What does Britain do here?

What does Britain do ITTL?


  • Total voters
    95

nbcman

Donor
Agreed. Politically I believe a peace agreement would require the removal of either FDR (via a general election), or the removal of Churchill (via a Dunkirk debacle). I'm assuming any Nazi regime willing to offer reasonable terms to the British, would be looking to put in place a sustainable peace in western Europe.
That's one heck of a peace agreement to force the removal of the head of state of a NEUTRAL country.
The Nazi regime is going to get more out of France through ongoing reparations and co-opting its industry (including US subsidiaries) than it would through its OTL looting of a French corpse.
How did you come to that conclusion? The Germans never paid more than 2.2 Billion RMs per year as part of their reparations after WW1. As cited previously, the French looting was almost more than that in 1940 alone (1.8 Billion RM) and was over double that in 1941 (5 Billion RM). A defeated but not looted France couldn't pay more than what the Germans took from them IOTL.
I appreciate there is not always an obvious nexus between the Nazi regime and rational decision making, but was the physical occupation of western Europe always part of Nazi ideology, or a necessity born out of the continued British war effort?
 
No, I believe it would be financially impossible for the British to remain mobilized from the fall of France through to Barbarossa, without the extreme financial support of the US

The positive US contribution to Britain's war effort in WWII was <1% of the total, and when you factor in the negative aspects (Paukenschlag, getting involved in the Pacific War against Britain's own interests) having the US as an ally was actually a drawback.
 

hipper

Banned
It is if your GDP is dedicated to producing armaments and the Chancellor advises cabinet military expenditure cannot continue...

...and according to Combined Committee on Non-Food Consumption, The Impact of the War on Civilian Consumption in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, in 1940 War expenditure accounted for 44% of GDP, other consumption expenditure 71%, resulting in a deficient of 15%. I have not cross checked against any other sources and I appreciate in this scenario the is no conflict from mid-1940.

The deficit is not the problem that can be raised simply by increasing Debt, mostly with the supplier countries. When you organise the worlds shipping you are in a very strong position to do that. Look at the debits the UK had with Argentina and Chile at the end of WW2 (paid Off with jet aircraft)
 

BooNZ

Banned
The point is that even after a failed Dunkirk the UK would get better terms by fighting on rather than asking for peace. The only option the Germans have to directly attack the UK was bombing and the U boat war neither was decisive.

Yes I understand this, but the OP's premise is we have a peace agreement or armistice. For that to happen you probably need a failed Dunkirk and an acceptable offer from the Nazis on the table. Dunkirk could conceivably had got rid of Churchill and purportedly the reason Britain did not pursue an alternative peace after OTL German victories was because Britain doubted a reasonable offer would be forthcoming. A reasonable offer is not ASB, but perhaps verging on Notszi.

Neither, they don't take over the French orders and go on a dollar conservation policy. I.e. Only order essentials from the US this means that industrial expansion is slower in 1941 42 than otherwise. But the lack of losses from fighting an actual war more than makes up for this.

Expansion? Do they not release workers from armament factories and try and get some export revenue coming in? In 1940 Britain avoids the Battle of Britain and the 30,000 Troops in North Africa don't wear out their old kit chasing the Italians across Africa, but if the British remain substantially mobilized and continue the focus on armament production, the majority of the projected costs will still happen, with or without an active war in place. I think the British could put together a decent defence force without going to the wall financially, but brooms might feature for training purposes...

I doubt the UK would create the Welfare state in 1941 after a defeat on the continent, Lots of rearmament would be the call, besides in 1941 the soviets paid for armaments, selling guns and aircraft to the USSR would be profitable.

I assumed the British were already funding schools in 1939/1940, but based on some responses on this thread - I do wonder. I thought the idea was to help the Russian war effort - Lend Lease was not a huge part of the Soviet war effort, but much of it was tailored to meet gaps in Soviet capacity and the payment terms were suitably vague. Cash and delivery of British army surplus is neither.

After Barbarossa the Germans and probably Italians would have blockade(s) in place, so any deliveries to the Soviets would necessitate a British declaration of war. Indeed the only option offered by the OP that does not require or equate to a declaration of war is the 'do nothing' option.

