The Butterfly Effect: A British AAR

[Kurt_Steiner]

You've not seen the Monarchist plans yet.

ç

My gosh....

 

[Hightemplar]

That is assuming that they have plans (I think that both sides in the SCW must be outsourcing to Slovakia (even the Italians are not this incompetent))

Note: me trying to merge 1800s British views on the colonies with 40k at 3am ahead, viewer (or reader) discretion is advised (seriously this isn't my actual rl opinion)

My solution for Britain to make up for the loss of the French army is twofold. Firstly simply have the BBC broadcast the surrender of the French army, this is the most important part of the French army (surrendering) and I am sure the French government will be thankful (as they can't do it on radio Paris as they are either on strike or already occupied by Germans). Secondly to make up for the lack of numbers Britain should equip the colonies (note on terms dominion=British territory predominantly white and self governing (ish), colony=British territory where native population is exploiting for resources (most of the empire)), now I hear you ask "won't they rebel against their betters if you give them all guns?" Usually yes, however with the right amount of 'encouragement' (men with pistols standing behind them threatening to shoot deserters) I believe they can be a truely useful force. Also you thought we would give them guns, of course not guns are expensive knives are much cheaper (and unlike bullets reusable, sure to please the environmental lobby), and do you really think that your average native can be taught how to use a gun? Of course not far to uncivilised. These native conscripts (let's give a nod to the Australian heritage and call them penal legions) will fight for (as far as the natives should be concerned) the god emperor of the British empire (actually he is simply appointed by God but I am sure that will be to nuanced for the natives so we need to simply it for them). These units could be used for tasks unbecoming of a British soldier such as: marching over mine fields, taking out tanks with mining explosives, digging latrine pits and charging enemy machine guns to 1. Waste enemy ammo and 2. Pin them in place for artillery/air strikes

Now yes I admit there are some problems with this 1. The natives might get a bit uppity at being rounded up and forced to fight for their betters, the solution: devide and conquer e.g. In India exempt the most pro British groups from this policy and reward them with the property of those who have gone to serve the King (n.b. None of this would apply to the Gurkhas, they will be used in their original manner) 2. Some of the stupider natives might get it in their heads that they have a better chance trying to make a break for it (or even worse attack their betters) rather than charge that machine gun line in the name of the emperor (of India). The solution to this lack of courage is an explosive collar which would have attached to it a small explosive charge, the detonator for which would be in the hands of the local officer (who would of course be British)

This plan would allow our glorious empire to counter the red hordes of the Soviet Union with hordes of our own (we would even have a couple of hundred million to spare), and of course it would annoy some on the radical left who believe that we should be leaving the natives alone rather than civilising them, but this honourable gentleman considers this a bonus not a draw back

On the issue of Britain shipping supplies to Finland in the event of a war, since when has the Royal Navy ever allowed a foreign power to dictate where Britannia sails? (Especially a communist one, the only thing worse would be kowtowing to the French)

Furthermore it is my opinion that El Pip should continue with For King Haakon and the Fjords

 

[AtlanticFriend]

Well, the way I see it Britain has more or less four choices :

- 1) retire from European affairs and embrace Imperial self-absorption (which will lead to either option 2 or 3)
- 2) acquiesce to a Nazi-dominated Europe
- 3) acquiesce to a Soviet-dominated Europe
- 4) inspire, build and consolidate a democratic bloc in Europe

Should Britain pick option 4, it will need France, its 100 divisions, and its industry, if only as a forward line of defence. There just aren't any alternative on the European continent. Options 1, 2 and 3 mean abandoning that asset to another power (be that Germany, the USSR, or even the USA).

 

[Wraith11B]

The British also always (at least through much of the modern period) sought to balance against any continental power gaining such a hegemony, because if they did not they would quickly be subsumed by the Continental Hegemon and rendered the junior partner.

 

[sebas379]

One day, when I've retired and am too old to travel, I might endeavor to read this. For now, my brain hurts when thinking about it even existing. El Pip, what have you done.

