UK Falls Scenario Ideas

[JerseyJohn]

Okay, Curry wanted his thread back -- just fooling, by now he realizes it will always be ours for the taking!

So I figured we'd take our ongoing discussion, SeaMonkey, Michael Dorosh, Shaka of Carthage, Edwin and perhaps even Curry! to a location all it's own.

We were speculating on the state of the world after a successful German invasion of the UK.

Projected Summary so far:

1) Germany agrees to peace terms with Canada and the Commonwealth.

-- The British Isles, we assume, are partitioned Vichy style.

-- -- England becomes a German protectorate and puppet ruled by the returned Edward, capital would be in London.

-- -- Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the overseas possessions are ruled by King George V with his capital, presumably, in Manchester.

On the European Continent, Germany consolidates it's holdings, probably joined by Spain, Sweden and Portugal as Active Allies. The historical minor allies, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria join the fold and Italy either attempts to invade Greece or doesn't, having little effect. I believe, if the UK falls in the Summer or Autumn of 1940, both Greece and Yugoslavia become part of the Axis and Italy makes it's move.

In the Mediteranean, Spain takes possession of Gibraltar and Italy takes possession of Malta. UK and Common Wealth forces withdraw from Egypt, which becomes an Italian protectorate giving control of the Suez Canal to the Axis. The British oil contract with Iraq is cancelled and the country joins the Axis. Cyprus, Jordan and Palestine become Axis minor allies.

The French overseas empire is claimed by Vichy but with a weak hold in places such as Indochina, which Japan sees as ripe for the picking.

Also appearing ripe to the Japanese would be Indonesia (Dutch East Indies) and Madagascar (Vichy France).

The Former Colonies of Occupied Europe:

-- Belgian Congo, Dutch East Indies etc ... we assume would be claimed by Germany which would quickly dispatch troops to garrison these locations.

-- -- Complications would arise if they declare independence and appeal to the United States for protection!

-- -- -- Does Germany attempt to establish itself in the former Danish territories, Greenland and several Caribean islands (along with Dutch holdings there)? If so, how does the United States react?

Asia:

-- Japan knows it must move quickly or forever lose the golden opportunity to fill the vacuum left behind by Holland and, to a lesser degree, France. The Japanese seek Indonesia and Southeast Asia.

-- -- The United States is committed to Phillipine Independence and subsequent protectorate status. It has lesser committments to nations like Burma and Siam (Thailand) and is also committed to supporting India and Ceylon (both slated for independence, Pakistan doesn't yet exist) as well as Australia, New Zealand and the African Commonwealth nations of South Africa and Rhodesia.

Africa:

The northern half would be controlled almost entirely by Vichy France in the west and Italy in the east with a British presense remaining in the Sudan, Kenya and several other locations.

-- Germany sends an expeditionary force to solidify it's hold on the former Belgian Congo. How quickly and to what extent this project succeeds is open to debate. I doubt they'd have had a problem unless, as earlier speculated upon, the colonial government declares it's independence and appeals to the United States for protectorate status.

South America:

The continent is torn in several directions.

There is some genuine kinship with the United States, but this is offset by U. S. commercial monopolies that were traditionally backed with U. S. military pressure. Do these counties use the changing world situation to nationalize these holdings and seek a better deal with German support?

German and Italian influences are very strong, meanwhile, in several other nations, such as Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. These are also among the largest South American nations. We can presume the Axis would have sought to increase it's influence on these nations and also on the continent as a whole.

The USSR:

A year after subjugating the rest of Europe and the UK, Germany turns on the Soviet Union. It's invasion makes quick progress and soon drives to the Volga and Moscow, pushing Stalin's regime to the Urals and the outskirts of Asia.

Conclusions reached in original discussion:

The United States, Japan, USSR and Commonwealth are drawn together. It's almost a case of Germany/Axis partners vs the rest of the World!

-- Concessions.

-- -- Japan agrees to end it's war against China in exchange for the go ahead to absorb the Dutch East Indies, French Indochina and other former European colonial territories that Germany would either have sent garrisons to, or would have been backing as in the case of Vichy France.

These actions, of course, mean Germany and Japan are at war and the USSR is a defacto ally of the Japanese!

===

Hopeing we'll take this further. I think it's still got a lot of interesting paths to speculate on, particularly in terms of possible SC2 Scenarios.

