Two things. Firstly I fee you really should have put your revised TL as a new post rather than editing the OP, now its hard to see what other posters were responding to.
It's why I included the changelog, I intend to keep on revising this and I don't want to flood the board with these.
There are still fairly large issues. A coup against Stalin is if anything likely to improve the performance of the USSR and victory at Stalingrad doesn't really help the German's strategic situation. Pouring in more resources to win there actually lowers their chances of winning overall.
That's exactly what I said in a reply to someone earlier, I agree with you. I think they might technically do better, but they might be willing to surrender where Stalin was not. right It's there in the Butterflies section for a reason, I'm not a fan of it, intending to to revise it later on.
Maybe it's a coup -> leads to a power struggle in russia -> leads to a repeat of the Russian surrender in WWI.... Still thinking about that one... If I had a better idea here I'd get it going.
Also if the Nazi's attempt to interfere in Latin America that would violate the Monroe Doctrine and make conflict with the USA all but inevitable.
I doubt they'd interfere there even in this timeline, It's why I'm still researching and not posting stuff about it in the timeline yet.
Also: conflict here is pretty much inevitable with the US any way you try to slice it:
- The already broken relations between the UK and Germany heating up into a war? The US will probably get the UK's back eventually.
- Don't tell me there won't be some sort of international incident in the south china sea if Japan reaches hegemony and the US still runs trade ships through there.
- etc.
As for the incident in St. Pierre and Miquelon which might also be seen as a violation of the Monroe doctrine, I think the situation is more nuanced than that. The Island was owned by france before the war, and even IOTL the US saw vichy as it's legitimate owner before recognizing free-france. If De Gaulle was to retake it without free france, and without a western power at war with the Axis at that time, it becomes much harder to speculate where the incident would lead to. I doubt it would be war though.
Honestly your initial POD for Britain leaving the war is if anything weaker than it was, just a vague the Germans do better in a situation in which they had already been massively lucky. You even concede defeat at Dunkirk is unlikely to lead to a British capitulation. The threat of invasion after the fall of France in only six weeks and then months of terror bombing in the Blitz failed to get Britain to come to terms, there is no plausible way the Germans could do so much better in France that it would knock the British out. Frankly it's considerably easier to have the Allies do better in the Battle of France than it is the Germans.
The justification for Britain leaving the war is still the BEF surrender. IOTL there was talk in london of an armistice after the battle of France was lost, sure a BEF surrender would probably not have made an armistice a certainty, but it would make it more of a possibility than it was in our timeline. If there was a 9/10 chance of Britain staying in the fight IOTL, then conservatively there's an 8/10 chance of them staying ITTL, 2/10 isn't a certainty, but I don't see it nearly as big a stretch as some of the other things on this timeline. If you want to make the point that even a 2/10 chance is generous, I'd love to hear why, and read anything you could point me too about the May 30th cabinet vote whether or not to stay in the war.
The Madagascar plan was never more than a fantasy, the logistics of moving that many people over those distances was simply too ridiculous, far more effective to simply compress the Jews into ghettos and let them starve to death while squeezing the last of their valuables out of them. The Poles and Slavs might be 'lucky' enough to be worked to death as slave labour creating the infrastructure of the Greater Reich, where the emphasis will be on creating a new generation of hardy German peasant farmers rather than urban dwelling factory workers. All of this may not have been done much in Alt-History, but that's because as it is OTL it has been explored in death in works of straight history.
I don't agree with you there, there was some logistical work put into it beyond just fantasy, and many of the Nazi administrators of captured territories wanted their Jewish populations OUT and opposed their deportation into their territory and the building of Ghettos. From what I've read it was primarily the lack of ships and the Royal Navy that ended up killing the plan. I agree that there is also a good chance that instead the Nazis would try throwing the Jews over whatever border they end up having with the Russians, but I can also see plenty of problems with that one.