 

[El Pip]

All true, but two paper tigers managed to wage war for five years OTL and cause a lot of damage because everyone else was either unprepared or didn't take them seriously. If Europe is that small a margin for the British (which come to think of it rings true because of how messed up it was in terms of economic policy and so on) then they still have security interests there. If nothing else, having one power group control most of the Mediterranean coastline isn't good, especially when the Axis and the Soviets have both indicated they want to have massive navies if and when they can afford them.

Certainly there is a security interest in Britain making sure one power doesn't dominate Europe, there has been for centuries. But that doesn't automatically lead to allying with the French or in London making the correct decisions to support a balance of power.

Sure modern views of colonialism are butting in but it doesn't make the contemporary ill feeling go away either. Decolonisation was way more peaceful than might have been expected (even if because of the line drawn on maps, the independent states weren't going to be that stable afterwards). Yes America was anti-imperialistic but the Japanese encouraged many independence movements as well as they took the Pacific (although it was mostly not so much encouragement as the old imperial authorities that stamped out independence movements were gone or dead, and a foreign invasion really stirs nationalistic feeling). India and South Africa and large parts of Indo-china were already 'on the way out' or moving in that direction before the war. I'm not sure what impact WWII is going to have on things but so far not much has been done to change that. The Imperial federation might work but its uncertain whether anyone wanting independence would be swayed by it. I suppose it depends on what happens with Pacific war and how damaged Britain is generally by the war.

It is too late for Imperial Federation, you need to get that going pre-WW1 to have any hope and it is still dicey. The Raj is certainly dead but it's not too late for a Dominion, though what that looks like and if it is one, two or half a dozen states is unclear. South Africa, well it depends on your view on how those enfranchised by 'Partnership' behave with their vote. If they turn out to just vote like everyone else for the best party, then I can see the requirements being lowered and things sort of working out, if the "Tribal lines voting" thing happens then it will get messy.

Did tanks exist that would have been significantly better than the TKS variants?

Let's not forget that Germany invaded France in 1940 with a tank force at least 60-70% composed of machine gun targets...

France and Britain aren't likely to sell their few and precious Somua S35s or Matilda's....and even those are of questionable value to carry out truly mobile operations. The Russians aren't going to sell T-26s or BTs either.

Tank technology in the 1930s is insufficient to carry out the ideas of Fuller and the armored warfare mobility cult. By the time the tanks DID exist, everyone had moved to a firepower focus anyway...and mass armored thrusts had been discredited as a viable strategy...and it had been relegated to a tactical means rather than a strategic one.

In other words, tanks aren't as important as the propaganda makes them seem.

Tanks aren't an amazing panacea I agree, but even the Panzer Is could take out the TKS' with ease, they were that awful. As you say supply could be limited so, off the top of my head, don't build any TKS at all and use the funds and factories to produce more 7TPs instead. Poland will end up with a smaller but better equipped tank force that can serve as a hard hitting mobile reserve.

ç

My gosh....

Neither side is planning well, they are in that respect very well matched.

That is assuming that they have plans (I think that both sides in the SCW must be outsourcing to Slovakia (even the Italians are not this incompetent))

Note: me trying to merge 1800s British views on the colonies with 40k at 3am ahead, viewer (or reader) discretion is advised (seriously this isn't my actual rl opinion)

My solution for Britain to make up for the loss of the French army is twofold. Firstly simply have the BBC broadcast the surrender of the French army, this is the most important part of the French army (surrendering) and I am sure the French government will be thankful (as they can't do it on radio Paris as they are either on strike or already occupied by Germans). Secondly to make up for the lack of numbers Britain should equip the colonies (note on terms dominion=British territory predominantly white and self governing (ish), colony=British territory where native population is exploiting for resources (most of the empire)), now I hear you ask "won't they rebel against their betters if you give them all guns?" Usually yes, however with the right amount of 'encouragement' (men with pistols standing behind them threatening to shoot deserters) I believe they can be a truely useful force. Also you thought we would give them guns, of course not guns are expensive knives are much cheaper (and unlike bullets reusable, sure to please the environmental lobby), and do you really think that your average native can be taught how to use a gun? Of course not far to uncivilised. These native conscripts (let's give a nod to the Australian heritage and call them penal legions) will fight for (as far as the natives should be concerned) the god emperor of the British empire (actually he is simply appointed by God but I am sure that will be to nuanced for the natives so we need to simply it for them). These units could be used for tasks unbecoming of a British soldier such as: marching over mine fields, taking out tanks with mining explosives, digging latrine pits and charging enemy machine guns to 1. Waste enemy ammo and 2. Pin them in place for artillery/air strikes

