Britain goes Fascist, joins Hitler after the Fall of France.

Could the Germans attempt driving trucks to supply some of their forces with all the spare fuel or excess fuel with the British selling/loaning it to them? What about the lack of the RAF bombing Germany, and instead bombing targets in the USSR using their Middle Eastern bases? What about all the resources it frees up for both Britain and Germany for them to put elsewhere? Would the Holocaust as we know it even be attempted, or would the British work the Nazi Germany to create the Israeli state earlier, and just shoot all the brown people who object, because neither of them care that much at all.

Oh and the general trend of going "Lol Civil War or Errybody suddenly leaves" is fuck off annoying, and is whiny assed complaining at best, and thread derailing at worse. Sure, Canada doesn't have much of a choice is Britain decides to do a joint Pearl Harbor style attack with the Japanese, but the rest? Africa is entirely an Axis held island, all of it, the Mediterranean an Axis lake, New Zealand and Australia are both Royal Navy launching points and are very far away from the USN. South East Asia is also now entirely an Axis lake, and the Japanese now have the assistance of the Royal Navy for whatever operations they desires, including supplying garrisons along the island chains.

Yes, the Nazis were terrible and if they won it would have been horrible for everyone not "White enough", but for actual military discussion, how about we break tradition and stop bending over backwards declaring a loss for Nazi Germany without actually bothering to look at both the maps, the resource situations, and general strategic picture. So what do we have? What possible additions in the strategic picture does the British Empire(Possibly minus Canada) bring to the Axis beyond lifting massive burdens and concerns regarding North Africa and the Air war? What does Stalin do now that his worst fears are confirmed?
Dude, as long as the USSR doesn't go Axis the US is perfectly capable of winning the war solo. Total naval supremacy by virtue of more and better ships buys time to bring out the nukes and intercontinental bombers.
 
Dude, as long as the USSR doesn't go Axis the US is perfectly capable of winning the war solo. Total naval supremacy by virtue of more and better ships buys time to bring out the nukes and intercontinental bombers.
Oh really? What about the British nuclear program and knowledge? And the fact that now whatever nuclear efforts Germany made won't be trolled to death by the Britain?

P.S.-Good job on that one guys.
 
Oh really? What about the British nuclear program and knowledge? And the fact that now whatever nuclear efforts Germany made won't be trolled to death by the Britain?

P.S.-Good job on that one guys.
WHAT German nuclear program? Hitler completely crippled it by splitting into like 9 different competing departments and barring the use of some really important research as "Jewish science"
 
The rest of those points can be addressed at a later time, however for now...

EDIT: Do I have to edit the goddamned OP to get something other than trollish bullshit that is a stark refusal to actually discuss the thread subject? Should I have made it clearer that parliament itself is Fascist, and there were no armed men taking over?

So you don't want a realistic "what if Britain goes fascist in 1940" which is only concievable via a palace coup that would be perceived as illegitimate by the rest of the Empire and many of the British themselves. Instead you want "ROB magics 1940 British Empire into fascism".

I honestly doubt the average Briton would notice much difference beyond the name of the allies and enemies.

And you would be quite wrong.
 
Last edited:
let me caveat this: I work for a military university. I could write a gawddamn PhD thesis paper on "What might have happened if Britian had turned fascist" with all the source material I have at hand. As for my prior numbers: I simply asked a highly respected professor w/multiple publishings....
and those were the numbers he gave me as an "off hand / very conservative estimate".

*from a lunch table discussion of this topic w/ 4 different history PhDs...
An openly Fascist British government really could have only happened in the same way that Norway went fascist in 1940, with Quisling's government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidkun_Quisling
And the British response to that government would've been about the same as the Norwegians. Less than 10% of the population would turn fascist.
And if support is that thin in the Home Isles, it would be even less out in the Empire.
In that case: Canada, Australia, NZ, India, & other well developed Territories would probably declare independence of a sort.
Western hemisphere Territories might even request American statehood and/or protection.

HOWEVER, since the OP suggests that GB went fascist voluntarily, I'm figuring for 25% fascist support.
Enough to secure the Home Isles, but not the rest of the Empire.
The ONLY way that Brits would have turned 25%+ to fascism was if King Edward VIII had NOT abdicated, and had turned his support to fascism.
The extra 5 years of royal support of fascism might have done the trick.
 
