What would the developing world (Third World) have looked like in a TL where France doesn't fall to the Nazis in 1940? For instance, does India still eventually get partitioned? Does decolonization still eventually occur? If so, just how much is it delayed by? Does France still eventually withdraw from both French Indochina and Algeria in their entirety? Does the US avoid any large-scale foreign wars outside of the Western Hemisphere in this scenario, such as in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Does the rise of Muslim fundamentalism still occur in this scenario? Also, what about Zionism? How exactly does it develop in this scenario? And is the Soviet Union's presence and influence in the developing world (Third World) in the late 20th century anywhere near as widespread in this scenario as it was in real life? Also, which developing countries, if any, actually become Communist in this scenario? Mongolia, but who else? China? North Korea? Vietnam? Laos? Anyone else? If so, who exactly?

On 6/15/2021 5:57 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> What would the developing world (Third World) have looked like in a TL where France doesn't fall to the Nazis in 1940? For instance, does India still eventually get partitioned? Does decolonization still eventually occur? If so, just how much is it delayed by? Does France still eventually withdraw from both French Indochina and Algeria in their entirety? Does the US avoid any large-scale foreign wars outside of the Western Hemisphere in this scenario, such as in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Does the rise of Muslim fundamentalism still occur in this scenario? Also, what about Zionism? How exactly does it develop in this scenario? And is the Soviet Union's presence and influence in the developing world (Third World) in the late 20th century anywhere near as widespread in this scenario as it was in real life? Also, which developing countries, if any, actually become Communist in this scenario? Mongolia, but who else? China? North Korea? Vietnam? Laos? Anyone else? If so, who exactly?
>
Why. On Earth. Do. You. Think. That. Would. Make. Any. Difference.
Outside. POSSIBLY. Indochina.
Japan is not dependent upon France's fall to join the Axis, and the US
is already trying to deny her petroleum and iron, let _alone_ steel,
because of the way she's acting in China--the only question is whether a
still-free France will be enough to make Hitler rightly refuse to
declare war against the US once Japan does. Italy _MIGHT_ be dependent
upon that fall, but of course Italy is a millstone for whichever side
she joins anyway.
There is absolutely no possible way that your change keeps the US
isolationist into the 1970s, which is what you would need to keep them
out of Korea at the very least (and when I think about it, Japan invaded
Indochina even _in_ OTL, and now it's an actual *enemy's* territory that
she'd be invading).
Of course, there's the possibility that you're suggesting the war ends
in a German surrender before December '41, but you know that Britain and
France are _already_ going to be demanding unconditional surrender and
the SK aren't ever going to grant it even if they _have_ successfully
removed Hitler, right? But the Siegfried Line will be plenty to keep out
any invasion force for a while, since there are still plenty of Germans
to man it (and at any rate, even with the extra troops who haven't yet
died, the French and British _might_ need US assistance to breach it,
which YOU still think you're denying them. Char are still WORTHLESS
tanks, at least with French tactics, for one thing).
As for the Soviet Union, you more likely just _increased_ its influence
rather than decreased it.
You have tens of millions of extra living Soviet subjects--at least a
bare majority of whom are Red Army-- IF you're right that France staying
intact ends the war before the US get involved, though their military
tech may well be ridiculously less useful than IOTL.
Or of course, _I_ could be right and then the USSR is still no _weaker_
than IOTL.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On 6/15/21 6:57 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> What would the developing world (Third World) have looked like in a
> TL where France doesn't fall to the Nazis in 1940? For instance, does
> India still eventually get partitioned? Does decolonization still
> eventually occur? If so, just how much is it delayed by? Does France
> still eventually withdraw from both French Indochina and Algeria in
> their entirety? Does the US avoid any large-scale foreign wars
> outside of the Western Hemisphere in this scenario, such as in Korea,
> Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Does the rise of Muslim
> fundamentalism still occur in this scenario? Also, what about
> Zionism? How exactly does it develop in this scenario? And is the
> Soviet Union's presence and influence in the developing world (Third
> World) in the late 20th century anywhere near as widespread in this
> scenario as it was in real life? Also, which developing countries, if
> any, actually become Communist in this scenario? Mongolia, but who
> else? China? North Korea? Vietnam? Laos? Anyone else? If so, who
> exactly?

Assume that the Allies break ENIGMA sooner and defeat WESERUBUNG in
April (it's over by 18 April), and in the next three weeks Belgium and
the Netherlands decide to coordinate defense with the Allies. (Persuaded
in part by further ENIGMA decrypts which reveal the German attack
plans.)

What with one thing and another, the Allies halt the German attack by
mid-June. Combined with the Norway fiasco, this discredits Hitler. The
Schwarz Kapelle overthrow him in July and initiate peace talks.

Knock-ons:

The war crisis is all but ended, and FDR decides not to run for a third
term. Who gets the nomination?

Chamberlain, not discredited in Norway, does not resign until after the
war is won (when his health fails). Churchill never becomes PM. Britain
has an election in late 1940. Would the Conservatives win _again_?

There is a crisis over Poland. Poland is restored in its German-occupied
zone; the Allies and Germany then demand that the USSR withdraw from the
remainder of Poland. After some haggling, Stalin agrees. The bad showing
of the Red Army in Finland worries him. And on the other hand, the
Allies don't demand withdrawal from the Baltic states, the Karelian
territory seized from Finland, or Bessarabia (seized from Romania).
Stalin takes his limited gains and backs out of Poland. He starts
looking at the Far East for opportunities. Japan has no friends at all.

What does Japan do now? Especially if Britain, the US, and the
Netherlands embargo oil? If Japan attacks Britain, even if the US
remains neutral, it's one on one (with Japan already bogged down in
China) and the USSR looming ominously.

Even if Japan attacks, it is unlikely to inflict a humiliating defeat on
Britain or France, which OTL undermined their dominance of their
colonial subjects.

There will be no interruption of Dutch colonial rule in the East Indies.

Nor of French rule in Indochina.

The USSR may be stronger than OTL, avoiding the enormous demographic
losses and material devastation of OTL. Of course it has none of the
credit by fighting on the Allied side, and retains the discredit of
its quasi-alliance with Nazi Germany.

Italy (which has a colonial empire) has been neutral and is untouched.
Abyssinia, Libya, and the Dodecanese remain Italian possessions, and
Italy remains in occupation of Albania.

India... there will be no Bengal Famine, and less hostility between the
INC and the British; the Moslem League less influential. Partition may
be avoided.

The French Third Republic continues. De Gaulle never comes to power.
(Even if he is the hero general of the war, which he might be, he's very
unlikely to transition to a political role like OTL head of Free
France.)

Unless there is a Pacific War against Japan, the US remains... not so
much isolationist, as isolated. There will be no mass US Army, raised by
conscription, and US forces will not be deployed around the world. The
US will not be a founding member of the United Nations with a permanent
seat on the Security Council; it will remain a non-member of the League
of Nations.

The League of Nations will stagger onward, preserved from complete
irrelevance by the issues raised regarding the "mandatory" territories,
especially Palestine.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 6:55:47 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 6/15/21 6:57 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> > What would the developing world (Third World) have looked like in a
> > TL where France doesn't fall to the Nazis in 1940? For instance, does
> > India still eventually get partitioned? Does decolonization still
> > eventually occur? If so, just how much is it delayed by? Does France
> > still eventually withdraw from both French Indochina and Algeria in
> > their entirety? Does the US avoid any large-scale foreign wars
> > outside of the Western Hemisphere in this scenario, such as in Korea,
> > Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Does the rise of Muslim
> > fundamentalism still occur in this scenario? Also, what about
> > Zionism? How exactly does it develop in this scenario? And is the
> > Soviet Union's presence and influence in the developing world (Third
> > World) in the late 20th century anywhere near as widespread in this
> > scenario as it was in real life? Also, which developing countries, if
> > any, actually become Communist in this scenario? Mongolia, but who
> > else? China? North Korea? Vietnam? Laos? Anyone else? If so, who
> > exactly?
> Assume that the Allies break ENIGMA sooner and defeat WESERUBUNG in
> April (it's over by 18 April), and in the next three weeks Belgium and
> the Netherlands decide to coordinate defense with the Allies. (Persuaded
> in part by further ENIGMA decrypts which reveal the German attack
> plans.)
>
> What with one thing and another, the Allies halt the German attack by
> mid-June. Combined with the Norway fiasco, this discredits Hitler. The
> Schwarz Kapelle overthrow him in July and initiate peace talks.
>

OK.

> Knock-ons:
>
> The war crisis is all but ended, and FDR decides not to run for a third
> term. Who gets the nomination?
>

Cordell Hull? Or maybe some dark horse from the US Congress? Though if the war is formally over by November, the GOP might win that year's election.

