WI Lord Halifax is appointed PM in 1940?

[Michele]

It would be alot easy to hold Europes Empires together without Soviet and American pressure.

But the British had already decided to get rid of it before the war. It was already the BCE, by the way, calling places like Canada or Australia a province of the empire would have caused a good laugh. India was slated for the same status in, oh, let me see, 1945, and that had been decided back in the early 1930s.

 

[Michele]

If it's hindsight why did so many opponents of the war predict what would happen?
More like stateing the bleeding obvious.

Could you please quote them, as having "predicted" in 1939 what you are using as parameters. Who, when, what's the source. Thank you.

 

[Churchill]

But the British had already decided to get rid of it before the war. It was already the BCE, by the way, calling places like Canada or Australia a province of the empire would have caused a good laugh. India was slated for the same status in, oh, let me see, 1945, and that had been decided back in the early 1930s.

They where already called Dominions and no one laughed at that.
Australia and New Zealand didnt even want the extra powers over foreign affairs and defence that Britain gave them in the 1930's.

 

[Michele]

They where already called Dominions and no one laughed at that.
Australia and New Zealand didnt even want the extra powers over foreign affairs and defence that Britain gave them in the 1930's.

In fact, that's what I'm saying. They weren't an Empire already, and everything was going along in that direction. Now, the Australians did not want those powers. Who, then, did want to give them those powers? Thus showing which way they wanted the whole affair to go? It's easy, really.

 

[Churchill]

In fact, that's what I'm saying. They weren't an Empire already, and everything was going along in that direction. Now, the Australians did not want those powers. Who, then, did want to give them those powers? Thus showing which way they wanted the whole affair to go? It's easy, really.

It would have been quite easy to form an Imperial Federation in the 1940's once Baldwin was gone.
It would have also been much easier to hang on to the non-white colonies had we stayed out the war.
Chamberlain's father suggested the Imperial Federation in the first place so he may have pushed it himself (or who ever followed him )had he kept Britain out the war.

 

[Anaxagoras]

It would have been quite easy to form an Imperial Federation in the 1940's once Baldwin was gone.

Wrong. By 1931, the Statute of Westminster had already removed any chance of any kind of Imperial Federation. After World War I, frankly, the British people just didn't have the stomach for an Empire any longer. The unity of WWII was the last hurrah of Empire and, absent the Nazi threat, it would not have happened. Canada, Australia and New Zealand were already moving in the direction of being closer to America than to the UK.

 

[Fletch]

Yes

Name them.

Communists, Christians, Socialists and Liberals attended.
Figures where confirmed by the Met Police.

Give me a link. Until then, I refuse to believe you.

The Communists would have refused to listen to Mosley, even though they agreed on an anti-war policy and vice-versa. Actually, looking into the wVictoria Park rally, it was an explicitly BUF affair which took place in 1936. The only rally I can find in 1939 was the Earls Court Peace rally, again a BUF affair, which 30,000 attended.

Give me a link or back down. If you do, and it is a credible source, I will apologise over this. As it is I will not.

I never once defended Hitler.
I could say you defended Stalin.

Of course, I am defending Stalin by saying he was an evil dictator, simply that IMO Hitler was worse. Yeah, right.

I said you defended Hitler as such posts as How would Lebensraum effect Britain? and We slaughtered the wrong pig tend to give the impression that you believe Britain should have backed out in 1940, and you think the wrong side won the war.

Who would you have been more in fear or being in their company Hitler or Stalin and who would you have rather lived under?

Thats fucking irrelevant.

I would rather live under neither of them though. As it is though, I have a relative who fled Hitler due to her politics, so I know what fate I would have if I lived under Hitler. I note again, you do not dispute my point, nor answer my question directly. It would make a nice change if you did.

It also has quotes on Amazon you know.

It seems a reviewer on Amazon has pasted the paragraph onto the review section of the book. I apologise for that. This still does not make it right.

 

[Chilperic]

Wrong. By 1931, the Statute of Westminster had already removed any chance of any kind of Imperial Federation. After World War I, frankly, the British people just didn't have the stomach for an Empire any longer. The unity of WWII was the last hurrah of Empire and, absent the Nazi threat, it would not have happened. Canada, Australia and New Zealand were already moving in the direction of being closer to America than to the UK.

Closer to America? I dont think so. New Zealand quit ANZUS over nukes and hasnt been back since, and whats more, they most of their food exports go to Britain. And seeing as they all still have our queen as their monarch, I would call that pretty close.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Closer to America? I dont think so. New Zealand quit ANZUS over nukes and hasnt been back since, and whats more, they most of their food exports go to Britain. And seeing as they all still have our queen as their monarch, I would call that pretty close.