[SeaMonkey]

Good summation JJ, I agree with all preliminarily, I'm sure others will help tweak it, if need be.

I have not been able to test your custom yet, but look forward to it as Axis player. Have been testing my own, "Return of the Allies" as a compliment to yours from the Allied side. I am obsessed with a competent, no .....a difficult AI for the Axis side, so the human Allied player has a really rough time. The normal settings will be +1 and +1 for Axis. If players need it easier then they make the settings less, 0 & 0 or +1-0, going to +2-+2 for players wanting a greater challenge, virtually impossible.

[Curry]

Always glad for you, JJ, to steal my thread.

However, not sure that Canada would surrender to the Axis if the UK fell. Just very hesitant to ever admit that. Dont think it would happen nor would I think FDR would allow it to happen without at least some agreement that the Axis would stay away and dont see FDR ever trusting the Axis for such an agreement. Not only that but I think that the King and very likely even Churchhill and a UK government in exile would have ended up in Canada.

Would like to hear from some Candians on that one.

We will never know.

[Shaka of Carthage]

JJ said Canada agreed to terms with Germany, not that it surrendered.

I believe Ireland would have used the opportunity to free itself from the British.

Portugal would in effect be "Finlandized", since while it wasn't Pro-Axis, with Spain and Germany next door, it wouldn't have had any choice.

Brazil would have no problems with being a Pro-US ally.

Argentina would have declared itself neutral but if Axis forces would have somehow gotten into South America (which I doubt), it would declare itself Pro-Axis. Then of course, Chile, would have DoW'd on Argentina, looking for US support.

Any attempt by Germany to claim territorty in the Americas would have been a cause for war. I doubt Germany would have bothered. Same with Sub-Sahara Africa. It could get what it needed from them by trade.

Free France would either be in Sub-Sahara Africa or in the Pacific.

Hence, I think any potential conflict would have been over the status of India. The "Free" British Empire would have wanted to have some say. But if we assume they were established in Canada, I believe the American desire for an independent India would have dominated. If Japan got Ceylon (because of its naval importance), I don't think they would have objected to India becoming independent, since it gave them a buffer against anyone moving into Indochina from the west.

From a "long term" perspective, I would have to wonder how these would turn out...

Communist China

Israel

Islamic Nationalism (actually a contradiction in terms)

Sub-Sahara Nationlism

Free France/Vichy France

Korea

Vietnam

"Cold" War

[Shaka of Carthage]

Read in the other thread the comment about Huey Long (which got me real confused, since for a moment I was thinking Huey Newton!).

Anyway, what if Lindburgh (?), you know, the Spirit of St Louis guy, had run for President and won? He was pro-Hitler.

And whats the deal with FDR and that 3rd and 4th term? I kinda assumed that back in Washingtons time, when he didn't run for a third term, that it became law (no more than two terms).

[JerseyJohn]

Curry,

Thanks and from now on we'll try to keep the thread stealing under control!

As Shaka clarified, it was that Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth 'came to terms' with Germany and signed a peace treaty. There would have been no reason for Canada to surrender.

Germany couldn't have invaded them and if it tried, the United States would immediately have entered the war on Canada's behalf. Germany couldn't have reached any of the Commonwealth nations so they undoubtedly would simply have signed a peace treaty with all of them.

[ January 27, 2005, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka,

I agree on all points -- Germany might, in my opinion -- have attempted to extend it's rule as far south as The Congo on the premise that it conquered Belgium and it's African colony was therefore part of it's empire. This would have been significant because the Congo had uranium which I believe was known even prior to WWII.

The Caribean -- Yes, the United States would have invoked the Monroe Doctrine. I believe FDR might actually have done that historically. There were units of the French Navy, including an aircraft carrier, hypothetically controled by Vichy, based at Caribean bases and I'm pretty certain that none of them left anchor till the Germans entered Vichy France and the all of the French were officially fighting for the Allies.

Two flashpoints would have been Iceland and Greenland.

Iceland was already an independent nation, but Britain didn't give a second thought to sending troops to occupy the place in 1940! I don't think they even asked the local government if it was okay till the Tommys were offloading! They were replaced later on by U. S. Marines. Allied aircraft flew out of the island on anti-submarine missions and a naval base was established at Rejkavik.

