Status of a Franco-British Union in case of axis victory in the east.

In the later days of of the fighting in France in 1940 plans/proposals for a Franco-British were drawn up as a way to keep France fighting after the loss of the French Metropol. However after the British accepted the French request to seek a separate peace the proposal was no longer relevant to the war. The proposal involved the uniting the two nations into one for the period of the war, with joint citizenship, joint trade, a joint currency and joint military command. In the case of an axis victory in the east what would the fate of the war and the union be, or how would it carry on. I'll briefly lay out a scenario that seems to me plausible at first glance, as prompt if needed.

June 40:
Franco-British union agreed, and the evacuation of French government to London or first Algeria then London. Some puppet government established in German occupied France. French colonial empire remains at war with Germany.

September 40: Japanese do not occupy Indochina, resulting in no US oil embargo that year.

Winter 40-41: Italian Libya conquered by Franco-British forces.

Spring/Summer 41: Axis invasion of the Soviet Union. Japanese invasion of the Russian far east. US oil embargo on the Japanese

Autumn/Winter 41: Vast territory seized by European axis forces including the fall of the Soviet capital in Moscow. Comparatively small gains by the Japanese in the east. Capture of Vladivostok and North Sakhalin.

42: German victory in and occupation the Caucuses. Fall of Leningrad, Finnish occupation of Murmansk. Substantial reduction of the Red Army's offensive capabilities and Logistical issues involved with further German advances are enough to prompt peace talks between Moscow, Berlin and Tokyo.

43: Peace signed between axis and the Soviet Union. Japanese declaration of war on the Western allies and perhaps the US as well.
 
Japan was never going to invade Russia while still involved in China. And if they had, not only would they have been curbstomped, but why wouldn't there be an embargo on steel and oil imports?

Also, why would Barbarossa go BETTER for Germany with France still in the war? That seems like a bit of a stretch.
 
This timeline is borderline ASB with how implausible it is. Germany taking and holding Moscow is already pretty difficult, much less taking the entire Caucasus just a year later. With the Franco-British Union, Algeria is firmly in the Allied camp and the North African campaign probably isn't so much a campaign as it is an Allied curbstomp, since they'd also have to face French troops in Algeria and the French fleet making supply runs even more difficult. Thus the Allies have men available for an even earlier invasion of Italy/whatever they decide to do. Japan doing well against the Soviets while fighting in China with even less resources than they had OTL (since they won't be conquering anything in Southeast Asia) is pretty hard to make happen. If they're suicidal and open a third front in Southeast Asia they're toast.

Frankly the only thing the Axis have going in the scenario OP suggested is that there will be less LL to the USSR initially due to the lack of a Pacific route, but I question if that's enough to make them collapse. There was a thread about Japan deciding to head north, and it was pointed out that although it would be difficult the US/UK/USSR could probably just expand the rail route in Persia to make up for some of this loss.

Ignoring that the timeline presented is nearly impossible, I'm not sure the Soviet Union would ever make peace with Nazi Germany. If we somehow handwave that into happening as well then it's possible that the UK might offer a ceasefire, but I think the Soviet Union collapsing would be enough to prompt the US to join which would stop the UK from doing so. US entry into the war would probably eventually lead to the USSR going back to war with Germany once enough headway has been made/the US opens cans of sunshine over Germany. Japan doomed regardless since it has to fight the British and US and Australia/New Zealand and to lesser extent the Dutch and the French.
 
@David Floyd Japan absolutely did consider invading the Soviet Union after their war with China had started. only after the Soviet-Japanese border conflicts in 1939 had ended in a conclusive Japanese defeat did the Japanese shelve the strike north strategy. At that time the Kwantung army in Manchuria was also purged of those that expressed support for striking north, but this is more of a precaution against the Kwantung army acting on its own, there remained vocal supporters of the policy in other parts of the IJA. I think that in the circumstances of no Indochina occupation and as a result no US oil embargo, as well as a strong(compared to OTL) Franco-British's presence in East Asia make a strike south strategy less attractive, and as a result make a strike north strategy more attractive by comparison. I still think it unlikely that a strike north would be followed but I do not think it is beyond the realm of possibility after the beginning of Barbarossa. I have the Japanese do relatively well in the invasion, due to a) the invasion being unexpected, b) organisational difficulties cause by a two front invasion, and c) the unexpectedly high capabilities of the Japanese air forces. Also I do have an embargo placed upon Japan due to the invasion of the Soviet Union in the time line. The reason Barbarossa goes better in TTL is because a) the Japanese are in the war meaning greater strain on resources for the axis Soviet front (Siberian and far Eastern forces famously participated in the defence of Moscow) and b) no fighting in North Africa/no Africa Korps means that more land and air forces are available for Barbarossa. I think that without the actual land front in North Africa the western allied will be less able to put pressure on the axis despite France fighting on.
 
