British peace?

Let's say things go even worse for Britain at the start of world war 2. No miracle at Dunkirk, the Germans destroy the British expeditionary force there. I once heard that if the Germans hadn't started to bomb London and other cities during the battle of Britain, they would have won the battle. I am not certain if that would be true, but it would have at least been bad for Britain. So we let that happen too. Britain is in bad shape and fears an invasion. We know operation sealion will fail, but the British do not.
Next we have someone in the German army, who realises that operation sealion will fail and he manages to convince the rest of the army and Hitler that it can't be done. So the Germans decide to make peace, telling the British they rather want to fight the sovjet union then tham. So what kind of peace would be acceptable to both parties?

Could this be:

Restoration of the pre-1914 borders of Germany (return of E-L, etc)
Annexation of Luxembourg
End of the occupation of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway
Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium aren't allowed to remillitaries for 10-15 years (with the exception of the colonies)
a (large) demillitariced zone at the border of France and Germany
The creation of a rump Poland (existing mainly out of Sovjet occupied Poland) which is a vasal country of Germany.

Would this be acceptable to both parties (Germany would get all it wanted in the west)? What kind of peace would be possible?
 
Let's say things go even worse for Britain at the start of world war 2. No miracle at Dunkirk, the Germans destroy the British expeditionary force there. I once heard that if the Germans hadn't started to bomb London and other cities during the battle of Britain, they would have won the battle. I am not certain if that would be true, but it would have at least been bad for Britain. So we let that happen too. Britain is in bad shape and fears an invasion. We know operation sealion will fail, but the British do not.
Next we have someone in the German army, who realises that operation sealion will fail and he manages to convince the rest of the army and Hitler that it can't be done. So the Germans decide to make peace, telling the British they rather want to fight the sovjet union then tham. So what kind of peace would be acceptable to both parties?

Could this be:

Restoration of the pre-1914 borders of Germany (return of E-L, etc)
Annexation of Luxembourg
End of the occupation of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway
Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium aren't allowed to remillitaries for 10-15 years (with the exception of the colonies)
a (large) demillitariced zone at the border of France and Germany
The creation of a rump Poland (existing mainly out of Sovjet occupied Poland) which is a vasal country of Germany.

Would this be acceptable to both parties (Germany would get all it wanted in the west)? What kind of peace would be possible?

Peace between Britain and Germany was possible between 1939 and late 1941 with no demands from Germany.
But Churchill wouldnt deal.
 
Unlike Churchill, Halifax would have been willing to negotiate a peace treaty under certain circumstances, but it's debatable how successful negotiations would have been. I think that the matter of colonies and the like would have been effectively non-issues, but there are other questions: Would Hitler have 'restored' the Low Countries, which he had a view to annexing? What about France? Would Britain be prepared to renege on it's guarantees to Greece and the like? What about Poland?
 
Britain sues for peace..

I think it's often forgotten what the psychological impact of a real disaster at Dunkirk would have been to the British. It would have represented the greatest military disaster in history, far surpassing the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown. The loss of some 300,000 British and French soldiers with all their equipment (especially mobile and armour) would be devastating.

Let's assume that the BEF and French forces are surrounded and forced to capitulate on May 29th 1940. The rest of the French army is picked off during June (RAF and RN losses are slightly less owing to not having to go to Dunkirk to rescue soldiers but are still considerable).

With the French out of the war by June 21st, Britain is alone and weak. Yes, the RAF and RN are still a potent fighting force but the Army is in a desperate state and no one in Whitehall is under any illusion as to what would happen IF the Germans were able to put a force ashore. The Russians are tied to Germanym the Americans are still far from enthausiastic and as much concerned about the threat from Japan so diplomatically and strategically, the picture looks very black while the ending of cross-Channel trade means towns like Dover and Folkestone are facing economic ruin.

There is a broad split in public and political opinion - on one hand, Churchill and his like who favour continued resistance at any cost and a growing minority (including the families of those soldiers lost in France and Belgium) who favour an accommodation. The reports of survivors who speak of civilian carnage from the air filter into the general population amidst a growing realisation that such carnage would be visited on Britain should the Germans invade and this is a country unused to war on its home soil.

In OTL, the "miracle" of Dunkirk and the stirring words of Churchill kept the nation going but with the former an undisguised debacle, the latter may not be enough so how does this play out ?

In lieu of direct negotiations with Hitler, there are various back channels and intermediaries such as the Vatican and Sweden, These contacts, arranged through Rab Butler and Bastaniani, bring news of Hitler's intentions which are surprisingly generous. In effect, Britain has to recognise German hegemony on the Continent in exhange for which British soil will not be occupied (German troops would be withdrawn from the Channel Islands) and the British Empire will be maintained (no German land-grab).

