Hmm... perhaps. It'd be a very tough pill for Churchill -with his very romanticized view of the Empire and White Man's Burden attitudes - to swallow, but yeah if the alternative is utter defeat he might be pressured into agreeing to start transitioning over to immediate Dominion status with an eventual independence referendum or something like that. Even if those political obstacles are overcome though, I do think you're underestimating how long it'd take to fully mobilize, equip, train, and organize. Assuming negotiations begin shortly after the Fall of France (which would really be when Britain has the impetus to start) and conclude within a few months, which then allows the process of raising the new Indian armies to get started, than I could see that those armies might be ready by 1942, but not in time to save Iran or Iraq. Maybe in time to save the Suez though.Well, that was true IOTL.
But would it still be true in this ATL ? For starters, Britain will get much more desperate, facing both Germany and Soviet Union together, and really need as much troops as possible, and ready to make unprecedented concessions to get it. Of course, London wouldn't want to do that. But if the other option is to simply accept that the Germans and Soviets take over the entire Europe + Middle and Near East ?
Unless the Turks do collapse. British logistical studies in late-1940/early-1941 projected that, once the infrastructure along the Anatolian-Palestinian coastline and whatever counter-action the British themselves could mount is factored in, the Germans (and presumably the Soviets) could support four armored and six infantry divisions through Turkey, across Palestine and into Egypt. So if the Turks collapse, the British military position in the MidEast and Egypt is hosed. Assuming Churchill's government survives that political disaster, they'll have to fight the Russians in North Africa then, taking up Italy's OTL geographic position ironically enough.
Eh... given the pattern in Eastern Europe later in the war, the Soviets would be setting up collaborationist government's in Iran that would probably be a coalition one of communist and left-leaning nationalists and making all the noises of leaving a supposedly "free and friendly" Iran once the war is over. The only actual territory they'd officially take would be the Azerbaijani regions around Tabriz, like they tried during the '46 Iran crisis. For the nationalists, this would not at all be giving off the appearance of "just another set of colonial conquerors" vibes and being next to India is a bonus in terms of being able to get support from them. The concessions above could take the wind out of their sails though.On the other side, Indian nationalists might have had (for many of them) sympathies for Soviet Union, or the Soviet model. But they would be quite unhappy, or outright worried, with the Soviets conquering Iran (because it would make them look like just another set of colonial conquerors, and more importantly because it would put them right next to India itself).
Maybe? The US would still have to overcome it's internal isolationist bloc, but I can indeed see how a genuine Berlin-Moscow Axis might move things up.Also, you're right that historical Britain (by itself) wouldn't have the material resources to equip (and expand, with mass colonial recruitment) an army big enough to match Germans and Soviets, let alone equip other armies (such as Italians, Free French, Turks or Iranians).
But in the event of a German-Soviet offensive alliance to take over Eurasia, the USA would likely start the lend-lease (with mass production) much sooner. Because, quite frankly, the threat to US interests would be far bigger and more pressing.
Last edited: