• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

WI: Nazi Victory

lerk

Banned (for real)
This is one of those scenarios that has been talked about on and on and on and on. But it wouldn't be an AH site without at least one discussion of this topic, and I'd like to see you guys having a crack on this one. The POD I'm going with here is that, for whatever reason, Lord Halifax is made PM after Chamberlain and decides to make peace with Germany after the Fall of France. With Germany now in control of most of Continental Europe, and without a war in the West, they can set their sights on the Soviet Union without much hassle. Most likely now the UK will choose to spend its peace years gearing up for round two, however by the time they are ready it is clear that Germany would be in a much stronger position than they were IOTL, as they did not waste so much blood and treasure fighting the Battle of Britain along with the battles in North Africa and the Balkans. What do you guys think of this scenario?
 

Ricardolindo

Well-known member
Location
Portugal
This is one of those scenarios that has been talked about on and on and on and on. But it wouldn't be an AH site without at least one discussion of this topic, and I'd like to see you guys having a crack on this one. The POD I'm going with here is that, for whatever reason, Lord Halifax is made PM after Chamberlain and decides to make peace with Germany after the Fall of France. With Germany now in control of most of Continental Europe, and without a war in the West, they can set their sights on the Soviet Union without much hassle. Most likely now the UK will choose to spend its peace years gearing up for round two, however by the time they are ready it is clear that Germany would be in a much stronger position than they were IOTL, as they did not waste so much blood and treasure fighting the Battle of Britain along with the battles in North Africa and the Balkans. What do you guys think of this scenario?
I'm pretty sure the point of divergence is ASB. Any Prime Minister who tried to make peace after the Fall of France would be immediately ousted. There was no public support for making peace.
 

Meadow

Out, Out, Out
Administrator
Sea Lion Press staff
Published by SLP
Location
Balham
Pronouns
he/him
I'm pretty sure the point of divergence is ASB. Any Prime Minister who tried to make peace after the Fall of France would be immediately ousted. There was no public support for making peace.
This isn't actually true, FWIW, though Halifax would have had a harder job than pulp-AH usually makes out. A ceasefire could have occurred in May 1940, it certainly isn't ASB. A permanent peace is harder.

A several-year truce, followed by Britain (and possibly FDR) breaking it when the Nazis bog down in the Soviet Union, is more plausible than you'd think, based on its rarity as an idea. One might never see a D-Day but an even-further unleashed Bomber Harris laying waste to Germany night after night thanks to a far larger bomber command from an extra few years of peacetime build-up could be a grim 'VE Day, 1946' scenario as the hammer and sickle flies over Calais.
 

Arthur_Phuxache

Shadow Minister for Snollygosters & Lollygaggers
. One might never see a D-Day but an even-further unleashed Bomber Harris laying waste to Germany night after night thanks to a far larger bomber command from an extra few years of peacetime build-up could be a grim 'VE Day, 1946' scenario as the hammer and sickle flies over Calais.
The only reason Bomber Command could scale up to the size it did is because Churchill wanted it and Lend-Lease meant we could devote resources to it.

The British didn't have to build naval aircraft, maritime patrol aircraft, transport aircraft and fighter aircraft to defend our colonies because the USA was doing that for us.

In this timeline it's stuck with a handful of Halifax and Manchester Squadrons that can't find a target at night.
 

Japhy

Sour, Salty, and Delicious
Published by SLP
Location
Albany, NY
Pronouns
He/Him
This isn't actually true, FWIW, though Halifax would have had a harder job than pulp-AH usually makes out. A ceasefire could have occurred in May 1940, it certainly isn't ASB. A permanent peace is harder.

A several-year truce, followed by Britain (and possibly FDR) breaking it when the Nazis bog down in the Soviet Union, is more plausible than you'd think, based on its rarity as an idea. One might never see a D-Day but an even-further unleashed Bomber Harris laying waste to Germany night after night thanks to a far larger bomber command from an extra few years of peacetime build-up could be a grim 'VE Day, 1946' scenario as the hammer and sickle flies over Calais.
I agree about the fact a 1940 Ceasefire is doable and that thats a very grim scenario.

The one thing that always gives me pause about "The War starts up again in 1944" scenarios, is that I don't know if "Alright folks remember how bad it was for our boys last time? Time to go again" is actually going to work. Talking people in a Democracy into a war is not an easy feat, its not going to be popular with parents who feel relief that Dick got home from the war in one piece recently and now will come home draped in a flag.
 