> Chamberlain, not discredited in Norway, does not resign until after the
> war is won (when his health fails). Churchill never becomes PM. Britain
> has an election in late 1940. Would the Conservatives win _again_?
>

Possibly not, because Brits might believe that the party to lead them during war is not necessarily the best suited to lead them during peacetime. Though it's uncertain, IMHO.

> There is a crisis over Poland. Poland is restored in its German-occupied
> zone; the Allies and Germany then demand that the USSR withdraw from the
> remainder of Poland. After some haggling, Stalin agrees. The bad showing
> of the Red Army in Finland worries him. And on the other hand, the
> Allies don't demand withdrawal from the Baltic states, the Karelian
> territory seized from Finland, or Bessarabia (seized from Romania).
> Stalin takes his limited gains and backs out of Poland. He starts
> looking at the Far East for opportunities. Japan has no friends at all.
>

Given the shape of Poland's eastern border, IMHO, it would make sense for the West to at least demand Stalin's withdrawal from Lithuania. Else, there would be a giant Polish salient surrounded on Soviet territory by three sides. And of course once one demands Lithuanian freedom, it might look bad not to ask for Latvian and Estonian freedom as well.

Also, Germany might insist on Danzig (though maybe Poland gets to permanently keep Danzig's port facilities, with Germany having to build new ones elsewhere) as compensation for building a common front with the Anglo-French in regards to Poland. Also having to pay no or minimal reparations. I wonder if Germany could try getting Eupen and *maybe* parts of Malmedy from Belgium as well, at least for a particular sum of money. AFAIK, Germany was willing to purchase them back in 1926, but France vetoed this deal. Though with Germany just invading Belgium, that would be a hard sell to the Belgian people, most likely. At least Danzig wasn't actually a part of Poland.

> What does Japan do now? Especially if Britain, the US, and the
> Netherlands embargo oil? If Japan attacks Britain, even if the US
> remains neutral, it's one on one (with Japan already bogged down in
> China) and the USSR looming ominously.
>
> Even if Japan attacks, it is unlikely to inflict a humiliating defeat on
> Britain or France, which OTL undermined their dominance of their
> colonial subjects.
>
> There will be no interruption of Dutch colonial rule in the East Indies.
>
> Nor of French rule in Indochina.
>
> The USSR may be stronger than OTL, avoiding the enormous demographic
> losses and material devastation of OTL.

These demographic losses were to some extent compensated by the Soviet Union's 1939-1940 territorial gains, which at least mostly won't happen here, as per your scenario. The Soviet Union had around 170 million people at the start of 1939, and again around 170 million people at the end of World War II in 1945. But the Soviet Union was a bit larger between January 1939 and May 1945 due to its territorial expansion during this time.

Though it's worth noting that some of the new Soviet citizens, such as Galicians, weren't exactly loyal to the Soviet Union, to put it mildly.

> Of course it has none of the
> credit by fighting on the Allied side, and retains the discredit of
> its quasi-alliance with Nazi Germany.
>

Yep.

> Italy (which has a colonial empire) has been neutral and is untouched.
> Abyssinia, Libya, and the Dodecanese remain Italian possessions, and
> Italy remains in occupation of Albania.
>

Yep.

> India... there will be no Bengal Famine, and less hostility between the
> INC and the British; the Moslem League less influential. Partition may
> be avoided.
>

What percentage odds would you give on partition being avoided, Rich? 75%?

> The French Third Republic continues. De Gaulle never comes to power.
> (Even if he is the hero general of the war, which he might be, he's very
> unlikely to transition to a political role like OTL head of Free
> France.)
>

Agreed.

> Unless there is a Pacific War against Japan, the US remains... not so
> much isolationist, as isolated. There will be no mass US Army, raised by
> conscription, and US forces will not be deployed around the world. The
> US will not be a founding member of the United Nations with a permanent
> seat on the Security Council; it will remain a non-member of the League
> of Nations.
>

Can the US perhaps join the LoN in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s if the Anglo-French make a serious attempt to revive the LoN in the post-WWII era in this TL?

> The League of Nations will stagger onward, preserved from complete
> irrelevance by the issues raised regarding the "mandatory" territories,
> especially Palestine.
>

What will Palestine's ultimate fate be in this TL? On the one hand, there will be plenty of Jews in Europe who would have survived forced ghettoization and whatnot at the hands of the Nazis. But on the other hand, the Nazis likely wouldn't have actually managed to begin the mass murder of Jews before they would have gotten overthrown by the SK, which might cause European Jews to view this as simply another tragic but survivable page in their history in Europe. So, just how many European Jews will actually want to move to Palestine? The Soviet Union's Jews likely won't be able to emigrate for a while, but even if "only" 10-30% of Poland's total Jews will actually want to emigrate, that would still be between 300,000 and 1 million Polish Jews--and of course this does not include European Jews in countries other than Poland and the Soviet Union.

And just what does the future have in store for places such as French Indochina, French Algeria, et cetera?

> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

If something like half a million Polish Jews want to immigrate to Palestine after the war (500,000 is in between 300,000 and 1 million--so, a good midpoint of sorts), then the Zionist movement in Palestine should still get a GIANT boost. And of course you could maybe add up to half a million Jews in other European countries as well--though maybe that's too optimistic, so let's say 100,000-200,000 non-Polish and non-Soviet Jews would also want to immigrate to Palestine--so you could have quite a lot of young Zionist Jews-in-waiting in Europe after the end of World War II in this scenario. And of course once the Soviet Union will eventually open its own doors, a lot of Soviet Jews could move to Palestine (or Israel) as well, especially if they would be unable to move to the US, Canada, Australia, or Western Europe--similar to real life.

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 20:55:44 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:

>Assume that the Allies break ENIGMA sooner and defeat WESERUBUNG in
>April (it's over by 18 April), and in the next three weeks Belgium and
>the Netherlands decide to coordinate defense with the Allies. (Persuaded
>in part by further ENIGMA decrypts which reveal the German attack
>plans.)

In OTL Norway is invaded on April 9, 1940. I am highly skeptical
Hitler would have attempted Weserubung if he thought there was any
possibility at all he would lose in 9 days. If he thought that then he
would have taken those troops and put them into the invasion of France
and the Low Countries making his attack even stronger.

>What with one thing and another, the Allies halt the German attack by
>mid-June. Combined with the Norway fiasco, this discredits Hitler. The
>Schwarz Kapelle overthrow him in July and initiate peace talks.

I have argued in SHWI and AHWI for years that if France had had 100
anti-tank guns concentrated on the Meuse around Sedan in May 1940 that
Guderian wouldn't have gotten across the river much less getting to
Abbeville or Dunkirk.

Once that happens Hitler probably reverts to something like his
original attack plan on France involving winning a massive war of
attrition in a Schlieffen plan type sweep.

I'm skeptical it works and you might well get a military coup but
that's far beyond my speculative skill. (I do think that if Hitler
gets into a WW1 type trench system he's risking a coup)

>Knock-ons:
>
>The war crisis is all but ended, and FDR decides not to run for a third
>term. Who gets the nomination?

Willkie obviously :) :) :)

Obviously you mean the Democrat nomination and in this case I don't
see Wallace ever becoming within a heartbeat of the presidency. That
leaves Barkley almost by default since Garner would be perceived as
too old while Sam Rayburn would not be seen as old enough yet.

>Chamberlain, not discredited in Norway, does not resign until after the
>war is won (when his health fails). Churchill never becomes PM. Britain
>has an election in late 1940. Would the Conservatives win _again_?

Uh Chamberlain knew he had cancer by May 1940 - that was the main
reason he didn't fight harder to keep the prime ministership in 1940.
One thing I do NOT know is when Chamberlain got his diagnosis though I
strongly suspect from his actions it was after October 1938 since he
showed no sign of physical or other weakness at Munich. (I'm not
saying I support Chamberlain's actions there but they were clearly not
those of a man who expected to be dead only a little more than two
years hence)

>There is a crisis over Poland. Poland is restored in its German-occupied
>zone; the Allies and Germany then demand that the USSR withdraw from the
>remainder of Poland. After some haggling, Stalin agrees. The bad showing
>of the Red Army in Finland worries him. And on the other hand, the
>Allies don't demand withdrawal from the Baltic states, the Karelian
>territory seized from Finland, or Bessarabia (seized from Romania).
>Stalin takes his limited gains and backs out of Poland. He starts
>looking at the Far East for opportunities. Japan has no friends at all.

Catch is without a seaport Poland is basically either a German
satellite or a joint German-Soviet satellite. Even if Germany "only"
regains her 1914 boundary in the east Poland is not viable
economically - which was the whole reason for the Danzig corridor in
the first place. For me this is THE question mark in your scenario.

Obviously Poland's loss of her eastern territories and gain of German
territories (as per OTL 1944-45) would never have happened had not
Stalin had complete control over the postwar Polish regime.

