If the UK loses the Battle of Britain where would the US concentrate its troops?

[Andre Bolkonsky]

It was 1% effective overall, and it was two different scenarios both before and after Black May. You're right that this is taking into account overall numbers (and that seems to be your biggest issue), but even early on it was never that close a thing. The fact that the Allies were worried is a purely subjective metric that does not reflect objective reality, just as the Nazis' cavalier attitudes towards the Soviet Union did not reflect objective reality. The Allies were forming opinions based on imperfect information and were affected by emotion. Looking to historians writing after the fact gets you much closer to the reality of the thing.

So I'm really not sure what case you're asking me to make. Even assuming the Germans don't shift production elsewhere and keep up a historical number of U-boats, there still aren't going to be all that many of them in the early war. This really mitigates their effectiveness. There's also scant evidence that outside edge cases like the Barham that they pose a threat to military formations. So this idea that subs are somehow going to delete an invasion force, despite the Western Task Force historically sailing from the United States to Morocco without being detected at all is rather farfetched. That's all I'm saying.

With all due respect, I think you are making up a pretend argument to forward a pretend scenario because you want to pretend it could happen that way.

I cannot argue with your imagination.

When you get back to a discussion of the real war, please get back to me.

 

[hkrommel]

With all due respect, I think you are making up a pretend argument to forward a pretend scenario because you want to pretend it could happen that way.

I cannot argue with your imagination.

When you get back to a discussion of the real war, please get back to me.

This is an alternate history thread, not sure what you were expecting.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

This is an alternate history thread, not sure what you were expecting.

Rational thought, not Magical Realism, are the focus of Jopa's threads. Usually.

No worries, have fun. I'll see you on the next thread.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

As Canada is a neutral country in 1940 will they allow the fleeing Royal Navy in their ports? Or still English provinces in Canadian east coast or in the Carribbean during the 1940’s?

Sorry...my bad...they actually entered already in 1939.

Canada declared war on Germany in 1939 when Germany attacked Poland.

Operation Fish moved the entire Gold Reserve of Britian to Ottawa, and their Securities to the basement of the Sun Life building in Montreal in 1940 - Britain was very, very aware that they were not invulnerable.

Thank God for Spitfire, Chain Radar, and the British pilots who manned them.

Canada joined the war on September 10th, 1939, exactly a week after Britain did (Prime Minister Mackenzie King wanted to assert Canadian autonomy by ensuring Parliament would debate and vote on a separate declaration of war, although unlike say South Africa, the result was always a forgone conclusion).

Mackenzie King was actually the type who might consider peace in such a scenario, but it’s unlikely to be politically viable while the British Government fought on. Even if somehow Canada left the war, Britain would still be welcome, or they could just use their numerous other Atlantic territories (Newfoundland, Bermuda, Guyana, Jamaica, other British West Indies, etc.)

As for subs/convoys, remember that there wouldn’t really be civilian convoys going to supply Europe/Britain in this scenario. There still will be to Africa/other Allied possessions/to the Soviets, but that is still less to be intercepted. This could mean U-boats get more focused on other routes or invasion defence, but it’s hard to say. And with the Royal Navy free from escorting such convoys, a more robust convoy system might develop sooner (convoy systems were nothing new, instituted widely in WWI for instance, it was more refining/organizing convoy tactics and having enough ships for them which took more time).

 

[hkrommel]

I think given this alternate scenario we need to consider the possibility that the Nazis ditch their U-boat efforts and go more into surface raiders or Plan Z. They were prone to that sort of thinking and the success of the Kriegsmarine during Sealion would probably reinforce the Raeder contingent.

And if that happens, it'll be years before their shipbuilding really shows results. They'll probably get some newer destroyers and light cruisers out by, say, late 1942 if they start immediately. They'll probably finish the Graf Zeppelin (but it wouldn't perform well since there were severe growing pains for every nation that transitioned to carriers), but to really make a difference you have to be looking at 1948, maybe 1949, and even then the US will still outproduce.

 

[Semper Victor]

Once the war would have been won and living space in the East attained, other functions in society would have become increasingly relevant.

