The Empire fights on?

[unmerged(33619)]

I was wondering if the UK was taken over by Germany, would the English army still fight? I mean the French still fought after France was conquered. Would the English army in India still fight? The african colonies? And what would the Germans do if they kept fighting? Maybe I can work up a mod, I never liked how UK didn't have a bitter peace, like USSR did.

 

[Pro_Consul]

I tend to think that the British would have kept on fighting from their colonial bases as long as the Commonwealth countries were still behind them. After all, with their navy it would have been easier for them than it was for the French. I think they would just have relocated their command to India or South Africa. But of course the only way the Germans could have taken the British isles was if they did it immediately upon the fall of France, or even during its capture right after the Dunkirk evacuation. Within a couple of weeks after the fall of France the Royal Navy was repositioned to prevent any amphibious assault up England, so from then on the Germans had no chance whatsoever of taking the isles.

 

[Permanganate]

I never liked how UK didn't have a bitter peace, like USSR did.

Go play CORE; it includes the New Order events, and you can puppet England and grab a big chunk of their empire by event.

 

[unmerged(3221)]

The CORE event is preposterous. I agree with Pro_Consul about this.

If Halifax was chosen as PM rather than Churchill, then the UK might have agree to peace terms with the Nazis in June 1940 as Hitler wanted. But with Churchill in control and a successful aerial and naval defense of the British isles, then all other possibilities become moot. Even if somehow the UK loses the British isles, then they could have moved to either India or Canada and fight on. They would more likely be so angry at the Nazis that a serious consideration of switching sides would never have happened.

The other problem with puppeting is that the country switches sides. It is highly unlikely that English citizens would agree to start fighting their relatives in the Commonwealth countries. What's the point of a Commonwealth when the leader of it switches sides and starts fighting it's partners and relatives?

Anyways puppeting is an exploit as far as I am concerned. Only the historical occurrences (Vichy and Romania and perhaps Bulgaria) should be in the game as events. The consequences of becoming a puppet are also too feeble in the game. You should lose divisions, lose strength and organization in divisions (desertion), and get 10 or 20% dissent if you switch sides during a war. Very little happens to countries that get puppeted.

Just honor your opponents and fight longer to annex them.

 

[unmerged(35913)]

Even if somehow the UK loses the British isles, then they could have moved to either India or Canada and fight on. They would more likely be so angry at the Nazis that a serious consideration of switching sides would never have happened.

...

Anyways puppeting is an exploit as far as I am concerned. Only the historical occurrences (Vichy and Romania and perhaps Bulgaria) should be in the game as events. The consequences of becoming a puppet are also too feeble in the game. You should lose divisions, lose strength and organization in divisions (desertion), and get 10 or 20% dissent if you switch sides during a war. Very little happens to countries that get puppeted.

Sorry but I dont think you can be so affirmative about that.

1) About british surrender : think about France. France was also a mighty colonial empire, french people was a lot more anti-german than the british (no need to detail why I think ). The nazis hated the french a lot more than the english (that was true for Hitler and most german officials - first of whom Rudolph Hess...). And when France was invaded, the British Empire was still by its side. But french government asked for the armistice nevertheless - "to save what could be saved" according to them. I dont see any good reason to affirm that, after the fall of mainland England, the british would not have sued for peace with Germany. Well, surely Churchill wouldn't, but how long do you think Churchill would stay in charge after an invasion of England ?

2) Puppets, an irrealistic exploit ? How do you call East Europe during the cold war ? "genuine friends and allies" ? Moreover, being puppeted reduces your max IC to 50, as well as consume all your stockpiles and align you politically with your master... I don't call that "very little" either

 

[Pro_Consul]

Sorry but I dont think you can be so affirmative about that.

1) About british surrender : think about France. France was also a mighty colonial empire, french people was a lot more anti-german than the british (no need to detail why I think ). The nazis hated the french a lot more than the english (that was true for Hitler and most german officials - first of whom Rudolph Hess...). And when France was invaded, the British Empire was still by its side. But french government asked for the armistice nevertheless - "to save what could be saved" according to them. I dont see any good reason to affirm that, after the fall of mainland England, the british would not have sued for peace with Germany. Well, surely Churchill wouldn't, but how long do you think Churchill would stay in charge after an invasion of England ?