In your scenario Poland has no realistic hope at all of any kind of
long term independence. And I definitely do not see a latter day Maria
Walewska having much sway with Hitler!

>What does Japan do now? Especially if Britain, the US, and the
>Netherlands embargo oil? If Japan attacks Britain, even if the US
>remains neutral, it's one on one (with Japan already bogged down in
>China) and the USSR looming ominously.

Japan declares victory in China and withdraws 20-50 miles and no more.

I have no idea how you might un-rape Nanking or undo the damage in
Peking. Whether the Japanese economy can survive this scenario is the
$64000 question.

>Even if Japan attacks, it is unlikely to inflict a humiliating defeat on
>Britain or France, which OTL undermined their dominance of their
>colonial subjects.

The occupation of French Indochina was pretty much a done deal from
the time Japan told the French what the new order in that part of the
world meant. If France had not "fallen" Japan would not dare disturb
the 1938-39 status quo in Indochina.

>There will be no interruption of Dutch colonial rule in the East Indies.
>
>Nor of French rule in Indochina.

If Germany attacks in the west and the Netherlands remains occupied
(I'm thinking of something like a front line from Antwerp to Sedan)
then a Japanese attack on the DEI is possible though Japan is
completely FUBARred if Germany subsequently makes peace with Britain
and France.

My question to you is what do you think is happening with Italy in
this scenario? If (as I think) the answer is nothing then they
continue to hold Libya and Ethiopia - given that in OTL at no point
did Britain ever attempt to prevent Italian sea access to Ethiopia
until they were at war with Italy.

>The USSR may be stronger than OTL, avoiding the enormous demographic
>losses and material devastation of OTL. Of course it has none of the
>credit by fighting on the Allied side, and retains the discredit of
>its quasi-alliance with Nazi Germany.

Not necessarily ACTUALLY but definitely in prestige since with no
Winter War disaster they're considered much stronger. I would say they
still take the Baltic states pretty much as per OTL. After all in this
timeline if they are seriously worried about Germany (and Stalin
should be) it would be catastrophic for Germany to get Lithuania and
Latvia even if they don't take Estonia.

>Italy (which has a colonial empire) has been neutral and is untouched.
>Abyssinia, Libya, and the Dodecanese remain Italian possessions, and
>Italy remains in occupation of Albania.
>
>India... there will be no Bengal Famine, and less hostility between the
>INC and the British; the Moslem League less influential. Partition may
>be avoided.

Definitely in your scenario there would be no fighting vs the Japanese
which means no broadcasts into India by Subhas Chandra Bose. (I'm
pretty sure in a no-war scenario the Japanese wouldn't allow him
anywhere near a microphone) As such he never returns to India and dies
in obscurity in exile.

I would be interested in your opinion on the fate of the Grand Mufti
of Jerusalem and what that might mean postwar with respect to
Arab-Israeli relations (or whether in this scenario there is an Israel
to have relations with!)

>The French Third Republic continues. De Gaulle never comes to power.
>(Even if he is the hero general of the war, which he might be, he's very
>unlikely to transition to a political role like OTL head of Free
>France.)

Well no - why would there be an end to the Third Republic in 1940
without a French defeat? It certainly survived the 1917 French mutiny.

>Unless there is a Pacific War against Japan, the US remains... not so
>much isolationist, as isolated. There will be no mass US Army, raised by
>conscription, and US forces will not be deployed around the world. The
>US will not be a founding member of the United Nations with a permanent
>seat on the Security Council; it will remain a non-member of the League
>of Nations.

If your scenario continues it would not be unlikely that Canada could
have a larger army than the United States by the end of 1940. Which
probably means economic crisis for Canada in 1941 if there is little
active fighting between Britain and Germany. (Canada never fought in
North Africa though she definitely did in Italy and in your scenario
there's no North African front)

>The League of Nations will stagger onward, preserved from complete
>irrelevance by the issues raised regarding the "mandatory" territories,
>especially Palestine.

Would the League have any relevance at all by the end of 1940 in this
scenario? Given the level of credibility it had in September 1939 I am
massively skeptical.

About the only thing you can be sure of is that in a scenario like
this Kaiser William II dies on schedule in Holland though his sons
probably DON'T enlist in the German military. (I could be mistaken but
I don't think they enlisted before 22/6/1941)

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:09:49 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 6:55:47 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> On 6/15/21 6:57 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>> Knock-ons:
>>
>> The war crisis is all but ended, and FDR decides not to run for a third
>> term. Who gets the nomination?
>>
>
>Cordell Hull? Or maybe some dark horse from the US Congress? Though if the war is formally over by November, the GOP might win that year's election.

Hull would definitely be an interesting candidate - I had forgotten
about him.

>> Chamberlain, not discredited in Norway, does not resign until after the
>> war is won (when his health fails). Churchill never becomes PM. Britain
>> has an election in late 1940. Would the Conservatives win _again_?

In OTL Chamberlain DIES in November 1940 and given it's of cancer it
is unlikely to be delayed especially if he stays in office. We all
know the primary candidates in OTL in May 1940 were Churchill and
Halifax and I frankly don't see even if Britain is at peace by
Chamberlain's death the Conservative party accepting a PM from the
Lords PARTICULARLY since they know that with peace they're committed
to having a general election in late 1940. (The last election had been
in 1935 and without a war there would be no reason to postpone it) In
a short war scenario like this having a PM in the Lords would in my
opinion be the ONLY way the Conservatives could lose to Labour in
1940.

I am frankly skeptical Clement Attlee has any hope of winning an
election in 1940 regardless of whether Britain is at peace or war. I'm
NOT saying Labour couldn't win an election in 1940 I'm saying they
couldn't win with Attlee. Not without the British public's privations
of 5-6 years of war - in your scenario Britain ISN'T bankrupt and
dependent on Lend Lease. Not yet (in our timeline Britain wasn't
economically dependent on US aid till 1941-42. And there's no question
FDR engineered things to prevent a UK economic recovery post war
essentially reducing Britain to first amongst equals in Europe by
1945)

>Possibly not, because Brits might believe that the party to lead them during war is not necessarily the best suited to lead them during peacetime. Though it's uncertain, IMHO.
>
>> There is a crisis over Poland. Poland is restored in its German-occupied
>> zone; the Allies and Germany then demand that the USSR withdraw from the
>> remainder of Poland. After some haggling, Stalin agrees. The bad showing
>> of the Red Army in Finland worries him. And on the other hand, the
>> Allies don't demand withdrawal from the Baltic states, the Karelian
>> territory seized from Finland, or Bessarabia (seized from Romania).
>> Stalin takes his limited gains and backs out of Poland. He starts
>> looking at the Far East for opportunities. Japan has no friends at all.

Again I remain highly skeptical Stalin would behave that way. My main
question about Stalin is whether he's on the ball enough to grab the
Baltics quick enough in this scenario. If there's an early armistice
in the west he might well not be.
>Given the shape of Poland's eastern border, IMHO, it would make sense for the West to at least demand Stalin's withdrawal from Lithuania. Else, there would be a giant Polish salient surrounded on Soviet territory by three sides. And of course once one demands Lithuanian freedom, it might look bad not to ask for Latvian and Estonian freedom as well.
>
>Also, Germany might insist on Danzig (though maybe Poland gets to permanently keep Danzig's port facilities, with Germany having to build new ones elsewhere) as compensation for building a common front with the Anglo-French in regards to Poland. Also having to pay no or minimal reparations. I wonder if Germany could try getting Eupen and *maybe* parts of Malmedy from Belgium as well, at least for a particular sum of money. AFAIK, Germany was willing to purchase them back in 1926, but France vetoed this deal. Though with Germany just invading Belgium, that would be a hard sell to the Belgian people, most likely. At least Danzig wasn't actually a part of Poland.

Again in this scenario Poland is also economically crippled and
essentially becomes a German protectorate - albeit quite a large one!

>> Even if Japan attacks, it is unlikely to inflict a humiliating defeat on
>> Britain or France, which OTL undermined their dominance of their
>> colonial subjects.

So you are suggesting a Japanese attack on British / French colonies
in the Pacific? That gets an American economic embargo in near record
time which devastates the Japanese economy particularly with respect
to oil. In 1940-41 Japan basically had two potential sources of oil -
the Dutch East Indies and the United States and we all know how in OTL
Japan chose to get more oil!

>> There will be no interruption of Dutch colonial rule in the East Indies.
>>
>> Nor of French rule in Indochina.
>>
>> The USSR may be stronger than OTL, avoiding the enormous demographic
>> losses and material devastation of OTL.
>
>These demographic losses were to some extent compensated by the Soviet Union's 1939-1940 territorial gains, which at least mostly won't happen here, as per your scenario. The Soviet Union had around 170 million people at the start of 1939, and again around 170 million people at the end of World War II in 1945. But the Soviet Union was a bit larger between January 1939 and May 1945 due to its territorial expansion during this time.

