How many Sixes does Adolf Nazi have to Roll?

[Max Sinister]

Not a flag, but a provisional logo for TTL (SCNR):

[stevep]

Aug 6, 2024 14:35:48 GMT Max Sinister said:

stevep , one small retcon: I had mentioned Jesse Jackson from OTL running in an election, but there is a problem: He was conceived after the PoD, so he should be butterflied away. Maybe I'll replace him by Colin Powell. And I'll make him a former governor. Of a US state which doesn't exist IOTL.

Now to your other comments:

1. The submarine warfare will be the next thing I'll have to research. Which'll include Prien's autobiography. Robert Harris was right to include this as a PoD. Even then I can't see the Brits accepting occupation, though. Leaving aside the fact that they won't buy that the "führer" will leave them alone. (Fun fact: Salazar had sent 35,000 men to the Azores because he also feared that the Axis might invade, so he could go there with his government, just in case. Hence, taking them with "War Plan Gray" won't be that easy. Using it as a base neither - IOTL, he waited until 1943 to allow it to them. In fact, he had allowed the KM to use the Azores earlier!)

2. The WAllies certainly will increase bombing the "Reich", but this time, they'll have to face a stronger Luftwaffe. That much is sure. Losses on both sides will be high.

3. Yes, if the Axis/SU will be in Iraq and/or Iran, they'd better send troops to Saudi-Arabia to make sure that they'll keep at least that theater.

4. India is tricky... I don't really want it to go to the SU, or Japan. Of course, it's one thing for the SU to expand into Turkey/Iran/Afghanistan and outright declaring war on the Empire. Stalin will prefer the other two blocks duking it out. Also, ITTL Gandhi was arrested after protests in 1940.

5. 1944 would be a good estimation. Which also means: The Nazis should rather knock out Britain before that, or this will become a long war. Hard to tell whether the population of either country in it could bear that. (Theoretically, the people in the WAllied nations will have the better life - but the long list of defeats will be hard on morale.)

6. If they tried to land in Portugal, there's the danger of the "Reich" immediately sending several divisions to strike back. Against Franco's will, if necessary.

---

Now about Japan. I've read up a bit from this site. But I haven't decided about details. I wanted them to start the war between December 6th and 16th. But using the exact same day (it was Monday in the US) feels odd. I'm wondering: Would they rather start the war earlier, since the bigger German successes will encourage them to be greedy? The "Ostfrieden" will most probably happen before their strike date, so they'll have to fear the SU now. And even if not, they'll be very puzzled.

Also, there are possible butterflies. One of them (no Automedon) might be cancelled by the German success at Dunkirk. Also, ITTL the telegram might reach Hawaii soon enough - after all, the Allies had cracked Purple long before. Hell, in April 1941 Ribbentrop got a message from DC telling him that Purple was cracked, and he passed it on - but the Japanese didn't believe it. Big mistake!

1) - I would agree things would have to be pretty desperate before Britain would accept occupation, especially given they already knew how trustworthy Hitler's word isn't.  I don't think the Nazis can win the Atlantic Battle once the US gets itself sorted out.  I think the question is by knock out do you mean force to surrender or possibly force to make peace.  I think the former is unlikely but the latter more so, especially if at some point the US decides the war against the European fascists can't be won - isn't worth pursuing.

2)  Definitely the strategic bombing campaign will be a lot bloodier on the allied side here, although Nazi mis-management might limit the actual scope of an increased Luftwaffe.  However likely to see the allies lose this.

3)  I don't think there was much if any oil exploitation in Saudi or the Gulf states south of Iraq at this stage.  The main sources were northern Iraq and SW Iran.

4)  If you have the level of success for the two dictatorships your suggesting I think the only real way India could hold would be if Stalin decided not to invade for whatever reason.  Possibly he doesn't think he could hold such a large area, especially as he might find himself stuck between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.  I got the impression that the war with the Soviets was relatively short compared to the longer war with the fascists.  Possibly seeking peace after overrunning much of the ME with the US pressing for accepting that as it would remove the Soviets as an enemy and also hence mean they had forces freed up which might cause the Nazis and Japanese to increase the forces guarding against a Soviet attack.

  Yes Gandhi was arrested but of course he's likely to be released if/when it seems necessary and he's not going to suffer an 'unfortunate accident' as he might under Nazi/Japanese/Soviet rule so he will still be about and causing instability.

5)  - See my comments in 1) above.  It depends on how big a Nazi victory do you want?  Whether Britain is an independent bastion just off the coast of Nazi controlled Europe or is part of the German empire is a fairly big swing.

  Of course by 1944 unless for some reason its delayed or the costs of prolonging the war until its available the nuclear bomb is possibly going to be affecting decision making.

6)  Definitely would expect Hitler to oppose an allied invasion of Portugal and probably that Franco would not oppose that.  It would mean Spain becoming a potential battleground if the invasion succeeds but a largely unopposed allied occupation of Portugal is going to be seen by most people as the 1st step in a process, the 2nd of which would be to occupy Spain.  Which would reopen the Med, liberating Gib in the process and open up options for southern France and N Africa as well as give an additional base for air attacks.  As such I can't see Franco deciding not to support Hitler on this, especially since Spain has already aided in the occupation of Gibraltar.

PS - Late now but try and have a look at the Japanese site tomorrow after work.

[Max Sinister]

Aug 6, 2024 21:41:25 GMT stevep said:

Aug 6, 2024 14:35:48 GMT Max Sinister said:

stevep , one small retcon: I had mentioned Jesse Jackson from OTL running in an election, but there is a problem: He was conceived after the PoD, so he should be butterflied away. Maybe I'll replace him by Colin Powell. And I'll make him a former governor. Of a US state which doesn't exist IOTL.

Now to your other comments:

1. The submarine warfare will be the next thing I'll have to research. Which'll include Prien's autobiography. Robert Harris was right to include this as a PoD. Even then I can't see the Brits accepting occupation, though. Leaving aside the fact that they won't buy that the "führer" will leave them alone. (Fun fact: Salazar had sent 35,000 men to the Azores because he also feared that the Axis might invade, so he could go there with his government, just in case. Hence, taking them with "War Plan Gray" won't be that easy. Using it as a base neither - IOTL, he waited until 1943 to allow it to them. In fact, he had allowed the KM to use the Azores earlier!)

2. The WAllies certainly will increase bombing the "Reich", but this time, they'll have to face a stronger Luftwaffe. That much is sure. Losses on both sides will be high.

3. Yes, if the Axis/SU will be in Iraq and/or Iran, they'd better send troops to Saudi-Arabia to make sure that they'll keep at least that theater.

4. India is tricky... I don't really want it to go to the SU, or Japan. Of course, it's one thing for the SU to expand into Turkey/Iran/Afghanistan and outright declaring war on the Empire. Stalin will prefer the other two blocks duking it out. Also, ITTL Gandhi was arrested after protests in 1940.

5. 1944 would be a good estimation. Which also means: The Nazis should rather knock out Britain before that, or this will become a long war. Hard to tell whether the population of either country in it could bear that. (Theoretically, the people in the WAllied nations will have the better life - but the long list of defeats will be hard on morale.)

6. If they tried to land in Portugal, there's the danger of the "Reich" immediately sending several divisions to strike back. Against Franco's will, if necessary.

---

Now about Japan. I've read up a bit from this site. But I haven't decided about details. I wanted them to start the war between December 6th and 16th. But using the exact same day (it was Monday in the US) feels odd. I'm wondering: Would they rather start the war earlier, since the bigger German successes will encourage them to be greedy? The "Ostfrieden" will most probably happen before their strike date, so they'll have to fear the SU now. And even if not, they'll be very puzzled.

Also, there are possible butterflies. One of them (no Automedon) might be cancelled by the German success at Dunkirk. Also, ITTL the telegram might reach Hawaii soon enough - after all, the Allies had cracked Purple long before. Hell, in April 1941 Ribbentrop got a message from DC telling him that Purple was cracked, and he passed it on - but the Japanese didn't believe it. Big mistake!

1) - I would agree things would have to be pretty desperate before Britain would accept occupation, especially given they already knew how trustworthy Hitler's word isn't.  I don't think the Nazis can win the Atlantic Battle once the US gets itself sorted out.  I think the question is by knock out do you mean force to surrender or possibly force to make peace.  I think the former is unlikely but the latter more so, especially if at some point the US decides the war against the European fascists can't be won - isn't worth pursuing.

2)  Definitely the strategic bombing campaign will be a lot bloodier on the allied side here, although Nazi mis-management might limit the actual scope of an increased Luftwaffe.  However likely to see the allies lose this.

3)  I don't think there was much if any oil exploitation in Saudi or the Gulf states south of Iraq at this stage.  The main sources were northern Iraq and SW Iran.

4)  If you have the level of success for the two dictatorships your suggesting I think the only real way India could hold would be if Stalin decided not to invade for whatever reason.  Possibly he doesn't think he could hold such a large area, especially as he might find himself stuck between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.  I got the impression that the war with the Soviets was relatively short compared to the longer war with the fascists.  Possibly seeking peace after overrunning much of the ME with the US pressing for accepting that as it would remove the Soviets as an enemy and also hence mean they had forces freed up which might cause the Nazis and Japanese to increase the forces guarding against a Soviet attack.

  Yes Gandhi was arrested but of course he's likely to be released if/when it seems necessary and he's not going to suffer an 'unfortunate accident' as he might under Nazi/Japanese/Soviet rule so he will still be about and causing instability.

5)  - See my comments in 1) above.  It depends on how big a Nazi victory do you want?  Whether Britain is an independent bastion just off the coast of Nazi controlled Europe or is part of the German empire is a fairly big swing.

  Of course by 1944 unless for some reason its delayed or the costs of prolonging the war until its available the nuclear bomb is possibly going to be affecting decision making.

6)  Definitely would expect Hitler to oppose an allied invasion of Portugal and probably that Franco would not oppose that.  It would mean Spain becoming a potential battleground if the invasion succeeds but a largely unopposed allied occupation of Portugal is going to be seen by most people as the 1st step in a process, the 2nd of which would be to occupy Spain.  Which would reopen the Med, liberating Gib in the process and open up options for southern France and N Africa as well as give an additional base for air attacks.  As such I can't see Franco deciding not to support Hitler on this, especially since Spain has already aided in the occupation of Gibraltar.

PS - Late now but try and have a look at the Japanese site tomorrow after work.

1. A surrender isn't necessary (and in fact, more out of question). A peace, yes, or even a permanent armistice as in Korea. Of course, this won't happen as long as Churchill is in power. If Britain quits the war in Europe, the US will have to do either. This leaves the question of the Liberty ships. Maybe if the US decided to build more arms instead? Their capabilities are very high, but not infinite. Robert Harris wrote in "Fatherland" how a better Enigma forces Britain to surrender in 1944. I agree with him that the subs are the only possibility for the Nazis to really hurt Britain, but I think 1944 is already too late. Mid-1943 might work. If (that's another If...) the Nazis meanwhile take Egypt at least. Let's see. I'll have to read up on the submarine war anyway.

3. During my wiki researches I found that oil production in Saudi Arabia (or "Saudisch-Arabien") started in 1938, and the next year the kingdom already made 7 million US$ from it. Well, it's a start. Similar with other Gulf states: Bahrain 1932, Kuwait 1938, Qatar 1939, "Trucial Oman" "early 1930s". Edit: So it started, even if it only really took off after WW2. So or so: I don't want the Gulf states to fall in Nazi hands. Wank yes - bukkake no, excuse my French.

4. Yes, Stalin won't be in the position to make an all-out war with the Allies. In fact, Afghanistan will be pretty hard to start with. And Turkey makes a more interesting target for him...

And re: Gandhi: I don't want an uncontrollable breakdown of India. It should hold out at the end - even if only barely. Gandhi's followers will very probably radicalize, some might side with Bose - but IOTL, the Muslims, princes, and businessmen still sides with the Empire, Gandhi or not.

5. As said elsewhere, Britain being part of the "Reich" isn't a must. Also, it's unrealistic anyway, so I won't even try. "Victory" conditions

6. Spain becoming a battleground would certainly be interesting. Especially since the Maquis resistance wasn't dead yet. But it's not really what I want to do, and not necessary either. Maybe in a "spin-off" TL if someone wants to write it.