The point is that Germany could not have invaded England except during that very narrow window during and immediately after the Fall of France, and even then would almost certainly have never changed sides. Annexation with a British goverment in exile would have been possible, but not puppeting. Also, Britain was the leader of a world spanning commonwealth. France was not. France is a very poor analog for this question.

2) Puppets, an irrealistic exploit ? How do you call East Europe during the cold war ? "genuine friends and allies" ? Moreover, being puppeted reduces your max IC to 50, as well as consume all your stockpiles and align you politically with your master... I don't call that "very little" either

I agree that the consequences to a puppet are not minor. On the other hand, certain nations would never have done so, and others would definitely have suffered serious internal upheaval if they had. The USA, Britain and Japan are good examples of countries in which game-style puppeting would be a practical impossibility, even if they were totally occupied by an enemy. And France again comes into the argument here. Granted they requested the armistice and surrendered to Germany. But that did not stop a portion of their military from fighting on as the Free French, close beside the British, and from retaining control of much of France's colonial possessions. It also didn't stop Denmark from ceding Iceland to keep it out of German hands, or the Dutch royal family from taking their government into exile and assisting the coordination of the Dutch underground resistance. So while the consequences of annexation and puppeting are by no means "minor", they are still not realistic.

 

[unmerged(29350)]

Sorry but I dont think you can be so affirmative about that.

1) About british surrender : think about France. France was also a mighty colonial empire, french people was a lot more anti-german than the british (no need to detail why I think ). The nazis hated the french a lot more than the english (that was true for Hitler and most german officials - first of whom Rudolph Hess...). And when France was invaded, the British Empire was still by its side. But french government asked for the armistice nevertheless - "to save what could be saved" according to them. I dont see any good reason to affirm that, after the fall of mainland England, the british would not have sued for peace with Germany. Well, surely Churchill wouldn't, but how long do you think Churchill would stay in charge after an invasion of England ?

I have to disagree with you on this one and I think your comparrison of Britain and France is wildly out. There are some major differences between these two nations at that point in history, particularly when you start comparing the capabilities of their respective empires.
1) The British empire, although already in major decline, controls coutries such as India & South Africa (to name just two) which contribute large quantities of troops and other production valuable commodities (e.g. far eastern rubber - well represented in the game).
2) Britain leads an alliance of nations - the common wealth - and therefore has a number of fallback options (I believe Canada had in fact been prepared for exactly this eventuality)
3) The attitudes of the British - the typical British arrogance and the belief that we would win through.
4) The fact that the French were hardly well treated under German occupation would only stiffen resolve

I am not saying that Britain was undefeatable (although that would be typical of someone with my nationality! ), just that a capitulation would not have happened on a successful German occupation of the British Isles.

However, I think that Germany was onto the right plan when she tried to starve Britain out. If the people of Britain could really be made hungry and desparate and not have the capability for war then I feel that that really would have put the government of the time under pressure to come to terms with Germany - now this is an event I would really like to see - If Britains industry can be reduced to x for a period of y (I have obviously not done any figures here!) through the lack of resources reaching the Isles, then a British 'bitter peace' event becomes a possibility. America must also be considered in this equation - and a true convoy version of lend-lease becomes necessary for the mechanics of the game (this has always bugged me - you can't intercept a game event but sooooo many ships were sunk enroute to Britain!)
The question then becomes - what are the consequences of the leader of the commonwealth comming to terms? The situation is now very murky and difficult to calculate as much depends on Japan too. I see several possibilities:-

India becomming independent (and either fighting on or comming to peace)
Canada, Aus & S.Africa signing perhaps signing the same treaty or fighting on
I would also suggest that much depends on the status of America.

Of course all only my opinion - and I am no history student. Greatly interested in other peoples thoughts on this. Great thread.

 

[unmerged(36069)]

I was wondering if the UK was taken over by Germany, would the English army still fight? I mean the French still fought after France was conquered. Would the English army in India still fight? The african colonies? And what would the Germans do if they kept fighting? Maybe I can work up a mod, I never liked how UK didn't have a bitter peace, like USSR did.

