WW2 ends August 1940, what next?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Let's say the perfect storm happens, Churchill dies of a heart attack in 1939, Hitler gets overdosed by Dr. Morrell in June 1940, and when the victory over France happens in June Goering is able to make peace by August 1940 with Lord Halifax and the war ends. Goering is too concerned about consolidating power in Europe and establishing a new order, so Barbarossa doesn't happen and there are no future plans to invade the USSR once 1941 passes. What happens in Europe and the world then? What does the final peace look like for the continent? Can Britain, the USSR, and the US work with a Nazi dominated Europe and what happens then with Japan if the Axis Pact is signed in September? Does Goering honor the commercial agreement with the Soviets?
 
This would probably result in a Britain and the US vs Germany, the USSR, and Japan cold war. I don't see the USSR joining the Anglo-American bloc due to a combination of fear of provoking Germany and the Soviet leadership's dislike and distrust of the Wallies (as seen in the M-R Pact and subsequent Soviet efforts to negotiate an entry into the Axis). For Japan, I imagine part of the peace agreement would be working out an arrangement with Dutch East Indies oil, so there likely isn't a need to do a strike south. For Britain, the benefits of an American alliance are obvious as the British position would be very precarious, and the US would probably be eager to put a stop to further German expansion.
 
Given that the war takes place almost entirely in Europe I doubt we will call it WWII. While the US will be justifiably worried about its own defense I don't see them entering into an alliance with the UK. Close co-operation on defense matters yes. A formal alliance no. If Japan has access to DEI oil that keeps the IJN happy. IJA operations in China will continue to be a source of dispute between the US and Japan. Steel and Oil embargos still happen but with DEI oil the push for war is less. The US may act to supply the Chinese to a point but I doubt FDR will ask for a DoW. Expect the PI to be really built up without the amount of material that was going to the ETO and Middle East. US aircraft development will suffer in this timeline. Heavier reliance on early model P40, B17 and other types. Development of the B29 is slowed. And with no Barbarossa the UK is not going to renew hostilities on its own.
 
Does Japan still invade Indochina? If so, the US will probably still embargo oil and steel. Britain and the free Dutch will go along with the embargo, attempting to forge an alliance with the US, so a Pacific War is probably inevitable. Germany and Italy are subject to the Pact of Steel, so they might declare a wider war upon the Japanese attack, but I suspect that they'd prefer to keep out and hence would find some excuse to leave Japan in the lurch. In that case, Japan gets crushed, and Britain and the US form a military alliance. Cold war in Europe.

If not, then we just go straight to the Cold War stage. There's going to be an amazing naval arms race. Everyone builds superbattleships - Lions, Hs, Iowas, more Yamatos or their successors. Britain gets nukes first, probably in late 1946, and doesn't use them because they're too weak and few to prevent retaliation.
 
Does Japan still invade Indochina?

Probablly not. That was encouraged by the Germans, tho the Japanese had their reasons. OTL Hitler & Co saw the French could not protect distant Indochina from Perfidious Albion so they let Japan know they would tell the French not to defend Indochina as required in the Franco/German Armistice. In this ATL it would be kind of stupid for Goering & Co to interfere with French defense of their colonies, if they want a sucessfull peace treaty. So instead of Japan swiping the wallet of the prostrate Frenchman they risk being a fight from him & his buddies.

If so, the US will probably still embargo oil and steel. Britain and the free Dutch will go along with the embargo, attempting to forge an alliance with the US, so a Pacific War is probably inevitable. Germany and Italy are subject to the Pact of Steel, so they might declare a wider war upon the Japanese attack, but I suspect that they'd prefer to keep out and hence would find some excuse to leave Japan in the lurch. In that case, Japan gets crushed, and Britain and the US form a military alliance. Cold war in Europe.

Yeah. With Germans triumphant in Europe the Brits and French have every incentive to suppress Japanese expansion. To rebuild their economies & military they need stability a& reduced competition elsewhere. In this their interests coincide with the US which had great potential benefits from free trade with a peaceful China than with a Japan at war with China.

