Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Britain sues for peace in 1940


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 von_noobie

von_noobie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 799 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 11:06 AM

Starting this thread due to the increasing discussion of what the out come on the Eastern front may have been in another thread:

http://www.ww2f.com/...thout-ussr.html

Seeing as the thread was focused towards an the exact opposite I thought it better to give it it's own thread. This thread will discuss war on the Eastern front against the USSR and the possibility of conflict and out comes of such conflict with countries at war that may not sue for peace with Britain (ie: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Various government and military forces in exile)

Scenario-

1. After the fall of France, Britain fearing invasion sues for peace (Setting it up to be before the Battle of Britain due to the fact that the RAF pilots and air craft actually gradually increased in size through out that time frame, Deltfull the British would sue for peace after it became apparent they were winning), Royal navy is forced into a similar situation to that of the French navy with there ships being allowed only limited amounts of fuel and crew's being spread thin.

Note: If Britain sues for peace I am not sure of the standing of the other independent Commonwealth countries, India still being under British control would be out. However Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa etc would technically be free to choose to remain at war or not. Would they continue the war against Germany? Possibly purchasing British naval ships (Though i think Germany would try and block this) or US naval ships? The Australian's were in a good position at the time to secure Egypt and even possibly the Middle East. I don't see the British putting up much of a fight, More likely forces based there would become similar to the Free French.

2. Italy does not advance into Egypt nor do they receive any territory.
3. With peace between Britain and Germany the Kriegsmarine scales back operations in the North Atlantic in preparations for war with Russia in 1941.
4. Italian invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece are carried out as history tells us, With Germany coming to the rescue.
5. Invasion of Crete is carried out successfully with out the extensive losses to the paratroopers.
6. US imposes embargo on US made good's going to Germany.
7. Britain does not actively try and impose an embargo on Germany.
8. On 22nd of June 1941 Axis forces invade the USSR.

Note: The actual strategy would be similar however extra asset's would be the use of the Paratrooper's, more fighters, dive bombers and bomber's and any other force that was not needed to counter any British aggression.

Another note: With Britain going for peace, The many governments in exile located in Britain would either have to give up there struggle or find a new place for which to base them selves in that also was actively resisting Germany. If the other Commonwealth nations sued for peace with Germany as did Britain then they would have to be based in the Beguine Congo which would be unable to provide there need in materials, logistics or man power to wage war. Or if the other independant Common Wealth nations remained at war with Germany they would be based at one of 2 locations, Canada or Australia. Canada for most of them, But very possibly Australia for the Dutch due to there SE Asian interests.

Hope we can all enjoy this and have a nice civil debate.

Cheers, von_noobie

#2 von_noobie

von_noobie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 799 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 04:06 AM

Well have more free time now so ill start a possible scenario. Until such time as some one can give a reasonable answer as to why Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand etc would surrender along with Britain then ill assume for now that they are still at war with the Axis.

Allied operations in support of Greece would not occur, Before even being sent there the Australian Prime minister Robert Menzies and Lt General Thomas Blamey both felt the operation was risky and would end in disaster, Combine that with out full support of British units the sending of forces to Greece would be abandoned entirely. This would allow the Australian 6th and 9th divisions to be kept with in Egypt, With the 7th division to be coming the within a year. They would also field the 2nd New Zealand division. With 3 division's the ANZAC force would be able to secure the British interests in Egypt, Sudan and the Middle East. British/Commonwealth force's based in these regions already would be unlikely to resist, Rather they would more likely join.

Operation Compass would have to be delayed for the foreseeable future while the ANZAC forces go about securing Egypt/Sudan/Middle East, Bringing the other British/Commonwealth forces under there command and dealing with Italian East Africa.

The likely hood of the Afrika corps being formed or sent is very diminished as the Italian forces inside Libya would still appear to be more then capable of holding there own. As such the forces that became the Afrika corps would likely end up on the Russian front, Making any deployment of them towards Libya the more difficult and unlikely to reach there in time.

The RN ships based within the Med would likely side with the Australians, Some of them at least. Not many would make a stand against there former 'allies' so that the "Nazi's" could win. Also possible RN units based in the Med would set out for Canada should Canada choose to remain in the war, While Austrailia and Canada woul not have the facilities to repair or supply vessels as large as battle ships and battle cruisers, Its likely US Lend Lease would help out with this problem significantly.