The fact that there ever was an ANZUS in the first place demonstrates how New Zealand grew closer to the United States- there is no official alliance between New Zealand and the UK. And the withdrawal was only a symbolic act, as America remains committed to New Zealand's security. As for the fact that Elizabeth II is still technically head of state, that means effectively nothing. Even the New Zealand prime minister has described the New Zealand monarchy as being absurd. Indeed, many New Zealanders are not even aware of it.

If a Chinese invasion force suddenly appeared over the horizon heading for New Zealand, do you think the New Zealanders would call Washington or London first?

 

[Chilperic]

The fact that there ever was an ANZUS in the first place demonstrates how New Zealand grew closer to the United States- there is no official alliance between New Zealand and the UK.

They still would help us if a major world war were to break out today.

And the withdrawal was only a symbolic act, as America remains committed to New Zealand's security. As for the fact that Elizabeth II is still technically head of state, that means effectively nothing. Even the New Zealand prime minister has described the New Zealand monarchy as being absurd. Indeed, many New Zealanders are not even aware of it.

Many New Zealanders are unaware their monarch is Queen Elizabeth II? I somehow doubt that. I also think New Zealand quitting ANZUS was more than symbolic considering America isnt allowed to station troops there any more

If a Chinese invasion force suddenly appeared over the horizon heading for New Zealand, do you think the New Zealanders would call Washington or London first?

Would they even need to call London? We would probably just help them anyway.

 

[Blue Max]

This is getting wildly off topic, and getting nasty in many regards.

I foresee the most likely scenario as:

1. Chamberlain pulls strings to make Halifax PM
2. Halifax consolidates his position by trying to build a coalition government. Despite the insistence of some people in this thread, Halifax goes no further than exploring Hitler's peace proposals. He might even play the same game as Churchill and play for time with them.
3. No Peace Deal between UK and Germany
4. War proceeds MOSTLY as OTL, although I would suspect that the USA-UK relationship would be weaker because Halifax didn't do well as Ambassador to the USA and you would not have the half-American PM Churchill running the show. That said, I think the course of the war probably ends in a similar position to OTL, except that Halifax might be willing to see the breakup of the empire that Churchill would refuse to accept.

Does this fundamentally change things? Possibly...Churchill's micromanagement of leaders and his silly plans would not be in the works, but also his great rallying of the UK would be missed as well.

And quite frankly, Europe dominated by Stalin OR Hitler would suck, so the UK is going to have to try to get whatever it can. It would be cool to have them both somehow lose, but that was not the way WW2 was fought. As was said before, hindsight is 20/20 and the Allies would have to play a dangerous game of trying to get the Soviets to lose just enough to get Eastern Europe without forcing them to make a seperate peace and having to take on Germany alone.

 

[Churchill]

Wrong. By 1931, the Statute of Westminster had already removed any chance of any kind of Imperial Federation. After World War I, frankly, the British people just didn't have the stomach for an Empire any longer. The unity of WWII was the last hurrah of Empire and, absent the Nazi threat, it would not have happened. Canada, Australia and New Zealand were already moving in the direction of being closer to America than to the UK.

Wrong on all.
Australia and New Zealand where angry about what was happening they didnt even want the extra powers pushed upon them.
In Britain and the rest of the Whites Dominions the will for Empire was as strong as ever even in the 1950's.

 

[Churchill]

The fact that there ever was an ANZUS in the first place demonstrates how New Zealand grew closer to the United States- there is no official alliance between New Zealand and the UK. And the withdrawal was only a symbolic act, as America remains committed to New Zealand's security. As for the fact that Elizabeth II is still technically head of state, that means effectively nothing. Even the New Zealand prime minister has described the New Zealand monarchy as being absurd. Indeed, many New Zealanders are not even aware of it.

If a Chinese invasion force suddenly appeared over the horizon heading for New Zealand, do you think the New Zealanders would call Washington or London first?

Yet 70% of New Zealanders support the monarchy a higher figure than the UK.
The N Zealand PM in 1982 even regarded himself as British and wanted to help in the Falklands war.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Wrong on all.
Australia and New Zealand where angry about what was happening they didnt even want the extra powers pushed upon them.
In Britain and the rest of the Whites Dominions the will for Empire was as strong as ever even in the 1950's.

You're living in a fantasy world. As early as 1922, Australia refused to support Britain in the Chanak Crisis. And if they didn't want the extra powers pushed on them, why did they ask for them at the Imperial Conference of 1926?

