Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

What if Britain and Germany sign peace agreement

Discussion in 'What If - European Theater - Western Front & Atlan' started by ww2fan, Jul 17, 2010.

  1. ww2fan

    ww2fan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    1
    The Conservatives decide that its not worth their effort to sacrifice their empire's enormous potential or take the blame of their country's possible demise and accept to a conditional peace offering from Germany before the onset of the battle of Britain. Churchill resigns and British government is well aware of Germany's intentions to invade the USSR, so they rest on the notion to just "let the mad dictators destroy themselves" leaving Britain to fare for her own defense and highly desirable overseas stability. They would take their chances also believe Hitler and Stalin would wear themselves out fighting and mistakenly leave the British in a unscathed stronger position against Germany.

    Seeing how Britain saw the Nazis and Soviets as identical entity of scum and sworn enemies to the crown, they wouldn't necessarily care what they would do to themselves. Britain was a reluctant pacifier in external affairs. Especially those that were not interfering in their business.




    A peace settlement just before the onset of Major military operations against Britain would be a greater relief for Germany's war effort and scarcity of war resources.


    1. With no need to gather air superiority to engage Britain, 3000 fighters and experienced aircrew bombers would free for the German war machine and very helpful in the long run.


    2. With a peace settlement, the North African campaign would be unthinkable, freeing a dozens divisions and hundreds of mobile armored vehicles intended for Russia.


    3. Balkans campaign would not be necessary as Britain would no longer be recognized as a threat to Romanian oilfields. Yugoslavia would voluntarily turn axis from the right incentives or remain neutral and free resources and men from occupying them.


    4. In my scenario, Hitler would refuse to interfere in Italy's skirmish in Greece, fearing a escalation with Britain again just before Barbarossa and encouraging Mussolini to withdraw.


    5. Resources would be diverged from U-boat production, significantly shifting war production to Hitler's greatest war asset, Russia.



    6. The likelihood of a declaration of war against the US would be significantly reduced, as Hitler would have little reason to doing so without making a mockery out of himself. He was originally conceived with the idea that the US was planning to use Britain as a base against the Axis powers when Britain was at war. But since Britain is not at war in my scenario, this idea would be a farce.


    7. As for Japan, all the events in the pacific that were to occur would go the same way with a major political exception. Japan exiting the axis to avoid the backlash it would face for violating the Axis peace terms of agreement with Britain.
     
  2. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    I believe that the toughest sell here would be that Hitler had proven himself to be a lying snake when it came to international agreements. Six months before he launched his attack to the west he had publically assured the whole world that he had no designs on the Dane, Norwegians, Dutch or Belgian territories. So let's see after he broke his ten year "non-aggression pact" with Poland, the following month (Oct.) he litterally said he was "done" and assurred all that he wasn't eyeing anyone else with a coveteous gaze.

    I think his and Nazi Germany's credibility as per treaties and documents was pretty much a "non-existent" factor. Only a fool would think otherwise, and for all the faults of the pre-war and "Sitz-krieg" Britons, they wouldn't fall for that line again. Hitler's track record was just too shabby on that option, and had been since he broke the 1938 Munich Accords. A couple of years of those kinds of lies and a government really couldn't take that chance again.
     
  3. ww2fan

    ww2fan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    1

    The scenario is not emphasizing a voluntary peace settlement by the British, but a point to the head with gun by Germany peace offering with less sympathetic Hitler. Britain was surrounded by a totalitarian dictatorship willing to sacrifice enormous men and resources to eliminate anything standing in its way. The British would'NT have been as courageous fighters nor willing to sacrifice as much on the ground against the might of a new German war machine that cost the Russians the destruction of an entire generation of productive working force with aftershock still lasting today. Former German occupied Russian Oblasts in the populated sections fare less economic prosperity than Oblasts that were not briefly occupied by Germans!
     
  4. ww2fan

    ww2fan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    1

    The British government to me would be more shady and politcally awkward than the Germans in my opinion. I mean, they were in the brink of war with the Soviets for ridiculous assertions. Their arrogance surpassed their stupidity as much as the Nazis.
     
