|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Sept 23, 2022 0:47:29 GMT
That was Steve, not I. The September 1945 attitude towards Stalin from Labour was, alas, not as realist as it would later become; and Japan had just caused a world of trouble and horror. I kind of thought it was Steve. Not sure why the quote function credited you. Your remark is interesting and I suppose I would agree with it. Would the significance of it in this context be that an ISOT'ed Attlee administration couldn't bring itself to let Northeast Asia be a spectator bloodsport, and would lean hard pro-Soviet, (and pro-Chinese) and anti-Japanese to preempt the predicted Japanese aggressions? I figure to-may-to, to-mah-to - If the 1939 Soviets of their own volition attack the Japanese, whether the British step in and aid the Soviets or not, that will be enough to slice and dice into Japanese ground and air power to make sure the Japanese explosion into Southeast Asia of 1941-1942 never happens. If Britain for some reason did a surprising 180 (which I do not think you suggested they would do) and decided to help the Japanese to 'stop communism' they'd end up accessory to Japanese crimes and make themselves pretty unpopular among Chinese and Korean people. If the Soviets do nothing, and Japanese if left free to keep battering away at the Chinese, 1945 Britain will still have the wherewithal to, at a minimum, set up all its Far Eastern colonies bar Hong Kong with formidable defenses. And would have additional financial resources and weapons tech and expertise to provide meaningful assistance to help the Nationalist Chinese perform significantly better against the Japanese. So again, the Japanese won't get to do their OTL rampage across Singapore, Bataan, the Indies. |
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Sept 23, 2022 2:18:06 GMT
I accept for reasons of logistics and the numbers of governments you need to persuade to cooperate that any effort to keep the Polish Republic alive and supported on its home territory will be slow and weak. The main air theater will have to be over western and northern Germany, and the main ground theater will have to be from France into western Germany.
The main theater would still be the air, with a gradual transfer of air ops to France, alongside with a small but sharp BEF capable of defending in France and attacking in tandem with the French. Blast the hell out of northwest Germany, then encourage persistence and expansion of Saar offensive, and keep going. That is main vector until infrastructure for other vectors with 1939 or 1945 tech can be built up. Consider using 'news from the future" to persuade Denmark to host 1945 level air and land forces to expand land and especially air threat vectors.
Using the Turkish straits doesn't have to be a dealbreaker for a southeastern approach. It could just compel an extra step, Britain and France convincing Turkey, which received and accepted a British guarantee before the war at the same time as Poland and Romania, to join the war on the British side as well. Real-time demonstrations of aerial might against the Germans could be the most persuasive argument. The next most persuasive argument could be sharing news from the future (including the fact that Turkey ultimately declared war on the side of the victorious Allies to be eligible for the United Nations) and asking the Turks if they want to be bordered on three sides by Soviet or Communist power (Soviet Caucasus, Communist Bulgaria, Communist-trending Greece), or if they preferred to ally now with Britain, France, Romania, and Poland to have a counter-weight to Soviet power in the Balkans, Black Sea and Central Europe. The final argument could be bribery in terms of money, and possibly, territory like Iraq's Mosul region.
Similarly Britain could try to leverage "news from the future" with Greece [Greece also was given and accepted an April 1939 British guarantee] and Yugoslavia to get them onside to get additional air and land vectors against Germany, using the record of nasty German occupation and explosive growth of Communist power by the end of the war to influence them. And some petty cash. But mostly testimony.
|
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,976
Likes: 5,840
|
Post by simon darkshade on Sept 23, 2022 2:18:26 GMT
They probably would not directly aid the Soviets, nor need to; the IJA couldn’t cope with the Red Army.
I can’t see a potentially threatening Japan being left to fight along in China with no consequence. As you say, building up forces to counter them is the first and most likely course of action.
Steve,
I would disagree profoundly that the majority of the Empire is ‘on its way out’ as of 1939. Historically, India and Palestine went in 1947, then Burma and Ceylon in 1948…then that’s it until the Gold Coast in 1957. Whilst an Attlee government has some Indian independence sympathies, there are rather different circumstances here; they had no such sympathies towards Jewish separatists.