 

[General Zod]

So what you are suggesting is that instead of waging a war Britain was already in, and rearming as it went ahead,

All, but the main issue is, should UK go for all-out war against Germany now, or spare her strength, and goad Germany into mutual exaustion with URSS, and pick the pieces later ? What's the course that ensures the better outcome for Europe ?

You present the Sudetenland solution exactly in the way the Nazi propaganda saw it.

Just because they were Nazi , it doesn't mean they couldn't actually be in the right, once in a while.

Reinland, Austria, and the Sudetenland were the areas where their case and the historical outcome was just, notwithstanding the Nazists' actual intention to use them as stepping stones to wage a war of conquest across all of Eastern Europe. According to national self-determination, Austria and the Sudetenland were peopled by ethnic Germans who had very clearly expressed their wish to be united with Germany in 1919, but they had forcefully prevented to do so by the Entente and the latter case cast into subjection to the Czech on a specious historical justification (if history was the deciding criteria, not national self-determination, then the Czech too belonged in Germany, since they have been part of the HRE for a millennium).

For starters, the Sudetenland wasn't 100% German; turning it over to Germany meant that other people, the local Czechs, would become the unhappy minority.

This argument is simply ridiculous. According to it, any colonial empire could always rightfully claim permanent possession of any subject nation, since there's always going to be some tiny collaborationist minority or community of settlers that would be unhappy to separate from parent nation. Ireland could never break away, since some Protestant in Dublin is going to be upset. Greece can never have independence, since there's going to be some unhappy Turk somewhere in it.

Additionally, giving Germany the Sudetenland meant, with total certainty, doing away with good defensive land containing good fortifications; and, with high likelihood, putting at risk the existence of the Czechoslovakian state itself.

Well, that's unfortunate, but the Czech should have never claimed what did not belong to them nor built theri fortifications there. Anyway, if the British and the French really cared about Czech independence, they should have garanteed the post-Munich Czech state and gone to war the moment Hitler broke the Munich pact and invaded it. That would have been a very good casus belli, rather better than one over Poland, actually, since Poland's case in 1939 was far from spotless.

I question that Poland would have fared as well as you claim. The less densely populated territories were very much in the Lebensraum area, to be settled by German "colonists". Additionally, Poles weren't, on Hitler's ledge, on the same rung as Hungarians or Romanians.

Yes, this is true to a degree, but nonetheless, there were some serious feelings from Germany to Poland about an alliance. And typically, once a nation had accepted a satellite status in her Empire, Nazi Germany did not went for occupation and direct annexation until the satellite somehow "betrayed". No doubt, the price of vassaldom would have been giving up the German claims (at the very least Danzig, the Corridor, Upper Silesia, maybe Posen) for complete Germanization, but the core of the Polish nation would have been spared the terrible suffering of occupation. Eventual Germanization of the General Government (AKA Congress Poland) was indeed in the charts, but it was intended as a long-term goal, it was not pursued so ruthlessly or forcefully as the Germanization of the Wartheland, where Ethnic Poles were expelled soon after the conquest.

The intended Lebenstraum gains to be obtained from the conquest of the URSS were quite huge anyway, with or without Congress Poland, so it is not certain but reasonable that had Poland chose vassaldom, Berlin was have sated herself with their 1914 claims, a friendly government in Warshaw, favourable economic deals and miliatary access, and a couple Polish armies joining the crusade against the Russians. It's not sure that this strategy would have succeeded, but it's not unreasonable (Nazi Germany gave up South Tyrol), and had it pulled off, the Polish population would have been spared the vast majority of the suffering it felt OTL.

And, of course, you overlook the fate of Polish Jews, a 10% or so of the population, when you state that there would be no carnage.

Think of this: as long as an Axis satellite nation kept her autonomy and was not directly occupied by the Germans,their Jewish minorities were indeed subject to various measres of discrimination the government put in the book to appease the Nazis, but they were spared from the Final Solution. Now, the Poles were entusiastic anti-semites themselves, but had no stomach for extermination. Who can say that, had not the Wehrmacht occupied satellite Poland, those Jews would have been discriminated but alive ?

I question that the Central Europan situation could be described as a power vacuum. Under a rational leadership, Germany could have become a prosperous nation. There was no actual reason why it should start invading every neighbor in sight.

Well, surely under a rational leadership they would not have embarked in a foolish crusade to make European Russia the equivalent of the American West, that sure. Nonetheless, a rational German leadership would have still strived to regain the rightful place of their nation in Europe and throw off the chains of Versailles. Which included throwing off Versailles, ending the disarmement, regaining Reinland, Austria, Sudetenland, Danzig, the Corridor, and Upper Silesia. And they would have still tried to establish a friendly economic-political sphere of influence in Central and Eastern Europe, albeit by rather less brutish ways than naked aggression.