Note: Everyone mentions Oil, Steel, & maybe a few other items in connection to the embargos. What they seem to miss is the meat of the embargos were:

A. Shutting Japan out of the US/British banking system. Japan was highly dependent on loans from the New York and London banks for both its government/military operations, and for global trade. Freezing all Japanese assets in those banks and cutting off credit effectively shut down any purchasing of oil, steel, or whatever.

B. Over half Japans imports/exports were carried on foreign flagged/owned ships. The embargo acts ended any of those being contracted to carry any cargo to or from Japan. So, Japans ability to trade globally was wrecked just as effectively as the banking embargo.
 
Most likely we have a more-pro western Cold War. The USSR build-up is profound and through spying they will get the bomb. Germany will be seen as an indispensable trading partner and stalwart against Communism in continental Europe. It's not that the West is opposed to propping up or being friendly with dictatorships.

I do not think the Anglo-Americans will be overly buddy buddy with Germany, and if Germany's economy rebounds from 30s Nazism too quickly and becomes a modern Germany on steroids, they may pull a 1984 and begin supporting the USSR.

The real winner geo-politically is the US and Brits, as they are increasingly shielded from conflict--unless a nuclear war occurs.
 
What happens with France after Hitler's death?
Reparations, loss of land, policy of making nice with Germans becomes the norm. French will see that nothing good comes of fighting the Germans, they'll see themselves as the continental punching bag of the British.

In the long term it is hard to see the Nazis becoming more pro-western. They will be pressured to have military deterrents against east and west, unlike OTL where the US subsidized their defense. I don't see how Germany can afford it and victory disease will not give rise to humility in the face of financial constraints.
 
Interesting, will follow this.

My thought tend to the point that much hinges on who will follow Hitler and what form does the German State take. If it reboundes to a more democratic model, far from unthinkeble without the presence of Hitler and a peace that holds, it could be seen as a periode of nececery evil later on. AFAIK most of the depredations did not happen yet, yes Poland will be a sore point, but nothing that was on the OTL scale.
If that happens the Germans and their vassals would be a strong trading block that, again if the social market economy emerges, would be atractive for the Anglo-British to enter.

Another point would be how does Stalin react. Does he try to grab what was prommised to him? Or does he play it safe? Anotherthing is how long before further purges and how will it effect his political survival?
 
Even if FDR does not get re-elected in 1940 (the war in Europe was a boost for him in terms of stating with a known quantity), the USA is going to continue pressuring Japan about China, the Republicans were also behind this concept. By fall 1940 the economic sanctions were pretty much fully in place, and most of the goods sanctions were in place although not the complete petroleum ones (those were summer 1941). Japan can occupy Indochina peacefully (as they did OTL) simply by the Germans assisting with pressuring Vichy. This gives them some strategic positioning, as well as access to the rice without the need for hard currency. The British probably won't sell Japan oil except on a cash and carry basis (concerns about Singapore, Burma, India etc) and Japan has essentially zero hard currency by August, 1940. The Dutch, they can be pressured by Germany to sell on credit or taking Yen (maybe). IF Japan can get enough oil and other raw materials to continue the war in China in the face of US and possibly British Empire embargoes, then there is no Pacific War. Democrat or Republican, FDR or Wilkie the USA will NOT declare war on Japan to save China. The question about a Pacific War is basically straightforward - if the Japanese military (specifically the army) feels they are getting the resources to pursue and "win" the war in China then there is no need to attack the USA.

IMHO the USA will build up the Pacific defenses and the navy, even in the absence of a European War because the concept of a collision with Japan is common even among isolationists. If Germany gets some basing rights in French western hemisphere possessions, and is getting close to South American countries like Argentina and others (as OTL but more so) even isolationists will want a build up for western hemisphere defense.

In Europe I can see Luxembourg, Alsace-Lorraine, bits of Belgium and Holland for sure incorporated in to Germany proper. Norway and Denmark nominally independent but... Poland, Germany's share of the Baltics, and Czech lands will be incorporated in some fashion. I'm not sure I see Germany and the USSR with a common border being a stable situation. Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania will be in the German camp to a greater or lesser extent, not sure how Bulgaria will go.