In a world of war, potential threats and reborn enemies, there are fewer drivers for radical change and, fundamentally, the economics have shifted from @ 1945. The extra external debt for WW2 is gone, as well as borrowings from the Sterling zone, leaving only domestic debt. Prewar, interest payments were quite manageable and won’t be greatly changed here. This is not to say the British economy is off scot free, as there is plenty of dislocation of trade and shifts in internal demand. But it isn’t on a level requiring the liquidation of the British Empire.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Sept 23, 2022 2:22:57 GMT
Those people in the way of a Polish beachhead to the south near Rumania are called Hungarians. They do not like the Polish government. There's no evidence of a historic or WWII-era Polish-Hungarian animosity at all. Plenty of Hungarian-Romanian animosity. Plenty of Hungarian-Slovak (and Czech) animosity Plenty of Hungarian-Serb animosity. Not really anything about Poles versus Hungarians. |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,976
Likes: 5,840
|
Post by simon darkshade on Sept 23, 2022 2:28:32 GMT
I accept for reasons of logistics and the numbers of governments you need to persuade to cooperate that any effort to keep the Polish Republic alive and supported on its home territory will be slow and weak. The main air theater will have to be over western and northern Germany, and the main ground theater will have to be from France into western Germany. The main theater would still be the air, with a gradual transfer of air ops to France, alongside with a small but sharp BEF capable of defending in France and attacking in tandem with the French. Blast the hell out of northwest Germany, then encourage persistence and expansion of Saar offensive, and keep going. That is main vector until infrastructure for other vectors with 1939 or 1945 tech can be built up. Consider using 'news from the future" to persuade Denmark to host 1945 level air and land forces to expand land and especially air threat vectors. Using the Turkish straits doesn't have to be a dealbreaker for a southeastern approach. It could just compel an extra step, Britain and France convincing Turkey, which received and accepted a British guarantee before the war at the same time as Poland and Romania, to join the war on the British side as well. Real-time demonstrations of aerial might against the Germans could be the most persuasive argument. The next most persuasive argument could be sharing news from the future (including the fact that Turkey ultimately declared war on the side of the victorious Allies to be eligible for the United Nations) and asking the Turks if they want to be bordered on three sides by Soviet or Communist power (Soviet Caucasus, Communist Bulgaria, Communist-trending Greece), or if they preferred to ally now with Britain, France, Romania, and Poland to have a counter-weight to Soviet power in the Balkans, Black Sea and Central Europe. The final argument could be bribery in terms of money, and possibly, territory like Iraq's Mosul region. Similarly Britain could try to leverage "news from the future" with Greece [Greece also was given and accepted an April 1939 British guarantee] and Yugoslavia to get them onside to get additional air and land vectors against Germany, using the record of nasty German occupation and explosive growth of Communist power by the end of the war to influence them. And some petty cash. But mostly testimony. Yes to Paragraphs 1 and 2. No to 3: They do not need the Turks and especially don’t need to dashed well bribe them with extremely valuable territory belonging to another sovereign state! By the time troops get to Romania, the matter will be decided. Putting men in an Eastern Balkan bridgehead isn’t something alien to the British Armt - they’ve got the WW1 experience of Salonika! This makes Salonika seem sensible. Getting other states on board is nice diplomatically, but they aren’t really of any use militarily or strategically. Air basing in Greece or Yugoslavia means building the infrastructure up from the ground and creating a huge supply line. It gives no advantage over France. Defeating Germany is going to be a matter of hitting it militarily where it is important and invading the Saar, then the Rhineland, plus the information war of German defeat and atrocities. Halder et al are going to be nervous. |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Sept 23, 2022 3:21:22 GMT