Now yes I admit there are some problems with this 1. The natives might get a bit uppity at being rounded up and forced to fight for their betters, the solution: devide and conquer e.g. In India exempt the most pro British groups from this policy and reward them with the property of those who have gone to serve the King (n.b. None of this would apply to the Gurkhas, they will be used in their original manner) 2. Some of the stupider natives might get it in their heads that they have a better chance trying to make a break for it (or even worse attack their betters) rather than charge that machine gun line in the name of the emperor (of India). The solution to this lack of courage is an explosive collar which would have attached to it a small explosive charge, the detonator for which would be in the hands of the local officer (who would of course be British)

This plan would allow our glorious empire to counter the red hordes of the Soviet Union with hordes of our own (we would even have a couple of hundred million to spare), and of course it would annoy some on the radical left who believe that we should be leaving the natives alone rather than civilising them, but this honourable gentleman considers this a bonus not a draw back

On the issue of Britain shipping supplies to Finland in the event of a war, since when has the Royal Navy ever allowed a foreign power to dictate where Britannia sails? (Especially a communist one, the only thing worse would be kowtowing to the French)

Furthermore it is my opinion that El Pip should continue with For King Haakon and the Fjords

It is a bold plan, but as the British Indian Army got to be 2.5million strong as a purely volunteer force such methods may not be necessary. What is needed is more guns for them and, ideally, for no-one else to attack until they are all ready.

Well, the way I see it Britain has more or less four choices :

- 1) retire from European affairs and embrace Imperial self-absorption (which will lead to either option 2 or 3)
- 2) acquiesce to a Nazi-dominated Europe
- 3) acquiesce to a Soviet-dominated Europe
- 4) inspire, build and consolidate a democratic bloc in Europe

Should Britain pick option 4, it will need France, its 100 divisions, and its industry, if only as a forward line of defence. There just aren't any alternative on the European continent. Options 1, 2 and 3 mean abandoning that asset to another power (be that Germany, the USSR, or even the USA).

Many people in London like Option 5 - Leave Europe in a multi-way face off between the German block / French + Little Entente / Soviets plus whatever Italy is doing. Meanwhile do more useful and interesting things in the Empiree. Provided that European face off is stable this isn't a bad plan, however it probably isn't stable and so will all fall apart somehow. But that's a problem for the future.

The British also always (at least through much of the modern period) sought to balance against any continental power gaining such a hegemony, because if they did not they would quickly be subsumed by the Continental Hegemon and rendered the junior partner.

More worried that the cost of defeating such Continental Hegemons is quite high and the locals are never grateful, so cheaper to stop it happening in the first place. There will be those in London arguing this case, but they do keep hitting the problem of how to do it without having to rely on the French. Basically unless and until outside events force them I just can't see Paris (they really don't think that they've done anything wrong and are sure that Britain needs them more) or London (as they are convinced France does need to apologise and that France needs them more) making any move towards reconciliation.

One day, when I've retired and am too old to travel, I might endeavor to read this. For now, my brain hurts when thinking about it even existing. El Pip, what have you done.

Rest assured that when you are retired Butterfly will still be going at it's own majestic pace, probably distracted down a diversion about the influence of developments in aeronautical engineering on high rise architectural developments.

 

[AtlanticFriend]

Many people in London like Option 5 - Leave Europe in a multi-way face off between the German block / French + Little Entente / Soviets plus whatever Italy is doing. Meanwhile do more useful and interesting things in the Empiree. Provided that European face off is stable this isn't a bad plan, however it probably isn't stable and so will all fall apart somehow. But that's a problem for the future. .

Well, your option 5 looks a lot like my option 4 in my humble opinion!