It took quite a long time in OTL to Demobilise I don't think the UK stops conscription in this scenario but would keep the older age groups in the factories remember the UK has just suffered a disaster which will be ascribed to lack of preparation. Demobilisation implies trusting Hitler there will not be many voices saying trust him.

It takes a lot of time and resources to mobilise and even longer to gear up an industry/economy for war. It takes a lot of time and resources to demobilise and even longer to retool industry/economy for consumer/export production. It takes a lot of dedicated resources to keep over 2 million men and women in uniform. It takes a lot of time and resources to equip over 2 million men and women and also upgrade their equipment as it wears out and becomes obsolete. According the Chancellor, the British did not have huge quantities of resources available.

Clearly there is a distinction between total available assets/credit and those able to be convertible to $US, but the later is the canary in the mine. The $US was not the default currency it is today, but the US was the world's largest economy and very few British realisable assets could not have been valued and converted into $US. The Stirling zone included countries that either used Stirling or those willing to extend credit to Britain due to confidence in the British government/ economy.

Those Stirling zone economies would likely give Britain the benefit of the doubt during wartime when Britain was ultimately expected to win, but in the absence of US trade, Britain would be racking up vast deficits within the Stirling zone in peacetime - at the very least it is something that is not going to inspire confidence in the British government/ economy.
 

BooNZ

Banned
That's one heck of a peace agreement to force the removal of the head of state of a NEUTRAL country.
My exact words were "removal of either FDR (via a general election)"
Could you walk me through how you concluded the potential removal of a head of state was part of a peace agreement?

By via a general election I was referring to the 1940 US General election where FDR was elected on a platform of keeping the US out of Europe. Following the fall of France, the British war chiefs concluded the war against Germany could not be won without the support of the US. Despite his election platform, the British believed FDR was the candidate to bring the US into the war and sought to influence the 1940 US election in his favour. Without FDR as president, it is uncertain Britain could have sustained the OTL war beyond 1940.

How did you come to that conclusion? The Germans never paid more than 2.2 Billion RMs per year as part of their reparations after WW1. As cited previously, the French looting was almost more than that in 1940 alone (1.8 Billion RM) and was over double that in 1941 (5 Billion RM). A defeated but not looted France couldn't pay more than what the Germans took from them IOTL.

1. Asset valuation - when preparing financial accounts, the assets are ordinarily valued on the assumption the entity is a going concern i.e. the entity will continue to operate and therefore the assets used in the business will continue to serve their existing purpose. The reason this assumption is made is the value of an asset in use is ordinarily far greater than the sum of the asset parts - for example if a café stops operating, you have a coffee machine and a collection of furniture - not a business. Auditors ordinarily go out of their way to explicitly confirm the going concern assumption and will require another (ordinarily far lower) asset valuation if it cannot be demonstrated.

I am not familiar with Nazi looting methodologies, but I suspect the numbers you are citing are the cost to the French economy, not the value to the German war effort. For example, if French factory machinery is seized, but melted down, stored in a shed or simply not effectively used - the benefit to the German economy will be substantially lower than the cost to the French economy. That would even be the case if the Nazi looting was organized/systematic with the express intent to maximize the support for the German war effort. Anecdotally, I doubt this was the reality much of the time. In the vast majority of cases, "the loot" would be worth far more to the French than the looters, so logically, extortion rather than looting makes more financial sense.

Further the retention of French productive assets may enable them to better contribute to the Nazi war effort with ongoing reparations.

2. Agency collection - looting is not the most efficient way to separate a citizen from their wealth. In most cases the experts would be the respective tax/revenue authorities operating in each nation. It is more efficient to collect wealth at source for example through wages, banks or property ownership. The Nazi regime simply issues the French administration the requisite reparation invoice and the French have to go about figuring out how to collect sufficient funds to get rid of the fuckers.

3. Precedent - OTL following the 1871 Franco-Prussian war the French dedicated 9-16% of their GDP to pay the Prussian/German reparations within 3 years and the Prussian/Germans promptly departed. Even if the Nazi reparation rates only matched the 1871 Prussian numbers, the value to the German economy is likely to be at least comparable to OTL looting, without wearing out those jackboot heels on French doors.
 

nbcman

Donor
My exact words were "removal of either FDR (via a general election)"
Could you walk me through how you concluded the potential removal of a head of state was part of a peace agreement?

