WI: Dunkirk fails?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I'm talking about a different timeline entirely. A different Germany, with more focus on the West, and better planning, COULD have defeated France and Britain, even with outright controlling the oh-so-precious Czech factories.

How different?

If you still have Hitler assuming power, there is a very finite amount of difference possible. If you eliminate Hitler you also eliminate the rather crazy risks he took (virtually all of which worked until Barbarossa). No sane ruler would have remilitarized the Rhineland, pulled the bluff in the Czech Crisis, etc. This means Germany doesn't ignore the Versailles Treaty, hoping the French & British are still weary from the last war and don't crush them any time between 1934 and (ITTL) 1942 when Wehrmacht forces are strong enough to prevent a massive overmatch.

This Hitler-less Germany never develops the military needed to make war at the level outlined. The Treaty put severe caps on the German military, making it more of a constabulary force than a military (max 100K troops, no conscription, all long serving troops to reduce militia, NO weapons manufacture of any kind, no tank, no subs, no artillery, no military aircraft of any kind, a modest navy unable to match up against even a segment of the fleets of any of the victorious powers). Hitler ignored all that, and, amazingly, got away with it. It is stunningly unlikely that any other ruler would even try to make the mover he did. No Hitler means no war machine; Hitler means no hope for allies and no long time period to build up a military that ignores everything that Hitler wanted. You keep Hitler, and you get the package, not some mallable clay model.

The only way to get a Hitler who makes all the ballsy moves he made, but isn't impatient, anti-semitic, dismissive of non-Aryans, and able to make alliances with the rest of Central & Eastern Europe while being able to build a massive military machine AND not bankrupt the country in the process is via ASB.
 
How different?

If you still have Hitler assuming power, there is a very finite amount of difference possible. If you eliminate Hitler you also eliminate the rather crazy risks he took (virtually all of which worked until Barbarossa). No sane ruler would have remilitarized the Rhineland, pulled the bluff in the Czech Crisis, etc. This means Germany doesn't ignore the Versailles Treaty, hoping the French & British are still weary from the last war and don't crush them any time between 1934 and (ITTL) 1942 when Wehrmacht forces are strong enough to prevent a massive overmatch.

This Hitler-less Germany never develops the military needed to make war at the level outlined. The Treaty put severe caps on the German military, making it more of a constabulary force than a military (max 100K troops, no conscription, all long serving troops to reduce militia, NO weapons manufacture of any kind, no tank, no subs, no artillery, no military aircraft of any kind, a modest navy unable to match up against even a segment of the fleets of any of the victorious powers). Hitler ignored all that, and, amazingly, got away with it. It is stunningly unlikely that any other ruler would even try to make the mover he did. No Hitler means no war machine; Hitler means no hope for allies and no long time period to build up a military that ignores everything that Hitler wanted. You keep Hitler, and you get the package, not some mallable clay model.

The only way to get a Hitler who makes all the ballsy moves he made, but isn't impatient, anti-semitic, dismissive of non-Aryans, and able to make alliances with the rest of Central & Eastern Europe while being able to build a massive military machine AND not bankrupt the country in the process is via ASB.

Absolutely, positively, 100% Nazi free. But that doesn't preclude a dictator who bluffs and takes risks. I disagree strongly with your assessement that "no sane leader" would remilitarize the Rhineland or Rearm Germany. Bullshit. Those can be easily presented as matters of national pride and national right, and the French became very unlikely to commit to military action fairly quickly, especially after the Great Depression. It seems to me you're trying to make the case that there is no scenario where Germany could win. But to me, the odds for some kind of German dictatorship having some kind of successful militarist resurgence that involves some level of conquest and a higher military, political and economic profile for Germany internationally is probably 40/60 or so. Anyway, how could either of us know for sure? You're trying to preclude my scenario by basically saying it's not possible (or saying it's "ASB" when it isn't), but in Alternate History, a great, great deal is possible. And even if it isn't *likely*, so what? If you're only going to go by the most likely outcomes, you're A) precluding the role chance and luck have always played in human affairs and B) creating much more boring timelines that kind of play down the appeal of AH in the first place, which is, amazing new worlds where things you would have bet wouldn't have ever happened happening.


