How the War Was Lost

[Resurgam]

I'm a bit amused that everyone's complaining about the suicide and not the fact Churchill physically strangled Halifax.

As for the suicide itself... I'm not too opposed to it, though I think it's a bit much. As someone who is himself plagued by the black dog and has started into that ultimate abyss - and nearly jumped once - sometimes it just... happens and you snap. So while it certainly is dramatic, I don't think it ASB.

 

[Post]

I'm a bit amused that everyone's complaining about the suicide and not the fact Churchill physically strangled Halifax.

I did complain about that (#7 and #10).

 

[ArtosStark]

How the heck did he even become an U-boat skipper...

Supposedly he did well in the early war but the idea that he had missed the chance to kill Churchill sent him into a depression that killed his drive.

 

[Catspoke]

So lets say for whatever reasons, the British are agreeable to seeking terms. The French are still in and still willing to fight, so likely the French and British seek terms together then, if before June 10th, likely, Italy is still neutral and the French still control Paris, so the terms are going to be much easier than OTL.

As for an armistice, The Germans occupy what they have already taken (the French still control Paris), But they have to give also up the major Maginot forts for sure , and probably Metz and Strasbourg and Belfort, and the Briery basin with some level of demilitarization, and surrender of war materials on the French side. These terms get worse if the battle continues and the Germans take Paris as OTL.

Britain's armistice terms are easy she doesn't have to do anything but evacuate France, return POWs and return German merchants taken. I don't think the British terms change even if the war continues on towards the OTL surrender.

 

[Garrison]

So lets say for whatever reasons, the British are agreeable to seeking terms. The French are still in and still willing to fight, so likely the French and British seek terms together then, if before June 10th, likely, Italy is still neutral and the French still control Paris, so the terms are going to be much easier than OTL.

As for an armistice, The Germans occupy what they have already taken (the French still control Paris), But they have to give also up the major Maginot forts for sure , and probably Metz and Strasbourg and Belfort, and the Briery basin with some level of demilitarization, and surrender of war materials on the French side. These terms get worse if the battle continues and the Germans take Paris as OTL.

Britain's armistice terms are easy she doesn't have to do anything but evacuate France, return POWs and return German merchants taken. I don't think the British terms change even if the war continues on towards the OTL surrender.

And if the terms are lighter than OTL that's bad news for German industry which has to make do without the wholesale looting of France conducted in 1940. Worse peace in the West means Stalin can't kid himself about what's coming when the Nazis launch Barbarossa, though I suspect here the ground will have somehow dried out in May to allow Barbarossa to launch earlier and German logistics will somehow improve and allow them to storm Moscow.

 

[Catspoke]

And if the terms are lighter than OTL that's bad news for German industry which has to make do without the wholesale looting of France conducted in 1940. Worse peace in the West means Stalin can't kid himself about what's coming when the Nazis launch Barbarossa, though I suspect here the ground will have somehow dried out in May to allow Barbarossa to launch earlier and German logistics will somehow improve and allow them to storm Moscow.

Yes the Germans have less of France under their disposal to loot.
And certainly the Soviets will be wary, not willing to open they supplies they opened OTL in August 40 once the Battle of Britain started.

On the other hand they would have the ability to trade stuff on the open market if the blockade has ended.
And they wouldn't have attrition of a Battle of Britain (or even the attrition suffered in the last days of OTL battle for France)
And yes no Balkan diversion, no Rommel in Africa etc.

But with the war "won" would Hitler really be able to drag the Germans into another war, would there be some actual resistance to this???? (The OTL rationalizations about having to secure enough resources to fight of American power don't apply here, this is 100% percent Nazi dreaming at this point)

 

[Cryhavoc101]

How the heck did he even become an U-boat skipper...

Actual war time ops finds people out

Its not really that uncommon!

He was one - I suspect that he was okay in peacetime

 

[BELFAST]

The next big question is what kind of deal will they get with the axis.
How badly will the axis lose in the long run?

 

[Hammerbolt]

The next big question is what kind of deal will they get with the axis.
How badly will the axis lose in the long run?

The UK's main objective was always self preservation and the preservation of the Empire. So I think they'd ash out something like: Germany gets free rain in Europe, UK gets not to be bombed/invaded, no maritime blockade of Europe (so that the Axis can trade at will for what it needs). As a sop for Mussolini, there might be an adendum as "Italy gets off with grabbing Tunisia & Lybia & maybe Algers and keeps Abyssinia/Ethiopia."