Yes, of course. Lots of folks would've been needed to keep the furnaces going if their racial cleansing plans were to be implemented.

 

[Rubidium]

Still confused why we are focusing on invading the British Isles through Iceland, etc., rather than North Africa==>Mediterranean Coast (French, Italian, or possibly the Balkans).

Logistically a much easier haul (North African ports aren't great, but they are better than anything you'll find in the Faroes or whatever, and are also much easier to expand), and as my list of suggested landing sites suggests, will force the Axis to garrison much more widely. Once you've taken France, then you can either liberate the UK via cross-channel invasion from Northern France, or leave its Axis garrison to whither on the vine a la Norway.

 

[Vlad123]

My two cents:If the UK falls, the British empire also falls. India wanted independence (it doesn't take long to get Chandra Bose up to the government of India), South Africa? Maybe. Australia and New Zealand? Likely ... Canada? I don't think ... but the Middle East? Egypt, Iran, Iraq ... absolutely! They were all in favor of the axis! ALL! So they could have given Hitler all the oil he wanted (and a faster road to Baku / Stalingrad), with all the oil you want the wagons keep moving! (don't look at hoi4 which only have malus, in reality a tank without petrol stands still!). Now Japan: In your opinion, with access to rubber and oil ... the US embargo would have an effect? I don't think, Japan would have done, very elegantly, the middle finger, and would have continued to fight in China, perhaps even asking for the German plans (YES, historically the Germans sent a king tiger, you have Japanese to help them, but in 1945 , it could not help much, but a panzer IV, instead of those embarrassing tanks, in 1941/42 in china, would have made the difference). In short? UK falls, Middle East in hand axis, without even too much cost, resources in abundance, UK that as war reparation builds a mega fleet (maybe the whole fleet self-sinks / runs away but the ports remain active) and from the bottom you have its financial assets, italy gets something in france, malta and some minor colony. USSR beaten quickly, China beaten quickly. No pearl harbor, Roosvelt does not go to war (indeed if the German spies manage to discover documents that Roosvelt wanted to provoke the Japanese and get attacked to enter the war, I think Ford is going up or some other friend of the Fascists by popular acclaim)

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

My two cents:If the UK falls, the British empire also falls. India wanted independence (it doesn't take long to get Chandra Bose up to the government of India), South Africa? Maybe. Australia and New Zealand? Likely ... Canada? I don't think ... but the Middle East? Egypt, Iran, Iraq ... absolutely! They were all in favor of the axis! ALL! So they could have given Hitler all the oil he wanted (and a faster road to Baku / Stalingrad), with all the oil you want the wagons keep moving! (don't look at hoi4 which only have malus, in reality a tank without petrol stands still!). Now Japan: In your opinion, with access to rubber and oil ... the US embargo would have an effect? I don't think, Japan would have done, very elegantly, the middle finger, and would have continued to fight in China, perhaps even asking for the German plans (YES, historically the Germans sent a king tiger, you have Japanese to help them, but in 1945 , it could not help much, but a panzer IV, instead of those embarrassing tanks, in 1941/42 in china, would have made the difference). In short? UK falls, Middle East in hand axis, without even too much cost, resources in abundance, UK that as war reparation builds a mega fleet (maybe the whole fleet self-sinks / runs away but the ports remain active) and from the bottom you have its financial assets, italy gets something in france, malta and some minor colony. USSR beaten quickly, China beaten quickly. No pearl harbor, Roosvelt does not go to war (indeed if the German spies manage to discover documents that Roosvelt wanted to provoke the Japanese and get attacked to enter the war, I think Ford is going up or some other friend of the Fascists by popular acclaim)

India and Egypt are still colonies so have no say in the matter unless they are willing to risk rebellions. Iraq’s rebellion fiasco in historic WWII shows about how good that would go for Egypt. As for India, unlike Iraq/Egypt they’re a colony, so it’s a bit more complicated, but most of the pro-independence factions had turned to gaining independence through relatively peaceful means. Bose and his possum are pragmatic ideologically, but I can’t see him having anywhere near enough support to violently overthrow the Raj. Iran is independent and might be secured by the Soviets alone or Soviets+British troops from India like historical. Even assuming they could get past Egypt, Axis supply lines would be pretty tenuous so far into the Middle East:s deserts and mountains anyways.