To your PS: I didn't expect you to read up on that site. Don't know about you, but it wasn't that interesting to read.

[Max Sinister]

There's that saying "Show, don't tell!" That's why I'll elaborate a bit on that discussion between FDR and Ike. I think it'll be like this:

- They'll also talk at some point about an invasion of Portugal, even if this'll drag the whole peninsula in. But Salazar won't willingly agree to this (as stated, even IOTL he waited until 1943 for allowing the Allies to use the Azores, and that was under way better conditions), and they may overestimate Spain's capabilities after Felix. (And Franco isn't going to tell them the truth that even that was a stretch for him.)
- Ike won't be happy with an invasion army of about 100,000 men (six divisions - I decided to have the US send four and the Empire two, since the latter is suffering from Dunkirk butterflies; also, I want to make one of those an Indian one; and I very much expect that the Commonwealthers won't like it if the G.I.s look down on them). It's too much for a test (think Dieppe), but not enough for a real invasion. He'd prefer some hundred thousand at least. If not a million.
- At that point, FDR will probably chuckle and call Ike too careful, if not worse.
- Since Ike has experience from WW1 and FDR none at all, the latter has hit a sore spot. Ike was called a "Smoothie", but if there is something that could anger him, it's something like that.
- Maybe Ike will use the word "lame" during what he'll say next, and thus have hit FDR's sore spot, even if he doesn't know it.

This might need some improvement, but you get the gist.

Some retcon about Op. Freedom: After Barbarossa, the "führer" won't send infantry to Tunisia, but panzers. And I decided to let Hans-Jürgen von Arnim command them.

Now let's continue...

- As it's mid-1942, the US still mostly use Curtiss P-40 "Warhawks" instead of the better Lockheed P-38 "Lightnings".
- The Allies have all of Morocco, but their forces are spread too wide. The Germans OTOH leave the protection of Algeria and Tunisia to Vichy and can bundle their strength. That's why their four divisions can beat the Allies' six - since they don't have to beat them altogether.
- Natives agitated by Nazi propaganda join them, as helpers and spies. And use the opportunity to plunder the local Jews.
- First clash is in western Algeria around Tlemcen. Dietl's mountain troops encircle a US Army brigade and defeat it.
- After this first victory, even some Anglo-hating Vichy French give more support. Maybe even Darlan, if he's there?
- As has to be expected, the G.I.s will have the same problems as IOTL and then some.
-- The new half-tracks often don't work, even if only because the soldiers are inexperienced.
-- Their tanks running on high-octane gasoline are firetraps.
-- Even small things matter: IOTL Patton was strict about his soldiers wearing helmets, not just berets. Fredendall is the worse commander, so he won't succeed with that. Let's remembers that the invasion started during summer heat.
-- Their greatest strength is their artillery, having 105mm and 155mm howitzers. So Rommel will have to use the Luftwaffe as his "flying artillery".
- After the first defeat, the Task Force North under Innis Swift (including his 1st cavalry division which is mobile infantry now, actually) will still have around 20,000 men. Now Rommel uses his knowledge in panzer and mountain tactics (remembering his time in the Deutsches Alpenkorps), goes around the Task Force which is sitting in Oujda, then attacks them from the South, coming from Sidi Boulenouar. (Google Maps helped here, I have to admit.) The Task Force is split, the smaller part caught in Oujda.
- A better commander could have saved the situation, but Fredendall certainly isn't (hell, he's not even there, and tends to disregard what his underlings who are there tell him), and I'm not sure about Swift either.
- So Fredendall gives contradictory and often ununderstandable orders (as he often did IOTL), the Task Force North is going back and forth, so Rommel can go around them as well. They manage to fight for two weeks at Naima, then it's over for them.
- After going around them, Rommel can use a part of his troops to block the road at Taza, 100 km from Fes. Thus, Task Force Centre can't break through.

(At this point, some New Yorker businessman named Trump - Fred Trump sr. - will ask: "Aren't those damn Germans finally tired of winning yet?")

- There'll also be clashes between G.I.s and Commonwealthers, up to the highest levels. That's the result if Ike isn't around to smooth things out.
- The defeats won't have helped their morale.
- The natives who remember the Rif rebellion during the 1920s (hell, their leader Abd al-Karim supposedly inspired Mao and Ho!) will start a guerilla war in the mountains.
- Even Moroccan street urchins will mock the Allies for their defeats at "Dwnkirk" and "Singhafura".
- If the Allies will get reinforcements now (because the whole thing won't be over after a few days or weeks), it'll be too little, too late. Well, it has to be.
- Fredendall might still save the situation now if he simply turtled up and blocked the mountain passes, waiting for enough reinforcements. But he's under pressure by FDR, and pretty embarrassed by the defeats, so he decides to make things up by attacking. Wrong move.
- Of course, the natives are everywhere and report to the Germans. So it's not like Rommel won't know.
- OTOH, if this is too unrealistic yet: The Heer Enigma may be notched up a bit too.
- Meanwhile, the Tiger panzers have arrived. And since the Germans started their production some months earlier (because they knew after the big battle of Dunkirk that they needed some stronger tank), they had the opportunity to test it. Albeit not that much in the desert, maybe.
- (No) thanks to the "Ostfrieden", this time they also have enough fuel.
- When Rommel notices that Fredendall is attacking, he feigns weakness and retreats from Taza. His panzers disperse in the plains, his mountain troops in the mountains. Ready to turn around and strike at any moment.
- The Allies go through the pass there into the plains - good tank terrain. Best for the Tigers, however.
- Then, it's as if he was suddenly attacking from all sides, with Tigers, mountain troops, and native helpers. Fredendall will be paralyzed.
- After some more fights, Task Force Centre will be defeated, and Fredendall become the highest-ranking US general caught by the Germans.
- Rommel will find out that he spent most of the time in a bunker 300 km behind the lines and drive around in a bullet-proof cadillac and mock the hell out of him. And to add insult to injury, he'll keep that Cadillac for himself.
- He'll ask (in his Swabian dialect): "Wer gibt so einem bleeden alten Allerweltsdebbn eine Armee?" (Who gives an army to such a stupid old fool "of the whole wide world" (hard to translate)?) Which will be mistranslated as 'Bleedin' ol' fool of the world' into English. But whom the shoe fits...

- Omar Bradley who leads Task force South will try to save what's there to save, putting up defense behind Meknet, at a mountain pass between Kharouba and Aït Allal.
- Now however Rommel even has superiority of men and material.
- Both sides will use up a lot of ammo, until Bradley finds that he can't hold the line and retreats.
- There's a last battle in the mountains between Khémisset and Douar Ben Nasser.
- In the plains, there's no defense against Tigers anymore.
- Only a part of the remaining troops can be evacuated, and on October 31st Bradley has to capitulate in Casablanca.
- Patton will comment the defeat of his friend: "Poor Brad! What a <censored> situation!"

Only the French Foreign Legion - a half-brigade under Pierre Kœnig - manages to get out of the situation. They have to, because Vichy would execute them if caught. So they escape, by fleeing through to desert to de Gaulle. Which means they have to cross Spanish Western Sahara. Franco does nothing to stop them, which strikes odd - if you don't know him.

Afterwards, Rommel can stay there to build up a strong defense to make sure there won't be another invasion. He'll be promoted to GFM; Arnim, Dietl and Schörner will become Generaloberst.

That'd be the meanwhile seventh Six rolled. Next, I'll have to think about some other things:
- What exactly will Japan do?
- What exactly will have happened in East Africa? (Vague idea: The Brits will first push the Italians back, then invade Abyssinia, also clean up the Red Sea, but an Italian pocket at Gondar will survive.)
- And what'll the Wehrmacht have done in the Near/Middle East? That's the biggest one. Even if their victory is probable, since the area is closer to Central Europe than Britain or North America.

[stevep]

Aug 11, 2024 11:15:34 GMT Max Sinister said:

Aug 6, 2024 21:41:25 GMT stevep said:

1) - I would agree things would have to be pretty desperate before Britain would accept occupation, especially given they already knew how trustworthy Hitler's word isn't.  I don't think the Nazis can win the Atlantic Battle once the US gets itself sorted out.  I think the question is by knock out do you mean force to surrender or possibly force to make peace.  I think the former is unlikely but the latter more so, especially if at some point the US decides the war against the European fascists can't be won - isn't worth pursuing.

2)  Definitely the strategic bombing campaign will be a lot bloodier on the allied side here, although Nazi mis-management might limit the actual scope of an increased Luftwaffe.  However likely to see the allies lose this.

3)  I don't think there was much if any oil exploitation in Saudi or the Gulf states south of Iraq at this stage.  The main sources were northern Iraq and SW Iran.

4)  If you have the level of success for the two dictatorships your suggesting I think the only real way India could hold would be if Stalin decided not to invade for whatever reason.  Possibly he doesn't think he could hold such a large area, especially as he might find himself stuck between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.  I got the impression that the war with the Soviets was relatively short compared to the longer war with the fascists.  Possibly seeking peace after overrunning much of the ME with the US pressing for accepting that as it would remove the Soviets as an enemy and also hence mean they had forces freed up which might cause the Nazis and Japanese to increase the forces guarding against a Soviet attack.

  Yes Gandhi was arrested but of course he's likely to be released if/when it seems necessary and he's not going to suffer an 'unfortunate accident' as he might under Nazi/Japanese/Soviet rule so he will still be about and causing instability.

5)  - See my comments in 1) above.  It depends on how big a Nazi victory do you want?  Whether Britain is an independent bastion just off the coast of Nazi controlled Europe or is part of the German empire is a fairly big swing.

  Of course by 1944 unless for some reason its delayed or the costs of prolonging the war until its available the nuclear bomb is possibly going to be affecting decision making.

6)  Definitely would expect Hitler to oppose an allied invasion of Portugal and probably that Franco would not oppose that.  It would mean Spain becoming a potential battleground if the invasion succeeds but a largely unopposed allied occupation of Portugal is going to be seen by most people as the 1st step in a process, the 2nd of which would be to occupy Spain.  Which would reopen the Med, liberating Gib in the process and open up options for southern France and N Africa as well as give an additional base for air attacks.  As such I can't see Franco deciding not to support Hitler on this, especially since Spain has already aided in the occupation of Gibraltar.

PS - Late now but try and have a look at the Japanese site tomorrow after work.

1. A surrender isn't necessary (and in fact, more out of question). A peace, yes, or even a permanent armistice as in Korea. Of course, this won't happen as long as Churchill is in power. If Britain quits the war in Europe, the US will have to do either. This leaves the question of the Liberty ships. Maybe if the US decided to build more arms instead? Their capabilities are very high, but not infinite. Robert Harris wrote in "Fatherland" how a better Enigma forces Britain to surrender in 1944. I agree with him that the subs are the only possibility for the Nazis to really hurt Britain, but I think 1944 is already too late. Mid-1943 might work. If (that's another If...) the Nazis meanwhile take Egypt at least. Let's see. I'll have to read up on the submarine war anyway.

3. During my wiki researches I found that oil production in Saudi Arabia (or "Saudisch-Arabien") started in 1938, and the next year the kingdom already made 7 million US$ from it. Well, it's a start. Similar with other Gulf states: Bahrain 1932, Kuwait 1938, Qatar 1939, "Trucial Oman" "early 1930s". Edit: So it started, even if it only really took off after WW2. So or so: I don't want the Gulf states to fall in Nazi hands. Wank yes - bukkake no, excuse my French.

4. Yes, Stalin won't be in the position to make an all-out war with the Allies. In fact, Afghanistan will be pretty hard to start with. And Turkey makes a more interesting target for him...

And re: Gandhi: I don't want an uncontrollable breakdown of India. It should hold out at the end - even if only barely. Gandhi's followers will very probably radicalize, some might side with Bose - but IOTL, the Muslims, princes, and businessmen still sides with the Empire, Gandhi or not.

5. As said elsewhere, Britain being part of the "Reich" isn't a must. Also, it's unrealistic anyway, so I won't even try. "Victory" conditions

6. Spain becoming a battleground would certainly be interesting. Especially since the Maquis resistance wasn't dead yet. But it's not really what I want to do, and not necessary either. Maybe in a "spin-off" TL if someone wants to write it.