In blunt terms of wealth, industrial power and population, any bloc wanting to compete with the Sov or Nazi will need Britain either in a leading or supporting role. The French Ecole de Guerre ran a wargame in 1938, before Münich, about the chances of a Franco-Czecho-Polish alliance winning against Axis forces and their client states. The result was depressingly clear: it couldn't be done (which most certainly influenced Daladier's stance in the Sudetenland crisis).

 

[Hightemplar]

Well, your option 5 looks a lot like my option 4 in my humble opinion!

In blunt terms of wealth, industrial power and population, any bloc wanting to compete with the Sov or Nazi will need Britain either in a leading or supporting role. The French Ecole de Guerre ran a wargame in 1938, before Münich, about the chances of a Franco-Czecho-Polish alliance winning against Axis forces and their client states. The result was depressingly clear: it couldn't be done (which most certainly influenced Daladier's stance in the Sudetenland crisis).

In terms of land forces available to be used in Europe isn't the checks a better ally than the British? They have a larger army on the German's boarder and don't have an empire to defend, true the British have that massive navy but the MN has the German navy more than covered

Furthermore it is my opinion that El Pip should continue with For King Haakon and the Fjords

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

In terms of land forces available to be used in Europe isn't the checks a better ally than the British? They have a larger army on the German's boarder and don't have an empire to defend, true the British have that massive navy but the MN has the German navy more than covered

Furthermore it is my opinion that El Pip should continue with For King Haakon and the Fjords

Well now we're all just talking around in circles about how the first weeks of the war could have been won. Since in OTL Germany did almost everything perfectly, had an extreme amount of luck and some really odd and wrong enemy decisions to play with, any game universe is probably going to have them do at least a little bit worse in comparison. Eastern Europe does pack a punch, but then again so shouldn't France, which has a huge army and a massive line of defences running down the German border. Now that the allies movement is dead, they can extend that line across the rest of the eastern border with little repercussion (what, really, is Luxembourg and belgium going to do about it? Complain to the British and tell the French to defend them instead of themselves? They'll have to join France's alliance for that, and I dont think they will). With a weakened and potentially war weary Italy and a very insecure Duce, Germany is the big enemy against them. And they've already garunteed it will fight a war on multiple fronts, a war they do not have the resources for (and if French intelligence or inspectors were any good, they'd know that by now). So as it stands right now, the French alliance should be able to hold out, at least until Russia decides the enter the fray and kill everyone. That however should at least get the British involved if not the us.

 

[Bullfilter]

OK, I have taken the same majestic approach to commenting on this august AAR as the authAAR has to writing it. But if I was to wait until having caught up before commenting then I’d be in my dotage by the time that occurred. Almost there anyway!

So I’ll just flag my presence and take it up from here!

 

[AtlanticFriend]

In terms of land forces available to be used in Europe isn't the checks a better ally than the British? They have a larger army on the German's boarder and don't have an empire to defend, true the British have that massive navy but the MN has the German navy more than covered

Furthermore it is my opinion that El Pip should continue with For King Haakon and the Fjords

Czechoslovakia is certainly an important ally, but is geographically isolated from Great Britain which means no way to get/bring reinforcements or resources. That also was one of the problems at Münich.

 

[El Pip]

Well, your option 5 looks a lot like my option 4 in my humble opinion!

In blunt terms of wealth, industrial power and population, any bloc wanting to compete with the Sov or Nazi will need Britain either in a leading or supporting role. The French Ecole de Guerre ran a wargame in 1938, before Münich, about the chances of a Franco-Czecho-Polish alliance winning against Axis forces and their client states. The result was depressingly clear: it couldn't be done (which most certainly influenced Daladier's stance in the Sudetenland crisis).

You can prove anything with wargames depending on what initial assumptions you make, so it wouldn't surprise me if the Ecole de Guerre hadn't reached their decision first and then tweaked things to get the result they 'knew' was correct.

That was also a very different situation; a Germany that had re-occupied (and re-fortified) the Rhineland, corralled Italy into an alliance and annexed Austria. At the moment in TTL I think the Ecole de Guerre would reach a different conclusion, at the moment they could get walk into the still de-militarised Rhineland on day 1 of any war and, even if they get pushed back, they can certainly stay long enough to trash Germany's industrial heartland.