When news of this reaches the Cabinet, Churchill is appalled and accuses Halifax and Butler of "treason" but at the famous Cabinet of July 23rd 1940, Churchill finds himself isolated as his colleagues indicate their support for the deal with Germany and Italy. Churchill threatens to resign and call an election but Halifax stands firm and in his famous outburst said "Winston, will you stop at nothing to see your ego satisfied ? Must the destruction of all we hold dear be the price we must pay ?"

Churchill backs down - the deal is swiftly concluded and Halifax and Butler lead the British delegation to Brussels where Hitler and Ribbentrop are waiting and on August 2nd 1940, the Treaty of Brussels ends the 11-Month War as it becomes generally known. Britain is forced to acquiesce to German economic and military supremacy on the Continent.

Initial public reaction is cautious but is soon swayed by the rapid repatriation of British POWs and the withdrawal of German troops from the Channel Islands.

Churchill resigns as Prime Minister saying the National Government is no longer necessary and Halifax wins the subsequent General Election albeit with a tiny majority.

Deep within the Treaty of Brussels and known only to a very few are the secret clauses. One is a British commitment to strict neutrality in any future conflict between Germany and the USSR while the other (counter-signed by Japan) states that in exhange for a Japanese commitment not to attack any British possessions in Asia and the Pacific, Britain must remain neutral in any future conflict between Japan and the USA.

The stage is set...
 
I think it's often forgotten what the psychological impact of a real disaster at Dunkirk would have been to the British. It would have represented the greatest military disaster in history, far surpassing the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown. The loss of some 300,000 British and French soldiers with all their equipment (especially mobile and armour) would be devastating.

Let's assume that the BEF and French forces are surrounded and forced to capitulate on May 29th 1940. The rest of the French army is picked off during June (RAF and RN losses are slightly less owing to not having to go to Dunkirk to rescue soldiers but are still considerable).

With the French out of the war by June 21st, Britain is alone and weak. Yes, the RAF and RN are still a potent fighting force but the Army is in a desperate state and no one in Whitehall is under any illusion as to what would happen IF the Germans were able to put a force ashore. The Russians are tied to Germanym the Americans are still far from enthausiastic and as much concerned about the threat from Japan so diplomatically and strategically, the picture looks very black while the ending of cross-Channel trade means towns like Dover and Folkestone are facing economic ruin.

There is a broad split in public and political opinion - on one hand, Churchill and his like who favour continued resistance at any cost and a growing minority (including the families of those soldiers lost in France and Belgium) who favour an accommodation. The reports of survivors who speak of civilian carnage from the air filter into the general population amidst a growing realisation that such carnage would be visited on Britain should the Germans invade and this is a country unused to war on its home soil.

In OTL, the "miracle" of Dunkirk and the stirring words of Churchill kept the nation going but with the former an undisguised debacle, the latter may not be enough so how does this play out ?

In lieu of direct negotiations with Hitler, there are various back channels and intermediaries such as the Vatican and Sweden, These contacts, arranged through Rab Butler and Bastaniani, bring news of Hitler's intentions which are surprisingly generous. In effect, Britain has to recognise German hegemony on the Continent in exhange for which British soil will not be occupied (German troops would be withdrawn from the Channel Islands) and the British Empire will be maintained (no German land-grab).

When news of this reaches the Cabinet, Churchill is appalled and accuses Halifax and Butler of "treason" but at the famous Cabinet of July 23rd 1940, Churchill finds himself isolated as his colleagues indicate their support for the deal with Germany and Italy. Churchill threatens to resign and call an election but Halifax stands firm and in his famous outburst said "Winston, will you stop at nothing to see your ego satisfied ? Must the destruction of all we hold dear be the price we must pay ?"

Churchill backs down - the deal is swiftly concluded and Halifax and Butler lead the British delegation to Brussels where Hitler and Ribbentrop are waiting and on August 2nd 1940, the Treaty of Brussels ends the 11-Month War as it becomes generally known. Britain is forced to acquiesce to German economic and military supremacy on the Continent.

Initial public reaction is cautious but is soon swayed by the rapid repatriation of British POWs and the withdrawal of German troops from the Channel Islands.

Churchill resigns as Prime Minister saying the National Government is no longer necessary and Halifax wins the subsequent General Election albeit with a tiny majority.

Deep within the Treaty of Brussels and known only to a very few are the secret clauses. One is a British commitment to strict neutrality in any future conflict between Germany and the USSR while the other (counter-signed by Japan) states that in exhange for a Japanese commitment not to attack any British possessions in Asia and the Pacific, Britain must remain neutral in any future conflict between Japan and the USA.