South Africa had an anti-war Boer faction, but imho Jan Smuts would be able to keep everything in line, like he did at the start of the war where he overcame said faction’s attempts to keep South Africa out of the war and became Prime Minister. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are all in far too deep with the empire to pull out. Mackenzie King is actually probably the most amenable of the Commonwealth PM’s to seeking peace in such a scenario (a sovereigntist and somewhat enamoured by Hitler), but it’s unlikely to be politically feasible while Britain refuses to surrender.

Not much reason the Germans would send any more help to the Japanese than historical. Even if they did, it’s not like China and Southeast Asia were exactly good for tanks (terrain, infrastructure, fuel, and supply issues all present).

Neither China or the Soviet Union are going to fall quickly or easily. With terrain, large armies, poor supply, tough weather, and massive armies they aren’t going to fall easily, if at all. Baku is still protected by the Caucuses Mountains even if the Germans somehow manage to make it through Northwest Persia.

Japan doesn’t have access to oil unless America focusing on Europe means they try to avoid provoking Japan with the oil embargo. This means Pearl or equivalent is still decently likely.

While some fascist sympathizes might be emboldened, I hardly see this leading to a proto-fascist Ford presidency. Also not clear how this improves German intelligence networks in the USA. Not to mention it wasn’t exactly a secret Roosevelt was ramping up the nation for war (like having American ships actively escorting ships bound for Britain further and further into the Atlantic, just begging the Germans to create another Lusitania.

Not sure how the Germans get a hold of Royal Navy or British overseas commercial interests either way. They would just relocate, mostly to Canada.

 

[Vlad123]

India and Egypt are still colonies so have no say in the matter unless they are willing to risk rebellions. Iraq’s rebellion fiasco in historic WWII shows about how good that would go for Egypt. As for India, unlike Iraq/Egypt they’re a colony, so it’s a bit more complicated, but most of the pro-independence factions had turned to gaining independence through relatively peaceful means. Bose and his possum are pragmatic ideologically, but I can’t see him having anywhere near enough support to violently overthrow the Raj. Iran is independent and might be secured by the Soviets alone or Soviets+British troops from India like historical. Even assuming they could get past Egypt, Axis supply lines would be pretty tenuous so far into the Middle East:s deserts and mountains anyways.

South Africa had an anti-war Boer faction, but imho Jan Smuts would be able to keep everything in line, like he did at the start of the war where he overcame said faction’s attempts to keep South Africa out of the war and became Prime Minister. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are all in far too deep with the empire to pull out. Mackenzie King is actually probably the most amenable of the Commonwealth PM’s to seeking peace in such a scenario (a sovereigntist and somewhat enamoured by Hitler), but it’s unlikely to be politically feasible while Britain refuses to surrender.

Not much reason the Germans would send any more help to the Japanese than historical. Even if they did, it’s not like China and Southeast Asia were exactly good for tanks (terrain, infrastructure, fuel, and supply issues all present).

Neither China or the Soviet Union are going to fall quickly or easily. With terrain, large armies, poor supply, tough weather, and massive armies they aren’t going to fall easily, if at all. Baku is still protected by the Caucuses Mountains even if the Germans somehow manage to make it through Northwest Persia.

Japan doesn’t have access to oil unless America focusing on Europe means they try to avoid provoking Japan with the oil embargo. This means Pearl or equivalent is still decently likely.

While some fascist sympathizes might be emboldened, I hardly see this leading to a proto-fascist Ford presidency. Also not clear how this improves German intelligence networks in the USA. Not to mention it wasn’t exactly a secret Roosevelt was ramping up the nation for war (like having American ships actively escorting ships bound for Britain further and further into the Atlantic, just begging the Germans to create another Lusitania.

Not sure how the Germans get a hold of Royal Navy or British overseas commercial interests either way. They would just relocate, mostly to Canada.

