So, suppose the Brits exit the war in 1940...

[Cryhavoc101]

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.

Halifax also talked Churchill out of sending more Squadrons to France in order to allow Britain to fight on, and dissuaded dominion leaders ideas to seek peace with Germany.

And what ever Halifax was willing to accept is not necessarily what the rest of the government and parliament would be willing to accept or Herr Hitler for that matter.

His overtures to Mussolini were intended to Keep Italy out of the war and restore France to at least a semblance of its prewar status - however this all ended on the 28th May when it became apparent that Italy was planning to side with Germany.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Was the Indian government able to solve this problem, and how long did it take? A decade, or more?

The state of India inherited the Indian military built up by the British by 1945 in 1947 and then used it against their primary enemy going forward: Pakistan. Given that neither side was particularly developed it would seem that the inherited military was plenty given the foreign threats faced by India. So I don't think there was a 'problem' of lack of trained personnel for them upon independence, because the military was far larger than needed for any threat facing the nation, they could and probably did demobilize 60% of it and retained more than enough trained personnel for the much smaller military the kept standing. Going from the pre-war 130k man standing army to defend against Soviet invasion, even with a 500k man standing army they probably trained more than enough personnel during the war to keep the country safe in the post-war threat environment. The issue is that for the sort of military that keeps getting talked about for Britain during WW2 that Indian manpower was supposed to solve, it wasn't ever going to solve British manpower problems. The huge investment to make it a 2.5 million man army IOTL by 1945 was huge and most units never even saw combat or served in such a capacity. The issue then was for Britain in a world war, not for India post-war when they just had to face off against Pakistan and perhaps against the USSR over the Himilayan Mountains and only after they rolled over Pakistan. China too was geographically a marginal threat until MUCH later.

Halifax also talked Churchill out of sending more Squadrons to France in order to allow Britain to fight on, and dissuaded dominion leaders ideas to seek peace with Germany.

And what ever Halifax was willing to accept is not necessarily what the rest of the government and parliament would be willing to accept or Herr Hitler for that matter.

His overtures to Mussolini were intended to Keep Italy out of the war and restore France to at least a semblance of its prewar status - however this all ended on the 28th May when it became apparent that Italy was planning to side with Germany.

Given that peace was determined by the War Cabinet, it would seem that if Halifax was the PM he'd create a very favorable cabinet to his wishes. Plus without a strong leader to lead the nation to continued resistance and in fact one that says he worked out a deal with Hitler that was favorable with the backing of the War Cabinet it is more likely that he'd get parliament to agree, especially if all he needed was the Tories to support him. Halifax wasn't an idiot when he had Churchy hold back aircraft and told Dominion states not to make a separate peace, to get the best deal Britain would have to negotiate as a block and have military cards left to bargain with. Halifax did want to ask for terms and was only stopped by Churchill, remove him from the equation and negotations happen. BTW his move with Italy didn't signal anything other than trying to keep the negotiation position for Britain from getting worse; if Italy joined then Britain's bargaining position became weaker.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Was the Indian government able to solve this problem, and how long did it take? A decade, or more?

Do you mean the British Indian government (is the term 'Raj' acceptable these days?) or post independence?

AFAIK, a lack of officers was a problem that plagued the British Indian Army until the 40s. After that it subsided somewhat with the effects of the new commissioning system (KCIOs, VCOs, etc).

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Do you mean the British Indian government (is the term 'Raj' acceptable these days?) or post independence?

....

Post indépendance

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Post indépendance

Kind of out of bounds for the thread, but ignore my earlier response in that case.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I thought it might give some sort of guide for modeling the British ability in this scenario.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I thought it might give some sort of guide for modeling the British ability in this scenario.

Not really unfortunately. The post-war Indian army as far as I can tell was smaller than the WW2 Indian army and in fact the modern Indian standing army with reserves is smaller than the 1945 one. Now it could just tell use that perhaps only about 40% of the 1945 army was combat deployable if the post-war Indian army was only that big and full of only combat effective troops. IOTL the Indian army had a number of issues, prior to 1942-43 there was a constant shortage of equipment and training resources and the Brits found they couldn't form all the divisions they planned on due to lack of technically proficient personnel (especially armored divisions). It seems prior to 1943 they couldn't really be relied on to be a major source of manpower, though several divisions were able to be used in North Africa. The Malaya and Burma situations though indicated there were issues with the units that had been deployed there IOTL. So really other than a handful of divisions in 1941-42 India won't be a major source of proficient combat troops until 1943, but then things are still limited until 1944-45, but the war was won by then.

