I can't see Italy switching sides until the allies are clearly winning and in a position to land in Italy in strength. It seeking a separate peace is a possibility but, since Mussolini will have lost any colonies occupied - as the allies won't return them - as well as a hell of a lot of prestige I think this is only really likely with a post-Mussolini government.
While the year 1940 will end in clear defeat for Italy, the Allies will indeed not be in a position to land in mainland Italy in strenght and won't be until 1942.
Possibly, although he's between the proverbial rock and hard place. With the western allies still more clearly in the fight it might occur, although I don't know enough about the detailed history. However with the Russians having grabbed the eastern provinces and if German launches Barbarosa its difficult not to see them getting roped in.
The detailed history is quite complicated and France falling certainly helped in making the Soviet demand of Bessarabia possible. It has happened as well ITTL since the Allies are not in a position to help Romania. I think that things will pretty much be as OTL there, except that the Romanians might switch sides earlier depending on how things go in the Balkands during 1942/1943.
Its possible but you might need the allies twisting Stalin's arm. Possibly if they refuse to aid Russia unless and until he returns the land taken the in Winter War, with possibly a rumour of a separate peace to play on his paranoia. In that case you might get a solution that avoids the Finns seeking to take revenge. Might also need some reassurance for the Finns that Stalin won't back-stab them again if he wins the war
.
My idea would be Finland staying neutral or bailing out as early as they could. It would then join ATL NATO post war, laying good foundations for a colder cold war and paranoid Soviet Union.
I have argued that not attacking Pearl is possibly the Japanese best chance of 'winning' a war in the Pacific. If they don't hit the Pacific fleet then anger in the US would be reduced somewhat. If also the USN comes under pressure to relieve the Philippines and the Japanese win big - which could occur - it could get awkward for US moral. However would still expect them to fight on.
I must admit that my knowledge of the Pacific War is rather limited beyond the great lines, which is why I am asking for more views. In any case in TTL Pacific War the Japanese will have to take in account the presence of French Indochina and this will delay them for a while.
Possibly although given the on-going crisis in Europe I think he will win if he fights in 40, barring some scandal - possibly related to Kennedy? France may be fighting on but the fall of the homeland will be a hell of a shock to the world.
Him dying earlier could occur, especially if say the war is going less well for the US, or some other factor increases the personal strain on him. What happens then would depend on the circumstances.
These are merely thought exercises, if anything France fighting on should decrease the support of the isolationist cause slightly and this favours Roosevelt.
The allies could win if America doesn't fight in Europe. Presuming Russia does even more of the fighting, which also might enable a stable peace afterwards, as Stalin could lack the strength to seek to push all the way to the Atlantic.
However without L-L or some form of economic aid the allies would have to drastically change their policies on production and trade. Planning on a long war, with developing of production facilities in Britain and the empire(s) and very little attacking. I've played around with a Fabian Churchill TL working on this but it would be difficult. You would also upset the US as you would buy the minimum amount from them and probably maintain retaliatory tariffs. The former might still be significant because although the US build-up is expanding dramatically the western allies were still spending a lot. You would see no bombing campaign of any extent and top priority on securing the N Atlantic and not losing the Far East.
Due to the situation the Allies will be in late 1940 spending some time on consolidation and development makes sense in any case. Indeed as opposed to OTL the Italian threat will have been negated and the Mediterranean will be secure. The battle of the N Atlantic will be won earlier than OTL and I expect the first "happy time" to be a lot shorter due to the presence of the French Navy.
By late 1940 the war will effectively be a struggle between a whale and a lion as the Germans can't land in Africa or in Britain and the Allies can't land in Italy. Thus giving some time for consolidation and building up.
That would be very worrying as the Soviet empire would be very large, especially if the US was less involved in Europe.
The Iron curtain will be different from OTL depending on how the war goes. A scenario I am mooting is Yougoslavia in the West but a few more bits of Germany for the Soviets.
Its a possibility. You have a much larger home market, especially if you include the two empires. Coupled with a larger pool of skilled workers and designers and possibly some thinking outside the box and the two nations have worked together and questioned each other's assumptions.
Definitely do-able especially if the economics of the two powers were stronger.
Glad we agree on these two, still far off in the future and there is still a war to be won
.
Its a possibility. Especially if the US is less involved, which would mean that the western powers would feel more vulnerable. However without the US they would also be more exposed to attacks on colonies and interests in the rest of the world. Hence could be pretty difficult.
Depends on how things go in Asia, especially ATL Chinese Civil War. If Chiang wins in China, the USSR has lost a key ally.
Things will go different in the colonies in any case, especially in Indochina where a deal "you help us against the Japs, we give you independence" could kill any post war communist insurrection in the egg.
The problem here might be that the western powers will have divided desires. France might want to gain more land but elements in both France and Britain will want to minimise alienation of Germany if their in a stand-off with the Soviets. Ditto with Italy.
One complication here is that OTL France and Germany put a lot of effort into closer cooperation and formed the core of what became the EEC/EC/EU. If France and Britain merge then this could be less likely and what happens to Germany and Italy then?