The heavies would stay in England and operate from there. Tactical aircraft would go to France. For the UK, as we use 1945 ISOT assets Who is the targeting staff? The same guys who screwed up in December-January 1945? Just asking. The RAF fighter line are not stuck in England ad infinitum, as they would go to French airfields and build new ones from the beginning. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen. There are Hurricanes 'returning' from the Far East and Med that are able to operate from grass fields, in addition to Spits forum.12oclockhigh.net/archive/index.php?t-15234.html Extending French runways to take Tempests would be an urgent priority. In the meantime, with drop tanks, the Tempests can get a pretty decent range from Kent. Hawker Tempest has a combat radius of 170 miles. With drop tanks, make that 250 miles. Mean ground pressure is 50 lbs / sq in at typical mission load. Just to make that point, that is 4 times the ground pressure of the COMET tank. Runways have to support that ground pressure. Like the Thunderbolt she is a heavy bird. Packed Earth runways are the norm. Spits and Hurricanes are more indicated for France in 1939. Even late war Spits are much lighter. But note they are not fighter bombers. As said below on the FAA point, there are also several hundred each of RAF Mustangs and Thunderbolts, plus the Mosquito fighters If you mean the Apache version for Mustangs, those are useless for intrusion escort. They lose supercharge above 5,000 meters. RAF P-47s from the Med are fitted with sand filters and derated turbochargers. Again, useless as fighter escorts as they lose power at high altitude. They were optimized as close air support machines. The Mustang / Apache can operate from 1939 French grass strips. The P-47 is heavy with a long takeoff run. That restricts them to hardened runways. It is important to remember that this is an ISOT into a war. Previous considerations and peacetime production and development rates go out the window. The Hornet, Lincoln and more will be building and entering service at a wartime rate. If they do not exist, they cannot exist. The Hornet is actually a post European war bird when she is declared operational. The Lincoln is in limited serial production with most of those birds built post Pacific war. The British aren't up against an Okinawa situation, but one of almost complete surprise. The Germans will have next to no knowledge about the 1945 RN's aircraft and capabilities and that will stay until they have protracted engagements and real intelligence. Just where are the naval air maintenance stations? Here is the problem. If you have no fleet train and depot ships, (The British had a couple of aircraft maintenance ships, HMS Unicorn and I forget the other, off Okinawa.). This was not US practice. If a plane clapped out, we flew it back in hops to an island base and mechanics rebuilt it and then we flew it forward jumping from jeep carrier to island to carrier until it returned to the fleet as a recycled bird. Otherwise we garaged the birds and maintained onboard their assigned ships. Another thing... In this ISOT, the BPF is crowded into Scapa which means basing is going to be a big home fleet logistics problem as it was for the USN when the BPF showed up at Manila. The 1939 RN had three Curiosities, the Ark Royal, Argus, Hermes and Eagle. The 1939 RN aircraft carrier captains are uniformly INCOMPETENT. The 1945 captains are mostly inexperienced with the Pedestal Med War era RN war veterans being desperately and urgently promoted into senior slots due to a pre-war RN leadership shortage. Same for the air staffs. It is a dirty well known USN secret that the Americans assessed the British had between the wars shorted their naval officer corps and kept a lot of stinkers we would and did up and out of our navy as duds. We had our leadership problems with clowns like Leigh Noyes, Harold Stark, the Redmans and those two complete idiots, Turner and Mitscher, not to mention cretins like Browning, but we still over-officered and over senior NCOed and thus had a competency cushion to replace or rotate out our imbeciles. From 1939 forward, the RN was always playing catchup, either OJTing new cadres or "survival of the fittest" to man its ever increasing leadership slots. Sea command is about a year of stress and then you have to rest the officers and senior rates. It is that 100 days combat wall thing. Now you propose to take the BPF Okinawa fleet that has been in combat for that 100 days and throw them at the Germans with beat up British ships, and worn-out crews who have just been put through the Kamikaze wringer and send them straight at the TEETH of the fresh German defense at the base of the North Sea? I do not care if it is 1939. That is not a good idea. Rest and refit themj at least and train your 1939 RN assets up to snuff. You have to wait to pour concrete runways for your naval air stations anyway. You have to land your air groups. And for pity's sake keep Churchill (He's still about?) away from the navy. Half of the RN's problems were due to a romantic landlubber prime minister who knew as much about sea-power as Julian Corbett. Total deliveries to the RN were 1892 Corsairs and 252 Hellcats; the amount fielded by the Fleet was a much smaller fraction of that, as you say, and accidents/combat attrition will also have cut into it. However, there is still likely to be hundreds of Corsairs and a good number of Hellcats now back in Britain. See my previous comments? Do not forget the hundreds of Martlets (Wildcats). These can operate from the 1939 French fighter strips and are at least as good as a Morane