 

[thaddeus]

Do you see the French Fleet handed over to the KM in this scenario?

Token bits. If Germany wants to retina domination its going to need a fleet for the 1950s & 60s, not ships laid on for 1930s state of the art. In the long run Making France pay for new German ships makes better economic sense. ...but then the nazi leadership were not know for solid economic sense.

my suggestion was the French submarines 1. because the Germans aren't going to allow France to retain them since THEY weren't after WWI and 2. they needed them in the Med and wouldn't have to run gauntlet past Gibraltar to get them there.

was quickly disabused me of that idea.

what would have been realistic (both to negotiate AND for the KM to operate) were the AMCs and regular commercial ships, abiding the French desire NOT to turn over their naval fleet.

 

[thaddeus]

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?)

IF Vichy regime strikes some type of accord with Germany? as they expected to do. still not enough to prompt an armistice from GB?

Fortunately for Britain this did not work for the Germans in the long run. Inept German policy kept up the hate for more in their direction. Allied air attacks inflicted over 200,000 civilian casualties on the French, yet when push came to shove they threw flowers at the Allied soldiers and shot at the Germans. Given Hitlers capricious decision making and nasty attitude a peace treaty with France is liable to become a festering problem for the long term.

my view is that Admiral Darlan (and rest of top echelon of Vichy regime) are a perfect barometer of German success so that any deal has to be struck before (any) invasion of USSR.

(of course my idea is turn over majority of France to Vichy regime, keeping only occupation of Nord Pas-de-Calais so that might Never fly?)

 

[sitalkes]

With Britain out of the way, and if France falls, next on Hitler's list was Spain/Gibraltar and Switzerland. Spain would be much happier to join the war since it wouldn't be blockaded and some French bit of Africa might be given to Spain. Italy, Bulgaria, and Hungary would have a free reign in Yugoslavia and Greece (or Yugoslavia might join the Axis). Would peace with Britain stymie any Gibraltar aspirations after the fall of France, or would it be the first of many demands made against Britain like they were made against the Czechs? The invasion of Switzerland was planned to go ahead several times, but cancelled - no Britain might make a German-Italian invasion more likely. So if the Axis are able to get Greece and Yugoslavia, that makes the situation for Turkey interesting. If Germany/Spain demands Gibraltar, Italy might demand Malta from the British - which was thought indefensible in 1940?

 

[CaliGuy]

Allowing for no invasion threat, the British would rebuild their Army and come back for another go as soon as they could.

Good luck getting the necessary U.S. loans for that.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

In this scenario Britain wont need war loans. It was still solvent in 1941 & with th stress of war operations absent financial retrenchment is possible.

Germany is the victor with the finance problem. Between looting foreign treasuries, and accounting fraud Germany had financed its military expansion, and placed its economy of shaky ground. A peace treaty offers to opportunity to wreck Europes economy by using reparations & other extortion to keep a oversized military at state of the art. At this point there were only two sources of large scale capitol on the planet, the London and New York banks. The Brits will do everything they can to avoid loaning Germany a penny. The US government had ceased backing loans to Germany from 1934 & the odds of a German friendly US government 1940-44 are near nil.

Given the economic ineptitude of the nazi kletocracy I'd predict major problems in the near future. Their best bet is a massive demobilization, using the Gestapo to root out corruption, establish a Europe wide economic plan to revive the economies of the losing nations and Europe in general. That includes modest reparations in the peace treaties and instant cessation of looting the French, Belgian, Dutch, and Norwegian industry. But, what are the odds of any of that happening.

The Odds Are Hitler will decide to settle the Russian question in 1941 or 42. No war in the Med or Atlantic only partially balances a economically reviving Britain, and that Italy cant be leaned on for support the same way as OTL. Neither will the 'treaty nations' in the west provide the same level of loot as OTL. ie: Stripping France of motor vehicles to allow the expansion of the armored or mechanized forces is no longer a option.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

In this scenario Britain wont need war loans. It was still solvent in 1941 & with th stress of war operations absent financial retrenchment is possible.

Germany is the victor with the finance problem. Between looting foreign treasuries, and accounting fraud Germany had financed its military expansion, and placed its economy of shaky ground.

