|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 2, 2024 1:01:23 GMT
(This is a summary for everyone new.)
As said, I think I'm half through with TTL. But the most important part - the operation on its heart/brain - is still missing. I know I need a Nazi-Soviet peace in late 1941 for this - just how? Sometimes I think we might need to invent a new science for solving this... Everything else seems solvable: - Dunkirk - Malta - Felix - Karelia - Barbarossa a bit earlier (but not too early, to avoid spring Rasputitsa) and with some more divisions (consequence of Dunkirk) - better Enigma (thanks to the "Black Orchestra" being uncovered), possibly leading to a peace or armistice with Britain And some things are clearly right out: - Sea Lion - going from El Alamein to Alexandria during Sonnenschirm (sorry, Rommel) - storming Leningrad - storming Moscow - Japan starting a war with the Soviet Union Also, I don't want to use Turkey as a Nazi ally, even if the latter wouldn't mind Turkey covering their flank (similar as Finland) and I'm not entirely sure why they didn't accept the offer, or whether a putsch of Axis-friendly marshal Fevzi Çakmak would be realistic.
On this last point, while the Turks feared the Soviets they were also concerned about the Nazis, especially possibly with their racists beliefs. Also allying with Germany would mean war with Britain which could make their eastern territories a battle area and Britain would likely seek to stir up unrest in the Kurdish areas for instance. Furthermore if this is before Barbarossa it would be a red flag to Stalin as it threatens both a way to attack Baku and neighbouring regions and also German influence if not outside control of the Turkish straits which has both military and economic consequences for the USSR. Also after a German-Soviet peace or at least ceasefire the Turks are likely to want to hunker down and avoid as much of the bloodbath occurring around them as possible.
In terms of the other points I agree that the biggest single issue is getting some sort of peace between the Nazis and Soviets which both sides agree on and which both sides actually keep. Especially given that the nature of the two regimes and the example set by Barbarossa how much the two trust each other and its quite likely that the two would keep much if not most of their military on the common border much of the time.
Yes, that's all very true...
I do think that Adolf Nazi's bad mood about not being able to conquer Britain after the success of Dunkirk will be a reason for making the "Ostfrieden" possible at all. Edit: It won't be sufficient probably, but certainly helps.
Maybe a British bomb will destroy his beloved Neue Reichskanzlei so he'll be willing to consider a peace with Stalin if this helps to bring down the Empire. Still looks like a somewhat exaggerated reaction. Even if you consider that many Germans will wish that Britain suffers a real defeat, especially if the bombing goes on ("Bomber Harris" was wrong when he thought that his bombs would destroy German morale).
And of course the German armchair strategists won't understand why Sea Lion is impossible. Now they won't think that the "führer" was evil for not doing that, but - incompetent...
Last but not least, a quote from Churchill's WW2 book:
The gallery he was talking about was one in Gibraltar. This is how I'll let the Axis win there: Find out that this is how they can neutralize Gibraltar's artillery. After that, the British soldiers can still survive inside the rock with enough water, food and ammo for months - but it's not my idea of fun.
The attack will happen somewhen in spring 1942 (Keitel of all people once stated that it wouldn't work before April 15th).
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 5, 2024 22:06:50 GMT
Been thinking about the question for how long the Brits holed up in the Rock might hold out. In the worst case, they might capitulate after a few days; in the best case, when their water/food will run out.
Hard to judge this, so I'll make a compromise and give them three months. I hope this is something everyone can accept.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 8, 2024 21:35:09 GMT
Another thought: During the Spanish Civil War, suspiciously many Spanish generals of the rightist side died convenient (for Franco) deaths: Sanjurjo, Primo di Rivera, Manuel Goded, Emilio Mola, and Miguel Cabanellas.
TTL has a successful Operation Felix. As Franco insisted, the troops actually taking the peninsula had to be Spanish. Which means they needed a commander. Probably Munoz-Grandes.
