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)
>

--
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!