Saulnier. (Probably as good as Dewotine D520 actually or a Hurricane.). The FAA strikes hitting the North Sea ports of Kiel, Hamburg, Bremen, Wilhelmshaven etc will be larger than any that the Germans have ever trained for or contemplated. They will outnumber the ~150 German fighters in the areas perhaps 5 to 1 in fighters alone, not counting any RAF long range fighters (400-500 Mustangs and 400-500 Thunderbolts come to mind) Not before 1940 for the reasons I gave above. Ever wonder why US offensives in the Pacific had at least 60 days between operations? The fleet had to rest, refit, repair and replenish. That was both machines and men. After Okinawa, it was supposed to be February 1946 for Honshu and then after that event we expected May-June for the finale. Note that I have already dealt with Lend Lease American aircraft and why these would not be combat suitable to operate from Great Britain. What was true in our history is true in this ISOT for the same exact technical and operational reasons. Planes for the Med and the desert are not going to be happy over the North Sea. ========================================================================================================== The British artillery doctrine and response time will give the 1939 Germans conniptions, as it did in 1944 when there was Teutonic scuttlebutt about 'automatic 25pdrs'. Throw in most of the lessons of WW2 in @, and it is a formidable force. There will be more than a handful of Centurions, depending on timing, and the Comet alone will be trouble. You mean AMERICAN artillery doctrine? Those techniques you learned from us in 1943. Is Jerry going to be able to miraculously concentrate the entire 110 force, handwaving losses over Poland and every other mission, into specific night fighter operations over a particular part of Germany. Are all of those 110s and their pilots trained in night fighting operations? As of 1/9/1939, I would suggest not. The British numbers are also not going to be static, but increased by production of Lancasters, Halifaxes and Lincolns, as well as Mosquito night fighters and light bombers. That is the funny thing about air forces. As long as they have a well-trained ground establishment as the 1939 LW did, they can move their establishments in 500 kilometer hops from base to base and concentrate and disperse into an area the size of Pennsylvania and New York combined within 24 hours. Because they did it. This is one of the reasons the 1939 LW generated 4 sorties a day from their day fighter forces. Night fighters? 2 sorties. This is 1939, they have not figured out "boar tactics" yet. Germany isn't just going to turn around and start fighting like it is 1942, where they have experience, intelligence, detailed planning and strategy. Everything they have on fighting Britain has gone out the window with a literally miraculous appearance of a superior future equivalent, loaded to the gills with forces and equipment. Hitler thought that the Allies would not fight over Poland, yet now will be facing a much hardened equivalent that will not hold back from Day 1. The Germans are fresh. The 1945 ISOT British are not. Tired human beings and equipment means degraded performance. Once again rest and refit, repair and reconstitute are indicated. If the fleet is exhausted, think of those CBI and Battle of France 1944 veterans. Think of the RAF! 1939's numbers refer to September, October, November and December. In that time, they produced 449 109s and 156 110s, which gives an average monthly rate of 112.5 and 39 respectively. The RAF alone is averaging 290 Spitfires a month in 1945 You do realize that the NUMERICAL and quality odds in 1945 were more lopsided than in 1939? And yet the RAF was still taking appalling aircrew losses? ~579 losses of all kinds doesn't give us details of how many were fighters and types, but it can be presumed that some of both were among that number. That is the beginning of the attritional trap that the Luftwaffe finds itself in. - Losing aircraft over Poland - Losing aircraft in engagements against the RAF and RN over Northwest and Western Germany in daytime - Losing aircraft from night operations - Having airfields across the western part of the country hit by tactical bombers and intruders - Struggling to increase production, but doing so above historical levels when facing a new threat - Facing a much, much larger RAF that has better aircraft across the board - Lancaster production is over 200 a month and that will now continue, rather than halting with both VE Day and the wind down in the Pacific Same again. Note that the Armee de l'Air accounted for a huge chunk of LW chump change in the 1939-1940 losses data for the LW. It is estimated that between 1,000 to 1,400 German aircraft were victims of French aviation.The Luftwaffe fighter force will be split up between the North Sea, Poland, Western Germany and Berlin/Saxony/Silesia, further cutting its capacity and effectiveness. . They massed for effect. Now, the US supplies and aircraft are going to be running out soon if used up at a high intensity