  5. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    I'm sorry, I don't agree. The Nazis had been violating treaties and pacts since Hitler marched into the Saar, anexed Austria, and bluffed the west out of the Sudatenland. He had been shown to be a liar as per international agreements, and everything he did up until (and including) his invasion of Poland and the other nations in the west had affirmed this.

    Britain wasn't going to take anything he put on the table at face value, and he couldn't beat them into accepting a "peace" offer. That isn't "arrogance", that is reality.
     
  6. ww2fan

    ww2fan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    1
    Churchill government was firm in your idea of British resistance to any peace offerings, but the pubic was drastically loosing morale and fears were mounting i.e the British government staff were in panic mode. By arrogance, I wasn't necessarily speaking on behalf of Britain's approach with the peace offerings, but its aggressive approach with the Soviets that were close to allied with the Germans in their eyes. Somehow that didn't apply to them, nor how they would screw themselves over by planning to engage the Soviets and the axis at the same time over Poland and Finland over stupid accusations know to man with no other major combatant allies for their own side. They were dealing with Totalitarian powers that would share eternal peace with them as they could, but their increasing power and influence over their own continent are all the ingredients that fueled British arrogance and stubbornness to remain hostile to matching powers as were it not to say the least their own power and influence over the world were threatened NOT THEIR SURVIVAL.
     
  7. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    Maybe I missed this but, would there be a clause in the peace asking Britain for some troops to help in the war effort?

    Germany did after all at least ask all others...
     
  8. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    The British had for centuries seen the rise of a single major power in Europe as a threat to their survival and having said power control Denmark, Holland, and Belgium made it even more so. A treaty while the latter two were under German control is pretty much a non starter.
     
    ULITHI likes this.
  9. ww2fan

    ww2fan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    1

    Belgium, Denmark and Holland were not powers. The Allied declaration of war by Britain and France was responsible for provoking the German invasions to begin with. Hitler did not have any sort of interest in Western Europe as long as it could keep his back side secured form threats and Britain knew it. That's why Hitler was trying to expand in Eastern Europe and was desperate to forge a conditional cease fire as long as Britain would follow up. Churchill's government on the other hands was more war weary and opposite sides of the spectrum in the war debate. They were the true deciders in maintaining the war no matter what.

    If you read the topic, it clearly asks for alternative opinions, try the discussion thread.
     
  10. wlee15

    wlee15 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    3
    Re-read LWD's post, the rise of a single major European power (Germany) was unacceptable to Britain. You can see the Napoleonic wars as an example. Any peace would only be temporary to build up strength, Britain would eventually demand that Germany evacuate from the occupied territories.
     
  11. freebird

    freebird Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    54
    No, unless I am mistaken, your original post was lacking in a topic question, it was merely stating a hypothesis.

    Agreed. However, I can see an Anglo-German peace treaty, providing for the Wehrmacht to withdraw from Holland, Norway, Belgium and some kind of independant Poland (perhaps reverting to 1914 borders), in exchange for Britain lifting the blocade. As a bonus the Germans would pledge to defend finland's territory against Soviet aggression.
    Germany's long term goal was eastwards in the USSR, which wasn't a major concern

    Not absolute though.
    With Vichy independant of Germany, having Germany as a block to Soviet ambitions it might be acceptable to a (non-Churchill) British government.
     
  12. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    I have argued similary on other boards. A ceasfire certainly would seem possible. However the British still don't want the Germans taking over Russia and the Ukraine. In the long run it makes them too powerful. But a breather that would allow them to recover might be very welcome. Indeed long run if they could subsidze whoever was loosing in the East and prolong that conflict it might be an ideal (if morally questionable) solution as far as they were concerned.
     