Now I'm wondering whether Franco would decide to let something happen to Munoz-Grandes, so the Falangists won't get too uppity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 12, 2024 13:40:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 15, 2024 10:46:25 GMT
OK, I think I've found a way:
Sebastian Haffner writes in "Germany: Jekyll & Hyde" about Adolf Nazi ("Hitler" chapter, p. 29/30):
"His aims, pursued in the following sequence and only as far as each does not endanger its predecessor, are: 1) Maintenance and extension of his personal power. 2) Revenge on all groups of persons and institutions against whom he feels resentment, and they are many. 3) The staging of scenes out of Wagner's operas and the posing of pictures after Makart with Adolf Hitler as the chief protagonist. All else is pretence and tactic."
Something very useful to know, not just ITTL. Feel free to disagree if you have a good reason, but I don't see where to contradict Haffner. (In fact, I'll use some of his quotes for TTL.)
Now what to make of it:
Originally, I had planned to have Stalin making the first move for peace. But he actually offered the Nazis the Baltic states and Ukraine IOTL (shortly after Barbarossa started), and they didn't even bother to answer, so what's the point? They'd just think "Great, he's going down, we'll win anyway!" And if the Baltics and Ukraine aren't enough - what is he supposed to offer them next?
In early 1943 - yes, after Stalingrad - Stalin made another offer, this time giving Germany the status quo ante bellum borders. (Source: Henry Picker) Of course, the "führer" never would have accepted this. No "lebensraum" for him? Certainly not.
Yes, thinking about it, a separate peace in late 1941 would have more chance for success if Adolf Nazi was offering it. Of course you're going to ask now: "Why the hell should he do this?"
At this point, we need Haffner's short list about the "führer's" motivations. The only one that might fit here is point 2, Revenge!
Revenge to whom, and why, and how does the peace with Stalin come into that?
You may remember that earlier I posted some crazy thread in which Stalin loses his sanity after some stray Japanese pilot kamikaze's the Khabarovsk railroad bridge, blocking the railroad to Vladivostok, Stalin gets angry at Churchill because he thinks he's doing too little, demands Persia to have something, and when Churchill doesn't agree, offers the Nazis peace instead. No, in retrospect that doesn't make much sense.
I'll do something similar however. The "führer" would repeat his offer from 1940 to Stalin, what with Ribbentrop's idea of the Continental Block, directed against the Empire. Of course, the Soviet Union would have to cede lots of territory, similar as in Brest-Litovsk. And deliver lots of resources, esp. oil.
A harsh peace indeed - but something that Stalin could accept. He'll spin it into something similar as the first peace of B-L. Maybe with "the eeevul Anglosphere has been using Germany as a tool to destroy the glorious Soviet Union, but now they've seen the light!" to boot.
Oh, and why? I think I'll explain it with a) the "führer" being angry that he hasn't been able to hurt Britain, despite of his victory at Dunkirk; and b) because of the British "terror flyers" who even managed to destroy his Neue Reichskanzlei - shortly after his victories in "Operation Golden Fox" and the death of Budyonny.
Yes, if there is anything that might drive Adolf Nazi over the edge in wanting to hurt the Empire, esp. Churchill, it's something like this. Of course that doesn't mean he'll stop hating Bolshevism, let alone giving up the Lebensraum dream... although I'm not entirely sure about the former.
Is this somewhat realistic enough, or do I need yet more coincidence(s)?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843 
Likes: 13,230
|
Post by stevep on Jun 15, 2024 12:07:25 GMT
OK, I think I've found a way: Sebastian Haffner writes in "Germany: Jekyll & Hyde" about Adolf Nazi ("Hitler" chapter, p. 29/30): "His aims, pursued in the following sequence and only as far as each does not endanger its predecessor, are: 1) Maintenance and extension of his personal power. 2) Revenge on all groups of persons and institutions against whom he feels resentment, and they are many. 3) The staging of scenes out of Wagner's operas and the posing of pictures after Makart with Adolf Hitler as the chief protagonist. All else is pretence and tactic." Something very useful to know, not just ITTL. Feel free to disagree if you have a good reason, but I don't see where to contradict Haffner. (In fact, I'll use some of his quotes for TTL.)