To your PS: I didn't expect you to read up on that site. Don't know about you, but it wasn't that interesting to read.

  Max

  Looking at this and your victory conditions.

1)  I would say it would be the US that quits 1st which would force the UK to do so.  Especially once it was dependent on L-L and with a war in the Far East as well, with heavy manpower and economic losses if the US decides to make peace Britain must.  Possibly before that, especially with the defeats your projecting you could see a parliamentary coup - such as removed Chamberlain with Churchill having to resign because he can no longer maintain a majority in the commons. 

  I think in terms of the latter war, if it goes into 44-45 the big issue for Britain might be the V weapons.  The V-1's could be handled to a degree although to took a lot of manpower and weaponry but were only really resolved by the overrunning of the launching sites.  The V-2's were huge resource sinks for Germany but couldn't be stopped.  Here there is the threat of this continuing and also if the Germans get better intelligence the V-1's especially could be more damaging.  The much vaunted Tyoe XXI subs were beyond the technology of the time, at least for a Germany on its last legs.

3)  Interesting.  I knew the US started exploring for oil in Saudi in the late 30's but didn't think it was a major source until later.

4)  Possibly this as a path?  Soviets attack into Iran and Afghanistan which causes a crisis in India and for its defence, especially with the Japanese threatening from the east.  This prompts both the Indians, other than extremists to realise they need to hang together so there's a compromise between Congress, the Muslim groups and the assorted princely states, most of which because of the historical military domination of India and Muslim themselves.  A plan is worked out for a path towards independent, although not to be fully implemented until the war is over.  This is partly negotiated by the more liberal British elements in the Raj and also the US which promises to commit substantial forces to defend India.  - They decide they can't afford India's resources and location to fall into Axis/Soviet hands and are willing to do this for an independent democratic India but not for a British colony, which would be a markedly bigger sell for them back home.  Churchill either reluctantly accepts or tries to stand firm but is forced to resign by Parliament.  Possibly with a group of other hard liners forming a British Imperial Party?  That the primary threat is from the communist and atheistic USSR probably helps in forming this agreement between the internal Indian factions.

  India raised a large volunteer force anyway but under those circumstances and with material aid from the US especially, although shipping would be a problem plus there is the desire if not need to stop the Japanese advance into the SW Pacific down the Solomon's to isolate Australia from the US.  If this has to be given up the Atlantic route and then into the Indian Ocean becomes even more important.

  I would assume that on Indian independence Nepal and Burma become independent as separate states although possibly Ceylon stays part of the greater India.

5)  I'm [very] happy to see Britain staying independent rather than occupied.  Do however see a problem with your VCs as they talk of Germany getting northern Iraq for the oil there to make them fully independent in terms of oil.  However if this goes to them then its difficult to see what the Soviets get which makes them still a substantial power, let alone a 3rd super-power?  Also I don't see a German advance through Turkey to get there being that popular with Stalin.  Neither side wants the other to control Constantinople and the straits, Stalin because its such an important trade route for the Soviets and Hitler because that would mean a potential south route to attack the vital Romanian oil source.    Plus if the Germans get N Iraq their almost certainly going to get Syria and Palestine as well which further restricts the Soviet position.  Unless as you hint they end up with the Caucasus region, which would further cripple the Soviets as a major power and leave them very little room for expansion.

  I'm assuming that Germany will have to accept an agreement with the Soviets for oil from the Baku region and then once final peace is agreed it can trade fairly openly.  After all if either the west or the Soviets refuse to sell that prompts some agreement with the other, albeit that the Soviets are likely to be the weakest of the three, at least for a decade or so.

  How about the Soviets attack through western Iran in strength and manage to get through into Iraq but the British with imperial and possibly American support manage to hold them around the Kuwait region.  Iran is overrun as if Afghanistan after heavy resistance and Stalin gets too ambitious trying for India, Syria and the Arab side of the Gulf.  The allies, possibly with the Axis breaking through into Egypt decides that the 2nd of those would be the less important, especially since it will mean the Nazis and Soviets facing off against each other.  Maritime logistics and the long supply lines means the least powerful attack, into the relative wilderness of the Gulf, the oil reserves of which are still relatively unknown is held as well.  The biggest fighting is in the east with the attempts to invade India.  Soviet forces operating out to Afghanistan and SE Iran reach and possibly in places cross the Indus but the latter provides a useful logistic route while gunboats operating on it and the fragile Soviet logistical lines suffer heavily in the face of fierce Indian resistance helped by allied air and armoured units.

  Possibly with concerns about a new war with the Nazis, say also both dictatorships squabbling about Turkey and the continued heavy losses on the southern front, perhaps even some bombing raids on Baku causing concerns Stalin offers and the western powers accept a cease-fire which gradually extend into a peace treaty.  The Soviets keep their gains in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Palestine - which would probably include the Trans-Jordan area and cease attacks, withdrawing from those parts of India they have occupied, along with a release of POWs on both sides.  The allies get vital relief to switch attention to Sudan and the war against Japan.

  I would expect most of Sudan to fall but the logistics would prevent any advance into Ethiopia or possibly the southern region that is now South Sudan. 

Additional:-

  As I've said in another WWII thread where Nazis Germany not only survives but ends up with most of continental Europe under its direct or indirect rule I don't think they can push south of the Sahara and the allies will want to hold Arabia, to provide blocking points at Hormuz for any Soviet navy and also at Aden/Yemen for the more considerable German/Italian threat.  This raises the same question as discussed elsewhere about what happens to Belgium, French and Dutch colonies in Africa and the far east.  I can't see the allies being willing to accept those being handed over to collaborationist puppet regimes under German control as that would give the Germans probable footholds in too many locations.  Spain doesn't have a lot south of what was the Spanish Sahara colony and since its aided Germany in the attack on Gibraltar I would expect that's and possibly its Atlantic islands are the only regions it would keep. - I had forgotten its a full belligerent on the Axis side in this thread.  Portugal as long as it stays formally neutral will probably be allowed to keep its colonies but under strict understanding that it doesn't allow any German military presence in any of them.

 In terms of the German empire my thoughts are the following:-

a)  I would expect Hitler to die before 1950 because of his assorted health problems and his reliance on quack doctors and medication.  He will almost certainly survive longer than OTL unless some accident or assassination gets him.  [OTL the number of assassination attempts he survived is bloody unbelievable!]  When he goes a lot will depend on which groups/people win the resulting power struggle as given Hitler's divide and rule methods its unlikely he would leave a clear successor.  You could end up with a new Führer although there is a possibility that title might be retired as deemed only suitable for Hitler.  Or you might end up with a loose alliance who defeats their rivals, although I would expect it would have a clear leader after a further period of maneuvering.  Its possible that it could end up with a military coup which could effectively end the period of Nazi control although Hitler and his period of power is likely to be untouchable for political reasons.

b)  Whatever happens its going to be a very destructive and bloody period for German controlled Europe although Italy and possibly Romania, Hungary and parts of northern Europe might have a slightly better time.  Even if the racial fanatics don't win the struggle for power there's going to be brutal suppression and exploitation of all non Aryans, especially in the east.  Coupled with deluded educational ideas and the idealization of agricultural and warrior cultures your got the massive corruption along with heavy handed government interference and control and the obsession with massive prestige projects.  For instance in TTL you could see Berlin at least replaced by Hitler's planned Germania as the new city with huge buildings is likely to be a massive resource sink even if a lot of them don't prove to be totally impractical.  Coupled with the Nazi education system that emphasised racial crap-track, unquestioning obedience to the state/party and a rejection of anything classed as 'Jewish science' or alternative culture its going to be a grim time for the future of German knowledge in general and probably science in particular.

  Of course its going to be even worse for the bulk of the suppressed populations with resources and probably forced labour on a massive scale, especially for the 'degenerate' Slavic populations of the east.  At least while Hitler lives not only would there be brutal oppression but also attempts to 'settle' large numbers of colonists in the newly conquered eastern lands.  The problem of course was that the vast majority of Germans didn't want to be farmers in the east, with poorer land, a harsh climate much of the year and a slave/serf population that hatred their guts.  Also without a lot of development of infrastructure their likely to be very isolated from the bulk of the German population and lifestyle.  I don't know if once the Jewish population within their reach were exterminated the regime might start looking at other groups to remove, or they might simply kill many by forced labour and starvation.  Its likely however than much of Belarus and the western Ukraine are going to be depopulated wastelands, possibly with isolated groups of guerillas with secretive Soviet aid hitting isolated populations and facilities.

c)  Another issue here would be that between the fact their one of three super-powers and the cult of the military, as well as holding onto a vast area in the east, both against insurrection and a possible Soviet invasion your likely to have a substantial military maintained and given Hitler's interest in huge weaponry you could see Germany also going for monster battleships when everybody else is accepting that their increasingly irrelevant.  Such a military is likely to be a burden both in terms of the revenue and resources it would consume and the conscription demands on the population.

d)  Those are the reasons why, unless there was radical change, the German/Axis empire is going after a decade or two to become the weakest of the three blocs.  Its at least as corrupt and incompetent as the USSR while its racists ideas both cripple science and also mean that only a relatively small pool of the population to call upon for anything other than fairly brutal labour.  It will be better for the French, Spanish and some of the northern nations, although Denmark could end up formally annexed into Germany but as an increasingly dysfunctional system runs out of resources its likely to look for more extractions from those subject people as well which is likely to lead to increasing resistance and repression.

  Its also the reason why I think Germany will be the 3rd of the blocs to develop nuclear weapons as it would mean accepting their not world leaders and having to dump ideas the party/regime have committed to.  Its kind of like a very large N Korea on steroids but with the majority of the population seen as enemies or aliens to be controlled.

  In terms of Egypt I would normally say that unless the allies foul up very badly the Axis can't conquer it but in this case, with the additional threat of a Soviet invasion from the north it could well fall here.  In fact I wonder whether TTL would have an Operation Torch or would the allies seek instead to route resources into vital battles in the ME and S Asia.  Albeit that means a bloody long logistical line.  There is an argument that such a landing could reopen a front in N Africa which would be easier to supply from the US but especially with Spain hostile and Gib gone its always going to be difficult to reinforce faster than the Germans and their allies.  Also even if you cleared FNA you then have a reverse position to what the allies had with the need to advance through the relative wasteland of Libya and western Egypt to be able to attack a German occupation of Egypt which can use big ports like Alexandria to resupply fairly easily, especially with Crete and Cyprus as bases.  In fact in this situation, with entrance via the Gibraltar straits very risky and the Axis having Sicily and Malta they have a better chance to reinforce and hold Tunisia and then drive west again as they do in the scenario, even with the inexperienced US forces and leadership.

  Anyway went on longer than I expected anyway so leave it at that.  Hopefully the above ramble is of interest.

[Max Sinister]

1. Theoretically the US might quit - if their president wasn't FDR. That's why, not ITTL. A parliamentary coup in Britain - might happen, but whoever does it, would bear the blame for making peace with the nazis.

V weapons, XXI subs - all interesting, but I haven't yet decided.

4. Are you thinking of an India which still includes Pakistan?

5. Wait and see. For the moment I'll just mention the name of a new military operation: Fall Schwarz.

The rest: The "führer" will stay somewhat healthier ITTL because of less stress. So the 1950s are possible, the 1960s not so much.

Sorry, can't answer all of that now, have to think about how TTL will continue.

---

At first, about East Africa. This is a secondary theater which doesn't influence the other ones too much (except for the Red Sea control), but it's influenced much by the other ones. Especially since the Empire will lack troops for it to spare.

My idea: There will be a huge shuffle of troops. After Dunkirk, the 4th Indian division will go to GB to strengthen defenses. The 5th Indian will stay in Egypt, can't fight in Sudan - not very soon at least. Of the 1st South African, one brigade will stay in Kenya, but the other two will also go to Britain. (2nd one may go to Egypt.) Later, at least one new Indian division and a black African one (from West Africa) will also go to Britain, additionally to the other ones from OTL, like the Canadians. That should be enough hopefully, together with the County Divisions and the other ones created (from 9/40 to 9/41 eight ones IOTL).

The 2nd (African) Division will go to Sudan which is more threatened than Kenya, esp. when the Italians take ITTL Port Sudan. Orlando Lorenzini was a relatively competent Italian general, he might do that. The three brigades from Belgian Congo as well.