It had blown through it's foreign exchange in 1940 and was only able to buy on the foreign market with gold loans from the Belgian government in exile and South Africa until LL kicked in progressively over the year. Without war it could source more from the empire rather than the US and space out it's purchasing from the US to make gold loans last longer, but the Belgian loan would not happen if the war ends in 1940. Also with the war ending in say July or June they can preserve their treasury better going forward and export to raise more foreign exchange. So while they won't be insolvent if the war ends early in 1940 they will have a tight budget and have to space out rearmament over a lot longer period than what they did to rebuild their army by 1942 IOTL on the backs of gold loans and LL.
Germany actually is in a much better fiscal situation post-peace thanks to the looting of occupied treasuries and stealing from Jews and other private accounts. Without a blockade Europe's economy can function just fine and import from colonies and the US. The German economy is based on arms, but with the bridge money from reparations in peace deals it can demilitarize substantially and use it's military position to enforce favorable trade deals and a common market; they are in a much better position by mid-1940 than they were in 1939 as a result of their victories and Britain leaving the war removes the stranglehold of the blockade on top of that.
https://rwhiston.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/13/

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

https://rwhiston.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/13/

Not the smartest source to cite for supporting your arguments. Its a useful analysis, but a poor choice for you.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Not the smartest source to cite for supporting your arguments. Its a useful analysis, but a poor choice for you.

Other people's gold is still gold in hand. Plus the French had $3 Billion in 1940 value gold in US banks that becomes available when the war ends. And all the European colonial empires to import from at a discount.

If you have specific criticisms of my argument based on that link, how about you share them so we can go through them?

 

[Astrodragon]

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.

Pissed at losing, certainly. But Labour fought rearmament to the bitter end, this isn't going to be waved away as you think. And the Tories will certainly be reminding the electorate.
I simply fail to see why losing, hence obviously not preparing enough, makes people vote for the party that regularly, repeatedly and fervently opposed preparing for war. Have the Germans been lacing the reservoirs with lead paint again?

 

[Astrodragon]

It had blown through it's foreign exchange in 1940 and was only able to buy on the foreign market with gold loans from the Belgian government in exile and South Africa until LL kicked in progressively over the year. Without war it could source more from the empire rather than the US and space out it's purchasing from the US to make gold loans last longer, but the Belgian loan would not happen if the war ends in 1940. Also with the war ending in say July or June they can preserve their treasury better going forward and export to raise more foreign exchange. So while they won't be insolvent if the war ends early in 1940 they will have a tight budget and have to space out rearmament over a lot longer period than what they did to rebuild their army by 1942 IOTL on the backs of gold loans and LL.
Germany actually is in a much better fiscal situation post-peace thanks to the looting of occupied treasuries and stealing from Jews and other private accounts. Without a blockade Europe's economy can function just fine and import from colonies and the US. The German economy is based on arms, but with the bridge money from reparations in peace deals it can demilitarize substantially and use it's military position to enforce favorable trade deals and a common market; they are in a much better position by mid-1940 than they were in 1939 as a result of their victories and Britain leaving the war removes the stranglehold of the blockade on top of that.
https://rwhiston.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/13/

First, Britain had plenty of gold/dollars in June 1940 (we aren't interested in OTL 1941)
Second, they aren't going to take over the French orders.
I simply fail to see this 'german economic miracle' post win. They are broke (out of foreign reserves, and owing their own people money). In OTL the held this off for a year or so by rampant looting of the conquered countries. If they do this again (how?) they end up with a collapsing European economy (just as in OTL).

You seem to have them squaring a circle they couldn't manage in OTL. Any reparation money sufficient to bail them out also wrecks the European economies. Catch-22.

Now granted, given enough time you can probably sort this out. But Hitler doesn't HAVE time, Stalin is to his East and getting stronger every day.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

First, Britain had plenty of gold/dollars in June 1940 (we aren't interested in OTL 1941)
Second, they aren't going to take over the French orders.
I simply fail to see this 'german economic miracle' post win. They are broke (out of foreign reserves, and owing their own people money). In OTL the held this off for a year or so by rampant looting of the conquered countries. If they do this again (how?) they end up with a collapsing European economy (just as in OTL).

You seem to have them squaring a circle they couldn't manage in OTL. Any reparation money sufficient to bail them out also wrecks the European economies. Catch-22.

Now granted, given enough time you can probably sort this out. But Hitler doesn't HAVE time, Stalin is to his East and getting stronger every day.