HOWEVER, since the OP suggests that GB went fascist voluntarily, I'm figuring for 25% fascist support.
Enough to secure the Home Isles, but not the rest of the Empire.
The ONLY way that Brits would have turned 25%+ to fascism was if King Edward VIII had NOT abdicated, and had turned his support to fascism.
The extra 5 years of royal support of fascism might have done the trick.
No. What part of "No, quit this weaseling bullshit now" do you people not understand? Discuss the actual OP and thread and its intended discussion, or fuck off and make your own.
I could be wrong but I don't think the British Isles alone have enough disposable energy reserves for a successful program and nowhere to test it unless the rest of the Empire also goes Fascist.
So you don't want a realistic "what if Britain goes fascist in 1940" which is only concievable via a palace coup that would be perceived as illegitimate by the rest of the Empire and many of the British themselves. Instead you want "ROB magics 1940 British Empire into fascism".
See above. This kind of weaseling bullshit is tiresome and old hat. I honestly prefer An Ancient in America vs Britain 1920-1940 style debates. Because at least he actually discuses the damned thread!:mad:
 
See above. This kind of weaseling bullshit is tiresome and old hat. I honestly prefer An Ancient in America vs Britain 1920-1940 style debates. Because at least he actually discuses the damned thread!:mad:

Look... if you want a totally fascist British Empire with no questions asked, then edit the OP so it says "ROB uses magic to make entire British Empire fascist. What happens?" If, on the other hand, you want to see the answer to "Britain realistically turns fascist in 1940" then you will have to accept that one of the answers will be "the rest of the Empire bails on them."

Now you can debate the validity of that answer, but you can't declare it invalid just because you don't like it.

I could write a gawddamn PhD thesis paper on "What might have happened if Britian had turned fascist" with all the source material I have at hand.

And yet you had a major actor react the exact same as IOTL despite an entirely different situation which would dictate he acts in a different matter. I'm not a professional, but even I can tell you that is an extremely glaring mistake to make. Although its a forgivable one I do see repeated quite frequently.
 
Last edited:
Vashon said: "After Dunkirk, Fascist take over Britain in a Silent, Gentle coup. Basically parliament goes Fascist...."

To whit, that is a mirror of how Norway "went Fascist". The Norwegian royalty and people pretty much bailed on parliament.
Thus, my statement.

Nuker points out that I've Hitler repeating the same IOTL action of invading Russia. OK. Valid point. IMHO, maybe the timing would have been pushed back, but it was commonly known that the invasion of Russia was a matter of time. The Germans HATED the Russians & Communists, especially after their actions in Germany during the 1920s and '30s.

In the end, I thought this thread was to make a logical, informed guestimate of what might have happened. That much, I've given you.
 
Nuker points out that I've Hitler repeating the same IOTL action of invading Russia.

Uh, no. That I can understand perfectly fine and is entirely reasonable because it was pretty much a demand of Nazi ideology and there is nothing ITTL that changes it. The major actor I am talking about is Stalin, not Hitler. I'll quote myself a page ago:

Without Britain appearing to divide Germany's attention (and intentions), Stalin probably see's the invasion coming and readies the Red Army. This is very bad news for the Germans. The Soviets can't win the frontier battles, but they can take enough steam out of the German's attack that they can't properly exploit their offensive. With heavier German losses and a lot more Soviet forces escaping encirclement, the offensive stalls roughly on the Dnepr river line. If that happens, then the Germans are fucked regardless of whether the Soviets get lend-lease or not. They just get fucked faster and harder if the Soviets get lend-lease.

Failure to seize places like the Donbass and western Moscow industrial region give the Soviets a fuckton of extra mineral, manpower, and industrial resources that they lost IOTL. Significantly lower losses in manpower and material means the Red Army will rebound much faster then IOTL. Expect ITTLs Eastern Front's 1942 to resemble more IOTLs 1943, albiet both further west and with somewhat worse Soviet performance.
 
Last edited:
Assuming no Low-Probability event's mess up the Soviet war effort, then the Axis are still slowly pushed back as they were in real life. They simply lack the logistical capacity to defeat and occupy the western half of the Soviet Union, and what makes you think the Japanese are going to launch a amphibious invasion of Siberia instead of focusing upon the Pacific like they did in real life? I really doubt Tojo or the Officers are going to see the the fall of the British Empire as a sign that they should attack the Soviet Union. Then there's the whole issue of the US and if Hitler's going to declare war on them following Japan's inevitable attack.