The first year would mostly be spent with the still fighting Commonwealth forces and those forces that managed to evade the Germans from countries that are now occupied (Free French, Dutch, Polish etc) securing strategic territories, colonies and British/French military assets based around the world. By this time the invasion of the USSR would be well underway, The chance of taking a panzer division off the front line and then shifting it back through the supply lines heading the opposite way would cause nightmares and delays. By the time it arrived the ANZAC/British force could be in Tripoli. With the fall of Libya and the ongoing fighting in Russia the Axis would be in no position to mount an invasion of Libya.

Need to go for now, Sorry that its poor on details and sounds a bit 'iffy' but ill try and get back to add more details.

Cheers, von_noobie

#3 OSCSSW

OSCSSW

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 37 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 02:27 PM

Von_noobie I don't get it. Why would Oz, Canada, SA and NZ continue the war against Germany if the UK had made peace?

First off, without the UK and the RN how could these distant nations prosecute the war? To the best of my knowledge
it would be a while before the RCN would build up to the superb ASW fleet of WWII. The RCN had very, very few
cruisers and no fleet carriers or BBs, let alone large amphibious forces. Oz and NZ were much farther away and had
little in the way of fleet units. I just can't see them fighting on against Germany without the UK.


I also do not see the RN acting like the MN because the UK, under you scenario, was not occupied.

IMO the War in the West would be won by Hitler.

The only thing that could stop him would be the Soviets and now Hitler is fighting a single front war
with an enemy whose fleet and air force have littkle strategic strike capability. The fatherland need
not waste militray assets in defense of it's population and idustry. Logistics have just improved
massively for the Wermacht.

I'd not bet on Uncle Joe lasting all that long with almost the full might of the Nazi war machine used on
the Eastern front. No Murmask convoys either from the UK would be a major disaster for the Reds.



#4 TiredOldSoldier

TiredOldSoldier

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,806 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 04:33 PM

Britain signing a treaty in 1940 would probably mean the rest of the Commonwealth following suit, so no two front war for the Germans. Likely the Germans would evacuate northern France as there would be a peace treaty, not an armistice but they may keep Alsace and Lorraine. The RN is intact, the British would never give in on that, but the British have to de-mobilize, Norway, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands go back to neuttral status, though the Germans get "guarantees" about safe passage of the iron ore and the like, Spain is more than happy to trade with Germany giving it a channel to neutral markets. In Italy a frustrated Mussolini attempts his balkan adventure, though without RN operations in the Aegean he woud have much less reason to do it, but can concentrate everything there (no North African front), the isolated Greeks give up without much of a need for German intervention.

So the Germans have an additional Panzer Korps (the historical DAK), some 200-300 additional combat planes plus the Ju 52s lost at Crete but possibly less war booty from France (especially trucks), Stalin will lack the western help but that didn't amount to much in 1941. The Germans may even negotiate guaranteed oil supplies as part of the peace settlement but on the whole I don't see this making much of a difference to the historical 1941 campaign in front of Moscow or further North, if the Germans overextend themselves as they historically did once winter comes they will have to fall back, on the other hand if they abort Typhoon when the weather goes bad or don't even attempt it conserving strength, the Soviets, without western help, will be significantly weaker in 1942. Further South it was more touch and go, if the additional Panzer korps goes there it may allow the Germans to hold onto Rostov giving them a better starting line in 1942. Depending on how much they loose in 1941 the Germans may be capable of winning the 1942 campaign and Stalin probably can't survive two years of defeats.

With this scenario the Japanese are likely to wait until 1942 and then move on to Siberia, delivering the death blow. German pressure on the Dutch could make the US oil embargo impossible (paradoxically with Holland occupied the NEI had nothing to loose but if the Gemans have left they can't afford a stance too hostile towards the axis).
Truth is the first victim of conflict

#5 scipio

scipio

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 05:41 PM

Von Noobie - With the possible exception of South Africa, I have the impression that Australia was the most reluctant of the Dominion countries to declare war on Germany (in contrast to New Zealand - where Britain goes , we go).

Perfectly understandable since there is an aggressive neighbour, Japan a lot closer and Australian "Armed Forces" only amount to 3000 regulars in 1939. Recruitment and training for the 3 Divisions you speak of ,65,000 men, was not complete until Sept 1940.

In fact I would guess that New Zealand had as many men under arms in May 1940 but no Armoured Division until 1942 (until they were sick of being let down by British Armour and determined to have their own).

I would have thought that Canada was only one with the political will and armed forces to continue the struggle but even that would have been very very unlikely.