GIven the economic losses caused in the west vs Germany I am highly
doubtful Poland could keep their eastern frontier even if Stalin
doesn't sorta join the Axis (as per OTL).

Having finished Stephen Kotkin's second book about 2-3 months ago I
think he's more than demonstrated Stalin had no love lost for Poland.
And THAT is an understatement. I don't see Hitler guaranteeing the
Polish eastern border in this scenario which is about the only way
they COULD keep it given their losses in the west.
>Though it's worth noting that some of the new Soviet citizens, such as Galicians, weren't exactly loyal to the Soviet Union, to put it mildly.
>
>> Of course it has none of the
>> credit by fighting on the Allied side, and retains the discredit of
>> its quasi-alliance with Nazi Germany.
>>
>
>Yep.
>
>> Italy (which has a colonial empire) has been neutral and is untouched.
>> Abyssinia, Libya, and the Dodecanese remain Italian possessions, and
>> Italy remains in occupation of Albania.
>>
>
>Yep.
>
>> India... there will be no Bengal Famine, and less hostility between the
>> INC and the British; the Moslem League less influential. Partition may
>> be avoided.
>>
>
>What percentage odds would you give on partition being avoided, Rich? 75%?
>
>> The French Third Republic continues. De Gaulle never comes to power.
>> (Even if he is the hero general of the war, which he might be, he's very
>> unlikely to transition to a political role like OTL head of Free
>> France.)
>>
>
>Agreed.
>
>> Unless there is a Pacific War against Japan, the US remains... not so
>> much isolationist, as isolated. There will be no mass US Army, raised by
>> conscription, and US forces will not be deployed around the world. The
>> US will not be a founding member of the United Nations with a permanent
>> seat on the Security Council; it will remain a non-member of the League
>> of Nations.
>>
>
>Can the US perhaps join the LoN in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s if the Anglo-French make a serious attempt to revive the LoN in the post-WWII era in this TL?
>
>> The League of Nations will stagger onward, preserved from complete
>> irrelevance by the issues raised regarding the "mandatory" territories,
>> especially Palestine.
>>
>
>What will Palestine's ultimate fate be in this TL? On the one hand, there will be plenty of Jews in Europe who would have survived forced ghettoization and whatnot at the hands of the Nazis. But on the other hand, the Nazis likely wouldn't have actually managed to begin the mass murder of Jews before they would have gotten overthrown by the SK, which might cause European Jews to view this as simply another tragic but survivable page in their history in Europe. So, just how many European Jews will actually want to move to Palestine? The Soviet Union's Jews likely won't be able to emigrate for a while, but even if "only" 10-30% of Poland's total Jews will actually want to emigrate, that would still be between 300,000 and 1 million Polish Jews--and of course this does not include European Jews in countries other than Poland and the Soviet Union.
>
>And just what does the future have in store for places such as French Indochina, French Algeria, et cetera?
>
>> --
>> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
>> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:13:22 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
wrote:

>If something like half a million Polish Jews want to immigrate to Palestine after the war (500,000 is in between 300,000 and 1 million--so, a good midpoint of sorts), then the Zionist movement in Palestine should still get a GIANT boost. And of course you could maybe add up to half a million Jews in other European countries as well--though maybe that's too optimistic, so let's say 100,000-200,000 non-Polish and non-Soviet Jews would also want to immigrate to Palestine--so you could have quite a lot of young Zionist Jews-in-waiting in Europe after the end of World War II in this scenario. And of course once the Soviet Union will eventually open its own doors, a lot of Soviet Jews could move to Palestine (or Israel) as well, especially if they would be unable to move to the US, Canada, Australia, or Western Europe--similar to real life.

If in this scenario there's no Holocaust that means 3.5-5 million
Polish Jews who chose NOT to go to Palestine post war.

That would have a huge impact on postwar events whether these people
(who in OTL were murdered by the Nazis) stayed in Poland or not.

The other thing to bear in mind is that in OTL 70-80+% of all Jews who
murdered by the Nazis were murdered before the end of 1942 - e.g.
while Germany (in OTL) was still winning.

On 6/16/21 8:11 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> On 6/15/2021 5:57 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>> What would the developing world (Third World) have looked like in a TL
>> where France doesn't fall to the Nazis in 1940?
>
> Why. On Earth. Do. You. Think. That. Would. Make. Any. Difference.
> Outside. POSSIBLY. Indochina.
>
> Japan is not dependent upon France's fall to join the Axis...

If France does not fall, Germany very probably overthrows Hitler
and ends the war (and the Axis). The alternative being to
re-fight WW I on much less favorable terms. There is very
considerable documentation showing that just about everyone
of importance in Germany saw it that way.
> and the US
> is already trying to deny her petroleum and iron...

In 1940, the US embargoed scrap iron and aviation fuel only.

> the only question is whether a
> still-free France will be enough to make Hitler rightly refuse to
> declare war against the US once Japan does.

Why. On Earth. Do. You. Think. that Japan is
certain to go to war in the same way?

> Italy _MIGHT_ be dependent upon that fall...

Since OTL Mussolini remained neutral until France
was crushed, in spite of the Axis, there is no
might about about it.
> There is absolutely no possible way that your change keeps the US
> isolationist into the 1970s, which is what you would need to keep them
> out of Korea...

If the Hitler War ends long before the US gets
directly invoved, even before the US starts
expanding its army or Lend-Lease, then the US
remains on the sidelines. _Unless_ Japan provokes
a full-scale Pacific War, there is no way the
U.S. has troops in Korea.

> Of course, there's the possibility that you're suggesting the war ends
> in a German surrender before December '41, but you know that Britain and
> France are _already_ going to be demanding unconditional surrender...

Britain and France made no such demand in 1939-1940.
Nor (IMO) is it likely they would demand it if Germany
overthrows Hitler and wants to end the war.

They don't want to destroy Germany as a military power,
because Germany is needed to counter the threat of the
USSR. (By 1943, when the unconditional surrender demand
came out, the US and UK were allied with the USSR.)

> As for the Soviet Union, you more likely just _increased_ its influence
> rather than decreased it.

In some ways. The USSR does not occupy and reduce to
satellites the OTL Warsaw Pact countries. Nor does the
USSR gain the prestige of defeating Nazi Germany.
Instead it has the embarrassment of being a Nazi ally.

> You have tens of millions of extra living Soviet subjects...

True. And the destruction of OTL is avoided, and the
vast expenditure of the OTL war. OTOH, Germany and
Japan are not crushed and the Soviet army has not
been refined by war into the might force of OTL.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 1:11:58 AM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 20:55:44 -0500, Rich Rostrom
> <rros...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Assume that the Allies break ENIGMA sooner and defeat WESERUBUNG in
> >April (it's over by 18 April), and in the next three weeks Belgium and
> >the Netherlands decide to coordinate defense with the Allies. (Persuaded
> >in part by further ENIGMA decrypts which reveal the German attack
> >plans.)
> In OTL Norway is invaded on April 9, 1940. I am highly skeptical
> Hitler would have attempted Weserubung if he thought there was any
> possibility at all he would lose in 9 days. If he thought that then he
> would have taken those troops and put them into the invasion of France
> and the Low Countries making his attack even stronger.
> >What with one thing and another, the Allies halt the German attack by
> >mid-June. Combined with the Norway fiasco, this discredits Hitler. The
> >Schwarz Kapelle overthrow him in July and initiate peace talks.
> I have argued in SHWI and AHWI for years that if France had had 100
> anti-tank guns concentrated on the Meuse around Sedan in May 1940 that
> Guderian wouldn't have gotten across the river much less getting to
> Abbeville or Dunkirk.
>
> Once that happens Hitler probably reverts to something like his
> original attack plan on France involving winning a massive war of
> attrition in a Schlieffen plan type sweep.
>
> I'm skeptical it works and you might well get a military coup but
> that's far beyond my speculative skill. (I do think that if Hitler
> gets into a WW1 type trench system he's risking a coup)
> >Knock-ons:
> >
> >The war crisis is all but ended, and FDR decides not to run for a third
> >term. Who gets the nomination?
> Willkie obviously :) :) :)
>

But I thought that Willkie's chances were boosted by the war?