It depends, which parts remain loyal to the democratic UK? Which ones choose to be with Mosley? It must be said that mainly in Japan there was no rubber and if Mosley gives the go ahead to "temporarily occupy Malaysia" almost all of the Japanese problems have disappeared. Are pzIV bad? Ok but maybe the German weapons were more functional (artillery etc). Iran, Iraq etc, awaited the axis as LIBERATORS!About Roosvelt it was a "puffin secret" that the Americans did not know, if it were discovered, all the neutralists would vote against roosvelt asking for his "forfeiture" for "high treason" or something.

 

[Rubidium]

It depends, which parts remain loyal to the democratic UK? Which ones choose to be with Mosley? It must be said that mainly in Japan there was no rubber and if Mosley gives the go ahead to "temporarily occupy Malaysia" almost all of the Japanese problems have disappeared. Are pzIV bad? Ok but maybe the German weapons were more functional (artillery etc). Iran, Iraq etc, awaited the axis as LIBERATORS!About Roosvelt it was a "puffin secret" that the Americans did not know, if it were discovered, all the neutralists would vote against roosvelt asking for his "forfeiture" for "high treason" or something.

That really only works if Malaysia and the other colonies (which, practically, means the British and Commonwealth forces in those territories) decide to recognize whatever occupation government the Germans install (assuming they create one). Which, if the British government fights on, seems unlikely. And the Dominions, at least, have their own governments, which will make their own decisions. If the British government as a whole (not some German-installed puppet, but the widely seen as legitimate, pre-invasion government) makes peace, they probably will too, but if the British government fights on, they have no reason to concede. We're already invoking magic alien intervention to even allow the Germans to invade the UK (something they never came close to doing); there's no way they could threaten Canada or the other Dominions.

The US was pretty openly preparing for a possible war after the Fall of France; Congress immediately passed a bill calling for a massive expansion of the navy, and another instituting conscription. No, the US didn't want war, but it was definitely preparing for the possibility. And while America wasn't ready for war, there was strong sympathy for the Allies and fear of an Axis victory, which manifests in all popular opinion polls.

And events in China/Japan had their own momentum, which was almost completely unconnected to the European War, but were also bringing things closer to war. And even if the Japanese somehow decided to occupy Malaysia (and I'm pretty sure the Australians/New Zealanders would have taken action to prevent that), that doesn't solve their biggest problem: no oil. Japan was reliant on importing oil from the US for its invasion of China, and once the US imposes an oil (and steel, also critical, and also something that they can't get from Malaysia) embargo, Japan will almost certainly head down the road to Pearl Harbor again.

It also doesn't matter whether the Middle East would "greet them as liberators"; there was plenty of Axis sympathy among the population already, and it achieved absolutely nothing. The key obstacle for a German conquest of Egypt/the Middle East remains the fact that there is a giant desert in the way with terrible infrastructure. The entire North African campaign can be summarized as: "one side gets an advantage, advances, gets beyond their supply range, and is counterattacked by the defenders (who are now much closer to their own supply bases) and forced to retreat until the new former defenders outrun their own supply lines, at which point the situation flips, and repeat basically until Operation Torch." As everywhere in WW2, the real deciding factor was the logistics.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

It depends, which parts remain loyal to the democratic UK? Which ones choose to be with Mosley? It must be said that mainly in Japan there was no rubber and if Mosley gives the go ahead to "temporarily occupy Malaysia" almost all of the Japanese problems have disappeared. Are pzIV bad? Ok but maybe the German weapons were more functional (artillery etc). Iran, Iraq etc, awaited the axis as LIBERATORS!About Roosvelt it was a "puffin secret" that the Americans did not know, if it were discovered, all the neutralists would vote against roosvelt asking for his "forfeiture" for "high treason" or something.

The British government was a lot more stable and less weak than France’s, so I don’t really see colonies flipping to some collaboration regime set up under Mosley. Then there’s the ANZAC troops in the area to keep everything in line.

Iran and Iraq both had pro-Allied and pro-Axis factions. As Rubidium said though, the bigger issue was the military situation on the ground. None of the Middle East has the power to throw out the British on their own (not to mention, the Axis were usually pretty quick to squander any potential good will they had in occupied regions.

Again, why would the Germans be giving advanced technology to the Japanese and how would this have made China just collapse?