There was a very active Debate in the British War Cabinet immediately after the fall of Dunkirk where Halifax wanted to pursue Mussolini's mediation offer to find out what Germany's demands would be. Churchill won the argument on the basis that even the start of the process would inevitably lead to surrender and that terms would be no worse if Germany were successful in the Battle of Britain. Everyone agreed that Her Hitler would not agree to British re-armament but that it was unlikely that he would ask for anything other that a return of the Old German Overseas Territories.

So no war with Italy and at worst Italy gains "overlordship" of Egypt which was already an independent country (in theory). And all that Persian and Iraqi oil would have been safely delivered via a quite Med to aid the German and Italian forces plus rubber from Malaya.

As Tired Old Soldier states, the position of Japan would have been transformed. If it still did not have access to Dutch East Indies oil (unlikely in my opinion) then I can't see how or why a neutral Britain should not allow oil for Japan particularly if it deflected Japan northwards and then the USSR definitely falls and it is a question of where the Axis powers meet up, the Urals or further East.

As Churchill never tired of telling his old friend FDR, defeat for Britain would result in the Totalitarian States surrounding the last bastion of Democracy (oh and please send us extra tanks and ships so we can keep the barbarians away from American shores)).

#6 urqh

urqh

    Tea drinking surrender monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,681 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:00 PM

Von Noobie - With the possible exception of South Africa, I have the impression that Australia was the most reluctant of the Dominion countries to declare war on Germany (in contrast to New Zealand - where Britain goes , we go).

Perfectly understandable since there is an aggressive neighbour, Japan a lot closer and Australian "Armed Forces" only amount to 3000 regulars in 1939. Recruitment and training for the 3 Divisions you speak of ,65,000 men, was not complete until Sept 1940.

In fact I would guess that New Zealand had as many men under arms in May 1940 but no Armoured Division until 1942 (until they were sick of being let down by British Armour and determined to have their own).

I would have thought that Canada was only one with the political will and armed forces to continue the struggle but even that would have been very very unlikely.

There was a very active Debate in the British War Cabinet immediately after the fall of Dunkirk where Halifax wanted to pursue Mussolini's mediation offer to find out what Germany's demands would be. Churchill won the argument on the basis that even the start of the process would inevitably lead to surrender and that terms would be no worse if Germany were successful in the Battle of Britain. Everyone agreed that Her Hitler would not agree to British re-armament but that it was unlikely that he would ask for anything other that a return of the Old German Overseas Territories.

So no war with Italy and at worst Italy gains "overlordship" of Egypt which was already an independent country (in theory). And all that Persian and Iraqi oil would have been safely delivered via a quite Med to aid the German and Italian forces plus rubber from Malaya.

As Tired Old Soldier states, the position of Japan would have been transformed. If it still did not have access to Dutch East Indies oil (unlikely in my opinion) then I can't see how or why a neutral Britain should not allow oil for Japan particularly if it deflected Japan northwards and then the USSR definitely falls and it is a question of where the Axis powers meet up, the Urals or further East.

As Churchill never tired of telling his old friend FDR, defeat for Britain would result in the Totalitarian States surrounding the last bastion of Democracy (oh and please send us extra tanks and ships so we can keep the barbarians away from American shores)).


And dear FDR...You shouldn't count on getting our navy either...Talk to King next door..I've just told him to basically fermez his Bouche...

British Army 1939-1945 - World War II Tribute Video

 

 

[URL="http://youtu.be/Zbp_4XBmD4w"]

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 


#7 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,396 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:36 PM

If Britain sues for peace in 1940 I'd think Stalin would be much more likely to accept the word of his spies that Germany was planning an offensive against him. There's also nothing to stop the British from reintering the war or at least supporting the Soviets in this scenario that I can see.

#8 scipio

scipio

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:09 PM

I don't think Stalin would even have bothered to consult his spies, he knew full well that if Britain fell the USSR was next in the firing line. What he didn't appreciate was that Hitler, unpredictable and illogical, would start Barbarossa without first completing the subjugation of Britain.

In the immediate aftermath of Dunkirk, the British armoury was non-existent and the only real assets were a few Spitfires and a large Fleet. A rather similar situation to France after its defeat and surely terms would have been only marginal better for the British - re-armament would be out of the question.

I just can not see Britain governed at best by a Halifax or at worst by a Mosley ever contemplating aid to Stalin.

Like the situation for the free French, it would surely have required successful American landings in Europe to provide any opportunity to switch sides.