> Obviously you mean the Democrat nomination and in this case I don't
> see Wallace ever becoming within a heartbeat of the presidency. That
> leaves Barkley almost by default since Garner would be perceived as
> too old while Sam Rayburn would not be seen as old enough yet.
> >Chamberlain, not discredited in Norway, does not resign until after the
> >war is won (when his health fails). Churchill never becomes PM. Britain
> >has an election in late 1940. Would the Conservatives win _again_?
> Uh Chamberlain knew he had cancer by May 1940 - that was the main
> reason he didn't fight harder to keep the prime ministership in 1940.
> One thing I do NOT know is when Chamberlain got his diagnosis though I
> strongly suspect from his actions it was after October 1938 since he
> showed no sign of physical or other weakness at Munich. (I'm not
> saying I support Chamberlain's actions there but they were clearly not
> those of a man who expected to be dead only a little more than two
> years hence)
> >There is a crisis over Poland. Poland is restored in its German-occupied
> >zone; the Allies and Germany then demand that the USSR withdraw from the
> >remainder of Poland. After some haggling, Stalin agrees. The bad showing
> >of the Red Army in Finland worries him. And on the other hand, the
> >Allies don't demand withdrawal from the Baltic states, the Karelian
> >territory seized from Finland, or Bessarabia (seized from Romania).
> >Stalin takes his limited gains and backs out of Poland. He starts
> >looking at the Far East for opportunities. Japan has no friends at all.
> Catch is without a seaport Poland is basically either a German
> satellite or a joint German-Soviet satellite. Even if Germany "only"
> regains her 1914 boundary in the east Poland is not viable
> economically - which was the whole reason for the Danzig corridor in
> the first place. For me this is THE question mark in your scenario.
>

I don't think that the Anglo-French are going to settle for anything less than a restoration of Poland's pre-war borders. Maybe they would also insist on allowing Poland to permanently control Danzig's port facilities.

> Obviously Poland's loss of her eastern territories and gain of German
> territories (as per OTL 1944-45) would never have happened had not
> Stalin had complete control over the postwar Polish regime.
>
> In your scenario Poland has no realistic hope at all of any kind of
> long term independence. And I definitely do not see a latter day Maria
> Walewska having much sway with Hitler!

If Poland gets its pre-war borders restored and has permanent control of Danzig's port facilities, then things should go rather well for Poland, no?

> >What does Japan do now? Especially if Britain, the US, and the
> >Netherlands embargo oil? If Japan attacks Britain, even if the US
> >remains neutral, it's one on one (with Japan already bogged down in
> >China) and the USSR looming ominously.
> Japan declares victory in China and withdraws 20-50 miles and no more.
>
> I have no idea how you might un-rape Nanking or undo the damage in
> Peking. Whether the Japanese economy can survive this scenario is the
> $64000 question.
> >Even if Japan attacks, it is unlikely to inflict a humiliating defeat on
> >Britain or France, which OTL undermined their dominance of their
> >colonial subjects.
> The occupation of French Indochina was pretty much a done deal from
> the time Japan told the French what the new order in that part of the
> world meant. If France had not "fallen" Japan would not dare disturb
> the 1938-39 status quo in Indochina.
> >There will be no interruption of Dutch colonial rule in the East Indies.
> >
> >Nor of French rule in Indochina.
> If Germany attacks in the west and the Netherlands remains occupied
> (I'm thinking of something like a front line from Antwerp to Sedan)
> then a Japanese attack on the DEI is possible though Japan is
> completely FUBARred if Germany subsequently makes peace with Britain
> and France.
>
> My question to you is what do you think is happening with Italy in
> this scenario? If (as I think) the answer is nothing then they
> continue to hold Libya and Ethiopia - given that in OTL at no point
> did Britain ever attempt to prevent Italian sea access to Ethiopia
> until they were at war with Italy.
> >The USSR may be stronger than OTL, avoiding the enormous demographic
> >losses and material devastation of OTL. Of course it has none of the
> >credit by fighting on the Allied side, and retains the discredit of
> >its quasi-alliance with Nazi Germany.
> Not necessarily ACTUALLY but definitely in prestige since with no
> Winter War disaster they're considered much stronger.

The Winter War occurred before the Fall of France.

> I would say they
> still take the Baltic states pretty much as per OTL. After all in this
> timeline if they are seriously worried about Germany (and Stalin
> should be) it would be catastrophic for Germany to get Lithuania and
> Latvia even if they don't take Estonia.

If the Soviets get the Baltic states, then subsequently withdrawing from eastern Poland might be difficult for the Soviets.

> >Italy (which has a colonial empire) has been neutral and is untouched.
> >Abyssinia, Libya, and the Dodecanese remain Italian possessions, and
> >Italy remains in occupation of Albania.
> >
> >India... there will be no Bengal Famine, and less hostility between the
> >INC and the British; the Moslem League less influential. Partition may
> >be avoided.
> Definitely in your scenario there would be no fighting vs the Japanese
> which means no broadcasts into India by Subhas Chandra Bose. (I'm
> pretty sure in a no-war scenario the Japanese wouldn't allow him
> anywhere near a microphone) As such he never returns to India and dies
> in obscurity in exile.
>
> I would be interested in your opinion on the fate of the Grand Mufti
> of Jerusalem and what that might mean postwar with respect to
> Arab-Israeli relations (or whether in this scenario there is an Israel
> to have relations with!)
> >The French Third Republic continues. De Gaulle never comes to power.
> >(Even if he is the hero general of the war, which he might be, he's very
> >unlikely to transition to a political role like OTL head of Free
> >France.)
> Well no - why would there be an end to the Third Republic in 1940
> without a French defeat? It certainly survived the 1917 French mutiny.
> >Unless there is a Pacific War against Japan, the US remains... not so
> >much isolationist, as isolated. There will be no mass US Army, raised by
> >conscription, and US forces will not be deployed around the world. The
> >US will not be a founding member of the United Nations with a permanent
> >seat on the Security Council; it will remain a non-member of the League
> >of Nations.
> If your scenario continues it would not be unlikely that Canada could
> have a larger army than the United States by the end of 1940. Which
> probably means economic crisis for Canada in 1941 if there is little
> active fighting between Britain and Germany. (Canada never fought in
> North Africa though she definitely did in Italy and in your scenario
> there's no North African front)
> >The League of Nations will stagger onward, preserved from complete
> >irrelevance by the issues raised regarding the "mandatory" territories,
> >especially Palestine.
> Would the League have any relevance at all by the end of 1940 in this
> scenario? Given the level of credibility it had in September 1939 I am
> massively skeptical.
>

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 6/16/21 8:11 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> > On 6/15/2021 5:57 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> >> What would the developing world (Third World) have looked like in a TL
> >> where France doesn't fall to the Nazis in 1940?
> >
> > Why. On Earth. Do. You. Think. That. Would. Make. Any. Difference.
> > Outside. POSSIBLY. Indochina.
> >
> > Japan is not dependent upon France's fall to join the Axis...
>
> If France does not fall, Germany very probably overthrows Hitler
> and ends the war (and the Axis). The alternative being to
> re-fight WW I on much less favorable terms. There is very
> considerable documentation showing that just about everyone
> of importance in Germany saw it that way.
> > and the US
> > is already trying to deny her petroleum and iron...
>
> In 1940, the US embargoed scrap iron and aviation fuel only.
> > the only question is whether a
> > still-free France will be enough to make Hitler rightly refuse to
> > declare war against the US once Japan does.
> Why. On Earth. Do. You. Think. that Japan is
> certain to go to war in the same way?
>
> > Italy _MIGHT_ be dependent upon that fall...
>
> Since OTL Mussolini remained neutral until France
> was crushed, in spite of the Axis, there is no
> might about about it.
> > There is absolutely no possible way that your change keeps the US
> > isolationist into the 1970s, which is what you would need to keep them
> > out of Korea...
>
> If the Hitler War ends long before the US gets
> directly invoved, even before the US starts
> expanding its army or Lend-Lease, then the US
> remains on the sidelines. _Unless_ Japan provokes
> a full-scale Pacific War, there is no way the
> U.S. has troops in Korea.
> > Of course, there's the possibility that you're suggesting the war ends
> > in a German surrender before December '41, but you know that Britain and
> > France are _already_ going to be demanding unconditional surrender...
>
> Britain and France made no such demand in 1939-1940.
> Nor (IMO) is it likely they would demand it if Germany
> overthrows Hitler and wants to end the war.
>
> They don't want to destroy Germany as a military power,
> because Germany is needed to counter the threat of the
> USSR. (By 1943, when the unconditional surrender demand
> came out, the US and UK were allied with the USSR.)

And there was presumably the belief (even back in 1942-1943) that the United States would have to remain militarily involved in any post-World War II order in Europe, thus eliminating the need for having a strong Germany to counter the Soviet Union. This won't be the case in this TL.