The stage is set...

Very good.
This should be a thread of its own ill start one
 
, but there are other questions:
Would Hitler have 'restored' the Low Countries, which he had a view to annexing?
I think that annexing the low countries had a low priority for Hitler. During the war he never annexed Belgium or the Netherlands, something he had done with Luxembourg. I think he would have made annexing Belgium and the Netherlands a long term plan, like he had done with Switserland. War with the sovjet union without a second border would have been more important.
What about France?
I don't think Hitler wanted to keep occupying or annexing France. If a way was found that Britain wouldn't be a problem, he would have left France (if he had made sure France wouldn't be able to stab him in the back).
Would Britain be prepared to renege on it's guarantees to Greece and the like?
Was Hitler interested in Greece?
What about Poland?
Poland is a problem, I must admit. Britain entered the war because of Poland and it would probably hard for them to leave it without an independent Poland. Britain must be realy worried about an invasion before leaving Poland to the Germans. But maybe a deal could be made that a smaller Poland would be created, without the parts from pre 1914 Germany. Or a Poland consisting of Sovjet annexed Poland. that Poland would of course be a German puppet like Slovakia.
 
I think that annexing the low countries had a low priority for Hitler.

Agreed, although Hitler did plan on keeping them.

I don't think Hitler wanted to keep occupying or annexing France.

Agreed, basically.

Was Hitler interested in Greece?

No, but Musso was.

Poland is a problem, I must admit. Britain entered the war because of Poland and it would probably hard for them to leave it without an independent Poland. Britain must be realy worried about an invasion before leaving Poland to the Germans. But maybe a deal could be made that a smaller Poland would be created, without the parts from pre 1914 Germany. Or a Poland consisting of Sovjet annexed Poland. that Poland would of course be a German puppet like Slovakia.

Hmm. I'm not so sure about this. I think it's possible but unlikely. Poland is without a doubt the main potential sticking point.
 
Let's say things go even worse for Britain at the start of world war 2. No miracle at Dunkirk, the Germans destroy the British expeditionary force there. I once heard that if the Germans hadn't started to bomb London and other cities during the battle of Britain, they would have won the battle. I am not certain if that would be true, but it would have at least been bad for Britain. So we let that happen too. Britain is in bad shape and fears an invasion. We know operation sealion will fail, but the British do not.
Next we have someone in the German army, who realises that operation sealion will fail and he manages to convince the rest of the army and Hitler that it can't be done. So the Germans decide to make peace, telling the British they rather want to fight the sovjet union then tham. So what kind of peace would be acceptable to both parties?

Could this be:

Restoration of the pre-1914 borders of Germany (return of E-L, etc)
Annexation of Luxembourg
End of the occupation of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway
Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium aren't allowed to remillitaries for 10-15 years (with the exception of the colonies)
a (large) demillitariced zone at the border of France and Germany
The creation of a rump Poland (existing mainly out of Sovjet occupied Poland) which is a vasal country of Germany.

Would this be acceptable to both parties (Germany would get all it wanted in the west)? What kind of peace would be possible?

If the Germans offered to form a Poland at all in your scenario, it would be out of the "generalgouvernement" portion of the German holdings, not the Soviet areas. Also, I'm not sure that the Germans would offer up such a light peace with regard to Denmark. Of Course, Churchill would sooner resign than make peace with Hitler.
 
What do you mean light peace with regard to Denmark?

From what I've read, some of the Nazi leadership wanted a customs union with Denmark to keep it forever bound with Germany, so that the northern part of the Reich could be more easily defended in the instance of another war occurring later. As such, Denmark remilitarizing might be a dealbreaker for the Germans. In my own ideas, I've contemplated a situation where there are eventually two Danish polities. One of these polities is essentially modern Denmark sans Greenland called the Danish state having a German-appointed Reichskommissar as its head of state, with an elected civilian government. The other Danish polity would be a pro-British kingdom under the Danish king consisting of Greenland and Iceland.
 
From what I've read, some of the Nazi leadership wanted a customs union with Denmark to keep it forever bound with Germany, so that the northern part of the Reich could be more easily defended in the instance of another war occurring later. As such, Denmark remilitarizing might be a dealbreaker for the Germans. In my own ideas, I've contemplated a situation where there are eventually two Danish polities. One of these polities is essentially modern Denmark sans Greenland called the Danish state having a German-appointed Reichskommissar as its head of state, with an elected civilian government. The other Danish polity would be a pro-British kingdom under the Danish king consisting of Greenland and Iceland.

Never heard about that, interesting though. Maybe the Germans would accept a demillitarised Denmark and try to make it a puppet country later without British consent. But it does make a peace between Britain and Germany a lot harder.
 
Top