@Cubert I won't address your points in order because I think it'll be a bit clearer this way. So I totally agree, North Africa is going to be a big and early victory for the western allies. In the TL I layed out I have the FBU forces successfully kick the axis out of Africa in the winter of 40-41, however I believe that this would actually mean the allies are less able to put pressure on the European axis than OTL having no land front with them. As you point out, this does means that the W-allies would be able to perform invasions of Italian Mediterranean Islands and Italy itself at an accelerated rate but I am not convinced that the these operations could be made a success or even divert substantial axis resources if they are rushed into action for the 2nd half of 41 in order to relieve pressure on the Soviet Union. Infact despite the strength of the FBU, the pressure on the SU ought to be higher in this timeline due to a)the invasion of the far East by Japanese forces, and b) the lack of a German comment to North Africa in 41 meaning more land and air resources available to the axis for Barbarossa. I believe that this extra pressure could certainly lead to the successful axis capture of the Soviet capital. The gains beyond otl I give the axis in the following year are a result of the extra logistical issues that appear if Moscow falls I.e. across the whole front the red army will have a harder time suppling armies of equal size to OTL and will in general be more ponderous and slow moving then OTL. I predicted from this that in a German offensive on the southern front that the Germans would be facing forces no greater than OTL despite the SU expecting an offensive there, and also that a large amount of Soviet forces would be successfully encircled unlike in OTL where the red army successfully escaped from threatened encirclements. At that point I don't think it would be a stretch to extrapolate the other German successes I give them in 42 though I might be wrong. on the point of the capabilities of the Japanese to invade the Soviet far east, as you point out it would be extremely bad policy to to attempt to invade Soviet Union and then attack the southern resource area. In fact I am of the opinion it would be a bad idea to attempt a war both with the the Pacific powers, (FBU, USA) and the Soviet Union in either possible order due to the strain on resources. In TTL the Japanese invade just the SU due to a lack of pressure to go south, not being at the time subject to an oil embargo, which only comes once Japan is at war with the Soviet Union. This does put pressure on the Japanese to strike south but I think that if the Japanese were already at war with the Soviet Union they would chose not to. Ultimately, however I don't believe that it would affect much the chance of success of the Japanese invasion In the short term. On the issue of the Soviets seeking terms from the Axis, I think it is plausible. The Soviets did discuss peace with the German in Stockholm during the war but only began to do so once the German advance had largely stopped and the red army had some substantial victories under its belt. I believe that Stalin Is strongly inclined to avoid making any peace so long as the SU's position is weak and would carry little negotiating power in peace. Despite this, however in TTL's scenario where both armies due to losses in the field, lack of resources and intense logistical issues are not capable of gainfully advancing I believe a peace becomes likely, probably with the new boarder approximating the current line of occupation plus or minus Moscow.
 
In the TL I layed out I have the FBU forces successfully kick the axis out of Africa in the winter of 40-41, however I believe that this would actually mean the allies are less able to put pressure on the European axis than OTL having no land front with them.
Sorry, didn't notice that. Less pressure for UK inherently means more resources put towards invasions in the Mediterranean, or barring that at least an earlier ramp up to the strategic bombing campaign. One thing worth noting is Crete is somewhat less likely to fall, since more British units would be available given the lack of urgency in North Africa. In either case I hardly think the French and British are going to sit around twiddling their thumbs.

the pressure on the SU ought to be higher in this timeline due to a)the invasion of the far East by Japanese forces, and b) the lack of a German comment to North Africa in 41 meaning more land and air resources available to the axis for Barbarossa.
I absolutely agree that there would be more pressure on the Soviets thanks to the Japanese invasion, but I'm doubtful that the pressure would amount to any significant losses. The best Japan can do is take Vladivostok and Khabarovsk (and maybe Kamchatka if they decide to go for that) and then sit there glaring angrily at the Soviets as a lack of adequate supply lines prevent them from doing much else. I'm dubious of the claim that no North African front leads to greater air resources available during Barbarossa given that the UK/France also have more air resources. No Afrika Korps does mean 2 more armored divisions available for Operation Barbarossa, but considering the supply situation in Fall/Winter 1941 I have a hard time believing that this by itself leads to the fall of Moscow. Lack of an additional 18 divisions and significant amounts of tanks and aircraft from the Far East does make the Soviet Winter counteroffensive significantly less potent, but given that the Soviets still have some 40 divisions in reserve the Wehrmacht is still going to be pushed back.

In TTL the Japanese invade just the SU due to a lack of pressure to go south, not being at the time subject to an oil embargo, which only comes once Japan is at war with the Soviet Union. This does put pressure on the Japanese to strike south but I think that if the Japanese were already at war with the Soviet Union they would chose not to. Ultimately, however I don't believe that it would affect much the chance of success of the Japanese invasion In the short term.
The oil embargo by the US was only put in place 26 July 1941. ITTL the British, Dutch, and French are guaranteed to go through with this anyway, and the US are reasonably likely to follow suit or restrict imports to Japan, which screws them regardless. Thus Japan's short term advances mean very little, since after the initial offensives peter out Japan will be stuck not doing much of anything and then proceed to do worse than OTL in China because they don't have enough oil (or anything else) to keep things running. The only way this goes well for Japan is if for some reason the US doesn't embargo or even restrict oil exports to Japan when they invade the Soviet Union, which is certainly possible though I find it personally doubtful.
 
Wouldn't Japan and Soviet Union come to a compromise ?

Japan can't really attack the Soviets beyond Eastern Siberia because logistics, and being at war with the USSR means FBU/Dutch/US embargo and risk of war with FBU and US.
Stalin has an obvious interest to close this Siberian front.

So, a peace which validates Japanese conquests such as Vladivostok, in exchange for Japan reopening the Vladivostok trade line (through their own territory) is reasonable.
 
Top