> > As for the Soviet Union, you more likely just _increased_ its influence
> > rather than decreased it.
> In some ways. The USSR does not occupy and reduce to
> satellites the OTL Warsaw Pact countries. Nor does the
> USSR gain the prestige of defeating Nazi Germany.
> Instead it has the embarrassment of being a Nazi ally.
>
> > You have tens of millions of extra living Soviet subjects...
>
> True. And the destruction of OTL is avoided, and the
> vast expenditure of the OTL war. OTOH, Germany and
> Japan are not crushed and the Soviet army has not
> been refined by war into the might force of OTL.
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On 6/19/21 3:11 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 20:55:44 -0500, Rich Rostrom
> <rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Assume that the Allies break ENIGMA sooner and defeat WESERUBUNG in
>> April (it's over by 18 April), and in the next three weeks Belgium and
>> the Netherlands decide to coordinate defense with the Allies. (Persuaded
>> in part by further ENIGMA decrypts which reveal the German attack
>> plans.)
>
> In OTL Norway is invaded on April 9, 1940. I am highly skeptical
> Hitler would have attempted Weserubung if he thought there was any
> possibility at all he would lose in 9 days.
WESERUBUNG could have failed in _one_ day. It was
a very risky operation, and succeeded because the
Norwegians were completely surprised and the Allies
were surprised enough not to intervene immediately.

> I'm skeptical it works and you might well get a military coup but
> that's far beyond my speculative skill. (I do think that if Hitler
> gets into a WW1 type trench system he's risking a coup)
The general feeling in the German high command was
Germany's long term strategic position was hopeless;
the best Germany could hope for was eventual defeat
after another horrific war of attrition.

Halder supported FALL GELB and SICHELSCHNITT as the
only plan to offer any hope of avoiding that outcome.

If FALL GELB fails to win, then the consensus in
Germany will be that continuing the war will be
a disaster. Since Hitler wouldn't make peace, and
the Allies wouldn't deal with him anyway, Hitler
has to go.

>> Knock-ons:
>>
>> The war crisis is all but ended, and FDR decides not to run for a third
>> term. Who gets the nomination?
>
> Willkie obviously :) :) :)
> Obviously you mean the Democrat nomination and in this case I don't
> see Wallace ever becoming within a heartbeat of the presidency. That
> leaves Barkley...
Alben Barkley? Not a serious candidate for the 1940 nomination.
He might have been the VP nominee.

> almost by default since Garner would be perceived as
> too old...
Garner was too old and his campaign for the nomination
(while FDR hadn't said what he would do) was a near-
complete fizzle.

> while Sam Rayburn would not be seen as old enough yet.

AFAIK, Rayburn had no interest in leaving the House.

> Uh Chamberlain knew he had cancer by May 1940...
Wiki sez that the cancer was diagnosed only in July,
and that the diagnosis was withheld him from him.

He had continued to work, as Lord President of the
Council, an important cabinet post, and a member of
the War Cabinet.

> Catch is without a seaport Poland is basically either a German
> satellite or a joint German-Soviet satellite.
Poland gets the corridor and Gdynia back.

> If Germany attacks in the west and the Netherlands remains occupied..
The war is over. Germany pulls out of all occupied
territories.
> My question to you is what do you think is happening with Italy in
> this scenario? If (as I think) the answer is nothing then they
> continue to hold Libya and Ethiopia...
I wrote:

>> Italy (which has a colonial empire) has been neutral and is untouched.
>> Abyssinia, Libya, and the Dodecanese remain Italian possessions, and
>> Italy remains in occupation of Albania.>
>> The USSR may be stronger than OTL...
>
> Not necessarily ACTUALLY but definitely in prestige since with no
> Winter War disaster they're considered much stronger.
The Winter War was in 1939-1940. It was over
before the German attack on France.

> I would say they still take the Baltic states pretty much as per OTL.
As I wrote. the USSR imposed treaties on the Baltics in 1939, and
Soviet troops entered in June 1940.
>> India... there will be no Bengal Famine, and less hostility between the
>> INC and the British; the Moslem League less influential. Partition may
>> be avoided.
>
> Definitely in your scenario there would be no fighting vs the Japanese
> which means no broadcasts into India by Subhas Chandra Bose.
Bose is in India under British surveillance. He escaped in January 1941
OTL.
>> Unless there is a Pacific War against Japan, the US remains... not so
>> much isolationist, as isolated. There will be no mass US Army, raised by
>> conscription, and US forces will not be deployed around the world. The
>> US will not be a founding member of the United Nations with a permanent
>> seat on the Security Council; it will remain a non-member of the League
>> of Nations.
>
> If your scenario continues it would not be unlikely that Canada could
> have a larger army than the United States by the end of 1940.
By the end of 1940, the Hitler War is over and Canada
has demobilized.

> Would the League have any relevance at all by the end of 1940 in this
> scenario? Given the level of credibility it had in September 1939 I am
> massively skeptical.
The League is still the nominal authority behind
the Mandates. There is no one to pass this off to.
Also, perhaps, the League might be given a role in
the post-Hitler-War settlement, to give it a patina
of "international" legitimacy.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On 6/19/2021 2:11 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 20:55:44 -0500, Rich Rostrom
> <rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Assume that the Allies break ENIGMA sooner and defeat WESERUBUNG in
>> April (it's over by 18 April), and in the next three weeks Belgium and
>> the Netherlands decide to coordinate defense with the Allies. (Persuaded
>> in part by further ENIGMA decrypts which reveal the German attack
>> plans.)
>
> In OTL Norway is invaded on April 9, 1940. I am highly skeptical
> Hitler would have attempted Weserubung if he thought there was any
> possibility at all he would lose in 9 days. If he thought that then he
> would have taken those troops and put them into the invasion of France
> and the Low Countries making his attack even stronger.
>
>> What with one thing and another, the Allies halt the German attack by
>> mid-June. Combined with the Norway fiasco, this discredits Hitler. The
>> Schwarz Kapelle overthrow him in July and initiate peace talks.
>
> I have argued in SHWI and AHWI for years that if France had had 100
> anti-tank guns concentrated on the Meuse around Sedan in May 1940 that
> Guderian wouldn't have gotten across the river much less getting to
> Abbeville or Dunkirk.
>
> Once that happens Hitler probably reverts to something like his
> original attack plan on France involving winning a massive war of
> attrition in a Schlieffen plan type sweep.
>
> I'm skeptical it works and you might well get a military coup but
> that's far beyond my speculative skill. (I do think that if Hitler
> gets into a WW1 type trench system he's risking a coup)
>
>> Knock-ons:
>>
>> The war crisis is all but ended, and FDR decides not to run for a third
>> term. Who gets the nomination?
>
> Willkie obviously :) :) :)
>
> Obviously you mean the Democrat nomination and in this case I don't
> see Wallace ever becoming within a heartbeat of the presidency. That
> leaves Barkley almost by default since Garner would be perceived as
> too old while Sam Rayburn would not be seen as old enough yet.
>

I *know* you're only being facetious about Willkie but until 1939 he
thought of himself as a Dem (though unfortunately, he's already a
registered Republican by May of '40)

Depending on if it's soon enough that he can still be nominated by the
*D*NC rather than the RNC, could he wind up being the answer to your
"right" question anyway? The "good" news is that he obviously won't be
in position to select McNary under those circumstances, but how high is
the probability of selecting someone _else_ who creates a "no President,
no VP, therefore acting president and special election" situation? It's
not like a forgiven-and-nominated Willkie for the Dems would ever pick a
Wallace or Truman and I THINK there are plenty of who are either
already very ill or going to get there before 1944.

Worse, of course, is if Willkie is still nominated _by the GOP_. In the
absence of a running FDR, it may be the _Democrats_ who are virtually
guaranteed road kill in the general, and I don't think _either_ Willkie
or McNary could have had their lives prolonged beyond 1944 even by a
White House physician.

Does that prompt the 25th Amendment two decades early, and possibly even
while the OTL 22nd doesn't exist at all, or do they ignore it because it
only happened in what would already have been an election year?

Relatedly, does anyone know whether a Presidential-Succession-Act
triggered election would forever shift the Presidential election cycle
or whether it would be only for the duration of the deceased VP and
Presidents' terms?

Also, can I just say that even if it _is_ that far back, "Sam Rayburn is
not yet considered old enough" feels like a very disturbing statement,
considering how ridiculously old he's going to get while still serving
as a Senator?