BTW, I'm tempted to write a cardinal rule for AH.com:

In Alternate History, all things are possible, except a successful Operation Sea-Mammal-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Absolutely, positively, 100% Nazi free. But that doesn't preclude a dictator who bluffs and takes risks. I disagree strongly with your assessement that "no sane leader" would remilitarize the Rhineland or Rearm Germany. Bullshit. Those can be easily presented as matters of national pride and national right, and the French became very unlikely to commit to military action fairly quickly, especially after the Great Depression. It seems to me you're trying to make the case that there is no scenario where Germany could win. But to me, the odds for some kind of German dictatorship having some kind of successful militarist resurgence that involves some level of conquest and a higher military, political and economic profile for Germany internationally is probably 40/60 or so. Anyway, how could either of us know for sure? You're trying to preclude my scenario by basically saying it's not possible (or saying it's "ASB" when it isn't), but in Alternate History, a great, great deal is possible. And even if it isn't *likely*, so what? If you're only going to go by the most likely outcomes, you're A) precluding the role chance and luck have always played in human affairs and B) creating much more boring timelines that kind of play down the appeal of AH in the first place, which is, amazing new worlds where things you would have bet wouldn't have ever happened happening.


BTW, I'm tempted to write a cardinal rule for AH.com:

In Alternate History, all things are possible, except a successful Operation Sea-Mammal-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named.


There is a stunning difference between alternative timelines and ASB intervention level events. The series of events that brought and kept Hitler in power, allowed him to bluff his way to 1940, and then defeat France, are already so bizarre and unique that altering them to suit some vision of an ATL is difficult, if not impossible to reasonably construct. It surely require a great deal more than simply recreating OTL by with a different German leader who succeeds at everything as well as Hitler did, but has a completely different mindset.

I also have to disagree with your Cardinal Rule (in a non-ASB scenario). There are any number of outcomes that are impossible.

Frex (just in the WW II arena):
Japan invading and holding significant parts of the "Lower 48" U.S. States. Japan defeating the Red Army.
Germany defeating the USSR & Western Allies.
Germany constructing a large enough surface fleet by 1940 to engage and defeat the RN.
Japan defeating and occupping all of China.
Japan invading and occupping all of Australia.
Germany invading and occupping India.

None of these are remotely possible, not in a real world.

Alternate History, at least in the non-ASB and Writer's Forums here, has to be supportable by something beyond a "anything is possible". Anything ISN'T possible. You can't send 100,000 troops to invade a country if the ship will only hold 1,000 before it sinks; you can't bomb Chicago from Germany if your plane only has enough fuel to make a one way trip to Iceland; logistics can't be ignored; physics can't be ignored; these all have to be accepted, accounted for, and in this forum, defended. Alternate History isn't a video game, it is an examination of feasible alternatives. Non-feasible alternatives that depend on "well, why not" belong in ASB (or in a story on the Writer's forum)
 
The only way Germany can beat both France and the British Empire when begining the war in 1949 (taking the 10 year delay in account) with a successful conquest of GB itself is that the Germans are able to greatly increase its military strength and the French and the Brits do nothing in response. This is ASB territory . If the Germans strengthen their navy you can be damn sure GB will as well. If it strengthens its army the French will as well. In OTL France was in the middle of gearing up when Germany invaded. If it waits a couple months or so France is considerably tougher.
 
It's very hard to tell what the political effects of this would be, although I would come down on the 'no armistice' side, cautiously. It's not as clear-cut as some people are making out.

I doubt Churchill would 'carry the can' for this, since the background was not of his own making, (he became PM on the first day of the offensive in the West) but it's hard to see it being anything other than wounding, nationally. I suspect there would have been more of a desire to 'rally round' than force out Churchill. But this is only speculative.

It would certainly give a lot of weight to the arguments of those who were open to the idea of a peace, (Halifax) even if they were, by this stage, distinctly distrustful of Hitler. But since the basis for any settlement was the removal of Churchill, it's hard to see how it could come to good if Churchill stays put. Would Britain's weakness and inability to successfully prosecute the war come to the fore in the medium-term, though? Would Britain come to grief in North Africa? Would Churchill's opponents be bolder in '42, if not earlier? Hard to say. But a disaster at Dunkirk surely makes all this more likely.
 
I went through the dates in detail when this came up before. Actually it is very hard to have happen.


It could create a strong pressure for peace, certainly. I think the situation would be very touch and go indeed. It depends partly on dates. Churchill might well get bounced into accepting Mussolini's offer. I think once the talking starts that will generate its own momentum.
 
Halifax taking the government?

Five Days in London: May 1940 by John Lukacs covers the period in which the possibility of accepting the Italian mediation offer was mooted. It's been some time since I read it, but I remember coming away with the impression that an Allied disaster at Dunkirk might've given the ascendancy to Halifax and that position. Halifax had actually been George VI's first choice for PM after Chamberlain resigned, but there had been some concern about a member of the House of Lords taking over.

Much depends on what terms Hitler would've offered. Certainly clemency wasn't a part of his personality but would he have offered acceptable terms in order to be able to launch Barbarossa without distractions?
 