  13. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    I believe you are wrong here. The whole rational for expansion in the east was to create a Germany that could contend with what he saw as the superpowers of the US and Britain. It was indeed his interest in the west (including amending the treaty from the last war) that focused him on the east. It's not a fast read but I suggest you look at Wages of Destruction
     
  14. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    About the OP:
    1) Churchill's position was precarious:there were a lot of people looking for a compromise peace with Hitler:the appeasers had not disappeared
    2)About Hitler:that he was a liar,and could not be trusted,would be no decisive obstacle,after all,politicians are a bunch of untrustfull liars,to presume that Chamberlain,or Churchill did trust his ministers,would be very naive
    3)The campaign in NA(2 divisions,not a dozen)did not affect the outcome of the campaign in the East.
    4)It would be very hazardous to presume that a peace with Britain would guarantee the Germans a victory in the war against the SU;the German economic situation was not that strong.
     
  15. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    I'd like to see some documentation on this. Even Chaimberland seemed to be buying time rather than sold on Hitler.
    Hitler had shown that his word couldn't be trusted for more than a few days. Even among poliiticians this is exceptional. Britain isn't going to agree to anything important that can't be verified and difficult to reverse.
    Again that seems to be extrapolating beyond reasons. It's direct effects may not have been all that great but there were some indirect ones that seem significant to me.
    Guaranee no. But certainly gives them a better chance. Among other things they have a significant stash of foreign exchange curtosy of the occupied lands. With no British blockade in place they can access the world economy. The Soviets on the other hand have a much more difficult time doing so.
     
  16. freebird

    freebird Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    54
    I agree with lwd. Without having to use 50+ divisions & a huge chunk of the LW to garrison Western Europe against the British, no blockade, no supplies to Soviet Union, and starting Barbarossa perhaps a couple of months earlier put success heavily in favor of the Germans
     
  17. efestos

    efestos Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    26
    May 1940 War Cabinet Crisis

    From wiki, I guess many members might found better documents.
     
  18. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    That Halifax was still willing to appease Hitler is one thing. I'd hardly consider him "lots" of people however. Again it's not even clear that Chaimberland was in that camp at this point. It certainly doesn't point to any precariousness of Churchill's position.
     
  19. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    On the first point:a good source is A.Roberts :Eminent Churchillians"The Tories versus Curchill";he gives a lot of exemples for the hostility of the Tories (who had the majority in the Commons) to Churchill;at any moment Chamberlain could cause the downfall of the government .There is also the fact that Butler was not fired for his peacefeelers .These are indications that the position of Churchill was precarious.Not that I am argueing that Chamberlain was looking for a compromise peace .
    About Hitler's reliability :I doubt that there was anyone in Britain who,already in 1933,trusted Hitler.It was not so that the "Coup of Prague" was opening the eyes of the naive appeasers,who trusted Hitler :immediately after Munich(thus before Prague),the spending on Air-raid Precautions was increasing from 10 million£ to 50 million £.
    About NA:in june 1941,there were only 2 German divisions,of course,later the German commitments were increasing .
    About the German occupation troops:it is not so that a peace with Britain would enable the Germans to withdraw all those men ,and most of these divisons were not suitable for the East .
    While peace with Britain would enable Germany to do more trade,it is dubious that this would be sufficient to strenght the German position sufficiently:
    1) peace would be good,but it would be depending when international commerce would restart,and also if the Germans could pay with foreign currency .Last point:my assumption is that the capacity of the German war economy was that low,that it would be very difficult for the Germans to increase their motorisation program,to produce more tanks,aircraft,etc..
    A good source is 'the wages of destruction'.
     
  20. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    On the orders of Halifax,the British ambassador in the US,Lord Lothian (a former (?) appeaser) was talking with people of the German embassy,a furious Churchill told Halifax to send immediately a message to Lothian ,forbidding these talkings;and ,by way of precaution,Churchill sent himself such telegram to Lothian,in case Halifax would forget it :cool:.
    The fact is that neither Halifa,Lothian,nor Butler were fired,IMHO,that's an indication that Churchill was afraid to do this,because he was afraid that the Chamberlainites would cause the fall of the government .
     

Share This Page