>> Chamberlain, not discredited in Norway, does not resign until after the
>> war is won (when his health fails). Churchill never becomes PM. Britain
>> has an election in late 1940. Would the Conservatives win _again_?
>
> Uh Chamberlain knew he had cancer by May 1940 - that was the main
> reason he didn't fight harder to keep the prime ministership in 1940.
> One thing I do NOT know is when Chamberlain got his diagnosis though I
> strongly suspect from his actions it was after October 1938 since he
> showed no sign of physical or other weakness at Munich. (I'm not
> saying I support Chamberlain's actions there but they were clearly not
> those of a man who expected to be dead only a little more than two
> years hence)
>
>> There is a crisis over Poland. Poland is restored in its German-occupied
>> zone; the Allies and Germany then demand that the USSR withdraw from the
>> remainder of Poland. After some haggling, Stalin agrees. The bad showing
>> of the Red Army in Finland worries him. And on the other hand, the
>> Allies don't demand withdrawal from the Baltic states, the Karelian
>> territory seized from Finland, or Bessarabia (seized from Romania).
>> Stalin takes his limited gains and backs out of Poland. He starts
>> looking at the Far East for opportunities. Japan has no friends at all.
>
> Catch is without a seaport Poland is basically either a German
> satellite or a joint German-Soviet satellite. Even if Germany "only"
> regains her 1914 boundary in the east Poland is not viable
> economically - which was the whole reason for the Danzig corridor in
> the first place. For me this is THE question mark in your scenario.
>
> Obviously Poland's loss of her eastern territories and gain of German
> territories (as per OTL 1944-45) would never have happened had not
> Stalin had complete control over the postwar Polish regime.
>
> In your scenario Poland has no realistic hope at all of any kind of
> long term independence. And I definitely do not see a latter day Maria
> Walewska having much sway with Hitler!
>
>> What does Japan do now? Especially if Britain, the US, and the
>> Netherlands embargo oil? If Japan attacks Britain, even if the US
>> remains neutral, it's one on one (with Japan already bogged down in
>> China) and the USSR looming ominously.
>
> Japan declares victory in China and withdraws 20-50 miles and no more.
>
> I have no idea how you might un-rape Nanking or undo the damage in
> Peking. Whether the Japanese economy can survive this scenario is the
> $64000 question.
>
>> Even if Japan attacks, it is unlikely to inflict a humiliating defeat on
>> Britain or France, which OTL undermined their dominance of their
>> colonial subjects.
>
> The occupation of French Indochina was pretty much a done deal from
> the time Japan told the French what the new order in that part of the
> world meant. If France had not "fallen" Japan would not dare disturb
> the 1938-39 status quo in Indochina.
>
>> There will be no interruption of Dutch colonial rule in the East Indies.
>>
>> Nor of French rule in Indochina.
>
> If Germany attacks in the west and the Netherlands remains occupied
> (I'm thinking of something like a front line from Antwerp to Sedan)
> then a Japanese attack on the DEI is possible though Japan is
> completely FUBARred if Germany subsequently makes peace with Britain
> and France.
>
> My question to you is what do you think is happening with Italy in
> this scenario? If (as I think) the answer is nothing then they
> continue to hold Libya and Ethiopia - given that in OTL at no point
> did Britain ever attempt to prevent Italian sea access to Ethiopia
> until they were at war with Italy.
>
>> The USSR may be stronger than OTL, avoiding the enormous demographic
>> losses and material devastation of OTL. Of course it has none of the
>> credit by fighting on the Allied side, and retains the discredit of
>> its quasi-alliance with Nazi Germany.
>
> Not necessarily ACTUALLY but definitely in prestige since with no
> Winter War disaster they're considered much stronger. I would say they
> still take the Baltic states pretty much as per OTL. After all in this
> timeline if they are seriously worried about Germany (and Stalin
> should be) it would be catastrophic for Germany to get Lithuania and
> Latvia even if they don't take Estonia.
>
>> Italy (which has a colonial empire) has been neutral and is untouched.
>> Abyssinia, Libya, and the Dodecanese remain Italian possessions, and
>> Italy remains in occupation of Albania.
>>
>> India... there will be no Bengal Famine, and less hostility between the
>> INC and the British; the Moslem League less influential. Partition may
>> be avoided.
>
> Definitely in your scenario there would be no fighting vs the Japanese
> which means no broadcasts into India by Subhas Chandra Bose. (I'm
> pretty sure in a no-war scenario the Japanese wouldn't allow him
> anywhere near a microphone) As such he never returns to India and dies
> in obscurity in exile.
>
> I would be interested in your opinion on the fate of the Grand Mufti
> of Jerusalem and what that might mean postwar with respect to
> Arab-Israeli relations (or whether in this scenario there is an Israel
> to have relations with!)
>
>> The French Third Republic continues. De Gaulle never comes to power.
>> (Even if he is the hero general of the war, which he might be, he's very
>> unlikely to transition to a political role like OTL head of Free
>> France.)
>
> Well no - why would there be an end to the Third Republic in 1940
> without a French defeat? It certainly survived the 1917 French mutiny.
>
>> Unless there is a Pacific War against Japan, the US remains... not so
>> much isolationist, as isolated. There will be no mass US Army, raised by
>> conscription, and US forces will not be deployed around the world. The
>> US will not be a founding member of the United Nations with a permanent
>> seat on the Security Council; it will remain a non-member of the League
>> of Nations.
>
> If your scenario continues it would not be unlikely that Canada could
> have a larger army than the United States by the end of 1940. Which
> probably means economic crisis for Canada in 1941 if there is little
> active fighting between Britain and Germany. (Canada never fought in
> North Africa though she definitely did in Italy and in your scenario
> there's no North African front)
>
>> The League of Nations will stagger onward, preserved from complete
>> irrelevance by the issues raised regarding the "mandatory" territories,
>> especially Palestine.
>
> Would the League have any relevance at all by the end of 1940 in this
> scenario? Given the level of credibility it had in September 1939 I am
> massively skeptical.
>
> About the only thing you can be sure of is that in a scenario like
> this Kaiser William II dies on schedule in Holland though his sons
> probably DON'T enlist in the German military. (I could be mistaken but
> I don't think they enlisted before 22/6/1941)
>

On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 04:12:43 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:

>> Of course, there's the possibility that you're suggesting the war ends
>> in a German surrender before December '41, but you know that Britain and
>> France are _already_ going to be demanding unconditional surrender...
>
>Britain and France made no such demand in 1939-1940.
>Nor (IMO) is it likely they would demand it if Germany
>overthrows Hitler and wants to end the war.
>
>They don't want to destroy Germany as a military power,
>because Germany is needed to counter the threat of the
>USSR. (By 1943, when the unconditional surrender demand
>came out, the US and UK were allied with the USSR.)
>
Agreed - though Churchill DID tell both the French and FDR that the
war HAD to end on at least part of German soil else the Dolchstoss
myth would inevitably recur 10-20 years later. That's NOT
unconditional surrender but rather something akin to WW1 ends not on
11/11/1918 but 12/12/1918 (which has been discussed on SHWI numerous
times) with Belgium completely freed and both English and French on
German territory at which point an armistice is offered by the Allies.

On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 11:03:08 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> >The war crisis is all but ended, and FDR decides not to run for a third=
>=20
>> >term. Who gets the nomination?
>> Willkie obviously :) :) :)=20
>>=20
>
>But I thought that Willkie's chances were boosted by the war?

I was obviously making a jest about Wendell Willkie as that was
obviously a question about the Democrat nomination if FDR chose not to
seek a 3rd term.

>> Obviously you mean the Democrat nomination and in this case I don't=20
>> see Wallace ever becoming within a heartbeat of the presidency. That=20
>> leaves Barkley almost by default since Garner would be perceived as=20
>> too old while Sam Rayburn would not be seen as old enough yet.
>> >Chamberlain, not discredited in Norway, does not resign until after the=
>=20
>> >war is won (when his health fails). Churchill never becomes PM. Britain=
>=20
>> >has an election in late 1940. Would the Conservatives win _again_?
>> Uh Chamberlain knew he had cancer by May 1940 - that was the main=20
>> reason he didn't fight harder to keep the prime ministership in 1940.=20
>> One thing I do NOT know is when Chamberlain got his diagnosis though I=20
>> strongly suspect from his actions it was after October 1938 since he=20
>> showed no sign of physical or other weakness at Munich. (I'm not=20
>> saying I support Chamberlain's actions there but they were clearly not=20
>> those of a man who expected to be dead only a little more than two=20
>> years hence)

Again even if there is a peace before there's a serious German attack
on France Churchill has a very good chance of becoming PM since in
that case there would by law be a British election before the end of
1940 and Chamberlain CLEARLY knew he would not be in sufficient health
to fight it. Given you would probably have had a strong Labour party
than in 1935, to have the Conservatives with their PM in the House of
Lords would be the best possible news for Attlee.

And there's no doubt Churchill was the strong candidate IN THE
COMMONS.

>> >There is a crisis over Poland. Poland is restored in its German-occupied=
>=20
>> >zone; the Allies and Germany then demand that the USSR withdraw from the=
>=20
>> >remainder of Poland. After some haggling, Stalin agrees. The bad showing=
>=20
>> >of the Red Army in Finland worries him. And on the other hand, the=20
>> >Allies don't demand withdrawal from the Baltic states, the Karelian=20
>> >territory seized from Finland, or Bessarabia (seized from Romania).=20
>> >Stalin takes his limited gains and backs out of Poland. He starts=20
>> >looking at the Far East for opportunities. Japan has no friends at all.
>> Catch is without a seaport Poland is basically either a German=20
>> satellite or a joint German-Soviet satellite. Even if Germany "only"=20
>> regains her 1914 boundary in the east Poland is not viable=20
>> economically - which was the whole reason for the Danzig corridor in=20
>> the first place. For me this is THE question mark in your scenario.=20
>>=20
>
>I don't think that the Anglo-French are going to settle for anything less t=
>han a restoration of Poland's pre-war borders. Maybe they would also insist=
> on allowing Poland to permanently control Danzig's port facilities.