Which leaves one native division plus one South African brigade for Kenya, plus the troops which had been there before.

The Italian army code will be cracked by Bletchley Park in 11/40 as IOTL - which for the moment only means that they know about the numerical superiority of the Italians. Well, and they defeat the Italian ships in the Red Sea.

So much for the situation in 1940.

Until 2/41, as stated earlier (I hope), the Empire drives back Balbo in Egypt to the Libyan border - no more. But as soon as March, Rommel's arrived and returns the favor. So Egypt is still threatened and can't afford to give troops south. Not to mention the situation in Iraq and Greece!

Lorenzini in fact might dare to attack again, taking Atbara. Doesn't mean he'll get further, but this whole situation will lead to Churchill sacking Wavell and replacing him by Auk. In summer 1941, with Barbarossa going on and new divisions having been formed, he'll counter-attack and drive the Italians back to the pre-war border. That's of course only the first step.

Let's assume that the Empire will continue to create/send some divisions there in late 1941, and the attack on IEA can begin. Extrapolating from OTL (everything will take twice as long, though), at the end of the year they'll take Mogadiscio/Mogadishu, in spring 1942 Addis Abeba and all harbors. There will be an Italian pocket surviving around Gondar though, similar as IOTL. But for now, Haile Selassie will return, and the Empire's divisions can now fight further north.

Yes, we're back in Egypt. After the end of Barbarossa, Rommel will get some reinforcements. So he'll attack in spring 1942 - only to end up in El Alamein again, for logistical reasons. When the "führer" has him go to the West in mid-year (to fight against the "Operation Freedom"), the Auk can attack there and will once again reach the Libyan border...

(Of course, at that time the Empire will have to deal with the Japanese and Gibraltar lost, but at least they'll have succeeded in one theater.)

[stevep]

Aug 13, 2024 23:14:57 GMT Max Sinister said:

1. Theoretically the US might quit - if their president wasn't FDR. That's why, not ITTL. A parliamentary coup in Britain - might happen, but whoever does it, would bear the blame for making peace with the nazis.

V weapons, XXI subs - all interesting, but I haven't yet decided.

4. Are you thinking of an India which still includes Pakistan?

5. Wait and see. For the moment I'll just mention the name of a new military operation: Fall Schwarz.

The rest: The "führer" will stay somewhat healthier ITTL because of less stress. So the 1950s are possible, the 1960s not so much.

Sorry, can't answer all of that now, have to think about how TTL will continue.

---

At first, about East Africa. This is a secondary theater which doesn't influence the other ones too much (except for the Red Sea control), but it's influenced much by the other ones. Especially since the Empire will lack troops for it to spare.

My idea: There will be a huge shuffle of troops. After Dunkirk, the 4th Indian division will go to GB to strengthen defenses. The 5th Indian will stay in Egypt, can't fight in Sudan - not very soon at least. Of the 1st South African, one brigade will stay in Kenya, but the other two will also go to Britain. (2nd one may go to Egypt.) Later, at least one new Indian division and a black African one (from West Africa) will also go to Britain, additionally to the other ones from OTL, like the Canadians. That should be enough hopefully, together with the County Divisions and the other ones created (from 9/40 to 9/41 eight ones IOTL).

The 2nd (African) Division will go to Sudan which is more threatened than Kenya, esp. when the Italians take ITTL Port Sudan. Orlando Lorenzini was a relatively competent Italian general, he might do that. The three brigades from Belgian Congo as well.

Which leaves one native division plus one South African brigade for Kenya, plus the troops which had been there before.

The Italian army code will be cracked by Bletchley Park in 11/40 as IOTL - which for the moment only means that they know about the numerical superiority of the Italians. Well, and they defeat the Italian ships in the Red Sea.

So much for the situation in 1940.

Until 2/41, as stated earlier (I hope), the Empire drives back Balbo in Egypt to the Libyan border - no more. But as soon as March, Rommel's arrived and returns the favor. So Egypt is still threatened and can't afford to give troops south. Not to mention the situation in Iraq and Greece!

Lorenzini in fact might dare to attack again, taking Atbara. Doesn't mean he'll get further, but this whole situation will lead to Churchill sacking Wavell and replacing him by Auk. In summer 1941, with Barbarossa going on and new divisions having been formed, he'll counter-attack and drive the Italians back to the pre-war border. That's of course only the first step.

Let's assume that the Empire will continue to create/send some divisions there in late 1941, and the attack on IEA can begin. Extrapolating from OTL (everything will take twice as long, though), at the end of the year they'll take Mogadiscio/Mogadishu, in spring 1942 Addis Abeba and all harbors. There will be an Italian pocket surviving around Gondar though, similar as IOTL. But for now, Haile Selassie will return, and the Empire's divisions can now fight further north.

Yes, we're back in Egypt. After the end of Barbarossa, Rommel will get some reinforcements. So he'll attack in spring 1942 - only to end up in El Alamein again, for logistical reasons. When the "führer" has him go to the West in mid-year (to fight against the "Operation Freedom"), the Auk can attack there and will once again reach the Libyan border...

(Of course, at that time the Empire will have to deal with the Japanese and Gibraltar lost, but at least they'll have succeeded in one theater.)

1)  Possibly although if things are going badly enough and there doesn't seem a realistic change of victory without horrendous losses I could see it happening even under him.  Also possibly if there's a cease fire with Stalin then that would probably alienate a number of Americans who see him as soft on communism even when its clearly hostile.

  I'm thinking in terms of the sort of position that resulted in the fall of Chamberlain.  TTL is significantly more disastrous for Britain on just about all fronts.  As such Churchill might go, and definitely would if a US withdraw from the war forced a British one.

  V weapons and type XXI subs may not be developed here in the war ends in ~43 as seems to be hinted.

4)  With this crisis I would think India, Pakistan [including Bangladesh] and possibly Ceylon.  Not saying that would stay the case a decade or two down the line although that might depend on the external threat.

5)  Well according to a quick look that means dirty, dark or black.  Could hint at some attempt to drive into sub-Saharan Africa or something else.

  I would agree Hitler would stay healthier but not that greatly so.  Still think he's likely to disappear by 1950 or not long afterwards.  Which depending on what happens after he goes could be good for Germany as with his 'values' and erratic behaviours and disorderly leadership his continued rule is likely to maintain a hell of a lot of bad practices.

  I take your point about Italian E Africa although not sure that the 4th Indian would go all the way to Britain as that would require hauling them around the Cape.  What is likely to happen is that the armour sent to Egypt OTL doesn't go which means that while there are raids by British forces Operation Compass doesn't occur, or at least until some time in early 41.  I still think E Africa would be seen as a high priority and its possibly the support for Greece doesn't go ahead.  In which case British and ANZ forces would be available.

[Max Sinister]

4. A united India would be interesting. But IOTL, many Hindus and Muslims were displaced because of their religion. I can't tell exactly what happened, but their reasons will still be there ITTL. The Commie threat might not be strong enough for that.

5. Simply "black", in this case. Not telling more for now.

The "Führer" was erratic, yes, which often helped to confuse his enemies. This will continue - but a strong "Reich" can afford this more easily than a weak one, I'd say. And the "Reich" will be strong.

Too bad, I had wanted a scenario with several Indian and black African divisions in Britain, and see what this means for British culture. Absolutely sure that the Brits wouldn't transport the 5th through the Med? Their only enemy there is Mussolini, i.e. not the most dangerous one, and they have the RN there to guard the transports. Hell, even ITTL Italy only declared war on June 8th, and Dunkirk's over on June 2nd (so I decided). This doesn't look like something the greatest sea power in the world couldn't solve. And desperate times, desperate measures...

---

I've been thinking of other consequences of the "Ostfrieden" meanwhile.

1. So far undecided people in the Anglosphere will become more anti-Communist. Like a certain B-list actor named Ronald Reagan. I've decided he'll go Republican as early as 1942, for the midterm elections. Maybe McCarthy will decide rather to stay in the US and attack "Commie friend" FDR instead of going to war - let's see what happens next... (BTW: Did you know he ran for the Democrats in 1936?) Also, I found out that a certain Pat Robertson's father used to be a conservative Democrat. Maybe he'll break with FDR for this, and even if he can't stop the latter, he may start to get a new movement rolling.

2. Many leftists will break with "comrade" Stalin. I'm thinking about Tito, but also many leftists in France, Spain, and Italy. A different kind of Eurocommunism... Also I wonder about the British left. Both the union leaders and members will be decidedly anti-Stalin - but there are also the functionaries who may decide to go the same way as "comrade card index", if you get what I mean.

3. A few hardcore Marxists will still claim that Stalin did the right thing and get even more radical.

---

Furthermore I've been thinking about possible PoDs re: Japan. There are dozens of them (see this thread), it's plain impossible that all of them will go the same way as IOTL. So I've asked what some people call the "Random Number god" and decided for this: One carrier - the Saratoga - is still in Pearl Harbor, and on the way back, the Japanese snatch Midway. This might tempt them to overstretching...

[stevep]

Aug 18, 2024 1:33:21 GMT Max Sinister said:

4. A united India would be interesting. But IOTL, many Hindus and Muslims were displaced because of their religion. I can't tell exactly what happened, but their reasons will still be there ITTL. The Commie threat might not be strong enough for that.

5. Simply "black", in this case. Not telling more for now.

The "Führer" was erratic, yes, which often helped to confuse his enemies. This will continue - but a strong "Reich" can afford this more easily than a weak one, I'd say. And the "Reich" will be strong.

Too bad, I had wanted a scenario with several Indian and black African divisions in Britain, and see what this means for British culture. Absolutely sure that the Brits wouldn't transport the 5th through the Med? Their only enemy there is Mussolini, i.e. not the most dangerous one, and they have the RN there to guard the transports. Hell, even ITTL Italy only declared war on June 8th, and Dunkirk's over on June 2nd (so I decided). This doesn't look like something the greatest sea power in the world couldn't solve. And desperate times, desperate measures...

---

I've been thinking of other consequences of the "Ostfrieden" meanwhile.

1. So far undecided people in the Anglosphere will become more anti-Communist. Like a certain B-list actor named Ronald Reagan. I've decided he'll go Republican as early as 1942, for the midterm elections. Maybe McCarthy will decide rather to stay in the US and attack "Commie friend" FDR instead of going to war - let's see what happens next... (BTW: Did you know he ran for the Democrats in 1936?) Also, I found out that a certain Pat Robertson's father used to be a conservative Democrat. Maybe he'll break with FDR for this, and even if he can't stop the latter, he may start to get a new movement rolling.

2. Many leftists will break with "comrade" Stalin. I'm thinking about Tito, but also many leftists in France, Spain, and Italy. A different kind of Eurocommunism... Also I wonder about the British left. Both the union leaders and members will be decidedly anti-Stalin - but there are also the functionaries who may decide to go the same way as "comrade card index", if you get what I mean.

3. A few hardcore Marxists will still claim that Stalin did the right thing and get even more radical.

---

Furthermore I've been thinking about possible PoDs re: Japan. There are dozens of them (see this thread), it's plain impossible that all of them will go the same way as IOTL. So I've asked what some people call the "Random Number god" and decided for this: One carrier - the Saratoga - is still in Pearl Harbor, and on the way back, the Japanese snatch Midway. This might tempt them to overstretching...

1-3) Definitely more anti-communist feeling and you won't have the massive propaganda campaign of OTL to make Stalin and the Soviets look 'decent' allies.  It might not be too bad for RDF as while he's been stung he's likely to be angry at being tricked and as a result, as well as wanting revenge and also taking a more clearly right wing approach towards communism.  However definitely going to hurt him and also the more left wing people in his administration, including his VP Henry Wallace. 

  A lot of ordinary people in western countries are likely to be angry as well and fed up with any group loyal to Stalin as within a year their gone from "oppose this imperialist war" to "help the western capitalists aid the Soviet people" to "the west are enemies".  A fair number of the most die hard fanatics will continue to follow his line regardless but a lot of other people are going to be far more hostile to any pro-Stalin organisation.