Define plenty of dollars/gold. Certainly they would have more than they had by January 1941. And yes they couldn't blow it hard in the second half of 1940, so would have reserves for a measured recovery after June 1940...but that measured recovery would take longer to implement.

Also I'm not arguing for an 'economic miracle', just the return to a peace time economy for Europe without the blockade, but with German in control over an economic zone that had a combined GDP higher than the US in 1940 not counting their empires. The German took effectively hundreds of millions of dollars of 1940 value gold from all over Europe IOTL, not counting occupation reimbursements which totals billions of dollars in value, without even counting what they would do with access to all the French, Dutch, Belgian gold in US banks or abroad. End the blockade, restore access to imperial imports/exports, restore German corporate access to Latin American/North American profits (tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars worth of profits in foreign currencies they were cut off from IOTL and was confiscated by the US during and at the end of the war), and remove the need to keep spending for the Germans on a war against Britain means a lot more money coming in, a lot less going out on war expenditures.

Remember even in 1941 during Barbarossa over half of German war spending was going to fight Britain NOT the USSR; in fact the military budget allocated to procurement of items to fight the war in the East was never more than less than half the military budget. If the Germans don't go to war with the USSR and instead demobilize they have all the bridge money they need to convert to a non-militarized economy, plus the captive markets of Europe.

Granted Nazi planning was not the best, but they have a very large economic cushion to transition and no need to rearm like the Brits. Plus they've eliminated all their continental enemies for the foreseeable future (the USSR is not going to attack a Nazi Germany at peace with Britain). The question is what lasting system would be created. There were a number of proposals for a common market and with peace in 1940 it is open to discussion what form that would have taken; it does seem that the longer the war went on IOTL the more radical Hitler and his inner circle got about German hegemony on the continent, so an earlier peace might moderate what actual happens vs. where Hitler was at in 1943 and later, especially if the USSR is not invaded. If there was peace in 1940 there is a chance Hitler might not turn East, as many of the triggering events to convince him that Stalin couldn't be trusted came after July 1940, which would ITTL be after the POD and could be butterflied away. As of August 1940 at very least Barbarossa was not decided on, IIRC the decision being made for sure late in 1940 or very early in 1941. Plus without an ongoing war Hitler might well feel he doesn't have the domestic political cover to go to war, he apparently remarked during the war he feared that with victory over Britain he wouldn't be able to rouse the German people to go to war again.

Pissed at losing, certainly. But Labour fought rearmament to the bitter end, this isn't going to be waved away as you think. And the Tories will certainly be reminding the electorate.
I simply fail to see why losing, hence obviously not preparing enough, makes people vote for the party that regularly, repeatedly and fervently opposed preparing for war. Have the Germans been lacing the reservoirs with lead paint again?

The Brits were happy to dump Churchill the first chance they got in 1945.

 

[nbcman]

First, Britain had plenty of gold/dollars in June 1940 (we aren't interested in OTL 1941)
Second, they aren't going to take over the French orders.
I simply fail to see this 'german economic miracle' post win. They are broke (out of foreign reserves, and owing their own people money). In OTL the held this off for a year or so by rampant looting of the conquered countries. If they do this again (how?) they end up with a collapsing European economy (just as in OTL).

You seem to have them squaring a circle they couldn't manage in OTL. Any reparation money sufficient to bail them out also wrecks the European economies. Catch-22.

Now granted, given enough time you can probably sort this out. But Hitler doesn't HAVE time, Stalin is to his East and getting stronger every day.

Plus Stalin is looking for payments (machine tools, ships, military equipment blueprints) for all the raw materials that have been or are due to be shipped in 1940 and 1941. The Nazi's can no more afford to pay them ITL than OTL when they still have over 12 Billion RM of MEFO bills outstanding in addition to 19 Billion RM of normal government bonds which is about 12.5 Billion US Dollars. This far dwarfs the value of gold the Nazis managed to confiscate.

Also, how is Hitler going to convince Uncle Joe that those 4 million servicemen are just vacationing in Romania and Poland in May - June 1941? Unless the idea is that the Nazis are going to not go for lebenstraum which is not a likely outcome as preliminary Barbarossa planning started in July 1940.

EDIT: added value of Nazi bonds and conversion to US dollars

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Good luck getting the necessary U.S. loans for that.

...until the US Elections on 10th Dec 1940!

Regardless of who wins - the President is Pro British and effectively the US was upto but not at war with Germany to all intents and purposes going into 1941 and would support Britain to the hilt until they too were at war with the Axis.