If the UK fell prior U. S. troops moving into the place, I'm not certain what it's status would have been. Also, with Britain under it's thumb, I'm not sure Iceland's strategic value would have been overly great to Germany.

Greenland was a possession of Denmark at the time of it's invasion. It's main significance was as a weather station. This is very significant, of course, as it was the key to determining North Atlantic weather. It was this difference in meteorological information that enabled the Allies to invade Normandy when the Germans thought there would be solid storms straight through the week!

I'm absolutely sure the United States would have considered Greenland as being covered as part of the Monroe Doctrine and also that Germany would also have understood that.

South America -- Again I agree. I don't believe Germany would have made any blatant moves in that direction. While they were at peace with everyone, I think Germany would have made numerous trade agreements with Brazil and Argentina and used economic ties to gradually undermine the United States influence in the region. It would have been similar to what the United States and the USSR did throughout the Cold War. Germany, however, would have been in a better position than Russia ever was to succeed in legitimate trade.

-- I think South America would have come out very well on this as many of the American monopolies and vested interests would inevitably have fallen away. In effect, Europe and the United States would have been competing with each other for influence in South America. A shooting war on the continent might never have developed at all, even if the U. S. was eventually drawn into a war with the Third Reich.

At the Wargames and History Site, where this topic is also being run, Roosevelt45 objected that he felt a successful German invasion of the UK in 1940 was an absurdity. Historically I agree with him. To me the only way it could have been done was if Germany had planned on it prior to the outbreak of war and had a much larger paratroop arm.

Historically I think they had only an oversized division (under general Student) in 1940. It was used in pieces during the invasions of Holland and Belgium for securing bridges ahead of the advance and, more famously, to take the Eben Emal fortress.

To me, given the historical situation, Germany would have had a plausible chance to invade the UK in the Spring or Summer of 1940, but it would have needed to postpone Barbarossa for another year.

By the Spring of 1941 Germany had a greatly expanded paratroop corps which it used against Crete. The losses were very large and Hitler decided to use them in their drop capability again -- a strange decision to say the least.

My premise is that, instead of Crete (or the smaller propossed Malta operation) and instead of moving against the USSR, Germany renewed it's air battle to gain supremacy of the English Channel. There's no logical reason to assume it could not have achieved this. Having accomplished this, an operation similar to that conducted against Crete would have been made against Southwest England, securing Dover and other key ports.

With the ports and inland airfields under their control, additional troops and heavy equipment would have rushed in by ship and air transports and the bridgehead expanded. Presumably the U-boats would have been hitting the convoys particularly hard, choking off the maximum amount of war supplies coming into Britain exactly when they were most needed.

I think this invasion scenario had an excellent chance of succeeding -- in 1941.

-- So, when we say 1940, it's in a vague sense taken to mean the UK falls before either the United States or the USSR is involved in the war.

An interesting circumstance, however, is that if Germany takes too long to subdue Britain, events in Asia and the Pacific move in a slightly different manner to the course we've been discussing. If the land war in Britain goes on into the winter of 1941, does the rift between the United States and Japan happen as it did in real life?

We get an entirely different situation if the UK falls to Germany after the United States and Japan have gone to war!

And, consequently, a second scenario.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka,

The law was passed after Roosevelt's death. Prior to FDR it was simply understood that no president would run for a third consecutive term of office. Apparently, FDR didn't understand that!

His cousin, Teddy, could probably have served about twenty years if he'd played it right, but he made an idiotic spur of the moment statement that sealed if for him. He became president six months into William McKinley's second term and was reelected himself. He immediately put his foot in his mouth and said, "In effect this is my full second term and I shall not seek reelection in four years." This stunned everyone as he was immensely popular and a great president.

At the end of his term there was no doubt in anyone's mind that he'd have been reelected, making eleven years on the traditional two terms. Most historians go so far as to say he could even have been elected a third term, giving him over fifteen years in office with WWI going on in Europe, an emergency situation exactly like his cousin had in 1940, suggesting a fourth term!

As it was he left William Howard Taft as the Republican president. Taft had to be talked into this and TR assumed he would gladly step aside after four years to let him regain the White House. Taft was offended at his old boss's bulldozing manner on his return, decided to run again, TR formed the Bullmoose Party, and the rest, as they say, is history.