Absent Hitler, and a war with the USSR I'm not sure what happens to the Jews (and Gypsies) of German lands. For sure ghettoization, abuse, pauperization etc. Certainly use of healthy males for slave labor constructing new military facilities, defense lines and so forth. I expect the "ransoming" of Jews will become a going concern. I expect anti-Semitic legislation in all "independent" client states, how far this goes, will there be ghettoes in France (for example) I expect not but certainly in Eastern Europe.

Just some thoughts
 
Mussolini might spoil it all by invading Greece or something. He couldnt sit on the sideline and let Germany get all the glory. I dont think the British could risk losing Greece given its proximity to the Suez.

Stalin might invade Manchuria. It would provide an excellent opportunity to build off of 1939 and provide additional training for the Red Army. Plus, it provides a better base of operations to meddle in China.

Regardless of what Stalin does, Japan can't assume the Soviets wont attack so they will be hard pressed to attack the US. No Barbarossa, no Pearl Harbor.

Without war, Germany might be hard pressed to maintain a healthy economy. What does a slowdown in defense spending do to them in 1940-1941? They might be pressed into war for this alone.

The US would probably be slower to prepare for war even if it does occur. Much hard to justify the expenditures when the fighting stops/pauses.

A coup in Russia and Germany later on might avoid the Cold War. The Soviets wont have a generation scarred by the German invasion and therefore wont be as paranoid.
 
Let's say the perfect storm happens, Churchill dies of a heart attack in 1939, Hitler gets overdosed by Dr. Morrell in June 1940, and when the victory over France happens in June Goering is able to make peace by August 1940 with Lord Halifax and the war ends. Goering is too concerned about consolidating power in Europe and establishing a new order, so Barbarossa doesn't happen and there are no future plans to invade the USSR once 1941 passes. What happens in Europe and the world then? What does the final peace look like for the continent? Can Britain, the USSR, and the US work with a Nazi dominated Europe and what happens then with Japan if the Axis Pact is signed in September? Does Goering honor the commercial agreement with the Soviets?
Not going to happen.
Could the Brits sign a temporary armistice under Halifax (see Halifax by @Fletcher)? Yes. Would the war have ended? No.
Churchill or no Churchill, once Hitler invades Poland and/or France, Britain's not going to give up easily. They remember too well WWI.
 

Deleted member 1487

Not going to happen.
Could the Brits sign a temporary armistice under Halifax (see Halifax by @Fletcher)? Yes. Would the war have ended? No.
Churchill or no Churchill, once Hitler invades Poland and/or France, Britain's not going to give up easily. They remember too well WWI.
We fundamentally disagree about that. WW1 had no bearing on things, it was more about what the personalities in charge think they could pull off and the British situation looked hopeless in 1940, Churchill was just willing to fighting on no matter what. I didn't find anything by Fletcher when I checked his profile, but if it is the Halifax TL I think, that one was beyond ridiculous.
 
We fundamentally disagree about that. WW1 had no bearing on things, it was more about what the personalities in charge think they could pull off and the British situation looked hopeless in 1940, Churchill was just willing to fighting on no matter what. I didn't find anything by Fletcher when I checked his profile, but if it is the Halifax TL I think, that one was beyond ridiculous.
IMO it's the fact that Hitler has been replaced that will be the key, Hitler was untrustworthy and fanatical, Goering, maybe not so much.
 

Deleted member 1487

IMO it's the fact that Hitler has been replaced that will be the key, Hitler was untrustworthy and fanatical, Goering, maybe not so much.
That certainly helps. Though Goering was seen as the 'sane' Nazi in Britain, he blew a lot of his credibility supporting Hitler in 1939-40 rather than trying to work on an armistice, but he still had some residual credibility before the bombing British cities really began that Hitler did not.
 
That certainly helps. Though Goering was seen as the 'sane' Nazi in Britain, he blew a lot of his credibility supporting Hitler in 1939-40 rather than trying to work on an armistice, but he still had some residual credibility before the bombing British cities really began that Hitler did not.
A lot of it could be claimed as just paying lip-service to the Nazis for political gain.
 

Deleted member 1487

A lot of it could be claimed as just paying lip-service to the Nazis for political gain.
Behind the scenes he could say a lot and if the Brits really were looking for a way out, would probably be willing to buy that story.
 
Top