It was pretty clear to those who followed politics Roosevelt was gearing up for war. This was an interventionist president, from the interventionist party (at the time the Democrats were the more interventionist party - remember Wilson had got them into WWI), and was implementing policies and rhetoric to bring America closer and closer into the war (lendlease, convoy escorting, trade embargoes, etc.). And preparing your country for war is not treason. Neither is trying to get your country into a war a leader believes is in said country’s best interests. The non-interventionists were on the wane by the time of Pearl anyways (although still were significant). For instance, many socialist organizations began dropping opposition to the war after Barbarossa and Axis aggression and expansion continued to sway many towards interventionism. Finally, the next presidential election was in 1944, which Roosevelt doesn’t need to run in if he really thinks he will lose (already has a historic third term).

 

[Vlad123]

You cannot fall a president meanwhile a war, you re-elect...but if you want be attaccked, permit the kills of YOUR CITIZIEN for enter in war, this is betray at my home!
The oil arrive from Middle east, and Suez are vital like gibraltar.

 

[jcranmer]

You cannot fall a president meanwhile a war, you re-elect...but if you want be attaccked, permit the kills of YOUR CITIZIEN for enter in war, this is betray at my home!
The oil arrive from Middle east, and Suez are vital like gibraltar.

Actually, the rise of the Middle East as the main production center for oil happens mostly after WW2; the US in particular is supplying itself off of domestic sources. If it needs to draw from foreign sources, it can tap into Latin American reaches of oil, predominantly Mexico and Venezuela. The Mediterranean is not a vital supply route for the US as it is for the UK, as the US's possessions and interests are dominated by Pacific and Western Hemisphere concerns--the US is going to be more concerned with its control over Hawaii (the strategic linchpin of the North Pacific), Panama, and the Caribbean.

 

[Culise]

It depends, which parts remain loyal to the democratic UK? Which ones choose to be with Mosley? It must be said that mainly in Japan there was no rubber and if Mosley gives the go ahead to "temporarily occupy Malaysia" almost all of the Japanese problems have disappeared. Are pzIV bad? Ok but maybe the German weapons were more functional (artillery etc). Iran, Iraq etc, awaited the axis as LIBERATORS!About Roosvelt it was a "puffin secret" that the Americans did not know, if it were discovered, all the neutralists would vote against roosvelt asking for his "forfeiture" for "high treason" or something.

Regarding a hypothetical Japanese occupation of a Mosleyist-Malaysia and adding to Rubidium's cogent points, it's also worth noting that one of the immediate triggers for 1941 rise of diplomatic tensions that led to the strike on Pearl Harbor was the occupation of French Indochina at Vichy's acquiescence. Adding to this a further step against Malaysia, even with Mosley's support, is definitely going to raise even more questions in Washington as well as Canberra. The decision to follow through with the occupation of all of Indochina in the end July 1941 was accompanied by the quiet resolution in the highest levels of Japanese military command that war with America was already inevitable, so there was no longer any need to hold back when Indochina would (and historically proved to be) an ideal launching point for further operations southward. I wouldn't say it'll accelerate the outcome of war because the historical situation was already rather dire by this point, but I'm not sure it will help the Japanese situation much more than the historical manner in which they occupied Malaysia did simply because the change in timeframe is a matter of months. At most, what we may see is a Hull Note that adds Sarawak, Sabah, Brunei, and Malaya to China and French Indochina as territories from which Japan must withdraw.

That said, if the British forces in theatre do quietly acquiesce, there is some advantage gained by the Japanese. Historically, the decision by the British to surrender North Borneo to Japan without a fight was accompanied by the destruction of all oil facilities in the theatre, requiring their repair before Japan could resume oil production. Even this may not be a decisive advantage, however. The oil production of Borneo that they had restored to working order was itself already sufficient for Japanese needs, to my understanding, so even if oil production in Sabah, Sarawak, and Brunei continues unhindered, further benefits are somewhat marginal. The key issue Japan had issues with was shipping it to the Home Isles. Even ignoring predation by Allied submarines, the needs of war historically pressed the Japanese tanker fleet to and beyond its limit: doubling or tripling the oil they produce in early 1942 in North Borneo alone does not help significantly if they cannot deliver sufficient amounts of that refined oil to the industries, navy, and army that burn it.