Italy lost several territories to France OTL, like Tenda and Briga. France wanted even more including Bardonneche and Aosta but the latter was turned down. This is despite the fact that Aostans asked to be annexed to France, the reasons where the potential competition of the local steel industry with Lorraine and logistics as the valley would be inaccessible from France during the winter.
As opposed to OTL Italy might keep some colonies however, especially Somalia.
Post war Germany and Italy will eventually be part of the Free trade association led by the Franco-British Union but there won't be a close relationship between the Union and Germany. The Franco-British Union especially if a post war economic miracle takes place, will be powerful enough by itself not to rely on Germany to increase its power (as opposed to OTL France).
Could well occur. A more French style investment in technology rather than the British reliance on the market could mean a more successful computer industry. Especially with experience gained in the war. Combining the market of the two, plus empires and commonwealths and related neighbours and you have the basis for a real challenge to US domination of compute sciences. If they do set up different 'national' standards that could force many other countries to choose which standard they buy into.
What greatly helped the US computer industry were the demands of the military for mainframe control systems in radars or missile systems. the Franco-British army while not as large as the American one will have similar demands, thus driving demand in computer systems. However, the industry will have to consolidate into a Franco-British IBM in order to capitalise on this. It never did OTL and when it did it was too late to compete effectively.
Given Britain's desire to export I suspect France would have had plenty of access OTL, the limit probably more being French ability to buy. However, especially if Britain is working at least as much with France as with the US on nuclear matters the two could develop their nuclear programmes, both military and civil, faster and more successfully. Provided they avoid a major crisis it could become significant in both nations similar to France now.
OTL a lot of the French coal needs were met by either French coal or by German coal. One mist remember that the EU started as the European Coal and Steel Community, whose explicit aim was to combine German coal with French Iron ore.
OTL the first commercial nuclear power station was Calder Hall built in Britain and opened 1956. Interestingly as well both France and Britain developped very different reactor designs compared to the US. The US used light water reactors, but Britain went with gas cooled reactors, France started down that path as well but opted to licence buy American PWRs in the early 1970s. These were then built en masse during the 1970s and 1980s and further upgraded.
If TTL the combined Franco-British effort only focuses on gas cooled reactors, it could potentially culminate in creating what are for the moment only concepts like the Very High Temperature Reactor say 20 to 30 years ahead of OTL.
Both with that and relations between labour, employers and government developments could be interesting. The difference, as I mention above between the more statist French and more laisse-faire British could cause a lot of changes.
The interesting thing here is that a lot of the "statist" institutions of France were created post war by De Gaulle and its national government (which contained communists). TTL the ENA (National School of Administration) will never be created, as will be the case of many other bodies. Also, if you remember what I said in an earlier post from June Georges Mandel will play a key role in France post war and he was a staunch supporter of "freeing the French economy" during the thirties.
I admit that I am biased here, but I foresee the Franco-British becoming more laisser faire than OTL post war and building a welfare state on principes different from OTL. Instead of child credits and child allowances, think along the lines of some kind of negative income tax, coupled with an easier access to banking and saving for pension provision.
OTL French pension system was designed by believe it or not the Pétain government and its template was reused post war by as part of the social security package of reforms. TTL the British system offers a working model for France and will be implemented instead.
What. You're going to give the French a decent diet!
I would expect the British to be more open to foreign influences here, as OTL.
Well the national dish of France, steak and chips has its origins with the soldiers of Wellington himself. Myself after five years of living in the UK I am still quite surprised by the similarity in ingredients in British and French cooking, they both use beef, popatoes and wheat based products extensively among other things.
Among the French soldiers evacuated to Britain there will be no doubt a few whose fathers, brothers or uncles are café or bistro owners. It just takes one to start spreading stuff like pies, or fish and chips in France once the war is over. It just take one British lass married to a former French soldier who now owns a café, to start seeing additions on the menu.
OTL American soldiers brought Coke, burgers and hot dogs with them wherever they went. TTL the same can happen with British soldiers in France. One must also remember that post war, communications between France and Britain will be MUCH easier than OTL. Indeed, France will keep Greenwich time, which the Germans occupiers ditched OTL, governments programmes for student/teachers exchanges will be in place to bridge the language barrier and eventually come the 1970s high speed trains crossing the channel tunnel and low-cost airlines criss crossing the Union will help as well.
Given the closer cooperation between France and Britain how's the interaction between Britain and the US going to go? For instance is the transfer of technology to the US going to go ahead without strings? Or the destroyers for bases. Especially if the allies are more cautious about selling assets to the US relations could be more strained. Most importantly of course do we still get a joint nuclear programme with the US. If not then you could get no nukes produced before the war's over.
The other possibly point of significance might be what break-thoughs, either in technology or methods/policies close interaction between Britain and France brings. As it means that someone possibly questions traditional ideas and prompts a new line of thought.
Steve
I am still torn whether the Tizard mission would go ahead as OTL or not, my heart tell me now as the technologies have an immense industrial value post war. But the situation on the ground while better than OTL is still not good.
The nuclear programme will start off as Union only and the Union might even build a reactor early on (Chadwick decided to hide a paper on how to build one OTL, this might be different ITTL). But it makes sense for the US to get involved when they join the war effort as they have more money to spend.