Take it for what you will, but this is a quote from one of Churchill's more famous speeches; 4 June, 1940.

"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

 

[unmerged(36069)]

However, I think that Germany was onto the right plan when she tried to starve Britain out. If the people of Britain could really be made hungry and desparate and not have the capability for war then I feel that that really would have put the government of the time under pressure to come to terms with Germany - now this is an event I would really like to see - If Britains industry can be reduced to x for a period of y (I have obviously not done any figures here!) through the lack of resources reaching the Isles, then a British 'bitter peace' event becomes a possibility. America must also be considered in this equation - and a true convoy version of lend-lease becomes necessary for the mechanics of the game (this has always bugged me - you can't intercept a game event but sooooo many ships were sunk enroute to Britain!)
The question then becomes - what are the consequences of the leader of the commonwealth comming to terms? The situation is now very murky and difficult to calculate as much depends on Japan too. I see several possibilities:-

India becomming independent (and either fighting on or comming to peace)
Canada, Aus & S.Africa signing perhaps signing the same treaty or fighting on
I would also suggest that much depends on the status of America.

Of course all only my opinion - and I am no history student. Greatly interested in other peoples thoughts on this. Great thread.

I agree with you that the previous poster's comparisons of Britain and France were off. However, I'm not sure that I agree with you that Germany and Britain could ever come to terms unless Germany had really pounded Britain and then allowed her to remain independent, a possibility I seriously doubt would ever happen.

Although it's all speculation, I think the only way Britain exits the war is if she is totally and utterly crushed. I just can't see history playing out any other way, but like I said, it's all just speculation.

 

[Permanganate]

I just can't see history playing out any other way, but like I said, it's all just speculation.

I suspect that either Chamberlain or Halifax would have come to terms with the Germans in 1940; I think it took Churchill's resolve and speechmaking to keep England on-message. Who else could have embroidered the Dunkirk evacuation, the wreck of England's only major ally and the loss of the entire country's heavy weapons and a large number of its troops, into a great victory?

It wouldn't have taken much for Churchill to not be PM; he was almost run over by a car in the US some years previously (he looked the wrong way when crossing the road) and Chamberlain might still have been PM in autumn 1940 if the Norway disaster had never happened and he was canny enough to blame the Fall of France on the French. Chamberlain always seemed to look for a diplomatic solution to the situation, and if Hitler had asked him I think he would have negotiated. If the Norway situation had been even worse, Churchill would have been gone as well, since he was First Sea Lord. In that event, Halifax would have got the job. He's more of an unknown, but without Churchill's convictions and ability to motivate I think a historical or worse Dunkirk would have sent him looking for a way out of the war.

 

[Orthank]

I belive that immediatelly after fall of London, UK would have signed with Germany a peace treaty.

 

[unmerged(33619)]

I just read a short story by Harry Turtledove in which Germany defeated the Uk and "requested" all colonial forces to surrender, Africa and India refused to. Germany had to go invade those areas, so-so story but Ghandi arguing with Rommel was worth it.

Anyways the bitter peace with england for CORE seemed tacked on, and really didn't make sense. England is out, is made a puppet, and still the Allies fight on! I should of stated such a thing better when I said UK had no bitter peace. For Russia the bitter peace made sense, The Germans rushing over the eastern steps and the only way the Soviet Union to survie was to surrender. England giving up if the islands are taken over? No way.... they had an empire spaning the globe, and the navy to back it up. Even if England is made a puppet, no way in hell would the British empire stop fighting. This is still my anglo-saxon mentality speaking mind you, but the UK would have still fought on.

 

[unmerged(10426)]

I suspect that either Chamberlain or Halifax would have come to terms with the Germans in 1940; I think it took Churchill's resolve and speechmaking to keep England on-message.

There's no need to suspect; it's a vitrual certainty. IIRC, Halifax was actually openly arguing for such a move in cabinet around the time of Dunkirk. We can state it pretty plainly; if Halifax became PM, then the war would have been over. This is the most probable (And lets not underestimate this - it was a close run thing that Halifax didn't become PM.) scenario for the war in the West being concluded in 1940.

btw, we've had this debate once or twice before.