 

[Amon34]

very interesting, can't wait to see where this goes

 

[BELFAST]

The UK's main objective was always self preservation and the preservation of the Empire. So I think they'd ash out something like: Germany gets free rain in Europe, UK gets not to be bombed/invaded, no maritime blockade of Europe (so that the Axis can trade at will for what it needs). As a sop for Mussolini, there might be an adendum as "Italy gets off with grabbing Tunisia & Lybia & maybe Algers and keeps Abyssinia/Ethiopia."

I could see the British wanting axis troops out of France, the low countries, Denmark and Norway and the exchange of pows.

 

[Hammerbolt]

I could see the British wanting axis troops out of France, the low countries, Denmark and Norway and the exchange of pows.

POW exchange, I can see happening. but why would Hitler abandon all that, now that he's won?

 

[BELFAST]

POW exchange, I can see happening. but why would Hitler abandon all that, now that he's won?

It means he does not have to supply them with food or fuel or garrison them.
The areas he withdraws from become neutrals in any coming conflict with the soviets.
Hitlers gets a favourable trade deal with them.
He can now concentrate his resources on his long term goal of creating the 1,000 year Reich for the rhine to the Urals and his mega civil engineering fantasies like Germania.

Germania (city) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

it also helps sell the fiction that Hitler is not a warmonger that is intending on taking over the world. this helps the isolationists in the uS keep America out of the war.

 

[Hammerbolt]

It means he does not have to supply them with food or fuel or garrison them.
The areas he withdraws from become neutrals in any coming conflict with the soviets.
Hitlers gets a favourable trade deal with them.
He can now concentrate his resources on his long term goal of creating the 1,000 year Reich for the rhine to the Urals and his mega civil engineering fantasies like Germania.

Germania (city) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

it also helps sell the fiction that Hitler is not a warmonger that is intending on taking over the world. this helps the isolationists in the uS keep America out of the war.

Don't see him selling this to the folks back home, tbh. Start a war to "avenge WWI" (basically) then abandon everything for a treaty? Politically & idiologically wrong.

 

[Post]

It means he does not have to supply them with food or fuel or garrison them.

I don't think he supplied them with a lot of food. On the other hand he did steal a load of stuff, including a lot of french trucks which were useful in Barbarossa. And a few million workers of course.

 

[modelcitizen]

The next big question is what kind of deal will they get with the axis.
How badly will the axis lose in the long run?

Stalin rules most of the ruins of Europe?

 

[BELFAST]

Stalin rules most of the ruins of Europe?

Possibly up to the rhine.
I do not think his logistics would allow him to go further than the rhine.

 

[Hammerbolt]

I don't think he supplied them with a lot of food. On the other hand he did steal a load of stuff, including a lot of french trucks which were useful in Barbarossa. And a few million workers of course.

Also, just remembered: Alsace & Lorraine. At the very least, they'd go back to being german.

 

[BELFAST]

How does this deal help the Germans?
It reduces the pressure on the luftwaffe. North Africa otl took a heavy toll on the Luftwaffe and did the battle of Britain with the loss of so many experienced aircrews.
Fewer resources will be needed to build uboats
Less resources are needed for anti-aircraft defence in Germany.
The Germans should have better reserves of oil.
The German will still have problems with logistics on the eastern front and would not have been able to send more troops to the eastern front than otl due to problems supplying them there.
Germany still has very poor intel on just how large the red army is.
How the Soviets would do without lend-lease is the big question. more food shortages and shortages of high-octane fuel for aircraft.
How much resources the Germans will be able to import by sea is hard to say.
They will need oil, natural rubber, opium,cocaine and other strategic resources.

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

Churchill would never have committed suicide; if members of his cabinet had attempted to overthrow him he would have raised a huge public row. Also, Halifax and Chamberlain (the latter already discredited) were not strong enough to overthrow Churchill, who was already in a dominant position.

The Royal Navy would not just give up; they would rescue many troops in this scenario although not as many as in OTL. The Luftwaffe did not have bombs of a type that could take out the RN efficiently. The heavy guns of the RN's capital ships and cruisers could have held the German army back from the beaches during a significant evacuation effort, although suffering major losses while doing so. The Germany Navy did not have the huge number of subs it would have in 1942 and the early months of 1943, and its own surface navy was small and weak with no huge battleships to send into the channel at that time (the Bismarck was not completed yet and other heavy ships were still being repaired after Norway, where Germany also lost half of its destroyers).

By the way, there were influential people who were thinking that if something happened to Churchill (like death by assassination), Jan Smuts should be brought from South Africa to run the war as an imperial crusade. Smuts and Churchill were close friends, had worked together during World War One, and in OTL mostly agreed on World War Two strategy.