Now what to make of it: Originally, I had planned to have Stalin making the first move for peace. But he actually offered the Nazis the Baltic states and Ukraine IOTL (shortly after Barbarossa started), and they didn't even bother to answer, so what's the point? They'd just think "Great, he's going down, we'll win anyway!" And if the Baltics and Ukraine aren't enough - what is he supposed to offer them next? In early 1943 - yes, after Stalingrad - Stalin made another offer, this time giving Germany the status quo ante bellum borders. (Source: Henry Picker) Of course, the "führer" never would have accepted this. No "lebensraum" for him? Certainly not. Yes, thinking about it, a separate peace in late 1941 would have more chance for success if Adolf Nazi was offering it. Of course you're going to ask now: "Why the hell should he do this?" At this point, we need Haffner's short list about the "führer's" motivations. The only one that might fit here is point 2, Revenge! Revenge to whom, and why, and how does the peace with Stalin come into that? You may remember that earlier I posted some crazy thread in which Stalin loses his sanity after some stray Japanese pilot kamikaze's the Khabarovsk railroad bridge, blocking the railroad to Vladivostok, Stalin gets angry at Churchill because he thinks he's doing too little, demands Persia to have something, and when Churchill doesn't agree, offers the Nazis peace instead. No, in retrospect that doesn't make much sense. I'll do something similar however. The "führer" would repeat his offer from 1940 to Stalin, what with Ribbentrop's idea of the Continental Block, directed against the Empire. Of course, the Soviet Union would have to cede lots of territory, similar as in Brest-Litovsk. And deliver lots of resources, esp. oil. A harsh peace indeed - but something that Stalin could accept. He'll spin it into something similar as the first peace of B-L. Maybe with "the eeevul Anglosphere has been using Germany as a tool to destroy the glorious Soviet Union, but now they've seen the light!" to boot. Oh, and why? I think I'll explain it with a) the "führer" being angry that he hasn't been able to hurt Britain, despite of his victory at Dunkirk; and b) because of the British "terror flyers" who even managed to destroy his Neue Reichskanzlei - shortly after his victories in "Operation Golden Fox" and the death of Budyonny. Yes, if there is anything that might drive Adolf Nazi over the edge in wanting to hurt the Empire, esp. Churchill, it's something like this. Of course that doesn't mean he'll stop hating Bolshevism, let alone giving up the Lebensraum dream... although I'm not entirely sure about the former. Is this somewhat realistic enough, or do I need yet more coincidence(s)?
I think unlikely when the Germans have so much of their strength in the east and things look like their going so well but it has some basis for a settlement.
Possibly towards the end of 1941 with either it looking like Typhoon might take Moscow or after it fails but Hitler desires turning on and defeating Britain before the US can become too powerful? Although I think that would mean giving up some territory to Stalin to get him to agree. Definitely around the Moscow region and possibly also a path to Leningrad so that symbol of the revolution and source of industrial power. Basically Hitler decides that the western powers are the real threat to his interests now. - It might help if say for some reason western aid to Russia has been delayed/reduced and say the US especially has possibly been markedly less friendly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 15, 2024 12:55:24 GMT
OK, I think I've found a way: Sebastian Haffner writes in "Germany: Jekyll & Hyde" about Adolf Nazi ("Hitler" chapter, p. 29/30): "His aims, pursued in the following sequence and only as far as each does not endanger its predecessor, are: 1) Maintenance and extension of his personal power. 2) Revenge on all groups of persons and institutions against whom he feels resentment, and they are many. 3) The staging of scenes out of Wagner's operas and the posing of pictures after Makart with Adolf Hitler as the chief protagonist. All else is pretence and tactic." Something very useful to know, not just ITTL. Feel free to disagree if you have a good reason, but I don't see where to contradict Haffner. (In fact, I'll use some of his quotes for TTL.)