 

[Vlad123]

Regarding a hypothetical Japanese occupation of a Mosleyist-Malaysia and adding to Rubidium's cogent points, it's also worth noting that one of the immediate triggers for 1941 rise of diplomatic tensions that led to the strike on Pearl Harbor was the occupation of French Indochina at Vichy's acquiescence. Adding to this a further step against Malaysia, even with Mosley's support, is definitely going to raise even more questions in Washington as well as Canberra. The decision to follow through with the occupation of all of Indochina in the end July 1941 was accompanied by the quiet resolution in the highest levels of Japanese military command that war with America was already inevitable, so there was no longer any need to hold back when Indochina would (and historically proved to be) an ideal launching point for further operations southward. I wouldn't say it'll accelerate the outcome of war because the historical situation was already rather dire by this point, but I'm not sure it will help the Japanese situation much more than the historical manner in which they occupied Malaysia did simply because the change in timeframe is a matter of months. At most, what we may see is a Hull Note that adds Sarawak, Sabah, Brunei, and Malaya to China and French Indochina as territories from which Japan must withdraw.

That said, if the British forces in theatre do quietly acquiesce, there is some advantage gained by the Japanese. Historically, the decision by the British to surrender North Borneo to Japan without a fight was accompanied by the destruction of all oil facilities in the theatre, requiring their repair before Japan could resume oil production. Even this may not be a decisive advantage, however. The oil production of Borneo that they had restored to working order was itself already sufficient for Japanese needs, to my understanding, so even if oil production in Sabah, Sarawak, and Brunei continues unhindered, further benefits are somewhat marginal. The key issue Japan had issues with was shipping it to the Home Isles. Even ignoring predation by Allied submarines, the needs of war historically pressed the Japanese tanker fleet to and beyond its limit: doubling or tripling the oil they produce in early 1942 in North Borneo alone does not help significantly if they cannot deliver sufficient amounts of that refined oil to the industries, navy, and army that burn it.

But this prevent the PH strike...and maybay help to kickout the china, i not know the front in the 1941 in a hypotetical Japan have oil and rubber, but much probability the chinese are in great trouble and the Sovietwithouth 2 great veins of LL and a German reich more calm (no Bomber attack homeland,the british dockyard produce uboat for germany and they raid the convoy back the urss (japan consent use their ports?Yes in exchange of weapons and oil or other can axis give them) and preparred for kick off the URSS. Because.
The occupation of France are end, or are more ligther, Yugoslavia not are in trouble,much manpower(AKA man,camions and other) can be used in Barbarossa and i think with these much resource the URSS Fall and USA not intervene...I think India can be Placated and enter in axis force promising indipendece(chandra Bose like this). In Australia,NZL and other i think can a tug of war from pro-allies and pro-axis. But, if axis promise "Japan people cannot attack you if remain out of war" i think if they accept the japan have a threathre in less (and maybay a center to commerce) i think the Axis, when they destroyed the UK, they have automatilly won because.
-USA not have the bridgehead to invade the fortress europe.
-UK industry serve the reich for "war reparations"
-Using the anticommunism they gain "volunteers" for SS/Heer angaist the URSS.
-Mosley,can "to deal with hitler" for a sweet peace and make a "saviour of the country" passing churchill as a traitor of the country, especially if the dominions after the war, -"become fascist" and stay loyal to london or are "forced".
-The resource in Africa (a huge empire) can serve the axis, especially if the "Mosley government" like the "Vichy government" are reconized like the "legal government" (Yes Vichy until the end of 1945 are reconized like the real govern of france), for the two gover in exile in USA(or canada) are a great problem, especially if other colony leggitimize them. The unknown is how dominions, and African colonies, act. If these accept (and who) can make easier or not the absolute victory