If one looks to long-term trends, alliance with France and Russia was the original mistake, which caused Versailles, which caused Hitler. In the 30s, it was difficult to redress the mistake (and no, invading Germany the first time it rebelled against Versailles and claimed her due right was not the solution. They had already tried that in 1923, and it had only made things in Germany worse). The only choices were to war Germany the first time it truly showed her program of aggression (Bohemia and Moravia), or let it go all the way to a showdown with the other bully of Europe, and goad the two bullies to mutual exaustion, spare their strength for the right moment.

The outcome would be a monolithic dictatorship holding sway directly on a big chunk of Europe, with a number of prone vassals here and there.

Hmm, about Central and Eastern Europe, this differs from OTL outcome of WWII, how ???

Admitting Germany was to win a complete victory over Russia, which was not really a sure thing (said from one that despises Sovietwanking). They could have spared the might of the Empire, and given the two contenders just the right amount of aid to keep the fight somehow equilibrated, and use their intact strength to force a favourable dealing from the exausted Pyrric victor.

 

[General Zod]

Vichy France would probably have lost Elsass-Lothringen at least; those were already being de facto incorporated into the Reich, even if they were not formally annexed at Compiègne.

Well annexation of the ethnic German areas (Elsass-Lothringen and Luxemburg) was a given, it was enforced soon after the Whermacht stepped in them. What I am truly uncertain is which other areas Germany would have claimed from France in the final peace deal.

But large territorial concessions to Mussolini, whom they had beaten in the field, would be much less palatable. Hitler really tried IOTL not to completely antagonise the French and was rather "nice" to them (for being him, at least), which is the reason why Mussolini only got some very small territories in OTL 1940 (larger when Hitler completely occupied France in 1942, but that's another story; those were not annexations even so).

And once might argue that it was a rather poor choice by Hitler, since an unsatified Mussolini was goaded into attacking Greece and making a mess of the Balkans. Nonetheless, Italy, in a poor shape as her military were, was rather more precious to Germany than conquered France, os I mighty doubt that Hitler would have denied Mussolini (the only European statesman he truly respected and in his own way was affectionate to) Italy's long-standing irredentist claims against France.

And Britain would accept this why?

Because the scenario we are discussing would mean they revise their overall strategy in Europe and decide that direct military confrontation of germany to deny her expansion in Eastern Europe is a failure after Narvik, Dunkirk, and France.

The reason I put this in brackets was because British pressure was far from the only reason for the coup; the Axis was deeply impopular among the officers that made up much of the ruling class of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. A coup might be coming anyway, especially with a Britain not at war that is free to guarantee their independence.

Or they might decide that if the British pull ouf Continental Europe, pulling the tail of the German tiger isn't wise.

I don't think Britain would've accepted massive German gains (ie, making Europe a German dominion).

Eastern Europe, actually.

Why does Britain accept a German peace that essentially fulfils all German war aims and none of Britain's?

Because the war was a massive failure ? Poland has fallen, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, France have been lost too, and they have no true ally against Germany.

They can be, but as Michele frequently points out, manpower isn't the major issue for the Germans. Production and logistics are.

Production won't be any problem for Germany if USA and UK are not enemies. And as I have said, logistics are not an immutable physical constant. over time, roads and railways can be improved.

The single greatest stupidity was probably shifting from trinary divisions to binary; otherwise, their failures were mostly in modernising their equipment. Italy had a great air force in the '30s, for example, but unfortunately it stayed in the '30s through much of the war. The new, advanced designs around 1942 could never be produced in any great numbers.

Very true about the binary divisions. Failure to modernize your equipment is a failure of monumental proportions to your country when your long-term political program is expansionistic.

It is conceivable that, for example, without the air raids, there will be less impetous for increased gun production.

I fail to see your point here.

Or not; there are limits to what you can do with the Russian climate,

Much more so by Napoleon's time than in the 20th Century.

especially with sabotage being common (no, partisans aren't tactically useful, but they can be a nagging delaying factor for logistics).

That's an area where added manpower becomes really useful.

Building entirely new roads etc will be expensive, labour-intensive and of dubious use (they'll still be killed by the spring flood).

Railways won't be.

You can, but why? They were more or less prestige projects to begin with, but that didn't stop their construction IOTL. Here, Hitler will think conquering Europe is Easy Street.

Rather less useful even as prestige, if Britain has gone to neutrality.