By via a general election I was referring to the 1940 US General election where FDR was elected on a platform of keeping the US out of Europe. Following the fall of France, the British war chiefs concluded the war against Germany could not be won without the support of the US. Despite his election platform, the British believed FDR was the candidate to bring the US into the war and sought to influence the 1940 US election in his favour. Without FDR as president, it is uncertain Britain could have sustained the OTL war beyond 1940.



1. Asset valuation - when preparing financial accounts, the assets are ordinarily valued on the assumption the entity is a going concern i.e. the entity will continue to operate and therefore the assets used in the business will continue to serve their existing purpose. The reason this assumption is made is the value of an asset in use is ordinarily far greater than the sum of the asset parts - for example if a café stops operating, you have a coffee machine and a collection of furniture - not a business. Auditors ordinarily go out of their way to explicitly confirm the going concern assumption and will require another (ordinarily far lower) asset valuation if it cannot be demonstrated.

I am not familiar with Nazi looting methodologies, but I suspect the numbers you are citing are the cost to the French economy, not the value to the German war effort. For example, if French factory machinery is seized, but melted down, stored in a shed or simply not effectively used - the benefit to the German economy will be substantially lower than the cost to the French economy. That would even be the case if the Nazi looting was organized/systematic with the express intent to maximize the support for the German war effort. Anecdotally, I doubt this was the reality much of the time. In the vast majority of cases, "the loot" would be worth far more to the French than the looters, so logically, extortion rather than looting makes more financial sense.

Further the retention of French productive assets may enable them to better contribute to the Nazi war effort with ongoing reparations.

2. Agency collection - looting is not the most efficient way to separate a citizen from their wealth. In most cases the experts would be the respective tax/revenue authorities operating in each nation. It is more efficient to collect wealth at source for example through wages, banks or property ownership. The Nazi regime simply issues the French administration the requisite reparation invoice and the French have to go about figuring out how to collect sufficient funds to get rid of the fuckers.

3. Precedent - OTL following the 1871 Franco-Prussian war the French dedicated 9-16% of their GDP to pay the Prussian/German reparations within 3 years and the Prussian/Germans promptly departed. Even if the Nazi reparation rates only matched the 1871 Prussian numbers, the value to the German economy is likely to be at least comparable to OTL looting, without wearing out those jackboot heels on French doors.

The figures that I've cited are the benefit to the German war effort as in the French payments to the occupation costs of the German forces in France. As cited in this paper, the Germans were paid between 20% and 55% of France's total GDP. Please describe how your Asset Valuation, Agency Collection and Precedent will get the Germans more assets than OTL?
 
The positive US contribution to Britain's war effort in WWII was <1% of the total, and when you factor in the negative aspects (Paukenschlag, getting involved in the Pacific War against Britain's own interests) having the US as an ally was actually a drawback.

That seems a bit low. I've seen various assessments, but...
 
That seems a bit low. I've seen various assessments, but...

Moreover, I find it more than a little questionable to put the cost of the Pacific War entirely on the United States. The British colonies remained vulnerable and stood between the Japanese and the DEI, so...

I'm guessing he's also of the school of "The British would/should have won the Suez dispute if it weren't for that dastardly Eisenhower!"
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Expansion? Do they not release workers from armament factories and try and get some export revenue coming in?

Britain doesn't need to - unemployment WENT UP in September 1940, from 4.8% to 5.1%, IOTL.

would be racking up vast deficits within the Stirling zone in peacetime - at the very least it is something that is not going to inspire confidence in the British government/ economy.

The Stirling zone? Is that near the castle, or the Short Brothers factory? :p
 

BooNZ

Banned
The figures that I've cited are the benefit to the German war effort as in the French payments to the occupation costs of the German forces in France. As cited in this paper, the Germans were paid between 20% and 55% of France's total GDP. Please describe how your Asset Valuation, Agency Collection and Precedent will get the Germans more assets than OTL?
You repeatedly referred to looting. The paper you referenced states Seizures and requisitions, for which Vichy did not provide compensation to the victims, are excluded. The numbers you are citing were achieved using the Vichy regime as agent (not German looting), so prima facie could be replicated in this scenario as traditional reparations.
 
Top