Now what to make of it: Originally, I had planned to have Stalin making the first move for peace. But he actually offered the Nazis the Baltic states and Ukraine IOTL (shortly after Barbarossa started), and they didn't even bother to answer, so what's the point? They'd just think "Great, he's going down, we'll win anyway!" And if the Baltics and Ukraine aren't enough - what is he supposed to offer them next? In early 1943 - yes, after Stalingrad - Stalin made another offer, this time giving Germany the status quo ante bellum borders. (Source: Henry Picker) Of course, the "führer" never would have accepted this. No "lebensraum" for him? Certainly not. Yes, thinking about it, a separate peace in late 1941 would have more chance for success if Adolf Nazi was offering it. Of course you're going to ask now: "Why the hell should he do this?" At this point, we need Haffner's short list about the "führer's" motivations. The only one that might fit here is point 2, Revenge! Revenge to whom, and why, and how does the peace with Stalin come into that? You may remember that earlier I posted some crazy thread in which Stalin loses his sanity after some stray Japanese pilot kamikaze's the Khabarovsk railroad bridge, blocking the railroad to Vladivostok, Stalin gets angry at Churchill because he thinks he's doing too little, demands Persia to have something, and when Churchill doesn't agree, offers the Nazis peace instead. No, in retrospect that doesn't make much sense. I'll do something similar however. The "führer" would repeat his offer from 1940 to Stalin, what with Ribbentrop's idea of the Continental Block, directed against the Empire. Of course, the Soviet Union would have to cede lots of territory, similar as in Brest-Litovsk. And deliver lots of resources, esp. oil. A harsh peace indeed - but something that Stalin could accept. He'll spin it into something similar as the first peace of B-L. Maybe with "the eeevul Anglosphere has been using Germany as a tool to destroy the glorious Soviet Union, but now they've seen the light!" to boot. Oh, and why? I think I'll explain it with a) the "führer" being angry that he hasn't been able to hurt Britain, despite of his victory at Dunkirk; and b) because of the British "terror flyers" who even managed to destroy his Neue Reichskanzlei - shortly after his victories in "Operation Golden Fox" and the death of Budyonny. Yes, if there is anything that might drive Adolf Nazi over the edge in wanting to hurt the Empire, esp. Churchill, it's something like this. Of course that doesn't mean he'll stop hating Bolshevism, let alone giving up the Lebensraum dream... although I'm not entirely sure about the former. Is this somewhat realistic enough, or do I need yet more coincidence(s)?
I think unlikely when the Germans have so much of their strength in the east and things look like their going so well but it has some basis for a settlement.
Possibly towards the end of 1941 with either it looking like Typhoon might take Moscow or after it fails but Hitler desires turning on and defeating Britain before the US can become too powerful? Although I think that would mean giving up some territory to Stalin to get him to agree. Definitely around the Moscow region and possibly also a path to Leningrad so that symbol of the revolution and source of industrial power. Basically Hitler decides that the western powers are the real threat to his interests now. - It might help if say for some reason western aid to Russia has been delayed/reduced and say the US especially has possibly been markedly less friendly.
The way you interpret it, it's still too much like a sane person would do it. But we're talking about Adolf Nazi here.
The way I imagine it: IOTL, his hate for Churchill grew stronger and stronger during the war. Let's say it happens even faster. After the failed Battle of Britain, he hates Churchill as much as IOTL 1941. When Barbarossa starts, as much as 1942. Before his Neue Reichskanzlei is destroyed by British bombs, as much as 1943. That's not exact science, but we don't have anything better yet. And when it happens - he's ready to do something crazy just to hurt Churchill. Make him look like the fellow under whom the British Empire is destroyed, so the Brits won't even think of him as a great leader anymore. (I know that many Brits at this time wanted to get rid of the Empire, but you have to keep in mind here how Hitler would think.)
Also, I have some new ideas already for what might grow from this decision...
Besides: Only few Nazis (Ribbentrop, Goebbels, Rosenberg, maybe Himmler) actually preferred the Soviets/Russians to the Brits, but many of them would be happy to finish this crazy war in the East for now, and the generals are even likelier to agree. I mean, they knew how hard the Red Army was resisting, and they regularly needed a rousing speech by their supreme commander to restore their fighting spirit. (Even Reichenau who was in the party thought the war was lost when he saw his first T-34!) Hence, as soon as the "führer" in his rage shouts that he's willing to make peace with Stalin, they'll do their best to confirm his opinion. With Keitel and the likes being like "Mein führer, you're brilliant!" Hell, I'll throw in Hitler's chauffeur or so (after all, sometimes he liked to chat with one of his underlings).