Are you saying he would not throw at the Russians pretty much all he had, and having more, he would not throw more ? I heartily doubt it.

what you'd need would be more motorised infantry for the Panzer/motorised units. Essentially, more transportation capacity.

Here, they will able to build more of those, and will have less problems to get oil to fuel them.

More manpower won't remove the fatigue of marching all the way, or of fighting at every step.

But it reduces the cumulative fatigue of figthing on every individual soldier.

Frankly, why is the river so crucial?

It saved the icty from encirclement.

surrounding it completely will take time, especially at the forefront.

They casn't encircle it in a couple months ? I doubt it.

And Leningrad also didn't have a major river to defend it like that.

Has Lake Ladoga dried up ??

The OTL counterattack was decisive because the German troops were exhausted and undersupplied, not because they had greatly inferior numbers. Under such conditions, overstretched and fighting enemies who knew winter combat well, how long could they hold? It will be the same as OTL, only they lose more equipment.

Greater numbers reduce overstretching and will make them less fatigued since the effort of combat will be distributed among more soldiers. Also they were attacked while they were still figthing their way around Moscow. It would be quite different if say, the unites they are being attacked have had a month or two to establish positions around the capital and are merely supporting the units that are moped up the city.

Yes, because the Japanese advanced faster than the Germans...

If they keep the Far East undermanned and undersupplied, they will eventually lose up all of that.

They wouldn't in at least a few months; they'd want to see that the enemy was thoroughly beaten, first (as was their reasoning with the nearby European possessions). That, and getting everything into place. If they believe the German propaganda, they might attack at some point in the autumn. Only everyone knows that's a stupid time to launch attacks...

As soon as Britain pulls out of the wat with Germany, Northern Strategy will look like the wise choice, so they will start to prepare accordingly. If Britain has pulled out, ongoing beating on the Russians (to most observers, it looked like the URSS in 1941 was on crash course to complete defeat) will look even more convincing. They might attack after a couple months. That would mean end of July.

Actually, the Russians knew the Trans-Siberian railway couldn't carry anywhere near the supplies needed for a military campaign. Which was why they built up a separate munitions complex for the Far Eastern Command. They had their own factories independent of those in the west.

Yes, but either they use them against the Germans or the Japanese.

Japan is already bogged down in China. How many divisions can they muster - twenty to thirty, perhaps, with piss-poor equipment? There is every reason to believe they wouldn't get too far with them; as we know, Stalin never IOTL transferred ALL the Siberian divisions...

Well, the Japanese had indeed inferior equipment to the Soviets, as Kalkin Gol showed, but not so inferior that the latter could afford radically inferior manpower.

No, but a Japanese front isn't too major an obstacle for them; Soviet war planning ever since the '30s had assumed that the next war would be two-front between Europe and Japan.

Yeah, and their pre-war planning fared so well against the Germans.

To give up the East is far from the most likely Soviet course; I mentioned it as a "failsafe". The Japanese very likely won't win any major victories against thegarrisons that are left.

Aren't you mistaking 1941 Japanese with 1841 ones, by chance ?

 

[General Zod]

So Britain was at fault for the German invasion of Belgium?

As far as WWI is concerned, the only sane course is to share war guilt among all major powers equally. No country was really any more or less militarist, imperialist-expansionist, and agrressive than any other.

 

[General Zod]

What a pile of steeming crap. There was nothing liberal about Imperial Germany

Apart from the fact they had a rule by law state, a parliament elected by free and fair elections with control over the state's budget, a constitution not really different as civil rights went from France or Italy, and the Liberals and Social Democrats were some of the most important parties ?

- the German speaking Alsatians still wanted to be part of France for God's sake.

True but national self-determination was not exactly a universally-accepted standard in 1871. Go ask the subjects of the Czar. And by 1914, the Alsatians had more or less made themselves confortablw with being in the German Empire. Irredentism was much, much, much more a collective fixation of the French than having any true following in A-L by 1914.

This regime liberally uniting Europe could not have kept its own country together voluntarily.

Funny, I failed to see the crowds in 1913 agitating for dissolution pf the German Empire, nor the jackbooted goons shooting on them.

This is nothing but ignorant apologia for an aggressive, militaristic and increasingly anti-semitic regime.

The German Empire was no more and no less aggressive and militaristic than any other Great Powers of its time, and for once it was rather less anti-semitic than France (ask Dreyfus) or Russia (ask any victim of Czarist pogroms).

And if we must go for labelings, I would instead say that the above stance is ignorant hindsight mistaking Nazi Germany for the pre-WWI German Empire, or parroting Entente propaganda like fact.

a) British plans until about 1943 did involve negotiaiton with a post-Nazi leadership

Yeah, too bad they failed to get through "unconditional surrender".