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

But this prevent the PH strike...and maybay help to kickout the china, i not know the front in the 1941 in a hypotetical Japan have oil and rubber, but much probability the chinese are in great trouble and the Sovietwithouth 2 great veins of LL and a German reich more calm (no Bomber attack homeland,the british dockyard produce uboat for germany and they raid the convoy back the urss (japan consent use their ports?Yes in exchange of weapons and oil or other can axis give them) and preparred for kick off the URSS. Because.
The occupation of France are end, or are more ligther, Yugoslavia not are in trouble,much manpower(AKA man,camions and other) can be used in Barbarossa and i think with these much resource the URSS Fall and USA not intervene...I think India can be Placated and enter in axis force promising indipendece(chandra Bose like this). In Australia,NZL and other i think can a tug of war from pro-allies and pro-axis. But, if axis promise "Japan people cannot attack you if remain out of war" i think if they accept the japan have a threathre in less (and maybay a center to commerce) i think the Axis, when they destroyed the UK, they have automatilly won because.
-USA not have the bridgehead to invade the fortress europe.
-UK industry serve the reich for "war reparations"
-Using the anticommunism they gain "volunteers" for SS/Heer angaist the URSS.
-Mosley,can "to deal with hitler" for a sweet peace and make a "saviour of the country" passing churchill as a traitor of the country, especially if the dominions after the war, -"become fascist" and stay loyal to london or are "forced".
-The resource in Africa (a huge empire) can serve the axis, especially if the "Mosley government" like the "Vichy government" are reconized like the "legal government" (Yes Vichy until the end of 1945 are reconized like the real govern of france), for the two gover in exile in USA(or canada) are a great problem, especially if other colony leggitimize them. The unknown is how dominions, and African colonies, act. If these accept (and who) can make easier or not the absolute victory

Japan did have access to rubber, so that wasn’t really a main issue. Remember that Japan got bogged down in China even when they could still import oil. Sure more oil would help, but the bigger thing was not having their war effort, war capacity, and a decent portion of their industry take large blows from a lack of oil.

If France is anything to go by, Germany isn’t going to get nearly as much out of occupied Britain factories as you might think. Such a success may also cause Germany to focus on rebuilding a surface navy instead of sticking with U-Boats, but that’s more debatable.

Japan isn’t going to let the Axis use their ports like that. They didn’t really in WWII (the handful of Axis ships that got to Japan were usually commandeered by the Japanese. No Pacific War (debatable, but assuming your premise) makes the Vladivostok convoy route even more attractive (and the Japanese were careful not to raid it in actual WWII for fear of war with the Soviets). There’s also still the Iran route.

Barbarossa would be stronger, with more elite forces that could be committed (although maybe less total depending on occupation requirements in Britain. That said, it would take an awful lot to turn the brutal slog through the USSR into the Soviets “quickly falling”.

India is still a colony and Chandra Bose isn’t leading it. You’re right that he was very sympathetic to the Axis, and the Soviets, and anyone who was against the British and he thought might be mildly sympathetic to Indian independence under his leadership. That doesn’t change, but while his movement may gain a bit more momentum, I syptruggle to see how it would have enough to overthrow the British Raj, especially with groups like Sikhs, Muslims, and the Princely States who wouldn’t be too thrilled about such a state emerging.

Australia and New Zealand aren’t going to be selling out to Japan or the European Axis. If anything, they might be pulled between sticking with the Commonwealth or securing their protection by moving closer to the USA (of course these things become moot if/when the USA joins the Allies).

Unlike France, the British Government isn’t going to largely surrender and is generally stronger and more stable. Mosley ends up leading a Quisling regime at best without much popular support for the foreseeable future.

I dispute that Africa would have split from the legitimist British Government or that the Axis would be in much position to capture it. Not that the Axis got all that much out of the further flung Vichy colonies anyways for comparison.

Again, a theoretical British collaborative government will have a lot less legitimacy than Vichy France. And Vichy vs Free France was disputed, but Free France definitely had the advantage post Case-Anton as it became increasingly clear it was nothing more than a puppet and was no longer useful to negotiate with since it had little to offer as an ally.

As for bridgeheads, I’ve discussed some of my opinions previously in this thread, but at the very least there are definitely options, even if some more feasible than others.