[JerseyJohn]

Also to Shaka,

Communist China

Israel

Islamic Nationalism (actually a contradiction in terms)

Sub-Sahara Nationlism

Free France/Vichy France

Korea

Vietnam

"Cold" War

These are very interested topics indeed!

In China I think the communists would, under any circumstances that developed, eventually ousted Chiang Kai Shek's regime. The Nationalists were corrupt to the core and genuine oppressors.

That made it extremely embarrassing in 1947 when our wartime friends collapsed so quickly despite having, on paper, a huge and well equiped army. It was simple, the Nationalist troops defected wholesale and Chiang's generals cut deals with the communists whenever the opportunity arose, taking the money and running to live out their lives in luxury.

Chiang was little more than a glorified warlord, or perhaps a chief warlord, who never understood what Sun Yat Sin had been in the process of doing -- creating a unified nation. Mao, though his methods were incredibly brutal, never lost sight of that goal.

Israel might actually have come about even in our scenario of Germany victorious over Great Britain! Throughout the thirties nazi propagandists said repeatedly that they wanted to deport all European Jews to their old home of Palestine. After the fall of France it became, in vague discussions, Madagasscar. With Britain toppled, I can see them sending the Jewish population to Palestine as being preferable to the course of genocide actually chosen. Sorry if that wording is offensive, I'm sure it is, but I'm trying to write this with nazi logic.

Having so many millions of Jews under their control, in their view they were left with the choices of slavery, deportation or extermination.

Slavery and extermination would have led to unwanted consequences when word inevitably leaked out to the rest of the world.

The nazis knew this even during the war and didn't settle upon the Holocaust decision till February of 1942, after the die had already been cast and there was no turning back.

In all likelihood, a nazi created Israel would have been set up with the idea of total dependency on the Third Reich, a glorified penal colony, but a much better course for all concerned than the totally demonic death camps.

Islamic Nationalism (actually a contradiction in terms) Shaka

I think this would never have gotten off the ground and would have been splintered if it had. The nazis were great believers in the principal of divide and conquer. In the dominant role they'd have constantly played one Islamic faction off against another through the giving and taking of favored status.

The main groups they'd have been concerned with were the Iraqis and Iranians for their oil.

If Germany succeeded in grabbing European Russia, as I'm sure they would have in our UK falls premise, there would have been the added factor of tens of millions of Moslems living in the Caucasus and non-Siberian Asiatic Russia. In all likelihood, those living beyond their conquests, Turkestan, Uzbekistan et al, would have been aided in rebelling against their Russian overlords and given good incentives to ally with the European Axis.

One of our pivotal regions, Indonesia, nominally under Axis control in all of this, has an enormous Moslem population.

The Sudan, Central Africa and on the other side of the Red Sea, Arabia and bordering states, would have been adjacent to Italian areas of influence or possessions, such as Egypt, Libya and Ethiopia/Italian East Africa. Presumably they would not have been effected in any way by such a movement.

The Moslem populations of Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, governed by Vichy France, would have been in a different situation. Chafing under a weak French regime, they might well have vied for independence in their own local national sense, but this would not have been in the name of Islam, it would have been in the name of Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco!

Tens of millions more Moslems were living in India, and at the time millions of them lived in the same areas as Hindus. I don't believe Pakistan would have been created. Instead I think India would have been granted immediate independence and whether the Moslems and Hindus in that country lived peacefully or had a civil war is too unrelated an issue to go into here and also one that would require volumes in it's own right.

On the original issue, I think the only two factors would have been oil and Israel. Which sounds pretty familiar! In the early 1940s there simply wasn't any unifying cause for the Moslem world to rally behind. There was no nationalism becasue the religion encompassed people of many races from Europeans to Africans to Asians and Indians/Pacific Islanders.

As mentioned earlier, I think a nazi created Israel would have been totally different from the one later created by the British. For one thing it would have been kept as weak and unarmed as possible. It's unlikely the nazis would have displaced the Palestinians in favor of Jewish immigrants. Which might have had a real advantage, it's possible that the wars that developed historically would never have happened. Syria and Egypt would both have been Axis protectorates and Israel would have been deprived of the means to become a true nation.

-- But situations change and, once carried out even through a hateful overseer, there's no telling what might have transpired with the passage of time.