In terms of land forces available to be used in Europe isn't the checks a better ally than the British? They have a larger army on the German's boarder and don't have an empire to defend, true the British have that massive navy but the MN has the German navy more than covered

Furthermore it is my opinion that El Pip should continue with For King Haakon and the Fjords

Long term, as in months/years the Britain can mobilise more manpower, more industry and much more finance than all of Eastern Europe combined. Britain is also perceived as being better placed to get US support, which is again far larger. But for a short 3/4 month war, something as long as the Abyssinian War everyone has just seen, then the Czechs standing army is significantly larger than the BEF and so more useful because it is ready to go.

Well now we're all just talking around in circles about how the first weeks of the war could have been won. Since in OTL Germany did almost everything perfectly, had an extreme amount of luck and some really odd and wrong enemy decisions to play with, any game universe is probably going to have them do at least a little bit worse in comparison. Eastern Europe does pack a punch, but then again so shouldn't France, which has a huge army and a massive line of defences running down the German border. Now that the allies movement is dead, they can extend that line across the rest of the eastern border with little repercussion (what, really, is Luxembourg and belgium going to do about it? Complain to the British and tell the French to defend them instead of themselves? They'll have to join France's alliance for that, and I dont think they will). With a weakened and potentially war weary Italy and a very insecure Duce, Germany is the big enemy against them. And they've already garunteed it will fight a war on multiple fronts, a war they do not have the resources for (and if French intelligence or inspectors were any good, they'd know that by now). So as it stands right now, the French alliance should be able to hold out, at least until Russia decides the enter the fray and kill everyone. That however should at least get the British involved if not the us.

Most of this. I will say I cannot see France extending the Maginot, they want to leave the Northern route open for the Germans; it ensures the fighting is in a foreign country, it allows France to concentrate their forces in one point, they get the benefit of the Belgian divisions to enlarge their army and it is another way to help drag Britain into the war.

OK, I have taken the same majestic approach to commenting on this august AAR as the authAAR has to writing it. But if I was to wait until having caught up before commenting then I’d be in my dotage by the time that occurred. Almost there anyway!

So I’ll just flag my presence and take it up from here!

Hurrah! Butterfly is only 240,000 words up to the last update, that's barely any length at all to read through (half the length of Lord of the Rings), so I expect to see you soon.

Czechoslovakia is certainly an important ally, but is geographically isolated from Great Britain which means no way to get/bring reinforcements or resources. That also was one of the problems at Münich.

You do need the Poles very firmly on side not looking to take bites out of Czechoslovakia, but even then that just moves the problem to getting supplies through the Baltic which isn't much better.

Getting Romania into the New Entente is the obvious fix and provides a route from the Czechs to the French Mediterranean ports which (if Italy stays neutral) should be secure. While I believe I've mentioned that Paris is making efforts in that direction, I think it will be a struggle.

 

[Wraith11B]

Butterfly is only 240,000 words up to the last update, that's barely any length at all to read through (half the length of Lord of the Rings), so I expect to see you soon.

Took me about two weeks, I think. Maybe three. But I blitzed past several pages worth of conversational posts and likely missed more than a few things!

 

[AtlanticFriend]

You can prove anything with wargames depending on what initial assumptions you make, so it wouldn't surprise me if the Ecole de Guerre hadn't reached their decision first and then tweaked things to get the result they 'knew' was correct.

That was also a very different situation; a Germany that had re-occupied (and re-fortified) the Rhineland, corralled Italy into an alliance and annexed Austria. At the moment in TTL I think the Ecole de Guerre would reach a different conclusion, at the moment they could get walk into the still de-militarised Rhineland on day 1 of any war and, even if they get pushed back, they can certainly stay long enough to trash Germany's industrial heartland.

Well, I was actually surprised that they ran that wargame when I first read about it. Judging by the über-reliance on the Maginot Line favoured by the GHQ, I suppose it did not envision hurling everything and the kitchen sink at the German Reich, thus allowing the piecemeal destruction of France's continental allies.

And yes, of course, the situation was quite different in OTL 1938 than in this ATL 1936.

 

[El Pip]

Took me about two weeks, I think. Maybe three. But I blitzed past several pages worth of conversational posts and likely missed more than a few things!