4)  A clear threat of Soviet invasion with forces having fought their way through Afghanistan driving on the Indus and others advancing through eastern Iran that's a hell of an incentive to patch up your differences, at least for the moment.  - The old story of the two bitter rivals fighting being interrupted by a pack of wolves and having to stand back to back to defend themselves comes to mind.  If they come to realise their more secure together, especially with a continued Soviet presence on the NW border it might even last for quite a while.  I'm not saying it will but if the allied defences collapse due to sectarian infighting India could well fall into chaos compounded by both Soviet and Japanese invasions.  Plus with the Soviets being openly atheistic that's unlikely to go down well with either Hindus or Muslims.

5)  Have to see what you come up.  Its going to be bloody dark in a quickly built attempt at a channel tunnel through.

6)  A strong - at least outwardly - Reich can afford Hitler's erratic behaviour longer but that does mean it could well go to even more excesses which would pull everything down in the end.

7)  Possibly a sudden attempt through the Med but how long would that take to set up and it could be caught badly by an Italian dow?  Which might come earlier with the destruction of the BEF and associated French and allied forces.  Also the forces in the ME are already very thinly stretched.

  Britain sent very few forces through the Med while Italy was in the war.  There was the dash through of one convoy with tanks to reinforce Compass once it was realised that there would be no invasion of Britain but that was about it.  Forces fought their way through to Malta to supply it, often at heavy losses and sometimes this was used to reinforce the Med fleet at Alexandria as ships escorting such a convoy would continue on to meet up with the Med fleet.

  The best bet for such an impact might probably be post-war, especially with an India that stays unified and friendly to the western powers, with a clear Soviet threat to the former.  In that case not just Gurkha's but other mercenary forces from the sub-continent could play a role in beefing up the defence of Britain while Britain supplies technical equipment to help the Indians defend against the Soviets.  A continuation of the imperial relationship but on a more equal basis.  Indian has plenty of troops many of who's families have been serving the British army for generations while Britain and the US can supply the more advanced equipment that Indian can't supply itself for at least a decade or so.  Also it provides a good income for the Indians involved, as again with the Gurkha's.    You might still also seen civilian migration from India and from the Caribbean as OTL post-war although some of the drivers may not be there with less war losses overall perhaps.

[Max Sinister]

Aug 18, 2024 15:05:03 GMT stevep said:

Aug 18, 2024 1:33:21 GMT Max Sinister said:

4. A united India would be interesting. But IOTL, many Hindus and Muslims were displaced because of their religion. I can't tell exactly what happened, but their reasons will still be there ITTL. The Commie threat might not be strong enough for that.

5. Simply "black", in this case. Not telling more for now.

The "Führer" was erratic, yes, which often helped to confuse his enemies. This will continue - but a strong "Reich" can afford this more easily than a weak one, I'd say. And the "Reich" will be strong.

Too bad, I had wanted a scenario with several Indian and black African divisions in Britain, and see what this means for British culture. Absolutely sure that the Brits wouldn't transport the 5th through the Med? Their only enemy there is Mussolini, i.e. not the most dangerous one, and they have the RN there to guard the transports. Hell, even ITTL Italy only declared war on June 8th, and Dunkirk's over on June 2nd (so I decided). This doesn't look like something the greatest sea power in the world couldn't solve. And desperate times, desperate measures...

---

I've been thinking of other consequences of the "Ostfrieden" meanwhile.

1. So far undecided people in the Anglosphere will become more anti-Communist. Like a certain B-list actor named Ronald Reagan. I've decided he'll go Republican as early as 1942, for the midterm elections. Maybe McCarthy will decide rather to stay in the US and attack "Commie friend" FDR instead of going to war - let's see what happens next... (BTW: Did you know he ran for the Democrats in 1936?) Also, I found out that a certain Pat Robertson's father used to be a conservative Democrat. Maybe he'll break with FDR for this, and even if he can't stop the latter, he may start to get a new movement rolling.

2. Many leftists will break with "comrade" Stalin. I'm thinking about Tito, but also many leftists in France, Spain, and Italy. A different kind of Eurocommunism... Also I wonder about the British left. Both the union leaders and members will be decidedly anti-Stalin - but there are also the functionaries who may decide to go the same way as "comrade card index", if you get what I mean.

3. A few hardcore Marxists will still claim that Stalin did the right thing and get even more radical.

---

Furthermore I've been thinking about possible PoDs re: Japan. There are dozens of them (see this thread), it's plain impossible that all of them will go the same way as IOTL. So I've asked what some people call the "Random Number god" and decided for this: One carrier - the Saratoga - is still in Pearl Harbor, and on the way back, the Japanese snatch Midway. This might tempt them to overstretching...

1-3) Definitely more anti-communist feeling and you won't have the massive propaganda campaign of OTL to make Stalin and the Soviets look 'decent' allies.  It might not be too bad for RDF as while he's been stung he's likely to be angry at being tricked and as a result, as well as wanting revenge and also taking a more clearly right wing approach towards communism.  However definitely going to hurt him and also the more left wing people in his administration, including his VP Henry Wallace. 

  A lot of ordinary people in western countries are likely to be angry as well and fed up with any group loyal to Stalin as within a year their gone from "oppose this imperialist war" to "help the western capitalists aid the Soviet people" to "the west are enemies".  A fair number of the most die hard fanatics will continue to follow his line regardless but a lot of other people are going to be far more hostile to any pro-Stalin organisation.

4)  A clear threat of Soviet invasion with forces having fought their way through Afghanistan driving on the Indus and others advancing through eastern Iran that's a hell of an incentive to patch up your differences, at least for the moment.  - The old story of the two bitter rivals fighting being interrupted by a pack of wolves and having to stand back to back to defend themselves comes to mind.  If they come to realise their more secure together, especially with a continued Soviet presence on the NW border it might even last for quite a while.  I'm not saying it will but if the allied defences collapse due to sectarian infighting India could well fall into chaos compounded by both Soviet and Japanese invasions.  Plus with the Soviets being openly atheistic that's unlikely to go down well with either Hindus or Muslims.

5)  Have to see what you come up.  Its going to be bloody dark in a quickly built attempt at a channel tunnel through.

6)  A strong - at least outwardly - Reich can afford Hitler's erratic behaviour longer but that does mean it could well go to even more excesses which would pull everything down in the end.

7)  Possibly a sudden attempt through the Med but how long would that take to set up and it could be caught badly by an Italian dow?  Which might come earlier with the destruction of the BEF and associated French and allied forces.  Also the forces in the ME are already very thinly stretched.

  Britain sent very few forces through the Med while Italy was in the war.  There was the dash through of one convoy with tanks to reinforce Compass once it was realised that there would be no invasion of Britain but that was about it.  Forces fought their way through to Malta to supply it, often at heavy losses and sometimes this was used to reinforce the Med fleet at Alexandria as ships escorting such a convoy would continue on to meet up with the Med fleet.

  The best bet for such an impact might probably be post-war, especially with an India that stays unified and friendly to the western powers, with a clear Soviet threat to the former.  In that case not just Gurkha's but other mercenary forces from the sub-continent could play a role in beefing up the defence of Britain while Britain supplies technical equipment to help the Indians defend against the Soviets.  A continuation of the imperial relationship but on a more equal basis.  Indian has plenty of troops many of who's families have been serving the British army for generations while Britain and the US can supply the more advanced equipment that Indian can't supply itself for at least a decade or so.  Also it provides a good income for the Indians involved, as again with the Gurkha's.    You might still also seen civilian migration from India and from the Caribbean as OTL post-war although some of the drivers may not be there with less war losses overall perhaps.

1+: FDR can do many things, but Wallace was a very active VP, they called him his "Assistant President". He can't exactly fire him either. I guess Wallace will shut up about his sympathies for the SU, even if he has second thoughts. FDR, I guess, might go through the famous "stages of grief" dealing with the defeat in Morocco: Definitely starting with denial. Anger, probably at his losing generals, next. Not sure what happens then - not everyone goes through the same stages, not even necessarily in that order either.

Churchill OTOH will be in a deeper depression than ever. (Originally I had envisioned that he might break off with the right wing of the Tories, which might be called "Conservationists" [my idea] or "Imperial Party" [yours]. But I may have to rethink that. Other people can found parties as well.)

I've decided BTW that McCarthy will defect to the Republicans in 1942 and be elected to the House that year. Where he forms the "House Anti-American Activities Committee" - the name change to show that it's more anti-Communist than anti-Bund now. With mixed results: The Rosenbergs & co. will never be able to enter the Manhattan Project, some artists in Hollywood and on Broadway will suffer. Chaplin went back to Britain IOTL - what will others do?

4: Theoretically possible - but I'll have to decide yet when the Soviets will be in Afghanistan, and what the Japanese will do meanwhile. Maybe they'll manage to invade Bengal? And what will the Anglos achieve during this time? Stalin will do many things, but not risk outright war with them. Hopefully the Indians (whether Hindu or Muslim) will have a chance to avoid both Scylla and Charybdis.

6: Sounds good - but this is far in the future, yet. Until then, I have to solve the question of the submarine war yet.

7: The Malta convoys had a hard life, but at that time the Luftwaffe elite under Kesselring was there. Until then, most of them got through. We're still talking about mid-1940, don't forget.

---

Meanwhile I've decided that the armistice in the East will be on November 11th, and the "Eastern Peace" signed on Nov 28th. Dates are tricky, the day of the week may matter, but other than that one day might be as good as another. Hard decisions.

In the SU, Stalin will persecute various groups: The Karelians because he lost their lands; the Byelorussians, for similar reasons; and foreigners in general. Not to mention the poor Anders Army. (Among which a certain fellow named Begin might be - not sure...) Commies like Wilhelm Pieck and Ana Pauker may not survive this, although Ulbricht IMO is cunning enough to survive another purge, which isn't intended as a praise for him.

[Max Sinister]

OK, it's time to make decisions about Japan's entry in the war, because it was obvious this would have to happen. The question is, which day?

After Dunkirk, I've accelerated some developments a few days (incl. Konoye coming to power in Japan - his predecessor was anti-Axis after all). France looks weaker, so they might occupy Indochina (first the North, then the South) some days earlier as well. Now there's the question about the Allies. FDR might want to make an embargo even earlier, but he has to be aware that Japan might make war, hence with the Empire too, and after Dunkirk, the latter will need more time - to send reinforcements to Singapore etc.

So, we have both good reasons to accelerate or retard Pearl Harbor. And we know it has to happen on a Sunday, because that's when the US will let their guard down.

But so far I haven't considered the biggest one yet: The "Eastern Peace".

This had to happen before the US entered the war, because even with Moscow besieged and Leningrad cut off, Stalin might have had second thoughts about making this peace. That's why I hurried to make it in late 1941, but no later.

Of course cooperation between the Axis Powers never was that great, but the question remains: What will the Japanese say/think/do about it? Especially since Stalin broke his word not to make a separate peace (and the WAllies won't stay silent about it). Which begs the question whether he'll break his non-aggression pact with Japan as well. Maybe I should add some secret protocol to the Second Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

[stevep]

Aug 24, 2024 8:43:45 GMT Max Sinister said:

OK, it's time to make decisions about Japan's entry in the war, because it was obvious this would have to happen. The question is, which day?

After Dunkirk, I've accelerated some developments a few days (incl. Konoye coming to power in Japan - his predecessor was anti-Axis after all). France looks weaker, so they might occupy Indochina (first the North, then the South) some days earlier as well. Now there's the question about the Allies. FDR might want to make an embargo even earlier, but he has to be aware that Japan might make war, hence with the Empire too, and after Dunkirk, the latter will need more time - to send reinforcements to Singapore etc.

So, we have both good reasons to accelerate or retard Pearl Harbor. And we know it has to happen on a Sunday, because that's when the US will let their guard down.

But so far I haven't considered the biggest one yet: The "Eastern Peace".

This had to happen before the US entered the war, because even with Moscow besieged and Leningrad cut off, Stalin might have had second thoughts about making this peace. That's why I hurried to make it in late 1941, but no later.

Of course cooperation between the Axis Powers never was that great, but the question remains: What will the Japanese say/think/do about it? Especially since Stalin broke his word not to make a separate peace (and the WAllies won't stay silent about it). Which begs the question whether he'll break his non-aggression pact with Japan as well. Maybe I should add some secret protocol to the Second Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

  How quickly after the Nazi-Soviet peace does Stalin attack the allies?  You raise a good point that until then Japan will be uncertain about Soviet intentions, although they might also think its taken enough of a beating, and will be concerned about a new attack from Germany to not be an immediate threat. 