of combat. You're right there. Suggested workarounds are to substitute British elements for worn out American ones as needed. Shove in a Bristol Centaurus when a Pratt R2800 wears out. If you have a Hispano, shove that in to replace a Browning .50 mount. Be creative. But that won't bring things to a complete stop, but rather alter their tempo. The damage, though, will be done to Germany in the initial blows and will be beyond their capacity to recover. Only after the middle of 1940 after the attack on France is repulsed. Reconcile yourself to Poland being lost and probably a LONG war against a Russo-German alliance. One good thing, Mussolini will stay out of the war this time. By Spring 1940, the British Army will be in France, airfields and supply dumps will be built, production rates will be ramped back up and hundreds of new tanks and aircraft will be available well beyond the capacity of Germany to cope with. It might well be that, by that time, the nervous German generals will have tried something. Japan is in even more trouble, as the British have a fully modern fleet and submarine force ready to go out to Singapore, plus more aircraft than they can cope with in Malaya and French Indochina. That is beyond the scope of my crystal ball. I expect that the 1945 British will be smart enough to tell FDR to fire Stark and to get ready to kick off Orange in January 1941 before the IJN is trained up and ready? Also the 2 Ocean Navy Bill might be tweaked to submarines, oil tanker CVEs and destroyers and yes the aircraft carrier capable P-38 Lightning. |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Sept 23, 2022 3:29:57 GMT
There's no evidence of a historic or WWII-era Polish-Hungarian animosity at all.  Is that so?Hungary was torqued off at Austria, France, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, Russia and POLAND. |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,976
Likes: 5,840
|
Post by simon darkshade on Sept 23, 2022 5:16:56 GMT
I'm not going to reply to most of the recent post, as I have limited time and even more limited inclination to spend it quibbling, however, what does stick out: 1.) British artillery doctrine was not learned from the Americans in 1943, but developed independently through WW1 and active combat in WW2. 'Fire Power: The British Army: weapons and theories of war, 1904-1945' expounds on this, along with a number of theses that I'm not going to waste time digging out. 2.) I'm not British. 3.) RAF air crew losses in 1944 and 1945 were not appalling in the ordinary meaning and use of the word: From the Bomber Command War Diaries loss rates per Operational Period:
The Phoney War: 4.1%
Norway and Denmark: 3.9%
Blitzkrieg: 2.9%
The Battle of Britain: 2.3%
Winter Lull: 1.9%
A New Start: 1.6%
Maritime Diversion: 2.5%
Back to Germany: 3.9%
Winter Quarters: 3.0%
New Chief, New Policy: 3.7%
The Thousand Raids: 4.3%
Pathfinder Force: 4.7%
An Accession of Strength: 2.8%
The Battle of the Ruhr: 4.3%
The Battle of Hamburg: 3.0%
The Road to Berlin: 3.5%
Berlin: 3.8%
Invasion Preparations: 2.2%
The Battle of Normandy: 1.6%
Return to Germany: 1.0%
Victory: 1.1%German production rates in 1944 and 1945 were much higher than the pitiable ones of 1939, in addition to building better planes. 4.) What can the Germans mass for effect? Me-109s and Me-110s. Their Stukas are going to get chewed up very quickly and their 1939 bombers are meat for the 1945 RAF 5.) As of September 1939 (August 16, more properly), all German night fighter Staffeln had been converted back to day fighters. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachtjagdgeschwader_1 Far from being ready to go from September 1st, the Luftwaffe is completely absent after dusk and will take 1.5-2 months to even get a force up at night. They will also be facing another weapon that they have no immediate counter to in Window en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)6.) I'm not referring the Apache/A-36, with a total of 1 aircraft being supplied to the RAF. Rather, the RAF Mustangs described here www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_Mustang_RAF.html7.) Fresh Germans also means, in the overwhelming number of cases, green Germans, not to mention being up against aircraft they have no information on. You are crediting them with far too much capability and not giving enough credit to the RAF. 8.) The RN had a fleet train, including more than two ships, along with a lot of basing infrastructure stretching back to Australia (which under the terms of the ISOT has been transported) 9.) There isn't going to be a long war for many reasons, among which are German economic and industrial weakness; the non-viability of a Soviet-German alliance in light of the overwhelming evidence of historical betrayal and the enormous cost; superior equipment and technology combined with superior production; and the knowledge that a half-hearted shuffle into the Saar in 1939 proved ultimately damaging. 