Given the 1939 balance of power in the East that would require
militarily crushing Germany.

>> Obviously Poland's loss of her eastern territories and gain of German=20
>> territories (as per OTL 1944-45) would never have happened had not=20
>> Stalin had complete control over the postwar Polish regime.=20
>>=20
>> In your scenario Poland has no realistic hope at all of any kind of=20
>> long term independence. And I definitely do not see a latter day Maria=20
>> Walewska having much sway with Hitler!
>
>If Poland gets its pre-war borders restored and has permanent control of Da=
>nzig's port facilities, then things should go rather well for Poland, no?

The original scenario called for German control of Danzig at the start
of the scenario. Short of German surrender how does that change?

And I do think a Poland without access to the Baltic is essentially a
German protectorate whether willingly or otherwise.

>> >What does Japan do now? Especially if Britain, the US, and the=20
>> >Netherlands embargo oil? If Japan attacks Britain, even if the US=20
>> >remains neutral, it's one on one (with Japan already bogged down in=20
>> >China) and the USSR looming ominously.

Turtledove's scenario of the Japanese attack on Vladivostok (in "The
War that Came Early") seems plausible to me. On the other hand most of
the Japan v. USSR scenarios I've seen assume the resources Japan so
desperately needs are right on the Manchurian frontier. They're NOT -
they're 1000+ km inland along the trans-Siberian railway. They're only
closer than that if you handwave a shorter transport route to Japan
into being.

As I've said about German control of Caucasus oil it's not enough to
possess the oilfields, one has to acquire or build the infrastructure
to transport these precious resources somewhere they can help Japan.
(Which in my opinion is at least as difficult as acquiring them in the
first place - it's not as if there's a Star Trek transporter beam
available!)

>> >The USSR may be stronger than OTL, avoiding the enormous demographic=20
>> >losses and material devastation of OTL. Of course it has none of the=20
>> >credit by fighting on the Allied side, and retains the discredit of=20
>> >its quasi-alliance with Nazi Germany.
>> Not necessarily ACTUALLY but definitely in prestige since with no=20
>> Winter War disaster they're considered much stronger.
>
>The Winter War occurred before the Fall of France.

Very true - and before Weserubung (the attack on Denmark and Norway)

Now notwithstanding Stalin's paranoia is there ANY chance at all that
an unattacked Finland would attack the USSR either as a German ally or
any other way? I strongly think not.

The main kicker is that artillery range had increased between the end
of the Russian civil war and 1939 and while Leningrad had not been in
artillery range of the border in 1923-24 it definitely was by 1939.

>> I would say they=20
>> still take the Baltic states pretty much as per OTL. After all in this=20
>> timeline if they are seriously worried about Germany (and Stalin=20
>> should be) it would be catastrophic for Germany to get Lithuania and=20
>> Latvia even if they don't take Estonia.
>
>If the Soviets get the Baltic states, then subsequently withdrawing from ea=
>stern Poland might be difficult for the Soviets.

Given Stalin's paranoia I'd be gobsmacked if he allowed their
independence to stand particularly if he had attacked Eastern Poland
which MIGHT have caused them to eventually join the Axis given the
right German offer.

And as I said German occupation of the Baltics (even if the USSR gets
Estonia) makes Soviet defence problematic.

>> Would the League have any relevance at all by the end of 1940 in this=20
>> scenario? Given the level of credibility it had in September 1939 I am=20
>> massively skeptical.=20
>>=20
>
>Britain and France can try restoring credibility to the League after the en=
>d of the war in this TL.

Please explain - I just don't see how

>By the way, what do you think happens to the Zionist movement in this TL? E=
>ven if "only" 10-30% of Poland's Jewish population actually wants to emigra=
>te, that's still 300,000 to 1 million Polish Jews! And this is not to menti=
>on the Jews in other European countries who would likewise want to emigrate=
>--albeit with Soviet Jews not being able to emigrate for a while. Still, ev=
>en from the Polish Jews alone, the Zionist movement could get a GIANT boost=
> in this TL!

That was one of my key points but there's no Israel without British
support and that depends on who is in power in the immediate postwar
period. If it's Attlee and there is no revulsion due to mass Jewish
atrocities I don't see them getting his support.

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 6:55:47 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 6/15/21 6:57 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> > What would the developing world (Third World) have looked like in a
> > TL where France doesn't fall to the Nazis in 1940? For instance, does
> > India still eventually get partitioned? Does decolonization still
> > eventually occur? If so, just how much is it delayed by? Does France
> > still eventually withdraw from both French Indochina and Algeria in
> > their entirety? Does the US avoid any large-scale foreign wars
> > outside of the Western Hemisphere in this scenario, such as in Korea,
> > Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Does the rise of Muslim
> > fundamentalism still occur in this scenario? Also, what about
> > Zionism? How exactly does it develop in this scenario? And is the
> > Soviet Union's presence and influence in the developing world (Third
> > World) in the late 20th century anywhere near as widespread in this
> > scenario as it was in real life? Also, which developing countries, if
> > any, actually become Communist in this scenario? Mongolia, but who
> > else? China? North Korea? Vietnam? Laos? Anyone else? If so, who
> > exactly?
> Assume that the Allies break ENIGMA sooner and defeat WESERUBUNG in
> April (it's over by 18 April), and in the next three weeks Belgium and
> the Netherlands decide to coordinate defense with the Allies. (Persuaded
> in part by further ENIGMA decrypts which reveal the German attack
> plans.)
>
> What with one thing and another, the Allies halt the German attack by
> mid-June. Combined with the Norway fiasco, this discredits Hitler. The
> Schwarz Kapelle overthrow him in July and initiate peace talks.
>
> Knock-ons:
>
> The war crisis is all but ended, and FDR decides not to run for a third
> term. Who gets the nomination?
>
> Chamberlain, not discredited in Norway, does not resign until after the
> war is won (when his health fails). Churchill never becomes PM. Britain
> has an election in late 1940. Would the Conservatives win _again_?
>
> There is a crisis over Poland. Poland is restored in its German-occupied
> zone; the Allies and Germany then demand that the USSR withdraw from the
> remainder of Poland. After some haggling, Stalin agrees. The bad showing
> of the Red Army in Finland worries him. And on the other hand, the
> Allies don't demand withdrawal from the Baltic states, the Karelian
> territory seized from Finland, or Bessarabia (seized from Romania).
> Stalin takes his limited gains and backs out of Poland. He starts
> looking at the Far East for opportunities. Japan has no friends at all.
>
> What does Japan do now? Especially if Britain, the US, and the
> Netherlands embargo oil? If Japan attacks Britain, even if the US
> remains neutral, it's one on one (with Japan already bogged down in
> China) and the USSR looming ominously.
>
> Even if Japan attacks, it is unlikely to inflict a humiliating defeat on
> Britain or France, which OTL undermined their dominance of their
> colonial subjects.
>
> There will be no interruption of Dutch colonial rule in the East Indies.
>
> Nor of French rule in Indochina.
>
> The USSR may be stronger than OTL, avoiding the enormous demographic
> losses and material devastation of OTL. Of course it has none of the
> credit by fighting on the Allied side, and retains the discredit of
> its quasi-alliance with Nazi Germany.
>
> Italy (which has a colonial empire) has been neutral and is untouched.
> Abyssinia, Libya, and the Dodecanese remain Italian possessions, and
> Italy remains in occupation of Albania.
>
> India... there will be no Bengal Famine, and less hostility between the
> INC and the British; the Moslem League less influential. Partition may
> be avoided.
>
> The French Third Republic continues. De Gaulle never comes to power.
> (Even if he is the hero general of the war, which he might be, he's very
> unlikely to transition to a political role like OTL head of Free
> France.)
>
> Unless there is a Pacific War against Japan, the US remains... not so
> much isolationist, as isolated. There will be no mass US Army, raised by
> conscription, and US forces will not be deployed around the world. The
> US will not be a founding member of the United Nations with a permanent
> seat on the Security Council; it will remain a non-member of the League
> of Nations.
>
> The League of Nations will stagger onward, preserved from complete
> irrelevance by the issues raised regarding the "mandatory" territories,
> especially Palestine.
>
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Just curious, Rich: What odds would you place on India still being partitioned in this TL? 25%? Less than that?

On 7/25/21 1:54 AM, WolfBear wrote:
> Just curious, Rich: What odds would you place on India
> still being partitioned in this TL? 25%? Less than that?

50/50. I really know very little about it.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.