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,230
|
Post by stevep on Jun 15, 2024 14:41:03 GMT
I think unlikely when the Germans have so much of their strength in the east and things look like their going so well but it has some basis for a settlement.
Possibly towards the end of 1941 with either it looking like Typhoon might take Moscow or after it fails but Hitler desires turning on and defeating Britain before the US can become too powerful? Although I think that would mean giving up some territory to Stalin to get him to agree. Definitely around the Moscow region and possibly also a path to Leningrad so that symbol of the revolution and source of industrial power. Basically Hitler decides that the western powers are the real threat to his interests now. - It might help if say for some reason western aid to Russia has been delayed/reduced and say the US especially has possibly been markedly less friendly.
The way you interpret it, it's still too much like a sane person would do it. But we're talking about Adolf Nazi here.
The way I imagine it: IOTL, his hate for Churchill grew stronger and stronger during the war. Let's say it happens even faster. After the failed Battle of Britain, he hates Churchill as much as IOTL 1941. When Barbarossa starts, as much as 1942. Before his Neue Reichskanzlei is destroyed by British bombs, as much as 1943. That's not exact science, but we don't have anything better yet. And when it happens - he's ready to do something crazy just to hurt Churchill. Make him look like the fellow under whom the British Empire is destroyed, so the Brits won't even think of him as a great leader anymore. (I know that many Brits at this time wanted to get rid of the Empire, but you have to keep in mind here how Hitler would think.)
Also, I have some new ideas already for what might grow from this decision...
Besides: Only few Nazis (Ribbentrop, Goebbels, Rosenberg, maybe Himmler) actually preferred the Soviets/Russians to the Brits, but many of them would be happy to finish this crazy war in the East for now, and the generals are even likelier to agree. I mean, they knew how hard the Red Army was resisting, and they regularly needed a rousing speech by their supreme commander to restore their fighting spirit. (Even Reichenau who was in the party thought the war was lost when he saw his first T-34!) Hence, as soon as the "führer" in his rage shouts that he's willing to make peace with Stalin, they'll do their best to confirm his opinion. With Keitel and the likes being like "Mein führer, you're brilliant!" Hell, I'll throw in Hitler's chauffeur or so (after all, sometimes he liked to chat with one of his underlings).
I think with someone as irratic as Hitler its possible but getting a situation where both him and Stalin can come to terms for even a temporary peace would be difficult. However as I said not impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 15, 2024 15:13:13 GMT
The way you interpret it, it's still too much like a sane person would do it. But we're talking about Adolf Nazi here.
The way I imagine it: IOTL, his hate for Churchill grew stronger and stronger during the war. Let's say it happens even faster. After the failed Battle of Britain, he hates Churchill as much as IOTL 1941. When Barbarossa starts, as much as 1942. Before his Neue Reichskanzlei is destroyed by British bombs, as much as 1943. That's not exact science, but we don't have anything better yet. And when it happens - he's ready to do something crazy just to hurt Churchill. Make him look like the fellow under whom the British Empire is destroyed, so the Brits won't even think of him as a great leader anymore. (I know that many Brits at this time wanted to get rid of the Empire, but you have to keep in mind here how Hitler would think.)
Also, I have some new ideas already for what might grow from this decision...
Besides: Only few Nazis (Ribbentrop, Goebbels, Rosenberg, maybe Himmler) actually preferred the Soviets/Russians to the Brits, but many of them would be happy to finish this crazy war in the East for now, and the generals are even likelier to agree. I mean, they knew how hard the Red Army was resisting, and they regularly needed a rousing speech by their supreme commander to restore their fighting spirit. (Even Reichenau who was in the party thought the war was lost when he saw his first T-34!) Hence, as soon as the "führer" in his rage shouts that he's willing to make peace with Stalin, they'll do their best to confirm his opinion. With Keitel and the likes being like "Mein führer, you're brilliant!" Hell, I'll throw in Hitler's chauffeur or so (after all, sometimes he liked to chat with one of his underlings).
