Deleted member 1487
What would it take for Britain to negotiate and accept an unfavorable peace that still left the Empire mostly intact and Britain independent from Nazi domination?
Would the failure of the Dunkirk evacuation be enough? Sure the government prepared to lose most of the BEF, but the populace hadn't even realize the BEF was trying to escape from France! Would there reaction be dangerous enough to push ahead a negotiation?
Would a sustained, effective blockade be enough? By this I mean both an air and sea trade war that would wreck British ports, mine them, and sink ships at see with proper reconnaissance from more long range aircraft.
Would the RAF being driven out of Southern England in the Battle of Britain be enough? Would the British people feel abandoned or defeated if the RAF had to leave their bases and essentially leave much of the South Coast open to uncontested bombardment? Yes I'm aware the RAF was going to contest the skies still, but they would be far less effective if they had to travel the same distance if not farther to reach the battle than the Luftwaffe.
Would it have to come to a land invasion to bring Britain to the table? With Churchill talking about terms before he became Prime Minister, its obvious that he was open to some deal if the situation became bad enough, but what was bad enough for him?
Edit:
Italics above were edit added.
http://www.amazon.com/1940-Myth-Reality-Clive-Ponting/dp/1566630363
It seems Churchill was just as much for negotiating with Germany as Halifax while under Chamberlain, but upon becoming Prime Minister decided to hold out until the German invasion was defeated before restarting negotiations to get a better bargaining position.
So it seems that the situation politically in Britain was more fragile and less stoic than commonly believed, as even Churchill was discussing what terms would be acceptable to the Empire, going so far as to offer the German colonies back among other things.
With this its no longer enough to just state that Britain would have been 'in it to win it' no matter what anymore.
Would the failure of the Dunkirk evacuation be enough? Sure the government prepared to lose most of the BEF, but the populace hadn't even realize the BEF was trying to escape from France! Would there reaction be dangerous enough to push ahead a negotiation?
Would a sustained, effective blockade be enough? By this I mean both an air and sea trade war that would wreck British ports, mine them, and sink ships at see with proper reconnaissance from more long range aircraft.
Would the RAF being driven out of Southern England in the Battle of Britain be enough? Would the British people feel abandoned or defeated if the RAF had to leave their bases and essentially leave much of the South Coast open to uncontested bombardment? Yes I'm aware the RAF was going to contest the skies still, but they would be far less effective if they had to travel the same distance if not farther to reach the battle than the Luftwaffe.
Would it have to come to a land invasion to bring Britain to the table? With Churchill talking about terms before he became Prime Minister, its obvious that he was open to some deal if the situation became bad enough, but what was bad enough for him?
Edit:
Italics above were edit added.
http://www.amazon.com/1940-Myth-Reality-Clive-Ponting/dp/1566630363
There was a lot going on in Britain's political scene that most histories don't discuss nor acknowledge, as for the early years after the war most historians focused on the image presented of a resolute Churchill and government that stood solid at all costs against the perfidious Nazis.It was the year of the glorious Battle of Britain, of the heroic evacuation of Dunkirk. It was the time when the mighty British empire declared its intention to fight the Nazis—alone if necessary—to the bitter end. It was, as Churchill dubbed it, Britain's "Finest Hour." In 1940: Myth and Reality, Clive Ponting reveals that it was nothing of the sort. Britain was broke in 1940 and utterly dependent on the United States for economic aid. The government fabricated German casualty figures after the Battle of Britain, suppressed knowledge of the complete fiasco that led to Dunkirk, and actually tried secretly to sue for peace that year. The British people were at best grimly resigned to the war; at worst they suffered appalling privations. Without denigrating the heroism of individuals, Mr. Ponting offers a startling account of the ineptitude and propaganda that marked much of 1940: Britain's stormy relations with France, its bizarre attempts to force a united Ireland, and the unpopularity of Winston Churchill. While he made rousing speeches in the House of Commons, Churchill rarely broadcast to the nation: his stirring "we shall fight on the beaches" speech was in fact broadcast by the actor who played Larry the Lamb on Children's Hour.
It seems Churchill was just as much for negotiating with Germany as Halifax while under Chamberlain, but upon becoming Prime Minister decided to hold out until the German invasion was defeated before restarting negotiations to get a better bargaining position.
So it seems that the situation politically in Britain was more fragile and less stoic than commonly believed, as even Churchill was discussing what terms would be acceptable to the Empire, going so far as to offer the German colonies back among other things.
With this its no longer enough to just state that Britain would have been 'in it to win it' no matter what anymore.
Last edited by a moderator: