Best peace possible 1940

Best time to start negotiation? After...

  • 20th may (Germans reach the sea)

    Votes: 3 6.5%
  • 26th May (Dunkirk battle begins)

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • 28th May (Belgium capitulates)

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • 4th June (Dunkirk over)

    Votes: 8 17.4%
  • 10th June (Italy Joins)

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • 11th June ( Paris declared an open city)

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • 14th June (Paris occupied)

    Votes: 5 10.9%
  • 17th June (Petain's Broadcast)

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • 18th June (Dear Gaulle's Broadcast)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 22nd June (France Surrenders)

    Votes: 20 43.5%
  • 5th August (Battle of Britain begins)

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • 7th September (Blitz Begins)

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • 13th September (invasion of Egypt)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 28th September (battle of Britain won)

    Votes: 4 8.7%
  • 28th October (Invasion of Greece)

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • 11th November (Taranto Attack)

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • 9th December (Compass Begins)

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • 25th December (Christmas?)

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 8 17.4%

  • Total voters
    46
Time which the British will use to build up its military. When its built up enough it hits Germany. Even if Germany declares a ceasefire GB is in no way obligated to follow it with its own.
Britain cannot build up its military to the point where it can invade the continent unilaterally and the U.S. is certainly not going to join it.
 
Peace would last until Hitler Invades Russia, at which point Britain begins selling weapons to the Soviets and the Germans try to stop them. Any peace between German and Britain leave the Italians with the smelly end of the stick. If the Italians are included they get nothing, and if they're not O Conner gets what he needs to kick them out of North Africa. No need to hoard resources in Britain against a possible invasion.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Hitler himself proposed peace to Britain multiple times.

It's also worth remembering that Germany did not start the Second World War. When Germany invaded Poland, Hitler believed that his pact with Stalin would deter Britain and France from getting involved.

Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939.

This is not to defend Hitler. We're on opposing ends of the political spectrum. But however much we dislike the man, the fact is his focus was on the east. He did not start the war with Britain and France. The allies declared war on him.

Of course, it was his aggression to Czecheslovakia and Poland that caused that outcome. So he still deserves blame. But the point is, peace with the west was possible since he never wanted war with them in the first place.
This is, simply put, preposterous.

Hitler started the European Phase of WW when he attacked Poland. Claiming that it was the British ans French's fault because Hitler didn't declare war on them is the worst sort of revisionism. The only country Hitler ever declared war on was the one that, above all, he should have left alone.

It's some time in 1940 and it's clear to both sides that France has been defeated. The allies resolve to make peace before the year is out. What is the best possible peace that the allies can get?

When should they start negotiations?
When would Germany or the axis even accept negotiations?
Could an independent France be guaranteed?

Help me out here guys, thanks
Best for who?

There is no "best time" for Britain. Hitler never made an agreement he didn't break as soon as it was useful to do so.Hitler's signature on a piece of paper might make it valuable in a 2018 auction house, but while he was alive it wasn't worth the bit of ink it took to write it.
 
This is, simply put, preposterous.

Hitler started the European Phase of WW when he attacked Poland. Claiming that it was the British ans French's fault because Hitler didn't declare war on them is the worst sort of revisionism. The only country Hitler ever declared war on was the one that, above all, he should have left alone.


Best for who?

There is no "best time" for Britain. Hitler never made an agreement he didn't break as soon as it was useful to do so.Hitler's signature on a piece of paper might make it valuable in a 2018 auction house, but while he was alive it wasn't worth the bit of ink it took to write it.

Exactly and the same could be said for the Japanese Militarists. You couldn't trust either them to follow through with any agreement for any period than ten seconds after they thought it suited them to break it.
 
I voted 22nd June as the 'best time' - but even then you have more chance of farting your way into orbit than Britain accepting peace terms from a man whose word was proven to be worth less than piss steam!
 
This is, simply put, preposterous.

Hitler started the European Phase of WW when he attacked Poland. Claiming that it was the British ans French's fault because Hitler didn't declare war on them is the worst sort of revisionism. The only country Hitler ever declared war on was the one that, above all, he should have left alone.


Best for who?

There is no "best time" for Britain. Hitler never made an agreement he didn't break as soon as it was useful to do so.Hitler's signature on a piece of paper might make it valuable in a 2018 auction house, but while he was alive it wasn't worth the bit of ink it took to write it.
Which is why, to me, the only plausible "peace terms" ca 1940 is Germany stating it is ceasing military operations against Britain and demanding that Britain accept its new borders. Anything that requires Germany to commit to something more won't be trusted, and anything that requires that Britain give up something more will be rejected out of hand.

You have the somewhat unusual situation of two belligerent powers with no obvious route to defeat the other but also no obvious way to come to terms with the other.
 

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
What people said above - you are trying to blame UK & Fr for the ww2.

Well to the extent they did not stop Hitler when it would not have required a war........

Hitler was always going to keep poking until either he got everything he wanted or he got a war......
 
Hitler started the European Phase of WW when he attacked Poland. Claiming that it was the British ans French's fault because Hitler didn't declare war on them is the worst sort of revisionism. The only country Hitler ever declared war on was the one that, above all, he should have left alone.
You could make a case that he started it when he took the rest of Czechoslovakia in early 1939, or even Austria in 1938. Really stretching things you could place the start of the European war with the re militarisation of the Rhineland. Just because there's no shooting going on doesn't mean there's no war. See Europe 1947 - 1991 & 1998 - date.
 
Well to the extent they did not stop Hitler when it would not have required a war........

Hitler was always going to keep poking until either he got everything he wanted or he got a war......
Either way, it's a bit rich for the country that just invaded another country to complain that someone else started the war.
 