Alex Richards

Certified Goose Aware
Patreon supporter
Published by SLP
Location
Derbyshire
I can see it getting widescale public support, but it's reliant on an ever increasing drip of reports of German atrocities. Probably with some suitably impeccable eye-witnesses to fan the 'something must be done' narrative.

Difficult, but possible.
 

The Red

Well-known member
Published by SLP
If it's in the name of setting something up later on then fine, Halifunkirk scenarios are ten a penny but if it's for the sake of examining plausibility, then it needs fleshing out. The problem is that the "for whatever reason" bears too much of the burden for it to hold up. Halifax just forcing through a peace, when the main goal of him being PM was to act as a consensus leader in a cabinetfilled with anti-appeasers, is extremely unlikely. It would be like the historical fiction of Darkest Hour when Churchill is having to fight his cabinet over carrying on, except in reverse with the characters having their actual views. Chucking them out and forming a Guilty Men Redux cabinet wouldn't survive a hostile parliament. He was encouraged to be there to be a consensus figure as was his nature, partially explaining his love for appeasement in the first place but also why he didn't really want to be PM.
 
Last edited:

Arthur_Phuxache

Shadow Minister for Snollygosters & Lollygaggers
I can see it getting widescale public support, but it's reliant on an ever increasing drip of reports of German atrocities. Probably with some suitably impeccable eye-witnesses to fan the 'something must be done' narrative.
Do the British of 1940-50 really care if foreigners are killing other foreigners, especially if they are Jews, Gypsys, Poles and Communists?

Most Britons would be told the Nazis were doing the world a favour, and a majority would be happy to believe that.
 

Alex Richards

Certified Goose Aware
Patreon supporter
Published by SLP
Location
Derbyshire
Do the British of 1940-50 really care if foreigners are killing other foreigners, especially if they are Jews, Gypsys, Poles and Communists?

Most Britons would be told the Nazis were doing the world a favour, and a majority would be happy to believe that.
Discrimination, exilation, probably not.

Being round up and shot in indiscriminate and brutal fashion is another question.

In fact one of the main reasons for the contemporary scepticism was people assuming it was just the same stories as the Kaiser Bayonetting Belgian Babies- it had worked as propaganda before. It'd be harder but it would also actually be true.
 

Arthur_Phuxache

Shadow Minister for Snollygosters & Lollygaggers
Discrimination, exilation, probably not.

Being round up and shot in indiscriminate and brutal fashion is another question.
Given that's been happening in the Soviet Union, China for most of the 1930s, and in Abyssinia too, I suspect the response from the great British public will be a Rothermere-style ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A sponge doesn't care if it absorbs blood, urine, or champagne.
 

xsampa

Active member
What happens to Imperial Japan in this scenario?
If the Nazis get the Brits to sue for peace in exchange for leaving Britain untouched, the Japanese could do likewise to Britain's colonies and the US (if they have any sense).

With the Congo and Indonesia cut off from their metropoles, they would come under de facto british rule as kingdoms in exile.
IOTL the Brits proposed that the Congo even become "independent" under a white-minority regime during WW2 at one point.
Even in such a limited Nazi victory scenario, Vichy France's empire will either fall to native revolt or Britain
 
Last edited:

SinghSong

Well-known member
Location
Slough
Pronouns
he/him
This is one of those scenarios that has been talked about on and on and on and on. But it wouldn't be an AH site without at least one discussion of this topic, and I'd like to see you guys having a crack on this one. The POD I'm going with here is that, for whatever reason, Lord Halifax is made PM after Chamberlain and decides to make peace with Germany after the Fall of France. With Germany now in control of most of Continental Europe, and without a war in the West, they can set their sights on the Soviet Union without much hassle. Most likely now the UK will choose to spend its peace years gearing up for round two, however by the time they are ready it is clear that Germany would be in a much stronger position than they were IOTL, as they did not waste so much blood and treasure fighting the Battle of Britain along with the battles in North Africa and the Balkans. What do you guys think of this scenario?
How about in the event of Subhas Chandra Bose's faction having won out in his power struggle with the Gandhi-led clique in the Congress Working Committee, enabling him to retain his presidency over the Indian National Congress (rather than being forced to resign from the Congress Presidency in April 1939, in spite of Bose having been democratically elected over Gandhi's preferred candidate Pattabhi Sitaramayya)? And then, as he and his followers loudly advocated for IOTL, India seceding from the British Empire and declaring a war of independence under his leadership, over the unilateral decision- made by former Viceroy Lord Halifax's successor, Viceroy Lord Linlithgow- to declare war on India's behalf without consulting the Congress leadership, and reject the Congress' request for a declaration that India would at the very least be given the chance to determine its own future (via an independence referendum) after the war?

