At least from the offers made in 1940 IOTL Hitler was only asking for a white peace with potentially a return of German 1914 colonies. Question is whether he'd also demand no alliances or security deals with the US or USSR.
Question would be if he tried to insist on any military or economic concerns. If so how well could Britain get around them. The empire would be an assistance here as forces based in many of the colonies would be outside German control or realistic supervision.
As to Stalin it appears that there were contacts in 1940 with the Soviets and Brits with efforts to work out a deal. Stalin wasn't really an ally, he was a 'benevolent' neutral with Germany, much like the US was with the UK. The US wasn't an ally of the UK at the time despite their deals and Germany and the US still had diplomatic relations (to some degree) and dialogue despite FDR's hatred of Germany.
I don't know. They agreed a deal for sharing out much of eastern Europe and then multiple trade deals to help both sides. Stalin also aided German ships using the NE route to the Pacific, albeit only a few made that route.
I was just thinking that with the Tories getting the tar from losing the war Labour would get the boost. Question is whether Britain could afford that higher spending given their loss of foreign exchange over 1940. By 1941 they were gliding on South African and Belgian gold loans until L-L kicked in. Granted of course that without a shooting war finances would be different as would military spending, but with defeats in the Mediterranean and on the continent Britain has a LOT of rebuilding of forces to do and not a lot of free cash to do so especially if they lose most of the Mediterranean holdings.
Given that they would also be blamed for the depression and the suffering of much of the country during this period then the failure to maintain peace and security the Tories are going to take a hit. However they had a lead of nearly 300 seats in the
1935_United_Kingdom_general_election. As such it could go either way. Or you could end up with a hung parliament with a coalition needed. One wide card is that Hitler might insist on Mosley being released from custody and being allowed to stand and a number of right wing elements could end up supporting him.
So how much money could Britain generate with the loss of colonies and major trade routes, plus probably loss of trade with the continent as Berlin imposes a trade bloc negotiated through it rather than the pre-war trade system between individual nations?
Without actual fighting then costs are a lot cheaper. Even with the building up of the home defence and development of new equipment and doctrine. Ships aren't being sunk and Britain bombed while the ending of the blackout would in itself give a boost to British economic efficiency. Without fighting in N Africa and if say Italy also added Palestine and Sudan to its empire then it has to garrison them rather than Britain. Which it could find less than pleasant once the Arabs realise that their probably going to have less power than they had under Britain.
The territories lost aren't in themselves great sources of funds and assuming there is peace then Britain should be able to use the Suez Canal.
Yes Germany will seek to control economic activity on the continent but Britain has no trade with it anyway, other than some neutrals such as Spain and Sweden. Which will be a lot easier now. Britain will probably have products that Germany or other states on the continent will need anyway.
Of course, but what does that mean for long term rebuilding? Having to enduring greater shipping costs from the colonies, even with imperial preference being maintained, still means means greater cost overall, as good still need to be paid for by Britain. How long could Britain remain in quasi-mobilization and maintain her economy?
I'm not sure the costs are that much greater. British shipping costs were a lot cheaper than US ones for instance and prior to the war there was a lot of trade with the colonies and places like Argentina which were replaced by N America during wartime simply because it took less shipping and hence also escorts.
Nations, when under direct threat can spend a lot on defence for a prolonged period. It will be costly but a hell of a lot less costly than waging a war, let alone one on multiple fronts.
Decide in what way? If Egypt falls and Spanish entry then means Britain loses Gibraltar, which would mean Malta falls, then it is highly probably that a peace deal is worked out. So there is hardly any reason to be cautious and in fact a closing window to get any gains, rather than holding out for a wish-list of French colonies as happened IOTL in November 1940.
He's got to decide before an Italian conquest of Egypt prompts the replacement of Churchill and Britain making peace. He's also concerned on the defence of Spanish possessions, especially the Canary's if he goes to war with Britain. It would probably only take a small pause and he could easily lose the opportunity.
Of course. The Soviets might well end up acting quite differently in their war plans. But then I also don't put it past Stalin to make the same mistakes because he was not a particularly realistic military commander.
Except that I was talking about what you say happened OTL.