 

[Culise]

But this prevent the PH strike...and maybay help to kickout the china, i not know the front in the 1941 in a hypotetical Japan have oil and rubber, but much probability the chinese are in great trouble and the Sovietwithouth 2 great veins of LL and a German reich more calm (no Bomber attack homeland,the british dockyard produce uboat for germany and they raid the convoy back the urss (japan consent use their ports?Yes in exchange of weapons and oil or other can axis give them) and preparred for kick off the URSS. Because.
The occupation of France are end, or are more ligther, Yugoslavia not are in trouble,much manpower(AKA man,camions and other) can be used in Barbarossa and i think with these much resource the URSS Fall and USA not intervene...I think India can be Placated and enter in axis force promising indipendece(chandra Bose like this). In Australia,NZL and other i think can a tug of war from pro-allies and pro-axis. But, if axis promise "Japan people cannot attack you if remain out of war" i think if they accept the japan have a threathre in less (and maybay a center to commerce) i think the Axis, when they destroyed the UK, they have automatilly won because.
-USA not have the bridgehead to invade the fortress europe.
-UK industry serve the reich for "war reparations"
-Using the anticommunism they gain "volunteers" for SS/Heer angaist the URSS.
-Mosley,can "to deal with hitler" for a sweet peace and make a "saviour of the country" passing churchill as a traitor of the country, especially if the dominions after the war, -"become fascist" and stay loyal to london or are "forced".
-The resource in Africa (a huge empire) can serve the axis, especially if the "Mosley government" like the "Vichy government" are reconized like the "legal government" (Yes Vichy until the end of 1945 are reconized like the real govern of france), for the two gover in exile in USA(or canada) are a great problem, especially if other colony leggitimize them. The unknown is how dominions, and African colonies, act. If these accept (and who) can make easier or not the absolute victory

Why would it prevent the Pearl Harbor strike? Japan is well aware that any move southward like this will result in war with the US. That's why they didn't move on southern Indochina until 1941, and that only worsens if you switch Indochina with Borneo. Just the opposite, really: in the diplomatic situation at that point in time, any move southward, whichever colony is targeted, is likely to mandate a preemptive strike against the US to assuage Japanese fears of imminent US interference from a position of strength. Indochina was the threshold because forces from it could threaten British and Dutch colonies from Malaya to New Guinea. Actually invading said British colonies directly is even more provocative, not less. The Japanese are going to be well aware, and not without validity, that the US will oppose any effort by Japan to secure oil independence and a free hand to prosecute their war against US friends in China. Once the Japanese take northern Borneo, the US reaction to such a provocation will make war is all but inevitable in Japanese eyes, and a preemptive strike against the US naturally follows from that. In other words, far from preventing a Pearl Harbor strike, it all but ensures it.

 

[Vlad123]

I think the mail questione are:
The King die/are captured? Churchill die/captured? If these question are Yes, (especially second) i think a Mosley govern have more leggitimacy, especially the free GB have their must leader...died...i think without "powerful alternative" the free GB are less legittimacy,and if have less leggitimacy... Editato: Iran route Can be blocked Like other, the puppet of UK are much time pro-axis and if UK falls, they help the axis

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

I think the mail questione are:
The King die/are captured? Churchill die/captured? If these question are Yes, (especially second) i think a Mosley govern have more leggitimacy, especially the free GB have their must leader...died...i think without "powerful alternative" the free GB are less legittimacy,and if have less leggitimacy... Editato: Iran route Can be blocked Like other, the puppet of UK are much time pro-axis and if UK falls, they help the axis

If Churchill dies the King can appoint Anthony Eden (from the pro-war Churchill wing of the party) or even Clement Attlee if the Conservatives are willing to accept him (unlikely, but Eden works fine).
If the King dies then Elizabeth, with her uncle (Duke of Gloucester) as regent would do so instead under the Regency Act of 1937, which has similar provisions for if the monarch is incapacitated (ie presumably if he was captured). Either happening is pretty unlikely though. The only way you might give the collaborationist regime a little legitimacy might be if they can get Edward to support it.

If Iran gets any ideas, like in actual WWII, they will be invaded and occupied by the Soviets, with or without British/Indian help.