Mightn't this POD be one of the most plausible ways to meet these criteria? After all, in that context, with an active Indian War of Independence to violently overthrow British rule in India breaking out, led by Bose as the elected and (largely) undisputed leader of the Indian National Congress (with Gandhi forced to escape in a similar manner to how Bose did IOTL, but fleeing to London rather than to Berlin as Bose did), there's no way that it'd be tenable for Lord Halifax to effectively decline the position of Prime Minister and step aside in favor of Winston Churchill- who had arguably been the most vocal leading figure of opposition to even Dominion status, let alone full independence, for India in the Conservative Party, who'd refused to even meet Bose during his sojourn in England because he was a leftist, socialist politician coming from a colony. In contrast, Lord Halifax had been among the first to accept Bose's invitation to an appointment, and both had left with significantly elevated impressions of one another- Halifax would've believed that he had the greatest chance of achieving peace and ending the new Indian conflict.

Nonetheless, Subhas Chandra Bose's ideologies (describing himself as a leftist and socialist, having called in his book The Indian Struggle for a hypothetical "left-wing revolt" inside the Congress, after which the party will transform and will "stand for the interests of the masses, that is, of the peasants, workers, etc, and not for the vested interests, that is, the landlords, capitalists and money-lending classes", governed by Soviet-style central planning "for the reorganisation of the agricultural and industrial life of the country", having also proposed the adoption of "a synthesis between communism and fascism" throughout the 1930s, and expressed the belief that an independent India needed socialist authoritarianism, along the lines of Turkey's Kemal Atatürk, for at least two decades- as well as advocating a similar non-aggression pact between socialist authoritarian India, under his leadership, and the USSR) would've definitely changed the whole dynamic on that front, in spite of Halifax's pre-existing personal rapport with Bose.

After the culmination of the resulting conflict/crisis in India, even if it ends with the best-case scenario for them (i.e, with a swift end to hostilities, and an 'Irish Solution' whereby a truce is agreed and an 'Indian Free State' is established by treaty), how much weaker, poorer and more divided would the British be for it? And with Bose's government overtly pro-Soviet, how much less popular opposition would there be to the Fascism's 'Anti-Comintern Pact'? Might TTL's Britain, wracked by both the Red and Yellow Scares on overdrive after even a semi-successful Indian War of Independence, and the British Raj falling under the rule of a left-wing nationalist anti-imperialist Marxist regime (akin to that of Josip Broz Tito)- along with the further potential, of not only Stalin's Soviet Union, but Bose's India as well, offering even greater assistance and support to the beleagured CCP earlier on- even contemplate offering nominal support to the Nazis' alliance, against the ever-increasing 'Red Peril'?
 

TruthOfAngels

The moon on a stick
This isn't actually true, FWIW, though Halifax would have had a harder job than pulp-AH usually makes out. A ceasefire could have occurred in May 1940, it certainly isn't ASB. A permanent peace is harder.

A several-year truce, followed by Britain (and possibly FDR) breaking it when the Nazis bog down in the Soviet Union, is more plausible than you'd think, based on its rarity as an idea. One might never see a D-Day but an even-further unleashed Bomber Harris laying waste to Germany night after night thanks to a far larger bomber command from an extra few years of peacetime build-up could be a grim 'VE Day, 1946' scenario as the hammer and sickle flies over Calais.
That would be a timeline I'd very much like to read.
 

SenatorChickpea

The Most Kiwi Aussie of them all
Patreon supporter
Pronouns
he/him
After the culmination of the resulting conflict/crisis in India, even if it ends with the best-case scenario for them (i.e, with a swift end to hostilities, and an 'Irish Solution' whereby a truce is agreed and an 'Indian Free State' is established by treaty), how much weaker, poorer and more divided would the British be for it? And with Bose's government overtly pro-Soviet, how much less popular opposition would there be to the Fascism's 'Anti-Comintern Pact'? Might TTL's Britain, wracked by both the Red and Yellow Scares on overdrive after even a semi-successful Indian War of Independence, and the British Raj falling under the rule of a left-wing nationalist anti-imperialist Marxist regime (akin to that of Josip Broz Tito)- along with the further potential, of not only Stalin's Soviet Union, but Bose's India as well, offering even greater assistance and support to the beleagured CCP earlier on- even contemplate offering nominal support to the Nazis' alliance, against the ever-increasing 'Red Peril'?
This is a great idea, and I would love to read such a scenario.
 
Top