because Britain has been defeated (obvious as a result of not ENOUGH spent on the military)
Sorry, but I fail to see the logic in this.
Nope, they weren't interested in foreign wars, which is why they rioted when the colonial administration forced them into it in 1939 without consulting the Indian National Congress.Could Britain get India on side with a more concrete and definite independence/partition plan?
The Tories would have lost the war and Chamberlain was the guy that had appeased Hitler for so long. The public was pissed about that. Plus Labour did end up supporting rearmament after Hitler got annex-y. Politics and logic tend not to go hand in hand and it was the Tories that screwed up last and were in total control by 1940.So the Tory party - who'd campaigned on more rearmament - loses to Labour, who'd done everything they could to reduce military spending, because Britain has been defeated (obvious as a result of not ENOUGH spent on the military)
Sorry, but I fail to see the logic in this.
And I think you are confusing the way a 1940's democracy feels about war with one a 2010's one does.
Nope, they weren't interested in foreign wars, which is why they rioted when the colonial administration forced them into it in 1939 without consulting the Indian National Congress.
Poor people looking for jobs may well have been likely. Service positions paid very well, plus your lodging and food was paid for. In 1940s India that's not nothing and pre-war the army was kept very small, 130,000 Indian soldiers in the Indian army. It was kept low on purpose.The OTL recruitment figures don't seem to imply resistance to being "forced into it". 5 infantry divisions in 1940, 5 more in 1941, 3 in 1942. That's a lot of soldiers from a country that doesn't want to take part in a War.
Poor people looking for jobs may well have been likely. Service positions paid very well, plus your lodging and food was paid for. In 1940s India that's not nothing and pre-war the army was kept very small, 130,000 Indian soldiers in the Indian army. It was kept low on purpose.
I have yet to see any evidence that the 2 million volunteers in the Indian army did so out of love for Britain or desire to fight in Europe. By 1942 I'm sure there were men wanting to fight defend their homeland from Japan, but as you note the major expansion happened in 1940-41. Plus most Indian divisions were not planned to be used for combat in Europe, rather occupation duties, some colonial fighting, and garrison duties, so for the Indian volunteers they weren't likely going into it thinking they'd be fighting in a war, rather more likely to be replacing white divisions to go fight the Axis, which is mostly what did happen until Japan joined the war.
Once Britain leaves, they are out of the war, which is why they didn't make peace IOTL. India wouldn't rejoin the war with them, the US would never support them materially, politically the Tory party would get wiped out in the next election (which was coming due to the wartime cancellation of elections being moot) for having made peace, Britain's finances were a mess, actually declaring war without a triggering event like a guarantee of a nation's sovereignty being violated or attack on Britain wouldn't be possible in the 20th century (this isn't the Napoleonic Wars, modern democracy doesn't work the same way), and it would take at least until 1942 in total peace to rebuild the military, while the Axis pact means declaring war on Germany automatically triggers war with Japan and Italy...which Britain would not willingly do. So for Britain it was stay in to the end or accept that the war was really over for the long term in 1940. Which is why they stayed in. Now it is possible they would have dropped out if the BEF was destroyed, in that case they certainly will not be ready to go to war again in 1942 from just a material/organizational position, let alone the strategic/political stuff. So if they are out in 1940 then Germany has a window of probably about 4-5 years where Britain will be unable to do much to resist German expansion in the East, while with India the empire is starting to unravel.
You mean OTL?:So with a "Win this War and you're definitely free as soon as we win it" kind of promise, followed up by a commission forming to look into the form that independence takes, you could reasonably see higher Indian recruitment in an ATL?
The Cripps mission was an attempt in late March 1942 by the British government to secure full Indian cooperation and support for their efforts in World War II. The mission was headed by Sir Stafford Cripps, a senior left-wing politician and government minister in the War Cabinet of Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Cripps was sent to negotiate an agreement with the nationalist leaders, speaking for the majority Indians, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, speaking for the minority Muslim population. Cripps worked to keep India loyal to the British war effort in exchange for a promise of full self-government after the war. Cripps promised to give dominion status after the war as well as elections to be held after the war. Cripps discussed the proposals with the Indian leaders and published them. Both the major parties, the Congress and the League rejected his proposals and the mission proved a failure. Cripps had designed the proposals himself, but they were too radical for both Churchill and the Indians; no middle way was found. Congress moved toward the Quit India movement whereby it refused to cooperate in the war effort, while the British imprisoned practically the entire Congress leadership for the duration of the war. Jinnah was pleased to see that the right to opt out of a future Union was included.[1][2]
Churchill's death prior to taking the PM slot or shortly thereafter leaving Halifax in charge would probably mean an exit from the war. He would rearm, but getting back in the war isn't going to happen and the Tories would get wiped out in the next election for making peace, unless the public didn't want to punish Halifax for the results of the appeasement strategy in the next election.Very well. Is it so that no course of political development could result in them leaving the war?
You mean OTL?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cripps'_mission
Well, you can't have Churchill for one. But without Churchill perhaps Britain doesn't stay in the war. But the issue was also that the Indians wanted things on their terms, not to fight Britain's war to the end. They were going to be independent whether or not the war was won, so even with all the concessions by the Brits there really is no stake in it for India.Well, yes, but I was implying the "middle way" being found and all parties agreeing to the proposition. Like the OTL, but ATL in regards to it being successful and giving the Indians a real stake in winning the War.
This is, however, taking us away from the main point of the thread I think.
Very well. Is it so that no course of political development could result in them leaving the war?
always think the WORST outcome for Dunkirk would be if British evacuated most of THEIR forces but had to stop operations with the 75k French troops (evacuated the last three days) still trapped there.
poisoned relations PRIOR to attack on the French fleet (which almost certainly goes ahead as they are if anything more suspect in British view?)
You could see higher Indian recruitment by there being more need - OTL the British were turning away recruits due to equipment and officer-number problems, but after a certain point you train Indian officers too.So with a "Win this War and you're definitely free as soon as we win it" kind of promise, followed up by a commission forming to look into the form that independence takes, you could reasonably see higher Indian recruitment in an ATL?
AFAIK they had enough unskilled manpower, too much in fact and couldn't actually complete divisions because of the lack of technical personnel and leadership qualified volunteers.You could see higher Indian recruitment by there being more need - OTL the British were turning away recruits due to equipment and officer-number problems, but after a certain point you train Indian officers too.
Do you see the French Fleet handed over to the KM in this scenario?
my attempt at scenario, a Tar Baby scenario in which every strike at Vichy regime worsens relations, every strike at French factories or distant colonies hardens their distrust.
possible the British agree to armistice if their military actions have become counterproductive?
AFAIK they had enough unskilled manpower, too much in fact and couldn't actually complete divisions because of the lack of technical personnel and leadership qualified volunteers.