If Britain is out of the war? They wouldn't need to worry about feeding occupied Europe, the governments there would have to do so. France had $3 billion in gold so they could easily do so. Germany could import from the others while those governments imported from their colonies and the US for cash. Without an economic blockade the entire situation is very different. There very well could be no invasion of the USSR due to lack of political will to do so. Hitler was apparently convinced that in peacetime there could be no invasion of the USSR due to the Germany people wanting to avoid further wars after conquering Europe.
Do they make peace with occupied nations such as France, the Netherlands etc? Difficult not to do so if they make peace with Britain. If so they would struggle to continue demanding massive occupation costs on those states or seizing food from them.
There will be an invasion of the USSR because its one of two major desires of Hitler, along with the removal of the Jews, one way or another from Europe. He's been proclaiming his crusade against the Bolsheviks and the Slavs and the need for 'living space' and the resources of the European USSR for ~20 years now. Plus to get the economic security he desires he also need to seize control of those lands and remove most of their population.
Also keep in mind Hitler was interested in exporting the Jewish populations with the British merchant fleet to Madagascar, so there would be a ton of projects, plus a major need to give the German people rewards for their success, as if there is one thing we can be certain of was Hitler's fixation on making sure he was popular with the public so they didn't overthrow him (or at least another faction in the military couldn't get away with it). That would mitigate more war plans. The invasion of the USSR does really seem to have been a plan only possible in the context of the war as well as Hitler feeling that Stalin was getting ready to attack him. Had he won Stalin would be pretty well scared into placating Hitler instead of trying to jockey for prime position while Hitler was distracted.
The so called Madagascar plan, to send the Jews to die there was one proposal. How seriously he considered it I don't know. However that would still leave many Jews in Soviet occupied territory, as well as his delusion that Jews were behind the USSR.
He relied on propaganda and repression to keep people in Germany happy. Their economic condition was a relatively low priority for him.
I strongly disagree with that view. He was seeking a continental empire after the war started to ensure Europe's economy could function without wider trade in the world; both the war AND the Depression had convinced not only him, but the economic planners of Germany that the only way forward was a semi-planned economy and integrating Europe into a single cooperative economic unit rather than one of competing nations. Nor did he want a depopulated continent; if you actually read the so-called "Hunger Plan" document all it really is is a food planning memo that points out in the context of the war if the German army isn't fed off of Soviet grain entirely by the 3rd year of the war Germany would be starved out and lose the war. The deaths of Soviet citizens was mentioned as an unfortunate byproduct of that necessity rather than the goal.
He wanted a German empire dominated by a Aryan population which would rule all others. Other nations and people would have a clearly subordinate role at best and given the desire for a much larger German population others would have to be removed in large numbers to achieve that.
Since Germany managed to extend the war into a 6th year without holding most of the Soviet grain-fields for more than a couple of years and for much of that time the nature of the regime and the level of conflict meant that access to its resources weren't unlimited that is obviously inaccurate.
Not like they had a choice but to mobilize as much as they did, otherwise they'd have lost the war sooner and been carved up even worse than after WW2 given Entente proposals. During the war they conscripted everyone; it was only in the pre-war standing army that they preferred rural to urban recruits because of the health differential; urban recruits had all sorts of health problems that farm boys didn't have due to pollution, poverty, and lack of exposure to sunlight.
Not really. They ran out of other materials long before they started running short of men so they could have reserved more assets, especially experienced men and horses for agriculture.
Yes the Entente (other than Russia) were able to just import from the US, so didn't have to worry about mobilizing farmers. L&H were economic morons, goaded on by rich industrialists hungry for profit, but their contributions to the problems lasted about 6-8 months and then were largely fixed. The structural problems of mobilizing men and horses though could not be resolved via organization; the only way was importing food and that wasn't an option thanks to the blockade. Ukraine's contributions weren't much food for Germany proper, but they did allow 1 million soldiers in the east to be fed off the land, so that meant 1 million fewer mouths to feed so their rations could instead be used for civilians.
The problems were seriously worsened in the last year or so of the war with Ludendoff's emphasis on war production above all else.
Except that last bit meant that they couldn't use those men elsewhere, either in the west or releasing them for civilian work because they were needed to hold down the new eastern empire so it was a minimal gain.
Well it was tense as the Walsh staged a late fight-back and we wasted too many chances earlier in the game but we won. Got two tough matches coming up against Ireland, in a fortnight and then the French who are the current favourites.
After that its the women's 6 Nations so another few weekends screaming at the TV to come yet.