 

[unmerged(19063)]

Anyways the bitter peace with england for CORE seemed tacked on, and really didn't make sense. England is out, is made a puppet, and still the Allies fight on! I should of stated such a thing better when I said UK had no bitter peace. For Russia the bitter peace made sense, The Germans rushing over the eastern steps and the only way the Soviet Union to survie was to surrender. England giving up if the islands are taken over? No way.... they had an empire spaning the globe, and the navy to back it up. Even if England is made a puppet, no way in hell would the British empire stop fighting. This is still my anglo-saxon mentality speaking mind you, but the UK would have still fought on.

You know what would be interesting? If the event instead made a new British puppet nation out of the areas Germany had already conquered (likely the Isles and maybe some of the Empire), kinda like Vichy France, then the Free British could fight on with the overseas Empire. Maybe make Canada leader of the Allies to show the government relocating there or annexing Canada into the Free Brits and making Ottowa or something the new British capital until the Isles are liberated?

 

[Pro_Consul]

You know what would be interesting? If the event instead made a new British puppet nation out of the areas Germany had already conquered (likely the Isles and maybe some of the Empire), kinda like Vichy France, then the Free British could fight on with the overseas Empire. Maybe make Canada leader of the Allies to show the government relocating there or annexing Canada into the Free Brits and making Ottowa or something the new British capital until the Isles are liberated?

An interesting possibility. You should code it and submit it the CORE project, or suggest it in that forum if you don't know how to code events.

 

[unmerged(33619)]

You know what would be interesting? If the event instead made a new British puppet nation out of the areas Germany had already conquered (likely the Isles and maybe some of the Empire), kinda like Vichy France, then the Free British could fight on with the overseas Empire. Maybe make Canada leader of the Allies to show the government relocating there or annexing Canada into the Free Brits and making Ottowa or something the new British capital until the Isles are liberated?

That would be very interesting. Definatly send that to CORE. Maybe India would declare independence? But Ghandi did say he supported the war agaianst Hitler, so who knows?

 

[unmerged(35913)]

There's no need to suspect; it's a vitrual certainty. IIRC, Halifax was actually openly arguing for such a move in cabinet around the time of Dunkirk. We can state it pretty plainly; if Halifax became PM, then the war would have been over. This is the most probable (And lets not underestimate this - it was a close run thing that Halifax didn't become PM.) scenario for the war in the West being concluded in 1940.

With all respect to british pride (I am french, I know what it means for a nation to lose a war ), I think that's an option to consider. With all allies in Europe defeated, what were the positive reasons for England to fight on ? I mean, what did England have to win, besides the question of loyalty toward the French, Belgians etc. ? There was even a trivial mediator for the negotiations of peace with Germany : the Duke of Windsor, previously King Edward VIII of England (he abdicated in 1937), who was an admirer of german economic and social policies, and already met Hitler in Germany. If it wasn't for Churchill resolution, IMHO, the peace between Germany and England was a close call.

In game terms, that could be easily modded with an event, linked to the Vichy event : the British (or Germans) sue for peace based on status quo after french armistice. A 5% chance for this to be agreed (like most events in HOI) seems historically accurate. Of course UK wouldn't lose anything in the treaty (besides prestige) but that would change the course of History quite dramatically. And make the game even more challenging for... the SU player eventually

 

[unmerged(10426)]

Well, the most obvious thing to do would be to scrap the 1940 election for The UK (If that's possible.) and institute a 'Halifax or Churchill?' event with the trigger that Chamberlain is PM. Ideally this would then trigger other events, etc. Halifax is actually already in the ministers file as an alternative HoG.

 

[unmerged(33619)]

These sounds like good ideas, but could we mod a way to let the UK fight on if England is captured? That seems like a nice challenge if you play as UK. For in rl the UK had plans in order to deal with an invasion, and occupation. The Royal family and Parliament members were to be shipped to Canada to make the gov. in exile. The country side was littered with groups of men trained to be partisan, nicknamed Suicide sqauds.

But what would you call a puppeted England? Vichey England?

 

[unmerged(10426)]

In game? I'd leave it as Britain and create a seperate Free British tag from one of the spares.