If Hitler doesn't, then I suppose come 1945 there are T-34's parading through London. If however Adolf goes to war with the US, then I suppose GB falls victim to a Anglo-American invasion by the western allies who intend to use the British Isles as a starting point in the greater invasion of Europe. Either way, the Axis are still screwed.
 
Last edited:
While the Soviet Union can fight off the Nazi invasion even without British, they're not going to take London especially by 1945. The channel remains and the Soviet Navy isn't any better then the Nazi one. So the parade is going have to take place in Paris.
 
Then there's the whole issue of the US and if Hitler's going to declare war on them following Japan's inevitable attack.

Even if he doesn't, that may not save him. US propaganda had already played up the various agreements between the Germans and Japanese to a degree that the two were heavily tied-at-the-hip in the minds of Americans even before Pearl Harbor. Now Britain falling to fascism could cause some big changes here. The support might still be there for Roosevelt to issue a declaration of war against Germany in '42 or '43, although the US will likely commit itself to a Japan-first-while-shipping-stuff-to-the-Soviets-on-the-side strategy in the interim. But then it might not.

One of those things that could go either way.

While the Soviet Union can fight off the Nazi invasion even without British, they're not going to take London especially by 1945.

This. Even if we assume the entire Royal Navy defects with the Empire, the new fascist Britain will retain enough of an army to repulse any conceivable Soviet landing attempt.

On the other hand, Britain without its navy and empire has no conceivable means of getting back onto a Soviet dominated continent. Hell, fascist Britain even with its entire empire and navy have no means of getting back onto a Soviet-dominated continent without the Americans. So what happens next depends on whether fascist Britain keeps fighting or gives up and concede mainland Europe to the Soviets.

If the former, then they last as long as it takes for the Soviets to get their atom bombs. After that, it is all over but the radiation poisoning.

If the latter, then they likely become even more Finlandized then IOTL Finland. The likely presence of Nazi big-wigs with the intelligence to run to a Britain still pro-Nazi (I'm thinking of guys like Bormann and Himmler) will sour any agreements with the Americans while the Soviets... well, I don't really need to elaborate there.
 
Oh really? What about the British nuclear program and knowledge? And the fact that now whatever nuclear efforts Germany made won't be trolled to death by the Britain?

While this might be a bit of flogging a dead horse at this point, the German nuclear project was a complete trainwreck. On a number of levels the chances of the Germans producing a bomb at anything approaching a usable timeframe is pretty abysmal. For one, at the start of the war sustained chain reactions of fission were still purely theoretical as far as the Germans were concerned (Szilard and Fermi had proven it in '39, but sure as hell weren't telling the Germans that). German nuclear physicists were never willing to commit to the idea that they could build weapons (post-war a lot of them claimed they did so out of moral opposition to Nazism, when more likely it was just incompetence), and instead mostly focused on the promise of nuclear power.

Even if they had come forward and said they could build war-winning bombs, there was no reason for the German government to fund them. Practically all the country's resources were already committed to the war effort, and since they were victorious on all fronts until late '41, there was no motivation for diverting resources to doomsday weapons. And by the time they started to lose, it was too late to start with the potentially war-winning technologies (as played out with rockets, jets, etc.).

Moreover, even if they had committed to building a bomb, even if they thought a bomb was possible, compared to the Americans the resources they could invest were paltry. They had access to a tiny amount of uranium from Czechoslovakia, but were for obvious reasons cut off from the main stockpiles in the Belgian Congo. So they likely wouldn't have been able to scrounge up enough U-235 to build a uranium-type bomb. Even if they had, the resource demands would have been enormous, and would have consumed the vast majority of the entire Reich's electricity output if they attempted anything resembling the Manhattan Project (they hit upon three potential routes for isotope separation for a bomb: centrifuges (which turned out to be too inefficient and was abandoned), diffusion (gaseous, liquid, and thermal, all of which were carried out at Oak Ridge), and plutonium from a nuclear reactor (which was discovered by the Americans in '40). The U.S. decided to try every approach just to be safe). By comparison to the U.S., who built everything from scratch, the Germans relied exclusively on facilities and equipment looted from the occupied territories (cyclotrons from Paris, the Norwegian heavy water plant).

Moreover, the equipment and materials the Germans had access to were often very shoddy. The necessary machine tools took incredibly long times to build (in part because of war demands, but also because German industry lacked the expertise necessary) and was often sub-standard. The only reason they settled on heavy water for their reactor moderator was because the graphite used in earlier experiments was full of impurities and fudged the results (later, some of the German physicists claimed they deliberately sabotaged the experiments). The fact the Germans were even using heavy water was taken as a sign by the Allies that the Germans had fallen behind in any kind of nuclear race.

Worse, the nuclear power project was under severe ideological restraints. Einstein's theories had been dubbed "Jewish science" and proper "German physics" was put forward in its place. Werner Heisenberg, arguably the best physicist they had available (as Bohr and Joliot-Curie refused to work with the Germans) and who was in charge of the project, was almost blacklisted by the SS for his "Jewish science" before he appealed to Himmler and was saved. As for Heisenberg, he was a terrible project leader with little to no interest in its actual experimental work, to say nothing of the enormous practical hurdles to overcome. He was a theoretical physicist, and routinely went off to work on his own, unrelated, research. That is, when he wasn't drafted by the Nazis to tour European universities to give lectures.

The farthest the Germans ever got to a bomb was a couple of ramshackle tests of a heavy water reactor in '45 to achieve a controlled chain reaction, a feat Fermi had accomplished with a far better design in December '42.

Then there's the question of how they would even use such a thing. The Germans lacked a bomber with anything approaching the carrying capacity of a nuclear bomb.
 
Look... if you want a totally fascist British Empire with no questions asked, then edit the OP so it says "ROB uses magic to make entire British Empire fascist. What happens?" If, on the other hand, you want to see the answer to "Britain realistically turns fascist in 1940" then you will have to accept that one of the answers will be "the rest of the Empire bails on them."
BTW, I thought about making the change earlier, but that would result in nothing more than the German Empire reconstituting its former European territories with minimal war. Which is boring. And so right after the Fall of France it is, with most glaring issues smashed to nothing by the ROB.

And part of the reason for the train-wreck was the ignorance of Heisenberg and general disinterest of Hitler himself.

As for some of the rest, Europe, in a naval sense, is no longer at war, you no have basically every powerful European navy and the British Royal Navy on the same side, with minimal if any disruptions of trade and fleet construction. And there is the issue of what the Axis war terms would be regarding the USA if a war happens, which may involve the surrendering of the Pacific bases in general and the return of American POWs, since Japan will have economic and logistical support from Britain, not to mention possible extra forces from the European Axis, especially since the Mediterranean is not a war zone and Uboats aren't targeting European vessels, and South America may be more openly anti-USA in its stance with the possible support of Europe in the wings.

And none of this is discussing the issue of British Air Bases which would be heavily in range of the Caucuses and Baku, as well as the possibility of using the Black sea as an invasion corridor or raiding corridor.

Oh and more electrically efficient methods were used outside of the outrageously power hungry methods initially used by the USA.
 
Last edited:
BTW, I thought about making the change earlier, but that would result in nothing more than the German Empire reconstituting its former European territories with minimal war. Which is boring. And so right after the Fall of France it is, with most glaring issues smashed to nothing by the ROB.

So you ROB'd the British Empire fascist? Okay then. First things first: US seizes Canada. No ifs or buts. Depending on how loony Fascist Britain is their reaction ranges from writing it off as an acceptable loss too declaring war/.

As for some of the rest, Europe, in a naval sense, is no longer at war, you no have basically every powerful European navy and the British Royal Navy on the same side, with minimal if any disruptions of trade and fleet construction.

Uh, USN + American shipbuilding capability > rest of the world's navies + shipbuilding capability. Give it a year or two and that blockade will be back on.

In fact, the US sub campaign will likely strangle Britain far more effectively then the German's ever did. Once they get the kinks in the torpedo's worked out.

And none of this is discussing the issue of British Air Bases which would be heavily in range of the Caucuses and Baku

I would have to double check, but I don't think those British bases are within range to provide fighter escort for their bombers. Which is bad news for the bombers: the mauling of bomber formations flying beyond the range of effective air cover

as well as the possibility of using the Black sea as an invasion or raiding corridor.

I was always under the impression that the main limit here were the Straits of Istanbul, although I don't know enough here to say for sure.
 