  How much would FDR listen to the allies?  OTL I think it was very much a universal decision by the US with the British and Dutch feeling they must support the US decision to ensure continued economic support.  FDR could still do things at the same time or earlier regardless of the needs of the other powers.  Britain was intending Force Z as a possible deterrent and with the main naval forces not to arrive until early 42, Feb/Mar I think and hopefully also more ground and air forces.  [Or at least newer ones when it come to air units as the bulk of the air force in Malaya were basically obsolete].  Although given the circumstances I don't think the US embargo would be much earlier than OTL.

  The other issue might be what is the situation in the ME?  How much warning have the allies had and how much has changed since Italy joined the war?  Too many TLs and the memory isn't what it was so when and how far did Operation Compass go?  If not further than say destroying the Italian forts and forces on the frontier then you probably don't have German intervention, Rommel's attack, the siege of Tobruk and the mounting of Operation Crusader to relieve it.  If their still on the same schedule then Britain is heavily involved in the latter, and having to call off the pursuit not to try and send forces to face the Japanese but initially to face the Soviet attack in the ME.  Would the Iraqi revolt have still occurred prompting the British defeat of it and also taking control of Vichy Syria after it allowed German aid to the Iraqis via its airfields?  In which case Britain has formal control of those regions and how both French colonial forces and the local Arabs react to a Soviet invasion could be important.

  If Britain hasn't gone further that the Libyan border their in a markedly better condition. Which might be the case if the 4th Indian has been shipped to the UK after the Dunkirk disaster.  You might still have had the revolt in Iraq and its suppression and possibly the clearing of Italian E Africa which would mean by the autumn of 41 you could see a build up of forces for an invasion of Libya, which might quickly be switched to defending against the Soviets.

  Or would Stalin in not be ready to strike south until after the Japanese have attacked?  Which could be the case if the Nazi-Soviet peace isn't until say late Oct-early Nov as it would probably take a few months to reorganize the Red Army and also gain reassurances that the Germans weren't going to just take a brief pause and then attack again in say spring/early summer 42.  That would mean that - assuming as seems likely Hitler declares war on the US after the Japanese attacked - the Soviets wouldn't attack the allies until the US was already at war with Germany and Japan.

  I realise I'm starting to get confused here and probably clouding the issue.  What is the TL up until the end of 41 please?  I know that Britain loses the bulk of the BEF which has a big effect on operations elsewhere but how much, what the territorial settlement between the Nazis and Soviets is and how quickly will Stalin strike south?  If the latter is with some knowledge of Japanese plans - although given how paranoid both sides are - but then Sorge is still here TTL - would he have doubts about facing the US as well as the British?  Probably not given the Germans and Japanese are going to be higher targets for the US and like the other dictators he might underestimate them.  However I think that given the schedual Japan is likely to attack before Stalin does.  

[Max Sinister]

Aug 24, 2024 13:56:33 GMT stevep said:

Aug 24, 2024 8:43:45 GMT Max Sinister said:

OK, it's time to make decisions about Japan's entry in the war, because it was obvious this would have to happen. The question is, which day?

After Dunkirk, I've accelerated some developments a few days (incl. Konoye coming to power in Japan - his predecessor was anti-Axis after all). France looks weaker, so they might occupy Indochina (first the North, then the South) some days earlier as well. Now there's the question about the Allies. FDR might want to make an embargo even earlier, but he has to be aware that Japan might make war, hence with the Empire too, and after Dunkirk, the latter will need more time - to send reinforcements to Singapore etc.

So, we have both good reasons to accelerate or retard Pearl Harbor. And we know it has to happen on a Sunday, because that's when the US will let their guard down.

But so far I haven't considered the biggest one yet: The "Eastern Peace".

This had to happen before the US entered the war, because even with Moscow besieged and Leningrad cut off, Stalin might have had second thoughts about making this peace. That's why I hurried to make it in late 1941, but no later.

Of course cooperation between the Axis Powers never was that great, but the question remains: What will the Japanese say/think/do about it? Especially since Stalin broke his word not to make a separate peace (and the WAllies won't stay silent about it). Which begs the question whether he'll break his non-aggression pact with Japan as well. Maybe I should add some secret protocol to the Second Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

  How quickly after the Nazi-Soviet peace does Stalin attack the allies?  You raise a good point that until then Japan will be uncertain about Soviet intentions, although they might also think its taken enough of a beating, and will be concerned about a new attack from Germany to not be an immediate threat. 

  How much would FDR listen to the allies?  OTL I think it was very much a universal decision by the US with the British and Dutch feeling they must support the US decision to ensure continued economic support.  FDR could still do things at the same time or earlier regardless of the needs of the other powers.  Britain was intending Force Z as a possible deterrent and with the main naval forces not to arrive until early 42, Feb/Mar I think and hopefully also more ground and air forces.  [Or at least newer ones when it come to air units as the bulk of the air force in Malaya were basically obsolete].  Although given the circumstances I don't think the US embargo would be much earlier than OTL.

  The other issue might be what is the situation in the ME?  How much warning have the allies had and how much has changed since Italy joined the war?  Too many TLs and the memory isn't what it was so when and how far did Operation Compass go?  If not further than say destroying the Italian forts and forces on the frontier then you probably don't have German intervention, Rommel's attack, the siege of Tobruk and the mounting of Operation Crusader to relieve it.  If their still on the same schedule then Britain is heavily involved in the latter, and having to call off the pursuit not to try and send forces to face the Japanese but initially to face the Soviet attack in the ME.  Would the Iraqi revolt have still occurred prompting the British defeat of it and also taking control of Vichy Syria after it allowed German aid to the Iraqis via its airfields?  In which case Britain has formal control of those regions and how both French colonial forces and the local Arabs react to a Soviet invasion could be important.

  If Britain hasn't gone further that the Libyan border their in a markedly better condition. Which might be the case if the 4th Indian has been shipped to the UK after the Dunkirk disaster.  You might still have had the revolt in Iraq and its suppression and possibly the clearing of Italian E Africa which would mean by the autumn of 41 you could see a build up of forces for an invasion of Libya, which might quickly be switched to defending against the Soviets.

  Or would Stalin in not be ready to strike south until after the Japanese have attacked?  Which could be the case if the Nazi-Soviet peace isn't until say late Oct-early Nov as it would probably take a few months to reorganize the Red Army and also gain reassurances that the Germans weren't going to just take a brief pause and then attack again in say spring/early summer 42.  That would mean that - assuming as seems likely Hitler declares war on the US after the Japanese attacked - the Soviets wouldn't attack the allies until the US was already at war with Germany and Japan.

  I realise I'm starting to get confused here and probably clouding the issue.  What is the TL up until the end of 41 please?  I know that Britain loses the bulk of the BEF which has a big effect on operations elsewhere but how much, what the territorial settlement between the Nazis and Soviets is and how quickly will Stalin strike south?  If the latter is with some knowledge of Japanese plans - although given how paranoid both sides are - but then Sorge is still here TTL - would he have doubts about facing the US as well as the British?  Probably not given the Germans and Japanese are going to be higher targets for the US and like the other dictators he might underestimate them.  However I think that given the schedual Japan is likely to attack before Stalin does.  

Good questions, Steve. I really should make some maps. Maybe one for late 1940, one for pre-Barbarossa, one for after it.

Stalin will play it safe. After all, both Wehrmacht and Red Army will be pretty exhausted and can need some months to recover. I haven't decided about details, but at some point in early 1942 he will pressure Churchill to leave Iran. A horrible situation: Japan has attacked, the "Reich" is trying to drag Spain in, and now that threat as well. Churchill will be lucky if he can salvage some pieces of Iran - west Baloochistan, and the SW corner.

Churchill may think about reviving Operation Pike, though. Although it won't be successful, the Soviet planes will defend it.

The Japanese will be surprised about the meanwhile third 180° turn of Nazi-Soviet relationships - but the clique that wants war with the WAllies was in charge anyway, and striking north now is more crazy than it'd have ever been, and the "Reich" is still fighting the Empire, so I don't think it'll change their course. If necessary, the "führer" will pass on a message that he'll still side with them, even against the US. After his victory, he'll be overconfident, and he hates FDR and the "East Coast Jews" after all.

Your second paragraph is a bit unclear - what do you mean by "listen to the allies", and which US decision are you referring to? They all (US, Brits, Dutch) will be attacked altogether, so they'll have to fight together. The question is just how.

How much warning? Good question. This depends on how many people among Nazis and Soviets and their friends know what, and who'll talk, and when, and whether Churchill will believe it. Initially, he might be shocked. But of all the big WW2 leaders, he was the last one who'd deny bad news just because he doesn't like them. He'll be more depressed than ever, though.

And no, the US embargo won't be much earlier. Just some days, shortly after the Japanese go to Indochina.

The situation in MENA, summarized:

- In Egypt, Balbo (who survives) takes Sidi Barrani on July 14th and in late October Marsa Matruh. For logistical reasons, he can't get further. In February 1941, the Brits manage a counter-attack and throw him back to the Libyan border. But now Rommel's there, attacks, and soon he's thrown them back. (Yes, as IOTL, there's quite some back-and-forth.) The problems in Iraq and Greece prevent the Brits from attacking for some months. Around this time, Wavell is replaced by Auchinlek. Only in autumn/fall, Auk can attack and throw Rommel back. In spring 1942, Rommel again drives him back to El Alamein...

- When Italy joins the war on June 8th, they are a bit more successful in East Africa, esp. Sudan. Port Sudan is lost to Lorenzini, but then the Italian advance gets stuck. The Empire lacks troops to throw them back, so they have to needle them and recruit guerillas. In March 1941, Atbara is conquered by Lorenzini, but that's the Italian high-water mark. In summer, Auk dares an attack and is successful (Italians are out of fuel, practically), to his own surprise. Later, as stated a bit above, the Brits take most of East Africa, only the isolated Gondar pocket survives. After that, we might see more US troops in this theater...

- Iraq rose up in late March 1941, hence roughly on schedule. The Brits defeat it, although they need somewhat longer, until June. Has to do with the overall situation of the Empire. Fortunately India isn't too far. They won't take Vichy Syria afterwards, though.

You wrote "their in a markedly better condition" - the British troops, or the Italians, or both?

The "Ostfrieden" schedule is like this: In October, secret negotiations start; in early November, with the mud freezing, the Germans dare a last attack; now Stalin gives in. Armistice is on the 11th, peace signing on 28th.

Also, I may use some ideas from my old story here, although this one went a very different way. What with a bridge at Khabarovsk being destroyed, and Stalin being the first one making peace approaches. Which doesn't happen ITTL.

[stevep]

Aug 24, 2024 22:30:29 GMT Max Sinister said:

Aug 24, 2024 13:56:33 GMT stevep said:

  How quickly after the Nazi-Soviet peace does Stalin attack the allies?  You raise a good point that until then Japan will be uncertain about Soviet intentions, although they might also think its taken enough of a beating, and will be concerned about a new attack from Germany to not be an immediate threat. 

  How much would FDR listen to the allies?  OTL I think it was very much a universal decision by the US with the British and Dutch feeling they must support the US decision to ensure continued economic support.  FDR could still do things at the same time or earlier regardless of the needs of the other powers.  Britain was intending Force Z as a possible deterrent and with the main naval forces not to arrive until early 42, Feb/Mar I think and hopefully also more ground and air forces.  [Or at least newer ones when it come to air units as the bulk of the air force in Malaya were basically obsolete].  Although given the circumstances I don't think the US embargo would be much earlier than OTL.

  The other issue might be what is the situation in the ME?  How much warning have the allies had and how much has changed since Italy joined the war?  Too many TLs and the memory isn't what it was so when and how far did Operation Compass go?  If not further than say destroying the Italian forts and forces on the frontier then you probably don't have German intervention, Rommel's attack, the siege of Tobruk and the mounting of Operation Crusader to relieve it.  If their still on the same schedule then Britain is heavily involved in the latter, and having to call off the pursuit not to try and send forces to face the Japanese but initially to face the Soviet attack in the ME.  Would the Iraqi revolt have still occurred prompting the British defeat of it and also taking control of Vichy Syria after it allowed German aid to the Iraqis via its airfields?  In which case Britain has formal control of those regions and how both French colonial forces and the local Arabs react to a Soviet invasion could be important.