10.) Whilst the decision lies with Steve, I dare say the British aren't going to be too bothered about fixing American military politics or depending on them. In the here and now, they greatly outnumber the IJN and have more and better ships that will be finishing in the new 1940 and 1941. Poland will be lost, but beyond that, there aren't the drivers for a multi year war. At most, it is a 15 month job A.) Move the RAF tactical fighters to France, involving creation of airfields as acknowledged and outlined B.) Move the new BEF to France, where it will be present in larger numbers with much, much better equipment, doctrine, leadership and foreknowledge than 1939/40 C.) Refit and prepare the RN for its part in a multi-spectrum air offensive D.) Plaster the U-Boat yards, destroy the KM's capital ships and absolutely harry the small German sub force of 1939 E.) Drop a lot of leaflets over Germany of Bergen-Belsen, Auschwitz, Dresden, Berlin and Hamburg, as well as going for a full propaganda offensive in Europe and the wider world F.) Kill Hitler G.) Tube Alloys |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 23, 2022 15:57:13 GMT
Right, trying to cover the main points. 1) I would expect that Britain will take a one problem at the time approach so they will seek to deal with Germany then - provided that Stalin hasn't done something really stupid - start looking at how to end the Japanese invasion of China. Probably preferring to use economic pressure - if they can get the US on-line - coupled with aid to China rather than a direct war. However the US, USSR or Japan could all do something to change that. If a) US decides to go to war with Japan - probably unlikely but not impossible 0 then probably stay neutral until German is resolved and forces transferred east then join in. b) Soviets attack Japan then wait a bit to see what happens. The Soviets would win eventually, especially given the Japanese commitment in China but given the dire state of the Red Army in 1939, especially in leadership, morale and the logistical problems its probably going to be a long and bloody battle for a year or so. c) Japan on hearing details of the 'future' or reacting to say a US build up in response to the same news - again probably unlikely - and attacks the western powers.
2) Getting the Turks on-side would be useful and news of the future could be a factor here, as well as their fear of the Soviets, especially once its clear that the Germans are going down. If it could be done quickly and Romanian support it would aid in ending the war somewhat quicker. Both because a Romania reinforced by British forces could be used as a base to attack eastern Germany, to support Poland or enable Polish forces to retreat to it and also because it denies Germany their prime source of oil. Furthermore a pro-western bloc in the region would serve as extra political pressure on both Germany that its going down and on Stalin to avoid doing something too rash. I agree with Simon that the prime land theatre will be in the west but an eastern front offers considerable benefits for the allies.
3) Given what we know about Mussolini's OTL actions I think guarantees for Greece and Yugoslavia would be useful although would not seek to get them to enter the war as Yugoslavia especially is very fragile. However I think that fascist Italy, if it survives news of the 'future' as ideally you might see a coup to replace Mussolini and his party, could well be left similarly to fascist Spain OTL.
4) Simon, we will have to disagree about the longer term future of the empire. Given changes inside Britain, both political and economic I can't see a desire to spend a lot of blood and money to hold the bulk of it by force indefinitely and desires for independence will develop. Independence of large areas might be delayed a bit compared to OTL but hopefully for Britain not by much. I would say the two areas would be a) Key strategic and economic points - such as Malta, Cyprus, the Suez Canal Zone, Aden, parts of the Persian Gulf and Malaya. They would be seen as strategically important and in the last two also economically but there are likely to be issues as OTL with the SCZ and Aden and control over Malaya [although possibly not Singapore] would be indirect after some stage. b) The areas with small levels of white settlement - chiefly in eastern and southern Africa from Kenya through to Rhodesia. They will gain independence eventually but this could be bloody because of values at the time and the concerns of leaving small white communities under black majority rule when their going to lose their political control.
5) The longer term, especially if the wars against Germany and Japan are fairly quickly and for Britain cheaply resolved is potentially good. Britain has a tech and information boost and a government that is willing to do what hasn't been done for a century and invest in the country and its facilities and most of all its people. A lot would depend on how things go but there is a good basis for a markedly stronger and more economically successful Britain, especially since it will have more resources and won't have the sort of cold war pressures of OTL.