I think with someone as irratic as Hitler its possible but getting a situation where both him and Stalin can come to terms for even a temporary peace would be difficult. However as I said not impossible.
1. So... would you say my proposed scenario is good enough, or does it still need improvement - and if yes, how?
(I know that the Nazis originally wanted the A-A line, but I think it's plain impossible to hold down such an area for more than a short time. That's why I had to work out a peace which gives them a big territory of "Lebensraum", but not more than they could swallow. And even so, I expect that they'll get problems with the settlement in the East. But that's a different story I want to explore one day.)
2. Erratic indeed! Here are two Haffner quotes from OTL (pre-Dunkirk, so I can use them ITTL as well):
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,230
|
Post by stevep on Jun 15, 2024 18:32:37 GMT
I think with someone as irratic as Hitler its possible but getting a situation where both him and Stalin can come to terms for even a temporary peace would be difficult. However as I said not impossible.
1. So... would you say my proposed scenario is good enough, or does it still need improvement - and if yes, how?
(I know that the Nazis originally wanted the A-A line, but I think it's plain impossible to hold down such an area for more than a short time. That's why I had to work out a peace which gives them a big territory of "Lebensraum", but not more than they could swallow. And even so, I expect that they'll get problems with the settlement in the East. But that's a different story I want to explore one day.)
2. Erratic indeed! Here are two Haffner quotes from OTL (pre-Dunkirk, so I can use them ITTL as well):
I think its a viable possibility, especially if thinks happen which increase Hitler's hatred of Britain and the US. Say a couple of British bombing raids that do damage to places important to him and a clash in the Atlantic where a U boat is sunk in a clash with the US neutrality patrol. Then possibly the change comes after Operation Typhoon fails but with worst casualties for both sides which makes both leaders suspect they need to make peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 19, 2024 23:24:27 GMT
1. So... would you say my proposed scenario is good enough, or does it still need improvement - and if yes, how?
(I know that the Nazis originally wanted the A-A line, but I think it's plain impossible to hold down such an area for more than a short time. That's why I had to work out a peace which gives them a big territory of "Lebensraum", but not more than they could swallow. And even so, I expect that they'll get problems with the settlement in the East. But that's a different story I want to explore one day.)
2. Erratic indeed! Here are two Haffner quotes from OTL (pre-Dunkirk, so I can use them ITTL as well):
I think its a viable possibility, especially if thinks happen which increase Hitler's hatred of Britain and the US. Say a couple of British bombing raids that do damage to places important to him and a clash in the Atlantic where a U boat is sunk in a clash with the US neutrality patrol. Then possibly the change comes after Operation Typhoon fails but with worst casualties for both sides which makes both leaders suspect they need to make peace.
Most of that we can keep. But while Stalin would be able to make a rational decision, for the "führer" we need something else. As said: His wish for revenge!
If Adolf Nazi is able to make a peace with the SU, then only under the condition that he expects that they can finish it at a later point in time easily. After all, it'll be seriously weakened by losing huge territories and having to deliver resources.
Also I wonder whether in a TL where Nazis and Soviets make a separate peace, Churchill will order to realize Operation Pike. After all, Stalin would've broken his promise...
Edit: But the Nazis knew that the WAllies had planned this operation in 1940, and so did Stalin, and Churchill would know that they know.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,230
|
Post by stevep on Jun 20, 2024 15:12:54 GMT
I think its a viable possibility, especially if thinks happen which increase Hitler's hatred of Britain and the US. Say a couple of British bombing raids that do damage to places important to him and a clash in the Atlantic where a U boat is sunk in a clash with the US neutrality patrol. Then possibly the change comes after Operation Typhoon fails but with worst casualties for both sides which makes both leaders suspect they need to make peace.
Most of that we can keep. But while Stalin would be able to make a rational decision, for the "führer" we need something else. As said: His wish for revenge!
If Adolf Nazi is able to make a peace with the SU, then only under the condition that he expects that they can finish it at a later point in time easily. After all, it'll be seriously weakened by losing huge territories and having to deliver resources.