Assuming that “best” in the OP means “most realistic”, I’m going to vote, among other things, June 17th, Petain’s request for an armistice. Britain now realizes that her ally is basically defeated, but France has not capitulated yet, so the German government isn’t negotiating from a position of power. If Petain and the British can contact each other than there’s a fair chance that peace talks might begin. Petain’s anti-English stance might derail this but his major interest is to preserve France and right now London can help him do that.

I also voted:

- Capitulation of Belgium (because this kind of set in motion the whole surrendering train that would continue until May 1941 in progress, so it shows that the Allies cannot win this war on their own).

- Italy joins (Mussolini had an interest in hosting a peace conference so he could decide to make a serious proposal to the Allies instead of entering the war)

- Battle of Britain begins (This is the practical beginning of the stalemate period outlined in more detail by DaveBC).
 
...Nazi apologists...

...the worst sort of revisionism.

Well I'm a centre-left Muslim humanist/liberal based in the west, so you can probably guess how much I have in common with Nazi apologists. I shall leave you to it and return to my preferred topics of Medieval Persia, the Arab Caliphates, Byzantium and the Ottoman period. I'm sure you guys know WW2 better than I do - the 20th century really isn't my favoured topic in general. :winkytongue:

Before I go, I thought I'd share an article in Spiegel (in English) which I read before I posted. It's about 1939 and why Hitler wasn't stopped earlier - I found it interesting. http://www.spiegel.de/international...ar-ii-why-wasn-t-hitler-stopped-a-645707.html

Anyway, wake me up when a thread relating to Turkey, Iran or the Middle East comes up... ;)
 
Last edited:

hipper

Banned
Which is why the Germans should just declare a unilateral ceasefire and demand that Britain accept its new borders.

That agreement doesn't require trust and has at least a chance of eventually ending the war.


poor italy in that scenario, what’s to stop the U.K. from doin what it did historically and destroying the Italian empire in africa.
 
Last edited:
Why would an Empire of 500 million with an economy about 50% grater than Germany and a long tradition of creating coalitions of allies to fight and win continental wars and a blank check from the US consider anything but the total destruction of the Reich System.
 
Well I'm a centre-left Muslim humanist/liberal based in the west, so you can probably guess how much I have in common with Nazi apologists.

Based on your post in this thread a great deal it seems. A few smilies does not change the fact that you are advancing the same argument used by Nazi apologists.
 
Assuming that “best” in the OP means “most realistic”, I’m going to vote, among other things, June 17th, Petain’s request for an armistice. Britain now realizes that her ally is basically defeated, but France has not capitulated yet, so the German government isn’t negotiating from a position of power.

This doesn't really reflect the reality of the situation. Given his experience in WWI Petain knew exactly what asking for an Armistice meant. The Germans would insist on conditions that would render the resumption of combat impossible for the French, asking for an armistice was capitulation and the Germans had all the power and they knew it. The symbolism of forcing the French to sign in the Compiegne Forest speaks volumes about how the Germans saw the armistice, it was capitulation and national humiliation, the Germans expunged theirs from 1918 and heaped it on the French.

Also by June the 17th the worst of the immediate crisis for Britain is over, the success of Dynamo has strengthened Churchill's position and the peace lobby were on the backfoot, there is no way Churchill is going to open negotiations at that point.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
Hitler tells Musso to stay out of the war. After the French Armistice Hitler (gentle peace loving man he is) declares unilateral cease of offensive operations against the UK. No battle of the Atlantic no air offensive against the UK. Only defensive air patrols strictly over the continent.With Italy out of the war no African theater. Italian and French Embassies transmit an official peace offer to the UK government (and the USA one). Monetary reparations (as credits for the German Government to use buying British trucks etc.) the African colonies given back to Germany (good luck trying to convince the Japs in giving back theirs, and this Hitler is appeaising the USA). The British open the sea routes for Germany and commit themselves to provide oil and other raw materials payed for in Marks. Now this may or may not work. If it does work Stalin is even more scared and "friendly". If it does not and Barbarossa goes equal the increased strength of the lutwaffe plus whatever is diverted from submarines etc to tanks and trucks may or may not make a difference. But far more important Lend Lease is far more difficult for Roosevelt no Atlantic Battle no fake/semi war between the Nazis and the UN. And if Pearl Harbor happens the big full pages advertisement paid by the German Embassy in all and every one of America's papers denouncing the traitorous Asiatic Japs for backsttabing America and breaking relations with them may be enough to prevent war with the USA (or no)
 
Hitler tells Musso to stay out of the war. After the French Armistice Hitler (gentle peace loving man he is) declares unilateral cease of offensive operations against the UK. No battle of the Atlantic no air offensive against the UK. Only defensive air patrols strictly over the continent.With Italy out of the war no African theater. Italian and French Embassies transmit an official peace offer to the UK government (and the USA one). Monetary reparations (as credits for the German Government to use buying British trucks etc.) the African colonies given back to Germany (good luck trying to convince the Japs in giving back theirs, and this Hitler is appeaising the USA). The British open the sea routes for Germany and commit themselves to provide oil and other raw materials payed for in Marks. Now this may or may not work. If it does work Stalin is even more scared and "friendly".

Sorry but this is pure fantasy, Germany has no means to force any reparations from the British and it suffers the fundamental flaw of all these peace ideas, Hitler cannot be trusted. No such terms would make it past the Westminster parliament and the PM who proposed them would be lucky to keep his job.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
I dont say it would work, what I am saying is trying it would be (IMHO) a god bet for Hitler. And if it doesnt no BoB no Atlantic Battle means a lot more planes and pilots for the lutwaffe and a harder to sell lend lease for Roosevelt
 
Top