What exactly were the details of Mussolini's offer? Never even heard of it before.

Well Hitler mentioned numerous times his admiration for Britain (part ass-kissing, part the whole Anglo-Saxon thing) and said he was happy to leave Britain basically alone, as long as he got to keep his gains in Central Europe (and no doubt the Vichy government would have to be handed back the North).

Although Hitler made many strategic mistakes I think he was smart enough to know Britain still fighting was, quite frankly, a major problem, in leaving a vast base off the coast of his Neuropa. I wouldn't be suprised if he didn't ask for reperations or the like, simply to give the Brits a sweeter deal.
 
What exactly were the details of Mussolini's offer? Never even heard of it before.

Well Hitler mentioned numerous times his admiration for Britain (part ass-kissing, part the whole Anglo-Saxon thing) and said he was happy to leave Britain basically alone, as long as he got to keep his gains in Central Europe (and no doubt the Vichy government would have to be handed back the North).

Although Hitler made many strategic mistakes I think he was smart enough to know Britain still fighting was, quite frankly, a major problem, in leaving a vast base off the coast of his Neuropa. I wouldn't be suprised if he didn't ask for reperations or the like, simply to give the Brits a sweeter deal.

Paraphrasing 'Fateful Choices' by Ian Kershaw, it never got to the stage of detailed offers. Halifax had some very cagy meetings with the Italian embassador who hinted that Mussolini might intercede with Hitler to get negotiations started.

The debate in the British War Cabinet was about whether to even find out what the terms were. Churchill backed by the Labour members of the War Cabinet felt that was a slippery slope whilst Halifax and to some extent Chamberlain were more open to the idea of at least seeing what the terms were.

At one point even Churchill wobbled, so it is possible that worse news from Dunkirk could have caused the opening of negotiations or at the very least a major split in the War Cabinet and Halifax's resignation (which he threatened in OTL).
 
Stalin planned to attack Germany? I really doubt this. Germany and the Soviet Union would renew or enlarge their agreement, and in any case, the Soviet Union is far from solid politically. Stalin's habit of finding enemies that didn't exist guarantees that the Soviet Union will never be playing at full strength. Besides, what's his motive? Stalin's big contribution to Communism was the One-State Model. Stalin is very risk averse and would never gamble the fate of his country on a war against an enemy he doesn't need to fight. Indeed, Stalin didn't make his move during the Fall Gelb campaign, why would Operation C be any different? .

Stalin and his generals were amazed how quick the germans dealt with France - they expected it to take years. And then be able to pick up the pieces - assisted by the communist led French resistance.
They were at the time of the French campaign still getting over the disasterous Soviet-Finnish War, and all the lessons to be learned as a result.
They were still in the midst of re-arming - with modern tanks (T-34) and aircraft.
As I understand it - the plan was scheduled for a 1942 invasion that would secure the rest of Poland - striking north-west from the Lvov salient. But Stalin grew even more paranoid with the Hess flight to Britain, and brought the timetable forward - it then became a race to see who would strike first.
OF note here are the Russian dispositions at the time of the German Invasion, and the Penal Battalions there.

Stalin had been trying via Molotov, to secure more territories to the west on the cheap, and he was annoyed at German assistance to Finland and Rumannia.
Hitler tried to encourage Stalin to go south - Iran or India but to no avail. War was inevitable.
 
Why not use this as a butterfly into the Separate World War II scenarios?
1. Hitler orders the army to destroy Dunkirk before resupplying the German artillary with ammunition in the pause before Dunkirk.
2. The Germans take their remaining tanks and airplanes and just keep attacking the British.
3. The Germans win after the British use up their remaining antitank ammunition, remaining tanks (including the Mathilda, proof against anything short of an 88), and throwing what's left of their airforce against what's left of the French and British airforce over Dunkirk.
4. 50,000 British troops make it to Britain to join the million or so still in Britain, without their equipment.
5. The French use the breather to reorganise a little. This does not help them much because they have lost so many troops they can't hold a continuous line.
6. The Germans are out a weeks worth of troop losses from attacking into machine guns and rifles used by the British. And all their remaining tanks, though they should be able to salvage them.
So far it's pretty standard.
 
Last edited:
I don't see why the Dunkirk encirclement would be a massive Alamo of sorts, the troops there were tired, with most units having been butchered just trying to get to the last Channel Port, in particular the French. Looking at similar situations elsewhere I'd assume mass surrender, although obviously there would be some fierce combat to boot.

Also the Million men you mention, ie conscripts still in training, lacking experience and heavy equipment regardless of Dunkirk's success?
 
Top