Although I eagerly concede that the main culprit of that was that senile fanatic Roosevelt of Morghentau Plan's fame, and that Churchill's stance on Germany was somewhat more realistic and humane.

German conservatives, nationalists and generals dreamed of a powerful, territorially militaristic and undemocratic Germany

Being powerful was no sin and you could not keep Germany from being one of the most powerful nations of Europe short of razing all her cities and facotries and killing most of her population.

Nor keeping Germany disarmed was any feasible policy in light of the Soviet threat, as post-WWII history showed.

Anyway, the anti-Nazi Resistance would have eagerly settled the Allied war goal by destroying the Nazi regime, and they would have accepted a peace deal that granted what rightfully belonged to Germany: independence, national unity, territorial and economic integrity, the post-Munich borders.

As for democracy, well for starters any provisional moderate conservative junta would have been light-years better than the Nazi, but it is clear that in a realtivelty short time, after the post-Nazi housecleaning was done and peace was reestalbished, elections would have been clalled.

In exchange, a negotiated peace with post-Nazi Germany would have spared the continent years of bloodshed and destruction, Stalinist domination in Eastern Europe, and cut the Holocaust mid-way.

c) The prospect of a "war of mutual exhaustion" is a morally vile one,

Instead Stalinist domination of half Europe is a beacon of morality ???

Goading the two big harnesses of tyranny and destruction in EUrope to mutual exaustion would have left the Western Democracies with unspent strength, in the optimal position to enforce a favourable outcome on both, or more likely the exausted Pyrric victor. If anything, it left better chances for liberating Europe from both Nazism and Communism than taking sides with one and leaving the other free run.

and would essentially be colluding in the Nazi genocides, including the Judeocide.

I would remark that the course chosen OTL allowed the Holocaust to run its course anyway.

It would have surrended the moral authority of democracy to communism for decades.

I consider the very notion that Stalinism could have any kind of "moral authority" over democracy simply ridiculous and I refuse to take it seriously.

 

[Michele]

All, but the main issue is, should UK go for all-out war against Germany now, or spare her strength, and goad Germany into mutual exaustion with URSS, and pick the pieces later ? What's the course that ensures the better outcome for Europe ?

Neither one, of course. Nothing ensured anything at the time when the decision makers had to take their decisions. But I'll add that the idea of a mutual exhaustion is particularly unlikely. Historically there were cases when a war ended in a draw; they were common when wars were about border provinces and castles and small colonies and trade stations, way less so in the era of total wars. The much more likely outcome would be one winner takes all, and notwithstanding horrific losses he's now got the resources to be the European superpower. A possible alternative is indeed a draw, which however leaves both dictatorships standing. Instead of having almost all of Europe under a dictatorship (the Nazi victory outcome), instead of having half Europe under a dictatorship and the other half more or less free (the real history outcome), you'd have half of Europe under a dictatorship and the other half under another.

Just because they were Nazi , it doesn't mean they couldn't actually be in the right, once in a while.

Oh yes, but not in this case.

Reinland, Austria, and the Sudetenland were the areas where their case and the historical outcome was just, notwithstanding the Nazists' actual intention to use them as stepping stones to wage a war of conquest across all of Eastern Europe.

So you've shot your argument in the foot. If the real reason for developing nuclear capabilities for a dangerous, fanatical state is not to have peaceful nuclear energy but to develop nuclear weapons, then sorry, even though having peaceful nuclear energy would be a fair ambition, I'll subscribe the policies that try and prevent that state from developing nuclear capabilities. I don't care if their theoretical claim is flawless.

According to national self-determination, Austria and the Sudetenland were peopled by ethnic Germans who had very clearly expressed their wish to be united with Germany in 1919, but they had forcefully prevented to do so by the Entente and the latter case cast into subjection to the Czech on a specious historical justification (if history was the deciding criteria, not national self-determination, then the Czech too belonged in Germany, since they have been part of the HRE for a millennium).

The Versailles borders, all if not most of them, were a compromise. National self-determination was but one of the considerations, and others were just as important.

This argument is simply ridiculous. According to it, any colonial empire could always rightfully claim permanent possession of any subject nation, since there's always going to be some tiny collaborationist minority or community of settlers that would be unhappy to separate from parent nation. Ireland could never break away, since some Protestant in Dublin is going to be upset. Greece can never have independence, since there's going to be some unhappy Turk somewhere in it.