Sub-Sahara Nationlism

I don't think this would have been an immediate concern, but would certainly have become a factor later on. I'm sure that the French North African territories would have rebelled, sooner or later, and these African nations would have followed suit.

The question is whether Germany and Italy would have committed themselves to helping Vichy subjugate them. I think it might have swung in either direction but to me the wise move would have been to allow those nations to break away and to establish favorable relations with them.

All in all, I think there would, by the fifties, have been numerous Islamic nations and all of them tied in to the Axis. It would have been a simple matter of trade and geographical continuity.

I doubt Germany would have attempted a direct conquest of these lands for several reasons, primarily that they'd have by then been unable to garrison any further than Europe and European Russia. Also, the lands were too economically minimal and lastly, the nazi regime was blatantly racist. They'd have been willing to deal with Moslems, but in the Aryan view they were on a similar level with the Jews, fellow semites, and part of what their geopolital theory would have seen as peripheral civilazions forever outside the Reich and it's interests.

Free France/Vichy France

There would always have been a Free French movement housed somewhere, if not a former colony then in Canada or the United States. I don't believe the United States would have hosted their movement unless it was actively at war with Germany. At that time it would have embrased the cause wholeheartedly and even with sincerity. Short of war, however, it would have been a grudging relationship which the Federal government would have attempted to play down.

Vichy

In time it would have lost control of all it's colonies, starting with Indochina. Reduced to Southern France, it might have continued to exist for an indefinite time, growing ever more dependent upon Germany for it's continued existence. I don't believe either Germany or Italy would have had anything to gain from an wholesale invasion, though Italy might later have demanded and been given possession of Nice, the Riviera and Corsica.

In a labyrinth of moves and later developments, Italy might also have received Tunisia, presumably under the guise of restoring order if it attempted to force independence from Vichy.

Korea and Vietnam

Presumably a lasting Japanese Empire would have kept both regions under control indefinitely along with Formosa, the East Indies, Manchuria and the Chinese coastal areas. There were national identies in both lands, especially Vietnam and the what at the time was the rest of French Indochina. But I don't think they'd have succeeded in ousting the Japanese as they succeeded (eventually and by extension through warring against the U. S.) in ousting the French.

An interesting variant here is that both Korea and Vietnam had existing communist movements and, assuming China had turned communist, which I feel was inevitable as long as the alternative was Chiang Kai Shek, there would no doubt have been a strong communist Chinese influence in both lands as well as the Japanese occupied Chinese regions. How effective this would have been is an interesting subject in it's own right.

The "Cold War"

Yes.

And it would have been between the German dominated Europe and the United States/Commonwealth/Japanese Empire and Soviet remnant state east of the Urals.

The European Axis would have had a huge area and dominated population from Norway to Equatorial Africa and from the British Isles to the Urals, with Iraq and Iran to it's southeast.

The southern half of Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and it's possessions, the USSR and it's remaining possessions and North America would have been the opposing economic bloc.

The area not directly committed would have been South America. Economically I think those countries would have followed different paths depending which bloc offered the greatest trade benefits. South America would have become the biggest winner in all of this.

Which leads us back to an earlier part of the discussion!

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey,

Glad you like the summation.

That scenario is only an experiment, no reason to test anything.

It's only purpose is to show that the AI will move unites from the US to Manchester and liberate the UK and also that it will use it's USNavy to take control of the Atlantic if Scapa Flow is also American.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka,

Did Charles Lindburgh ever give an indication he was interested in running?

I don't know if he did. I remember he made one remark in a speech that turned a lot of people against him. It was something like, "Sure Germany has a Jewish problem and they're taking care of it among themselves."[/]

I'm not sure what year he said that, but it came back to haunt him almost as soon as the words left his mouth. People who knew him said he wasn't a bigot, but remarks like that didn't help.

It's easier for me to see him as being a part of an independent ticket than as actually running for presedent.

Earlier I indicated that Herbert Hoover ran for the Republicans in 1936 trying to get back in office, but I was wrong. The Republican candidate was Alfred Langden with Frank Knox as his running mate. FDR got 60% of the popular vote. In 1940 it was Wenell Wilkie on a platform of staying clear of the war and Roosevelt got 54% of the popular vote.