  If Britain hasn't gone further that the Libyan border their in a markedly better condition. Which might be the case if the 4th Indian has been shipped to the UK after the Dunkirk disaster.  You might still have had the revolt in Iraq and its suppression and possibly the clearing of Italian E Africa which would mean by the autumn of 41 you could see a build up of forces for an invasion of Libya, which might quickly be switched to defending against the Soviets.

  Or would Stalin in not be ready to strike south until after the Japanese have attacked?  Which could be the case if the Nazi-Soviet peace isn't until say late Oct-early Nov as it would probably take a few months to reorganize the Red Army and also gain reassurances that the Germans weren't going to just take a brief pause and then attack again in say spring/early summer 42.  That would mean that - assuming as seems likely Hitler declares war on the US after the Japanese attacked - the Soviets wouldn't attack the allies until the US was already at war with Germany and Japan.

  I realise I'm starting to get confused here and probably clouding the issue.  What is the TL up until the end of 41 please?  I know that Britain loses the bulk of the BEF which has a big effect on operations elsewhere but how much, what the territorial settlement between the Nazis and Soviets is and how quickly will Stalin strike south?  If the latter is with some knowledge of Japanese plans - although given how paranoid both sides are - but then Sorge is still here TTL - would he have doubts about facing the US as well as the British?  Probably not given the Germans and Japanese are going to be higher targets for the US and like the other dictators he might underestimate them.  However I think that given the schedual Japan is likely to attack before Stalin does.  

Good questions, Steve. I really should make some maps. Maybe one for late 1940, one for pre-Barbarossa, one for after it.

Stalin will play it safe. After all, both Wehrmacht and Red Army will be pretty exhausted and can need some months to recover. I haven't decided about details, but at some point in early 1942 he will pressure Churchill to leave Iran. A horrible situation: Japan has attacked, the "Reich" is trying to drag Spain in, and now that threat as well. Churchill will be lucky if he can salvage some pieces of Iran - west Baloochistan, and the SW corner.

Churchill may think about reviving Operation Pike, though. Although it won't be successful, the Soviet planes will defend it.

The Japanese will be surprised about the meanwhile third 180° turn of Nazi-Soviet relationships - but the clique that wants war with the WAllies was in charge anyway, and striking north now is more crazy than it'd have ever been, and the "Reich" is still fighting the Empire, so I don't think it'll change their course. If necessary, the "führer" will pass on a message that he'll still side with them, even against the US. After his victory, he'll be overconfident, and he hates FDR and the "East Coast Jews" after all.

Your second paragraph is a bit unclear - what do you mean by "listen to the allies", and which US decision are you referring to? They all (US, Brits, Dutch) will be attacked altogether, so they'll have to fight together. The question is just how.

How much warning? Good question. This depends on how many people among Nazis and Soviets and their friends know what, and who'll talk, and when, and whether Churchill will believe it. Initially, he might be shocked. But of all the big WW2 leaders, he was the last one who'd deny bad news just because he doesn't like them. He'll be more depressed than ever, though.

And no, the US embargo won't be much earlier. Just some days, shortly after the Japanese go to Indochina.

The situation in MENA, summarized:

- In Egypt, Balbo (who survives) takes Sidi Barrani on July 14th and in late October Marsa Matruh. For logistical reasons, he can't get further. In February 1941, the Brits manage a counter-attack and throw him back to the Libyan border. But now Rommel's there, attacks, and soon he's thrown them back. (Yes, as IOTL, there's quite some back-and-forth.) The problems in Iraq and Greece prevent the Brits from attacking for some months. Around this time, Wavell is replaced by Auchinlek. Only in autumn/fall, Auk can attack and throw Rommel back. In spring 1942, Rommel again drives him back to El Alamein...

- When Italy joins the war on June 8th, they are a bit more successful in East Africa, esp. Sudan. Port Sudan is lost to Lorenzini, but then the Italian advance gets stuck. The Empire lacks troops to throw them back, so they have to needle them and recruit guerillas. In March 1941, Atbara is conquered by Lorenzini, but that's the Italian high-water mark. In summer, Auk dares an attack and is successful (Italians are out of fuel, practically), to his own surprise. Later, as stated a bit above, the Brits take most of East Africa, only the isolated Gondar pocket survives. After that, we might see more US troops in this theater...

- Iraq rose up in late March 1941, hence roughly on schedule. The Brits defeat it, although they need somewhat longer, until June. Has to do with the overall situation of the Empire. Fortunately India isn't too far. They won't take Vichy Syria afterwards, though.

You wrote "their in a markedly better condition" - the British troops, or the Italians, or both?

The "Ostfrieden" schedule is like this: In October, secret negotiations start; in early November, with the mud freezing, the Germans dare a last attack; now Stalin gives in. Armistice is on the 11th, peace signing on 28th.

Also, I may use some ideas from my old story here, although this one went a very different way. What with a bridge at Khabarovsk being destroyed, and Stalin being the first one making peace approaches. Which doesn't happen ITTL.

  Max

  Thanks for clarifying.  Will try and cover the points raised.

a)  So its definitely Nazi-Soviet peace agreement in late Nov, Japan attacking in the Far East roughly OTL, bringing the US into war with Japan and then probably thanks to Hitler being helpful as OTL with Germany, then in about spring 42 Stalin strikes south.  - Although it sounds like he might demand a larger share of Iran than the Soviets already control 1st.  In this situation Churchill would probably ask the US for political support and if he gets a promise stand firm, leading to a shooting war.  Talking initially of political support as the US has no real military forces to send to the region.  If FDR says no then Churchill in that situation, probably pressed by the rest of the government and military gives in and actual combat in the region delayed somewhat but no doubt will come soon.  Britain will want as you say to keep the SW corner, where important oil sources are and probably also Baluchistan to cover the path to India.

b)  Churchill might think about Operation Pike but not until there's open war with Stalin and also extracting heavy bombers from Britain and relocating them to the ME will take time.  Both in getting the bomber marshals to agree to this and then the sheer issues to transporting them and the necessary ground staff and other resources, including building suitable airfields.  By the time such forces are on the move you would probably find the Soviets are overrunning planned airfields.  If Britain can hold Egypt and NW India - OTL Pakistan then later on Britain or US heavy bombers might be used for such attacks.  Not sure how effective Soviet defences would be against night attacks but its a bloody long way to Baku over rough terrain.

c)  Agree that the Japanese will strike south.  By late Nov when the peace deal is signed their already committed with deploying forces south and east and also the clock is ticking on the oil and other reserves being run down.  Especially if FDR has moved even a bit earlier on the embargo.  In fact if say their a week or two earlier then they might strike just as the Nazi-Soviet peace agreement is achieved.  Which many in the western powers will probably see as deliberate rather than a coincidence - which could make some concerns about Stalin's future actions being raised earlier.

d)  I meant would FDR talk with the allies before issuing the embargo and if they asked him to delay it for the moment would he listen.  Probably not but given a position that is worse for the allies they might be unwilling to go along with it.  If so would he threaten to cut L-L to either Britain or the Netherlands?  OTL there were some disjointed discussions between the assorted military leaders in SE Asia, especially on the naval side but given the limited forces available and concerns they went nowhere.

e)  On the situation in the ME area I was assuming that given the crisis in Europe - especially with one of the few trained divisions in the ME being sent to Britain and no armour from Britain to the ME I was assuming that things would go significantly differently.  I.e.

i)  That Compass would be delayed and only go as far as defeating the Italian border forces.

ii)  As a result you probably wouldn't get Mussolini doing a 180 and asking for aid in N Africa.  I doubt Rommel or any other Germans would turn up, at least that early.

iii)  That Britain would have to choose between clearing Italian E Africa and Greece as I doubt they would be able to afford both and that they would choose the 1st.  - Because there were demands to clear the Red Sea and parts of Indian Ocean so US merchant shipping could be used in those areas coupled with Churchill's desire to get back British Somalia.  I think if the Italians invaded Sudan successfully, which would be logistically different this bias would be reinforced, especially since this seems to be occurring shortly after .

iv)  That in that case Italian E Africa would be largely liberated - at this point Mussolini could well ask for aid in Africa but with Barbarossa in full flow its unlikely to be a fully motorised force and as OTL likely to be meant for defensive actions.  Given his probably in Russia the leader is unlikely to be Rommel so whoever it was would probably also obey Hitler!

v)  That the Iraqi uprising occurs and is put down.  Whether you get German aid passing through Vichy Syria and a following British intervention could be variable but happy with it not happening.

  This was why I was thinking that British forces prior to the Japanese attack would be somewhat stronger in the region.  There's no initial invasion of Libya, diversion to Greece with heavy losses, counter attack by Rommel and seize of Tobruk, which then takes two offensives to relieve it, the 2nd occurring just as the crisis in the east occurs.  As such a lot of OTL British losses would have been avoided.  [Including Commonwealth and Imperial forces under British here].  You would probably have a force being built up towards the end of 41 to try an attack into Libya and/or watch the Caucasus region in case the Soviets collapsed and the Germans were threatening via that route.  [This was a concern in late 42 with the Germans advancing toward Baku and - while they were probably less well equipped and trained I did read once that Britain had more forces in Syria/Iraq/Iran to guard against that danger than they had under Monty fighting 2nd El Alamein].

  In that scenario British forces would be stronger than OTL at the end of 41 - and actually so would the Italians in Libya since they would have avoided the OTL heavy losses in Compass and have gained at least some of the OTL Italian reinforcements whether or not any German forces are sent to Libya.

  However given the events your suggesting their going to be very strained because both Greece and an attack by Rommel [or equivalent] although that's going to be far more difficult here driving us back from the Libyan border to El Alamein would leave the allies in the region much worse strained, even before the Japanese and then the Soviet attacks.  I do think that combination of events are unlikely for the reasons stated above. - The reason I suggest a German success here would be a lot more difficult is two fold.  For one if the role is on orders from Hitler to be primarily defensive its going to be difficult basing it near the Egyptian border and keeping that secret from both Hitler and the British.  The other is that its a markedly longer supply line for the Italians and a much shorter one for the British defenders.  Although one aspect of this is that without Cyrenaica being in British hands Malta may have fallen as its a lot more difficult sending reinforcements or supplies from the east with Cyrenaica in hostile rather than friendly hands.

  I would suggest that even if Britain sends forces to Greece I doubt German forces would be sent to Libya, at least not until 42 after the peace with Stalin.  At that point Hitler could insist on it as a way to take the war to British interests.  He may also want to get into at least part of the ME before Stalin although whether or not spheres of influence in the region have already been agreed between the two dictators I don't know.

  Anyway my initial thoughts on the situation.  In the schedule your proposing, even with avoiding the problems of Greece and a German offensive in 41 in Libya things are going to be very bad for the allies regardless.  The Japanese attack are likely to draw forces eastwards toward Malaya and Burma, which then leaves the rest exposed to a Soviet and possibly a German/Italian attack from Libya.  A lot would depend on the timing and how much concern there is about Stalin.  It might force the loss of Egypt, which I think your intending although a practical defence should still be possible, at least from the west as a well defended El Alamein is a very difficult point for a force to drive past.  However the Soviet strike could reach the Sinai.  

  Mind you a Syria/Lebanon under Vichy control would be a complicating issue for Stalin and Hitler here.  How much have the two agreed to in their negotiations for Stalin to attack British interests?  If Hitler was willing to sacrifice the French colony to the Soviets its not going to go down well in France.  Albeit there's relatively little they can do about it. 

  Anyway help that explains what I was trying to say and have a clearer picture of what your intending.  Hopefully removes any confusion I've generated in the previous post and not added any more here.

  Steve

[Max Sinister]

Aug 25, 2024 11:33:17 GMT stevep said:

Aug 24, 2024 22:30:29 GMT Max Sinister said:

Good questions, Steve. I really should make some maps. Maybe one for late 1940, one for pre-Barbarossa, one for after it.