The argument seems ridiculous because you misunderstood it. I never claimed anything of the above. I only pointed out that your statement that the Sudeten were populated by Germans was, and remains, inaccurate. I did that to point out that the issue was way more complicated than you and the Nazi propaganda made it to be: this border area is full of Germans so it should be German. That's typical simplification, a main propaganda tool.
While we're talking about ridiculous statements, I find ridiculous both to mention "collaborationist minorities" and "empires" when it comes to the Czechs in the Sudeten. Not only you seem unaware of the basic mechanisms of ethnic population; the mingling of ethnic groups, sometimes from village to village, sometimes within the very same damn small hamlet, was a rule since medieval times and had nothing to do with deliberate colonizing or with collaborationists in the case at hand. Those deliberate policies have taken place in the last decades in Tibet, but they are out of the picture in the Sudeten.
You also seem unaware that the Czechs never had an empire covering the area.
Finally, the Czechs who ended up in Germany were not a puny number. I will not claim the solution of having the Sudeten in czechoslovakia was fair and had no problems, quite the contrary. That however doesn't mean at all that the reverse would be fair and without problems.

Well, that's unfortunate, but the Czech should have never claimed what did not belong to them nor built theri fortifications there.

Highly irrelevant. You were claiming the British were paying no price for letting Germany bloat out of proportion and, as you yourself stated above, build its own stepping stones to continental domination. I pointed out that strategically, letting Germany get rid of its 1930 vulnerabilities (the Rheinland demilitarization, the Sudeten arrow pointed at its side) was not a no-price option. Rights and wrongs are neither here nor there. That is why a made a separate point about the minorities, and another about the fortifications. The fortifications lost are, from a practical point of view, a huge figure in the losses column for anybody considering Germany a potential enemy.
Since you failed to address the objection to your claim, I'll gather you now acknowledge that letting Germany get away with all of that did come with a hefty price tag for the British.

Anyway, if the British and the French really cared about Czech independence, they should have garanteed the post-Munich Czech state and gone to war the moment Hitler broke the Munich pact and invaded it. That would have been a very good casus belli, rather better than one over Poland, actually, since Poland's case in 1939 was far from spotless.

Yes. Chamberlain made the mistake of believing Hitler when he said that the Sudeten were his last territorial claim. So he thought the rearrangement was over and no further British meddling in the area would be necessary or, even, beneficial.
Hitler promptly showed he was wrong, and in the face of the fait accompli, Chamberlain's option was to draw a line at the _next_ aggression. It's all rather linear, actually, once you get rid of Nazi obfuscation of the issue.

Yes, this is true to a degree, but nonetheless, there were some serious feelings from Germany to Poland about an alliance. And typically, once a nation had accepted a satellite status in her Empire, Nazi Germany did not went for occupation and direct annexation until the satellite somehow "betrayed". No doubt, the price of vassaldom would have been giving up the German claims (at the very least Danzig, the Corridor, Upper Silesia, maybe Posen) for complete Germanization, but the core of the Polish nation would have been spared the terrible suffering of occupation. Eventual Germanization of the General Government (AKA Congress Poland) was indeed in the charts, but it was intended as a long-term goal, it was not pursued so ruthlessly or forcefully as the Germanization of the Wartheland, where Ethnic Poles were expelled soon after the conquest.

The intended Lebenstraum gains to be obtained from the conquest of the URSS were quite huge anyway, with or without Congress Poland, so it is not certain but reasonable that had Poland chose vassaldom, Berlin was have sated herself with their 1914 claims, a friendly government in Warshaw,

Interesting misspelling.

favourable economic deals and miliatary access, and a couple Polish armies joining the crusade against the Russians. It's not sure that this strategy would have succeeded, but it's not unreasonable (Nazi Germany gave up South Tyrol), and had it pulled off, the Polish population would have been spared the vast majority of the suffering it felt OTL.

Nothing to argue about the facts here, but as you yourself state, the forecasts are not sure.
And the key problem is that you are using hindsight. You take it for granted that the occupation of Poland would be a fact.
But when Smigly-Rydz accepted the British guarantee, that was far from a fact. He overestimated his own country's war potential, he thought the French army was the best in the world, he did not think the USSR and Germany would have come to a partition agreement, and I could go on. And the German victory was not a foregone conclusion, especially the one in the West in 1940 was far from the cakewalk some still believe today – it was a close-run thing.
So all of the factors you consider, using hindsight, as clearly pointing out that the Polish choice was wrong, might well not come to pass. While a German defeat in 1939 is highly unlikely, the same in 1940 is more than possible, and the occupation of Poland would have lasted only one year or two, with the worst of it avoided. If this had happened, then the Polish choice would now be considered wise (probably; there always are ill-informed guys or people having an agenda), and we'd know nothing about the rules of vassaldom to Germany because we wouldn't have enough examples.

