AHC: With a PoD after April 1933, have France and Germany fight a war, and Britain stay entirely out of it

[sillygoose]

Bolding socialist doesn't make it a magic word that means the same thing in the French Party politics and USSR party politics. It's a broad church and widely used label, like, 'democratic','capitalist', 'popular', 'national', or 'religious'.

Ok semantics nazi.

 

[Buba]

They left the gold standard and free floated their currency, which is why it fell in value.

You are correct. "Mental shorthand" on my part, equating "free float" with "devaluation", as inside three years the FF lost 50% or so in value.

 

[Firebat]

If it is large enough they would just abandon the country as they did in 1946 since they couldn't hold it.

In 1946 Great Britain was completely exhausted by WW2, heavily dependent on US to keep them afloat. "Just abandoning" India without a fight is not going to happen without Britain being completely broken by the world war first.

If they were not bad enough to abandon the country they'd handle it like they did in 1942:

Again, you are trying to apply 1942 circumstances to the pre-war situation. British Indian army has experienced an explosive growth during WW2, reaching more than ten times of their pre-war numbers. The troops that have suppressed Indian rebels in 1942 would simply not be there without previous three years of word conflict.

 

[Firebat]

Or in British East Africa. Or in Nigeria.

India was a goldmine of everything for the British. I'm not sure there was any colony in Africa of remotely comparable value.

 

[sillygoose]

In 1946 Great Britain was completely exhausted by WW2, heavily dependent on US to keep them afloat. "Just abandoning" India without a fight is not going to happen without Britain being completely broken by the world war first.

Again, you are trying to apply 1942 circumstances to the pre-war situation. British Indian army has experienced an explosive growth during WW2, reaching more than ten times of their pre-war numbers. The troops that have suppressed Indian rebels in 1942 would simply not be there without previous three years of word conflict.

Its a much more nuanced situation that you're presenting. After WW1 and given the situation in Europe the British were limited in what they could do, so if the revolt is big enough in India and includes the army then the game is up because there is zero chance Britain could hold the country. IF they think they could manage a revolt they would certainly try, but in that case they wouldn't need to send anyone to India to handle the revolts, they could use internal resources, as the Indian upper classes and their power bases supported Britain. After all the Raj was more a product of the local elite than Britain itself; the colony was the result of British deals with the local princes and rulers otherwise there is no way that a tiny country like Britain could manage the country with the first or second largest population in the world.

Most of the growth you are talking about was after 1942 once Japan joined the war. It was less than 40% of the size it would achieve by 1945 in 1942 and much of that was already deployed in the Middle East/Africa.

 

[raharris1973]

Specifically, could Britain stay out of a war Franco-German war if
a) France is winning it anyway
b) France's attack/occupation of Germany is failing
c) France is successfully defending itself from a German attack
d) A German attack is succeeding in pushing back and taking over France

 

[Buba]

Yes to all the above.
Britain uses diplomacy to ensure that neither side becomes "too stronk". It would only jump in if either side is crushing the other and British mediation is rebuffed with "fak ov, veelthy eenglish pigdog!"