Also I wonder whether in a TL where Nazis and Soviets make a separate peace, Churchill will order to realize Operation Pike. After all, Stalin would've broken his promise...
Edit: But the Nazis knew that the WAllies had planned this operation in 1940, and so did Stalin, and Churchill would know that they know.
If you mean Britain attempting to bomb the Baku fields before the Soviets actually attack the allies,. rather than not until after such an attack I think its unlikely but a lot could depend on what's known about the Nazi-Soviet deal in the west. If it looks like the Soviets have come to terms to avoid a collapse then while the allies will be frustrated but not likely to seek to extend their problems by going to war with another massive power which even if its just been badly mauled has a lot of resources and borders on areas important to the empire and the allied war effort. Only if their confident an attack is coming would a strike against the Soviets before they attacked us might be considered.
The other issue is when this agreement occurs. If as I said might be a suitable time, in Dec 41 then assuming that the Japanese have attacked in the Far East and Pacific that would mean the US are members of the alliance against Japan - and presumably also Germany? That would mean both the allies are boosted by US resources and also it will have a big say in such decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 22, 2024 0:02:43 GMT
TBH, I'm not entirely sure whether Japan's attack will start at the usual date. Butterfly effect and all that. It might go better or worse than IOTL for them - which would you prefer to read about ITTL?
The reason Churchill might try Pike: As soon as the Axis will get Soviet oil, they'll become much stronger. Chamberlain was horrified of Pike, but Churchill would think otherwise, even if it might be a hard decision for him - as was Catapult.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,230
|
Post by stevep on Jun 22, 2024 9:51:46 GMT
TBH, I'm not entirely sure whether Japan's attack will start at the usual date. Butterfly effect and all that. It might go better or worse than IOTL for them - which would you prefer to read about ITTL? The reason Churchill might try Pike: As soon as the Axis will get Soviet oil, they'll become much stronger. Chamberlain was horrified of Pike, but Churchill would think otherwise, even if it might be a hard decision for him - as was Catapult.
True Churchill might be rash enough to do that without any clear sign of imminent hostility towards the allies. However its likely that the military will be united against the idea - apart from possibly the bomber barons but then they would be more interesting in trying to hit German cities that what Harris - albeit he's not head of BC at the moment - dismissed as panacea targets. Baku oil would be useful for the Germans but without the drain of a massive war in the east they need markedly less and their getting a lot from Polesti and possibly increasingly amounts from synthetic oil - although with additional supplies from Baku this might be given less importance. The great threat from a Germany free from war in the east would be increased U boat attacks and possibly in the medium term a new Battle of Britain, which the Germans are still likely to lose but could be costly for both sides.
In terms of Japan I can't remember what your aim was in the Far East? You want a great German empire and also a Soviet ones extending into the ME, which will probably mean the European axis get at least all of N Africa. This will gravely weaken the western powers but what do you want as the end game in the east? Japan still a major regional power, or with a massive empire itself, including [fragile] control of China and a lot of SE Asia - although that would be difficult once its at war with the US. Even if the allies have to accept defeat in the west if there's something like Pearl Harbour and the invasion of the Philippines its likely that the US will be determined to get revenge. Plus Hitler is likely, with a loose alliance with Stalin, to be happy to see the US spending a lot of time, blood and resources on defeating Japan. Of course what happens to China in such a scenario. - Or India with the destruction of British power your aiming for as its going to be vulnerable with the Soviets to its north and whoever in China.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 22, 2024 23:38:08 GMT
I hadn't given any specific aims for Japan, because I don't think they could win. Not even if Germany succeeds against Britain with the submarines. And I can't imagine that Adolf Nazi will continue the war with the WAllies just to protect Japan. IOTL (OK, according to Speer) he started to worry after the fall of Singapore whether this was so good, because he thought that one day, the war between "the white and the yellow race" would be inevitable.
I'm not 100% sure about India, but if Stalin wants to go for it, he'll at first have to cross Afghanistan, which won't be fun. I've already planned for Churchill to say in that case that the "Pathans" will mean trouble for his army.
|
|