Last edited:
So you ROB'd the British Empire fascist? Okay then. First things first: US seizes Canada. No ifs or buts. Depending on how loony Fascist Britain is their reaction ranges from writing it off as an acceptable loss too declaring war/.
Only a complete idiot would argue otherwise.
Uh, USN + American shipbuilding capability > rest of the world's navies + shipbuilding capability.
I don't know about this. Like, British, Japanese, and various other European powers combined may be competitive in this scenario, especially with the possibility of South American resources becoming an issue
Give it a year or two and that blockade will be back on.

In fact, the US sub campaign will likely strangle Britain far more effectively then the German's ever did. Once they get the kinks in the torpedo's worked out.
True to an extent, especially regarding the food supply since the USA can smash up Canadian transportation infrastructure quite effectively almost immediately, but the rest is more questionable, if only slightly.
I would have to double check, but I don't think those British bases are within range to provide fighter escort for their bombers. Which is bad news for the bombers: the mauling of bomber formations flying beyond the range of effective air cover
But the bombers will get through and maul Baku. Any interruption, even just a week, of Baku and certain other areas is disastrous for the USSR. Not to mention to other knock on effects of Germany being able to ship fuel and such via trucks and not being entirely beholden to rail, and the British using continental air bases or even just captured strips in newly conquered land.
I was always under the impression that the main limit here were the Straits of Istanbul, although I don't know enough here to say for sure.
The main limit is Turkey's willingness and ability to lock down the straits, when OTL it was Nazi Germany's inability to make use of it anyways. Another topic is the effects on the Leningrad campaign, with British naval support there.

Another, more interesting tangent that I was hoping to read about, if not necessarily participate in, is terms for peace with the USA and the ability of the New Axis to seek them. What with the Mediterranean being a secure Axis lake,, along with the South East Asian waters, and the Axis now having the capability to ship things to Japan, which makes any Japanese conquests and fortifications that much harder to take back, along with the effects of British naval and merchant marine support of Japan.
 
don't know about this. Like, British, Japanese, and various other European powers combined may be competitive in this scenario,

No, they really don't. Without Canada and the Caribbean islands the Americans will also likely seize, the British really have just as much capability to get into the Western Hemisphere as the Japanese and Germans did.

But the bombers will get through and maul Baku.

Uh... the Romanian oil fields at Ploesti was able to keep operating in the face of round-the-clock bombing from huge numbers of British and American aircraft even during the times the Anglo-Americans achieved air superiority in the region. If they are going in unescorted, I don't think the British are going to be doing very much damage to Baku.

Not to mention to other knock on effects of Germany being able to ship fuel and such via trucks

The limitation was for the Germans in Barbarossa isn't actually in trucks. It's in the Russian infrastructure. Or lack there-of.
 
The limitation was for the Germans in Barbarossa isn't actually in trucks. It's in the Russian infrastructure. Or lack there-of.
The limitation was that they had to rely on trains, because they had insufficient trucks and insufficient fuel to run those trucks. They were using pack animals. The possibility of an additional million gallons of fuel and such may allow the Germans to have extra reach with Barbarossa and get just beyond the Volga.
 
Uh... the Romanian oil fields at Ploesti was able to keep operating in the face of round-the-clock bombing from huge numbers of British and American aircraft even during the times the Anglo-Americans achieved air superiority in the region. If they are going in unescorted, I don't think the British are going to be doing very much damage to Baku.
I don't believe those oil fields suffered from round the clock bombing as you claimed.
 
The limitation was that they had to rely on trains, because they had insufficient trucks and insufficient fuel to run those trucks. They were using pack animals. The possibility of an additional million gallons of fuel and such may allow the Germans to have extra reach with Barbarossa and get just beyond the Volga.
Logistics don't work that way. Truck based advances suffer from exponential fuel requirements.
 
You know I do have ask again. What would be a fascist Britian's war aims? Before we can determine what would happen, what they would do... We have to know...

What do they want?

War is almost never an ends in and of itself. It is a means to an ends. So... What is the end the the Fascist British are striving for? What Do They Want?
 
Firstly, when I refer to the invasion of Crete, I'm referring to Major General Bernard Freyberg, VC. He had intelligence that the Germans were going to attack via an airborne drop, with a possible sea attack.

He promptly completely neglected measures against the air drop in favor of over-defending against a seaborne threat that never actually happened.

According to Anthony Beaver he was under orders to restrict his defensive preparations against air assault as Churchill was worried defending too well would compromise Ultra.

When you've got Churchill ordering troops around a screw up is pretty much a certainty.
 
Back
Top