Think of this: as long as an Axis satellite nation kept her autonomy and was not directly occupied by the Germans,their Jewish minorities were indeed subject to various measres of discrimination the government put in the book to appease the Nazis, but they were spared from the Final Solution. Now, the Poles were entusiastic anti-semites themselves, but had no stomach for extermination. Who can say that, had not the Wehrmacht occupied satellite Poland, those Jews would have been discriminated but alive ?

Nobody can say anything for sure, of course. What can be said for sure is that sooner or later Germany deemed it necessary to directly run plenty of places, and for sure Jews survived in Axis satellites that Germany simply did not have the reach to occupy (Finland, Bulgaria). I wouldn't bet on Poland being as far from the German grasp as Finland and Bulgaria.

Well, surely under a rational leadership they would not have embarked in a foolish crusade to make European Russia the equivalent of the American West, that sure. Nonetheless, a rational German leadership would have still strived to regain the rightful place of their nation in Europe and throw off the chains of Versailles. Which included throwing off Versailles, ending the disarmement, regaining Reinland, Austria, Sudetenland, Danzig, the Corridor, and Upper Silesia.

I find this rather amusing. What you are saying implies that the current German leadership is not rational because it's not trying to "throw off the chains" of 1945 and retake Stettin.
Besides, this is typical nationalistic bias. When a nationalist wins, he sees it as natural as water, a fact of life, that the loser gives him territory, no matter if it's populated by the loser's ethnic group. But when the nationalist is defeated, then he sees exactly the same treaty conditions, applied to him, as grotesque injustice the world cannot put up with. I gather you are not informed about the terms of the Brest-Litovsk treaty, imposed by Germany onto Russia.

If one looks to long-term trends, alliance with France and Russia was the original mistake, which caused Versailles, which caused Hitler.

Deterministic and in hindsight. It's not going to bring you far in speculative history. Besides, in WWI it was exactly the same British policy as against France, and Spain, and again Germany later: gang up against the would-be continental superpower.

Hmm, about Central and Eastern Europe, this differs from OTL outcome of WWII, how ???

It seems you missed my point. The difference between the real outcome and a Nazi victory is that in the real outcome, not only the Soviets did not rule, directly or indirectly, over most of Europe, but only over half of it; but also that by no stretch of imagination could the Soviets be called the sole superpower in Europe. While a Nazi victory would mean just that, a sole superpower in Europe.

Admitting Germany was to win a complete victory over Russia, which was not really a sure thing (said from one that despises Sovietwanking). They could have spared the might of the Empire, and given the two contenders just the right amount of aid to keep the fight somehow equilibrated, and use their intact strength to force a favourable dealing from the exausted Pyrric victor.

I'm not surprised that no statesman subscribed to such a dubious and unlikely policy. In any case, if there is a victor, he'll be Pyrrhic for five years, maybe. The manpower pool is there. The raw resources are there. The territory is there. The know-how is there... oops, save for the nuclear one. The scenario you portray, however unlikely, probably has a series of mushrooms over Europe looming, no matter if they are against the Nazis or the Commies. Nice job.

 

[Michele]

It would have also been much easier to hang on to the non-white colonies had we stayed out the war.
Chamberlain's father suggested the Imperial Federation in the first place so he may have pushed it himself (or who ever followed him )had he kept Britain out the war.

What you are claiming amounts to saying that in the 1930s, there were British subjects who would have wished the Empire to remain. That's true, and I'm not challenging that.

The fact is however that they were a minority. The fact is that the standing long-term British policy was to gradually turn the whole Empire into a Commowealth, with nobody in a colonial position. And the fact is that de-colonization was already going on worldwide.
The war certainly accelerated that trend. Just like all wars always help social change – that is already taking place. But it's not as if all the British were happy and content with the Empire up until September 1939, then in May 1945 the happy Empire suddenly fell apart because of the war.

By the way, France was certainly in even poorer shape than Britain in 1945, having seen four years of occupation and ground operations fought in the homeland. They were subject to the same international pressures as Britain. So they should have found themselves short of an empire even faster than Britain, right? Instead, well, they did not. They opposed the long-term trend for as long as they could, and hung on to, for instance, Algeria for another 20 years or so.

Live with it: the British got rid of the empire because that's what they wanted to do. They had wanted that way before the war. Just like they got rid of one of the minority who wanted to keep it: Churchill. It's not a coincidence if the same people who did not want an empire any more also voted Churchill out.