#9 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,396 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:21 PM

... In the immediate aftermath of Dunkirk, the British armoury was non-existent and the only real assets were a few Spitfires and a large Fleet. ....

Hurricanes were not to be sneezed at and the British rearmed rather quickly. Indeed the US managed to surplus a very large shipment of muntions to a "private" company which delivered them to the British before the end of June. I beleive in addition to small arms something just under 1,000 artillery pieces along with ammo for the same were included.

#10 steverodgers801

steverodgers801

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:06 PM

The problem is that the Germanshad no way to get the troops over to Britain. The barges they had were not intended for use in the channell. The average wave height on a normal day is greater then the barges could handle. The barges would need an absolutly clear day with no waves for a chance and that is simply too rare of an event.

#11 scipio

scipio

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:45 PM

My point is that the negotiations would have started under Mussolini's helpful aegis in Mid June. Hitler would have accepted no re-armament and I can't see anything being supplied by America in this period. This was a slippery slope ,simply accepting the offer to negotiate would weaken Britain's ability to re-start hostilities if the demands were too onerous.

Personally I think Hitler would have been fairly magnanimous in his terms - leaving Britain sufficient to keep her empire in check but insufficient in home waters to threaten the Germanic Empire.

#12 TiredOldSoldier

TiredOldSoldier

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,806 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:43 PM

Most people agree Sea Lion was a no go, but the critical element is the peace conditions, Hitler had little animosity towards the British, and little he could if the British decided to fight on besides investing massively in subs and long range planes. On the other hand the British alone had zero chance of mobilizing enough troops to fight the Germans unassisted, they simply lack the manpower base to do it, they could go for terror bombing as they did but with the full LW home it was far fom a sure thing trading four engined bombers for single engined fighters was a viable strategy. So peace was a possibility, and didn't require a Mosley, just not a Churchill, sitting it out in the hope that Germany and the USSR wore each other out may well look like a good trategy.
So I think we have a viable what-if.
Truth is the first victim of conflict

#13 Carronade

Carronade

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,437 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:49 PM

I think "sues for peace" may be putting it a little strongly. Peace with Britain was precisely what Hitler needed in order to pursue his fundamental objectives on the continent, and if the British were willing, he would have been foolish to throw it away by insisting on humiliating terms like disarmament. As TOS points out, Germany really did not have the power to force an unacceptable settlement on Britain. For all their outward show of confidence, few if any in the German leadership really believed that either air assault or Sealion could be counted on to do the job (I wonder if even Goring in his heart of hearts really believed).

The Dominions would certainly make peace if Britain did, they were only in the war of loyalty to the mother country, none of them were directly threatened by Germany. If the British government accepted peace, on terms that would not generate the sort of resentment of Germany after 1919 or France after 1871, it would be very difficult to convince the people or the Dominions to restart a war. Even Germany attacking Russia while at peace with Britain would be a distinctly different situation from Britain already at war gaining a new ally. There would be little reason for Britain at peace to pick sides in a struggle between Hitler and Stalin, and even less for the Dominions.

On the other hand, there would also be limits to what Britain could demand, such as Hitler withdrawing from occupied nations. He would still want to harness their resources, something like the September Program of 1914, and to carry out his less savory policies on Jews and other issues. The likely modus vivendi would be for each power to respect the other's sphere of influence as it existed at the time. Britain would be prohibited from supporting anti-German activities or making/maintaining military alliances with European nations; Germany would make a comparable commitment with regard to British interests, although it would have less practical significance.

Italy might be a fly in the ointment, depending whether the settlement occurred before or after Mussolini declared war. Hitler, having won the war without Italian help, would have little rational basis for supporting Il Duce's ambitions, but he did have an odd sense of loyalty to him. No doubt he would try to facilitate a peace settlement, but again he would not be in a position to impose one. Mussolini's ambitions could threaten a vital interest of the Empire, the Mediterranean sea route and Suez, and he had a conflicting desire to secure connections between Italian East Africa and Libya and the homeland.

Hitler might even just let Britain and Italy fight it out in North Africa and the Med, all the while offering to act as peacemaker, and reminding Britain not to extend operations onto the European mainland. Tacitly supporting Britain, or just not actively supporting Italy, might help cement relations. Frankly an embarrassment that put an end to Mussolini's aggressiveness could be beneficial.

#14 steverodgers801

steverodgers801

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:30 PM

The problem is that Britain could no longer trust Hitlers offers of peace. What is to say Hitler or Germany would not have turned on Britain after a theoretical victory over the Soviets.

#15 TiredOldSoldier

TiredOldSoldier

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,806 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 08:40 AM

The problem is that Britain could no longer trust Hitlers offers of peace. What is to say Hitler or Germany would not have turned on Britain after a theoretical victory over the Soviets.

There was little in Hitler's writings to indicate e had ambitions west, if he retreated from France, that could possibly seal theal. British disarment is unacceptable, they have a huge empire to protect, but Germany has little to fear from an unsupported British Army, even less if they demobilize (which is very different from disarming). In the scenario Mussolini is acting as a peacemaker, so he would get his slice during negotiation, hard to immagine he can get a peace while staying at war himself (no sanctions, non British interference in the Balkans some strategic alpine passes, and free passage in the Suez canal were probably the max of what he could ask and get).
One big if is what would be the effect of the lack of plunder from the occupied countries on Germany in this scenario? Versallies like clauses are out, Hitler has to play nice if he wants peace, we are not talking "unconditional surrender" here..
Truth is the first victim of conflict

#16 Volga Boatman

Volga Boatman

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,640 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:25 PM

I know one thing for sure.

Considering the events of the Abdication Crisis, we can have none other than Edward VIII's mistress, Wallis Simpson, to thank for the fact that George VI was on the throne in 1940, rather than the German sympathizer Edward.

When Hitler sent Ribbentrop to England as Ambassador, he instructed Ribbentrop to "Get me an alliance with the English." Ribbentrop was a travelled and cultured man, but his efforts to ingratiate himself with English Aristocracy fell totally flat, beginning with Ribbentrop's infamous Nazi salute at the Palace.

Edward was just the type of person to be swayed by Ribbentrop. When Edward abdicated, many people in Germany assumed that the aristocrats who replaced him would have the same sympathies. They were wrong. Hitler certainly felt this way.

I might add that Rudolph Hess was under the same impression, that sympathies with the upper crust of English society were firmly still with Edward VIII. Remember, Hess was parachuting to England to meet with the Duke of Hamilton! He naively assumed the same thing that Hitler and Ribbentrop did, that Palace sympathies were on a par with Edward VIII. George VI showed them the error of such ill informed judgements.

The performance of the family of George VI certainly put paid to that misconception. The Queen Mother put it best when she said, in 1940, after a portion of Buckingham Palace was damaged by German bombs..."I'm glad we've been bombed, it makes me feel I can look the East End in the face."

This kind of 'common touch', from people who were, after all, commoners themselves not long before, won big points with the public, all over the British Isles, and in the Dominions. George VI was publically PLEASED when Britain found itself alone, commenting that the war would be run "our way", and not marching to the tune of France, as we were in the Great War. Churchill agreed, and stood by The King, issueing fighting words that galvanized the will of the people through simple yet direct orartory...."Let us, then, set ourselves to our tasks..." Churchill's rhetoric was anything but empty words, and he was backed wholely by His Majesty.

It is almost certain that the Fascist sympathizer Edward might not have seen the fall of France with so cavalier an attitude, and could well have taken Britain and the empire out of the contest when France fell.

Thank his mistress, Wallis Simpson, for that.

And her first husband for letting the divorce be 'filed' so quickly and easily, all in the name of 'keeping up appearances'. Niether of them were to realize just how important this self sacrifice would become. We also know, from Wallis's letters, that Mrs. Simpson was pandering to His Majesty, and wanted nothing more than to return to her husband. The fact that both Wallis and her former husband sacrifced themselves, socially speaking, to pander to Edward's 'desires' for Wallis, probably deserves a medal for unwitting service to the country and the empire as a whole.

How different Edward VIII may have been from the fighting words of George VI is obvious....and crucial to the events.

Edited by Volga Boatman, 14 December 2012 - 02:35 PM.

Llamas are bigger than frogs.:cool:

#17 scipio

scipio

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:48 PM

Mussolini is acting as a peacemaker, so he would get his slice during negotiation,


During the discussions about starting negotiations Churchill said that Mussolini is bound to demand Malta in payment for his services.

Judging by how relcutant Hitler was to offend Vichy Frnace in North Africa against Mussolini's acquisitive eyes, I hthink that Malta is like ly

#18 steverodgers801

steverodgers801

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 05:41 PM

It was mentioned by a person from the isles that Edward would not have been in position to remove GB from the war or accept a peace with Germany, since he reigned but did not rule.