You may have missed a few things, but you also missed a great deal of involved voting about the US presidential election. So a mixed bag. Still, to get through so much in such a short time is impressive and I think you for making the effort.

Well, I was actually surprised that they ran that wargame when I first read about it. Judging by the über-reliance on the Maginot Line favoured by the GHQ, I suppose it did not envision hurling everything and the kitchen sink at the German Reich, thus allowing the piecemeal destruction of France's continental allies.

And yes, of course, the situation was quite different in OTL 1938 than in this ATL 1936.

It does seem like it would be a very interesting war game to read about, just to understand the GHQ thinking a bit more. I half suspect there would be some notes about a junior staff officer on the 'enemy' side trying to push his force through the Ardennes, then getting told off about being 'unrealistic'. That tended to happen in 1930s wargames.

And I must correct you, it's not 1936. I've actually got to mid-1937 in the last 12 years of writing, which is far more impressive. ( )

 

[Hightemplar]

For someone who complains constantly about Paradox's realism in your other AAR it's a bit inconsistent of you to stick up for officers accused of unrealistic practices

Furthermore it is my opinion that El Pip should continue with For King Haakon and the Fjords

 

[El Pip]

For someone who complains constantly about Paradox's realism in your other AAR it's a bit inconsistent of you to stick up for officers accused of unrealistic practices

Furthermore it is my opinion that El Pip should continue with For King Haakon and the Fjords

It turns out I was maligning the French GHQ unfairly. Or rather maligning them for the wrong thing.

They did run a wargame under General Prételat in early 1938 that simulated a German force going through the Ardennes and crossing the Meuse at Sedan and it led to a crushing victory. They even got the timings correct to within a couple of hours. Prételat was on the War Council so this was known right at the top and he had the power to do something about it. Instead the French reaction was to very, very slowly build some bunkers, that were still half built shells when the Germans invaded, and just believe the Germans wouldn't attack there.

I just find the whole thing baffling, I may need to get a book on the French War Council to try and understand what the hell they were thinking.

 

[Hightemplar]

It turns out I was maligning the French GHQ unfairly. Or rather maligning them for the wrong thing.

They did run a wargame under General Prételat in early 1938 that simulated a German force going through the Ardennes and crossing the Meuse at Sedan and it led to a crushing victory. They even got the timings correct to within a couple of hours. Prételat was on the War Council so this was known right at the top and he had the power to do something about it. Instead the French reaction was to very, very slowly build some bunkers, that were still half built shells when the Germans invaded, and just believe the Germans wouldn't attack there.

I just find the whole thing baffling, I may need to get a book on the French War Council to try and understand what the hell they were thinking.

You must include this in the AAR to explain the rapid clapse of France (also if I may ask what is the source?)

I do have a book written by the French General Staff (the Offical De La Surrender (France's most cowardly officers all in one place, bringing together the finest surrender treaty drafters in France)), it's called How to lose wars - from the Romans to Vietnam

Furthermore it is my opinion that El Pip should continue with For King Haakon and the Fjords

 

[Bullfilter]

it's not 1936. I've actually got to mid-1937 in the last 12 years of writing, which is far more impressive. ( )

Oh no, bring me my smelling salts, I’ve come over all faint and unsteady. This rate is far too hasty. Slow down, sir. Such unseemly haste can cause nosebleeds and will definitely panic the troops!

 

[Iwantdumplings]

I'm a huge fan of long-running, sweeping works, from this forum's Siegerkranz to Karl Ove Knausgaard - but this is something else entirely. This isn't just writing, it's performance art. One of these days I'm going to take some student who bangs on about 'temporality' and make them write a paper on this amazing Perec-ian endeavour.

The spine of this work, I'd say, is Pip's wonderfully British outlook. Perfect balance of respectful trust in Good Old Blighty with thorough-going cynicism about human nature and politics in particular (which has been particularly refreshing since I've recently spent a lot of time with some American Straussians who all but worship Churchill as a god...). If I ever met you in an English pub I'd definitely get you some rounds of warm, flat beer till we start ranting about Biggles.

Congrats on the AAR so far and long, long, long - long, long; long, long long (long, long -- long), long may it continue.