Stalin will play it safe. After all, both Wehrmacht and Red Army will be pretty exhausted and can need some months to recover. I haven't decided about details, but at some point in early 1942 he will pressure Churchill to leave Iran. A horrible situation: Japan has attacked, the "Reich" is trying to drag Spain in, and now that threat as well. Churchill will be lucky if he can salvage some pieces of Iran - west Baloochistan, and the SW corner.

Churchill may think about reviving Operation Pike, though. Although it won't be successful, the Soviet planes will defend it.

The Japanese will be surprised about the meanwhile third 180° turn of Nazi-Soviet relationships - but the clique that wants war with the WAllies was in charge anyway, and striking north now is more crazy than it'd have ever been, and the "Reich" is still fighting the Empire, so I don't think it'll change their course. If necessary, the "führer" will pass on a message that he'll still side with them, even against the US. After his victory, he'll be overconfident, and he hates FDR and the "East Coast Jews" after all.

Your second paragraph is a bit unclear - what do you mean by "listen to the allies", and which US decision are you referring to? They all (US, Brits, Dutch) will be attacked altogether, so they'll have to fight together. The question is just how.

How much warning? Good question. This depends on how many people among Nazis and Soviets and their friends know what, and who'll talk, and when, and whether Churchill will believe it. Initially, he might be shocked. But of all the big WW2 leaders, he was the last one who'd deny bad news just because he doesn't like them. He'll be more depressed than ever, though.

And no, the US embargo won't be much earlier. Just some days, shortly after the Japanese go to Indochina.

The situation in MENA, summarized:

- In Egypt, Balbo (who survives) takes Sidi Barrani on July 14th and in late October Marsa Matruh. For logistical reasons, he can't get further. In February 1941, the Brits manage a counter-attack and throw him back to the Libyan border. But now Rommel's there, attacks, and soon he's thrown them back. (Yes, as IOTL, there's quite some back-and-forth.) The problems in Iraq and Greece prevent the Brits from attacking for some months. Around this time, Wavell is replaced by Auchinlek. Only in autumn/fall, Auk can attack and throw Rommel back. In spring 1942, Rommel again drives him back to El Alamein...

- When Italy joins the war on June 8th, they are a bit more successful in East Africa, esp. Sudan. Port Sudan is lost to Lorenzini, but then the Italian advance gets stuck. The Empire lacks troops to throw them back, so they have to needle them and recruit guerillas. In March 1941, Atbara is conquered by Lorenzini, but that's the Italian high-water mark. In summer, Auk dares an attack and is successful (Italians are out of fuel, practically), to his own surprise. Later, as stated a bit above, the Brits take most of East Africa, only the isolated Gondar pocket survives. After that, we might see more US troops in this theater...

- Iraq rose up in late March 1941, hence roughly on schedule. The Brits defeat it, although they need somewhat longer, until June. Has to do with the overall situation of the Empire. Fortunately India isn't too far. They won't take Vichy Syria afterwards, though.

You wrote "their in a markedly better condition" - the British troops, or the Italians, or both?

The "Ostfrieden" schedule is like this: In October, secret negotiations start; in early November, with the mud freezing, the Germans dare a last attack; now Stalin gives in. Armistice is on the 11th, peace signing on 28th.

Also, I may use some ideas from my old story here, although this one went a very different way. What with a bridge at Khabarovsk being destroyed, and Stalin being the first one making peace approaches. Which doesn't happen ITTL.

  Max

  Thanks for clarifying.  Will try and cover the points raised.

a)  So its definitely Nazi-Soviet peace agreement in late Nov, Japan attacking in the Far East roughly OTL, bringing the US into war with Japan and then probably thanks to Hitler being helpful as OTL with Germany, then in about spring 42 Stalin strikes south.  - Although it sounds like he might demand a larger share of Iran than the Soviets already control 1st.  In this situation Churchill would probably ask the US for political support and if he gets a promise stand firm, leading to a shooting war.  Talking initially of political support as the US has no real military forces to send to the region.  If FDR says no then Churchill in that situation, probably pressed by the rest of the government and military gives in and actual combat in the region delayed somewhat but no doubt will come soon.  Britain will want as you say to keep the SW corner, where important oil sources are and probably also Baluchistan to cover the path to India.

b)  Churchill might think about Operation Pike but not until there's open war with Stalin and also extracting heavy bombers from Britain and relocating them to the ME will take time.  Both in getting the bomber marshals to agree to this and then the sheer issues to transporting them and the necessary ground staff and other resources, including building suitable airfields.  By the time such forces are on the move you would probably find the Soviets are overrunning planned airfields.  If Britain can hold Egypt and NW India - OTL Pakistan then later on Britain or US heavy bombers might be used for such attacks.  Not sure how effective Soviet defences would be against night attacks but its a bloody long way to Baku over rough terrain.

c)  Agree that the Japanese will strike south.  By late Nov when the peace deal is signed their already committed with deploying forces south and east and also the clock is ticking on the oil and other reserves being run down.  Especially if FDR has moved even a bit earlier on the embargo.  In fact if say their a week or two earlier then they might strike just as the Nazi-Soviet peace agreement is achieved.  Which many in the western powers will probably see as deliberate rather than a coincidence - which could make some concerns about Stalin's future actions being raised earlier.

d)  I meant would FDR talk with the allies before issuing the embargo and if they asked him to delay it for the moment would he listen.  Probably not but given a position that is worse for the allies they might be unwilling to go along with it.  If so would he threaten to cut L-L to either Britain or the Netherlands?  OTL there were some disjointed discussions between the assorted military leaders in SE Asia, especially on the naval side but given the limited forces available and concerns they went nowhere.

e)  On the situation in the ME area I was assuming that given the crisis in Europe - especially with one of the few trained divisions in the ME being sent to Britain and no armour from Britain to the ME I was assuming that things would go significantly differently.  I.e.

i)  That Compass would be delayed and only go as far as defeating the Italian border forces.

ii)  As a result you probably wouldn't get Mussolini doing a 180 and asking for aid in N Africa.  I doubt Rommel or any other Germans would turn up, at least that early.

iii)  That Britain would have to choose between clearing Italian E Africa and Greece as I doubt they would be able to afford both and that they would choose the 1st.  - Because there were demands to clear the Red Sea and parts of Indian Ocean so US merchant shipping could be used in those areas coupled with Churchill's desire to get back British Somalia.  I think if the Italians invaded Sudan successfully, which would be logistically different this bias would be reinforced, especially since this seems to be occurring shortly after .

iv)  That in that case Italian E Africa would be largely liberated - at this point Mussolini could well ask for aid in Africa but with Barbarossa in full flow its unlikely to be a fully motorised force and as OTL likely to be meant for defensive actions.  Given his probably in Russia the leader is unlikely to be Rommel so whoever it was would probably also obey Hitler!

v)  That the Iraqi uprising occurs and is put down.  Whether you get German aid passing through Vichy Syria and a following British intervention could be variable but happy with it not happening.

  This was why I was thinking that British forces prior to the Japanese attack would be somewhat stronger in the region.  There's no initial invasion of Libya, diversion to Greece with heavy losses, counter attack by Rommel and seize of Tobruk, which then takes two offensives to relieve it, the 2nd occurring just as the crisis in the east occurs.  As such a lot of OTL British losses would have been avoided.  [Including Commonwealth and Imperial forces under British here].  You would probably have a force being built up towards the end of 41 to try an attack into Libya and/or watch the Caucasus region in case the Soviets collapsed and the Germans were threatening via that route.  [This was a concern in late 42 with the Germans advancing toward Baku and - while they were probably less well equipped and trained I did read once that Britain had more forces in Syria/Iraq/Iran to guard against that danger than they had under Monty fighting 2nd El Alamein].

  In that scenario British forces would be stronger than OTL at the end of 41 - and actually so would the Italians in Libya since they would have avoided the OTL heavy losses in Compass and have gained at least some of the OTL Italian reinforcements whether or not any German forces are sent to Libya.

  However given the events your suggesting their going to be very strained because both Greece and an attack by Rommel [or equivalent] although that's going to be far more difficult here driving us back from the Libyan border to El Alamein would leave the allies in the region much worse strained, even before the Japanese and then the Soviet attacks.  I do think that combination of events are unlikely for the reasons stated above. - The reason I suggest a German success here would be a lot more difficult is two fold.  For one if the role is on orders from Hitler to be primarily defensive its going to be difficult basing it near the Egyptian border and keeping that secret from both Hitler and the British.  The other is that its a markedly longer supply line for the Italians and a much shorter one for the British defenders.  Although one aspect of this is that without Cyrenaica being in British hands Malta may have fallen as its a lot more difficult sending reinforcements or supplies from the east with Cyrenaica in hostile rather than friendly hands.

  I would suggest that even if Britain sends forces to Greece I doubt German forces would be sent to Libya, at least not until 42 after the peace with Stalin.  At that point Hitler could insist on it as a way to take the war to British interests.  He may also want to get into at least part of the ME before Stalin although whether or not spheres of influence in the region have already been agreed between the two dictators I don't know.

  Anyway my initial thoughts on the situation.  In the schedule your proposing, even with avoiding the problems of Greece and a German offensive in 41 in Libya things are going to be very bad for the allies regardless.  The Japanese attack are likely to draw forces eastwards toward Malaya and Burma, which then leaves the rest exposed to a Soviet and possibly a German/Italian attack from Libya.  A lot would depend on the timing and how much concern there is about Stalin.  It might force the loss of Egypt, which I think your intending although a practical defence should still be possible, at least from the west as a well defended El Alamein is a very difficult point for a force to drive past.  However the Soviet strike could reach the Sinai.  

  Mind you a Syria/Lebanon under Vichy control would be a complicating issue for Stalin and Hitler here.  How much have the two agreed to in their negotiations for Stalin to attack British interests?  If Hitler was willing to sacrifice the French colony to the Soviets its not going to go down well in France.  Albeit there's relatively little they can do about it. 

  Anyway help that explains what I was trying to say and have a clearer picture of what your intending.  Hopefully removes any confusion I've generated in the previous post and not added any more here.

  Steve

OK, let's go through it.

a. Oh, the Nazis are willing to hand over all of Iran to the Soviets. (It might be that Stalin may hint to the Brits that he'd like to keep it, without telling about his secret diplomacy. Churchill will decline of course, hence killing the chance of handing over Iran so Stalin can say he doesn't need it.) And even if Churchill might want to make war on his traitorous ally, I can't see anyone else in Britain agreeing with this. Keeping a piece of Iran as a face-saving gesture would be the best he could expect.

b. It'd take time indeed, and the Soviets would be faster to move fighters to Baku than the Empire. So I guess some British planes flying there to make recon will be the best, after which Stalin would tell them to "f*** off".

c. Earlier or later, that's the question. If the Japanese worry that Stalin isn't honest about keeping the peace with them, later. If they believe their ally, earlier.

d. Did he IOTL? I had thought he hadn't, and Britain and the Dutch joined the embargo anyway.

e/i. Re: alt-Compass I made a compromise: Balbo (who survived because of butterflies) came as far as Marsa Matruh, but Wavell drove him back to the border. Good thing the Italians overestimated British strength. IOTL they thought you had 200,000 troops there in Egypt. Is it realistic that the 7th Armoured Division would be moved to Britain as well? I hadn't thought so...

e/ii. Don't forget Greece. After all German support was a kind of package deal. And Rommel - it's just one division, and currently Germany has enough troops ready.

e/iii. Priorities, exactly. Originally I had hoped Britain would support Greece at least with one or two symbolic divisions, but maybe I'll have to make a retcon and reduce them to air squadrons.

e/iv. Is moot, since I want Rommel to fight in Africa. Otherwise it wouldn't be a real WW2. Tradition, you know. ;-)

e/v. There is an Iraqi uprising (and why not), but Syria stays under Vichy, and it takes one month longer to defeat it. Also, the old regent dies when his plane crashes.

- Would the Italians have sent reinforcements rather to Libya or to Greece?

- Well, Malta does fall in mid-1941.

- Why shouldn't Germany send troops to Libya? As said, it's not that many, and the Empire is rather weaker, so Germany can afford to.

- No, the Levant is Mussolini's turf, and the Soviets had to acknowledge that in B-L 2. Hence no Soviets in Syria, Palestine, let alone Egypt.

PS: This is the new official logo of this TL.