6) Britain will seek to be the 1st [or joint 1st if they look for allies in the project] to build a nuclear weapon.
7) There's an outside chance that Stalin may decide to support Hitler militarily, despite it not being in his interest but its extremely unlikely. If so it would be a long war and expanding over probably more of the world than OTL as there would inevitably be a ME front and probably a Scandinavian one. However that would be too much of a divergence to consider alongside more likely events.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Sept 23, 2022 16:47:40 GMT
The main theater would still be the air, with a gradual transfer of air ops to France, alongside with a small but sharp BEF capable of defending in France and attacking in tandem with the French. Blast the hell out of northwest Germany, then encourage persistence and expansion of Saar offensive, and keep going. That is main vector until infrastructure for other vectors with 1939 or 1945 tech can be built up. Consider using 'news from the future" to persuade Denmark to host 1945 level air and land forces to expand land and especially air threat vectors.The British wouldn't have to use "news from the future" just tell PM Stauning that RAF will station a large number of Aircraft in Vendsyssel more precisely Aalborg Airfield and like to heavily enlarge same as well as RN will need a forward base at Frederikshavn and possibly at Læsø (perhaps also Anholt) with a Brigade being landed at Esbjerg to help defend the Danish border with Germany; Danish Government will at demand mobilize the Danish Armed Forces to cooperate with the British.
Stauning entertained such in his flirt with Foreign Policy during 1934-5 which ultimately led to Danish neutrality - German friendly. General With Commanding Army General had expected a Foreign Power (read Germany or Britain) to occupy Vendsyssel with a large Airforce to be able to dominate the Kattegat and Skagerrak without Denmark being able to contest this.
The Danish Government will be too happy to do anything adverse.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Sept 24, 2022 0:18:33 GMT
Poland will be lost, but beyond that, there aren't the drivers for a multi year war. At most, it is a 15 month job Upon German defeat, the default course of action would be to resuscitate Poland. What shape would resuscitated Poland be in, in your view? In one piece, or more? Who would be doing the resuscitating? |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,976
Likes: 5,840
|
Post by simon darkshade on Sept 24, 2022 2:20:19 GMT
I would have to say the Anglo-French and in one piece.
I would not say, though, that it is worth putting a token force into Denmark, due to it not being defensible without a couple of corps and a lot of supplies.
Steve, the circumstances of this ISOT potentially butterfly the Cold War as we know it and any sense of what happened in WW2 in the Middle East. This has some very long reaching consequences for the Empire, particularly in Africa. Without those drivers, compounded by the cost of WW2 and the shock of Suez, we are not going to see the ‘Winds of Change’ that lead to the rapid wave of decolonisation in the 1960s.
Simply saying that you’ll just have to agree to disagree is neither here nor there. There isn’t a need to hold large parts by force, just as there wasn’t in 1945-1960 outside of Kenya. Movements may develop in time, but the timetable of @ is not written, nor would it be the foremost issue in the minds of a 1945 government. India, yes. But perhaps not Ceylon or Burma, particularly if Japan are still on the rampage next door, nor Palestine, on account of knowledge of the Holocaust.
There is sometimes the temptation to read too much into the circumstances of an ISOT and of the time.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 24, 2022 12:35:48 GMT
Poland will be lost, but beyond that, there aren't the drivers for a multi year war. At most, it is a 15 month job Upon German defeat, the default course of action would be to resuscitate Poland. What shape would resuscitated Poland be in, in your view? In one piece, or more? Who would be doing the resuscitating?
I would agree with Simon. Unless Stalin occupies the east I would expect it to be totally restored although hopefully with a more liberal regime. Also for the Czech republic although what happens to the Sudetenland Germans or whether it can be recombined with Slovakia - which IIRC is now a semi-fascist regime. Not sure what the situation would be with Austria. Your likely to see a new, more determined attempt to disarm Germany but how would depend on the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Sept 24, 2022 12:57:17 GMT
Upon German defeat, the default course of action would be to resuscitate Poland. What shape would resuscitated Poland be in, in your view? In one piece, or more? Who would be doing the resuscitating?