#19 urqh

urqh

    Tea drinking surrender monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,681 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 06:04 PM

My point is that the negotiations would have started under Mussolini's helpful aegis in Mid June. Hitler would have accepted no re-armament and I can't see anything being supplied by America in this period. This was a slippery slope ,simply accepting the offer to negotiate would weaken Britain's ability to re-start hostilities if the demands were too onerous.

Personally I think Hitler would have been fairly magnanimous in his terms - leaving Britain sufficient to keep her empire in check but insufficient in home waters to threaten the Germanic Empire.


I'm with Scipio on this. What we have to remember is that big word hindsight, I know its easy to keep using that word in the debate on Sea Lion and invasion of UK etc. It always comes out...but the problem and debate on UK invasion and peace feelers etc, Halifax et al, has to be put into the actions and thoughts of the day in 1940 not the day in 2012. We know what would or we think we know what would have happened..the boats, the navy the air force the size of waves and British determination and Churchill etc. But the decisions and thoughts of the Chiefs of Staff and govt ministers were based on what was happening in France etc that day, that moment, their thoughts and eyes were fixed on that point and that alone. WP 40 168 NRA PRO/CAB 66/87 and others refer to their words and thoughts along with PRO CAB 89/12

Alternately if you can get a copy of Dunkirk by Montifiore....Pages 273 to 278 cover this matter in detail.

British Army 1939-1945 - World War II Tribute Video

 

 

[URL="http://youtu.be/Zbp_4XBmD4w"]

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 


#20 scipio

scipio

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:45 AM

Too true - September is too late to attempt to cross the Channel. The weather is unpredictable and the Equinox tides are at the highest.William the Conqueror was exceptionally lucky to be hit by only a mild storm which drove his boats to Dives and destroyed 30% of them. Harold thought that the invasion was over for the year and he had time to gallop north and smash the Vikings. Credit Williams for his perseverance and luck - a landing late July as intended would have been met at the beaches and the outcome much more uncertain.

Fast forward to 1940, here is the only interview (1957) given by Alanbrooke (Marshall's equivalent - and the guy who had the thankless task of reining in Churchill's bullying and hair-brained schemes - in my book Alanbrooke would have been the best British general of the war).

Anyway he was responsible for Home Defence in the aftermath of Dunkirk. Unfortunately the interviewer cuts him short after about 6 mins of his explanation of the difficulties and plans for thwarting the German invasion - shame I could have listened for over an hour.

BBC - Archive - Remembering Winston Churchill - The Alanbrooke Diaries
  • jimmytwohand likes this

#21 scipio

scipio

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:02 AM

Posted Image


Dover September Weather

#22 British-Empire

British-Empire

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 630 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 07:24 PM

If Britain went for peace terms in June/July 1940 the Germans would be most happy with a free hand in the East.
Even the return of the colonies they lost in the war was not that important to Hitler.
Mussolini may out of a matter of pride asked for nothing, as he did when he withdrew from a request for French territory.
He did not want to be seen as getting scraps from the German table.
Mussolini however would have wanted a free hand in Greece and Yugoslavia.
He could also be placated with Portuguese colonies if need be as no cost to the British.

Hitler may also have offered Italy the German colony of Cameroon has that been returned.
The British had considered giving the Italians a colony in Western Africa in the late 1930's.

Either way the British could have had peace at little price.
Germany would then have invaded the USSR a year later and Italy would likely have invaded Yugoslavia rather than Greece as originally planned in August 1941.
Yugoslavia would be defeated and divided among its neighbours several months later.

#23 GunSlinger86

GunSlinger86

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 132 posts

Posted 13 November 2013 - 12:06 AM

Hitler's original peace offer was to let England keep their entire empire, but to keep out of German affairs in the East because Hitler invading the East was in his plans all along.  Whether or not Hitler would keep to that agreement, as he broke agreements in the past, is another story.



#24 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,783 posts

Posted 13 November 2013 - 04:19 AM

After his victory against Poland,he proposed peace on the condition that he could keep his part of Poland .

 

After his victory against France,he proposed again victory,without giving any details,but,we know that he never intended to give anything back of his conquests .



#25 TiredOldSoldier

TiredOldSoldier

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,806 posts

Posted 13 November 2013 - 07:09 AM

After his victory against Poland,he proposed peace on the condition that he could keep his part of Poland .

 

After his victory against France,he proposed again victory,without giving any details,but,we know that he never intended to give anything back of his conquests .

Do we ? in 1939 the Germans had a hard fight taking Brest-Litovsk from the Polish army, but they had to do it all over again in 1941.


Truth is the first victim of conflict




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users