I would agree with Simon. Unless Stalin occupies the east I would expect it to be totally restored although hopefully with a more liberal regime. Also for the Czech republic although what happens to the Sudetenland Germans or whether it can be recombined with Slovakia - which IIRC is now a semi-fascist regime. Not sure what the situation would be with Austria. Your likely to see a new, more determined attempt to disarm Germany but how would depend on the circumstances.
So we are in the end, having Stalin demurely sit behind his borders and not trying to claim any territory from Poland or control over Poland as the war ends. And we can expect the same from Mussolini vis-a-vis Austria? Or an intervention on his part to 'liberate' Austria on behalf of his old clerico-fascist friends. On the Mussolini question in general, 'news from the future' might see him couped out. But he could easily not, and live la vida Franco. I think Britain will think his aggressions and threat are too small potatoes to be worth a war. For a sense of "completeness" about reversing 1930s aggression, Britain may eventually, probably after the occupation of China is resolved, try to lead League of Nations sanctions against Italy to force evacuation from Ethiopia proper, and possibly support armed Haile Selassie loyalists, while doing it, and from Albania. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 24, 2022 12:58:45 GMT
I would have to say the Anglo-French and in one piece. I would not say, though, that it is worth putting a token force into Denmark, due to it not being defensible without a couple of corps and a lot of supplies. Steve, the circumstances of this ISOT potentially butterfly the Cold War as we know it and any sense of what happened in WW2 in the Middle East. This has some very long reaching consequences for the Empire, particularly in Africa. Without those drivers, compounded by the cost of WW2 and the shock of Suez, we are not going to see the ‘Winds of Change’ that lead to the rapid wave of decolonisation in the 1960s. Simply saying that you’ll just have to agree to disagree is neither here nor there. There isn’t a need to hold large parts by force, just as there wasn’t in 1945-1960 outside of Kenya. Movements may develop in time, but the timetable of @ is not written, nor would it be the foremost issue in the minds of a 1945 government. India, yes. But perhaps not Ceylon or Burma, particularly if Japan are still on the rampage next door, nor Palestine, on account of knowledge of the Holocaust. There is sometimes the temptation to read too much into the circumstances of an ISOT and of the time.
Simon
Agree with Denmark and Poland.
My point is that democratic ideas are already in existence and are going to spread. Having fought a war - or in this case 2 - to secure those ideas its going to become more and more difficult to maintain power over hostile populations as far as domestic opinion inside Britain is concerned, especially when that is a bloody and expensive business. Hostility towards colonialism in the assorted populations will grow as those ideas spread and Britain builds up an educated class in each colony. Those are forces already in action. Furthermore both the Soviets and the US will be open opponents of 'imperialism' despite the former having a far more brutal system itself and the latter having a frequently brutal informal empire in much of the northern part of Latin America.
As I say its likely to be delayed because Britain will have a stronger position and without the vast mobilization of imperial manpower for the war the pressure for independence is going to be delayed. Also with other European colonial powers not having suffered such defeats there will be less areas setting a precedent. However the idea that a small foreign minority or even external class will continue to control large native populations against their will isn't going to be practical without a level of force that will be politically increasingly unacceptable. It might take another decade or two, at worse a bit more but the end of the direct military empire will come.
As I say there will be places where we can continue to have significant direct or indirect influence, such as the Persian gulf, especially for the smaller states that feel threaten but their larger neighbours or possibly Malaya but in most other cases it won't be worth the hassle to maintain power by force. Again I point out this won't greatly decrease total British economic or military power and could actually expand both if the resources are spent more productively in the core of that power, i.e. Britain itself. A strong and friendly Britain that can provide security and aid to former members of the empire is going to have a lot more influence and success that a brutal military state trying to hold down large areas by force.
Your admitted that India, in whatever form will be going shortly and that will set a precedent. Even without their OTL occupations by Germany and Japan its questionable how long the Netherlands would be able to hold onto the more densely populated parts of the DEI - although acting as a protector for less developed areas against an expansive Java based state could be another matter.
I also repeat something else I mentioned before. The vast majority of those territories are of no real value to Britain - as opposed to a small number of settlers or business interests - and a burden to control. Its simply not in Britain's interests to maintain direct rule even without levels of local unrest.
|
|
