No, no it really wouldn't "seem mild", but you seem unable to listen to any pushback.
Dunkirk Disaster and colonies exchanged for withdrawal from France and Netherlands
- Thread starter John Gault
- Start date
That's forgetting that OTL, when the panzerdivisionen had overrun Paris, Lyon, Bordeaux etc..., during the armistice negotiations the French still refused to give up their fleet.
That isn't how things work you know. It isn't like "Well, we did the same thing, so fairs fair." They view the Germans, correctly, as an extensional threat to both the Empire and the freedom of Great Britain. This is not a game of EU4, but a conflict that has already claimed the lives of thousands.
I do think there are paths in 1940 that do not lead to Berlin (or London) as rubble fields, but they don't look like this.
So EXACTLY what reason would Hitler give for wanting ANY French battleships ?? (other than for use against the Royal Navy)
PLUS, how does he convince people he lied to, consistantly, that "this time it's different, I'll keep my word, honest" ...
PLUS, how does he convince people he lied to, consistantly, that "this time it's different, I'll keep my word, honest" ...
Deleted member 94680
This is so much nonsense.
More valuable than colonies and placing India under threat? What “imminent invasion”? The Germans have three battleships worth the name and a handful of cruisers. The rest is going to be fucking river barges. The solution to this ‘threat’ is... hand over the fourth largest navy in the world to them? You say France free of Germans, how about a continent full of impotent infantrymen bottled up behind the Channel? Handing over warships and colonies does nothing but make a dangerous enemy stronger. The treaty after WWI was meant to make Germany weaker - the Entente weren’t going to use the ships, they were going to test and then sink them.
A Germany in occupation of the industrialized Netherlands and France is more stronger than a Germany with colonies around the world that drain resources and that could be cut off by the British navy. That's why Hitler wasn't that thrilled about colonies. Hitler isn't taking colonies unless he has a bigger fleet to manage them. Both sides have insurance. If Britain breaks the peace Germany reoccupies France and the Netherlands and Britain takes over the new German colonies.
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
But you have so weakened France that if Germany breaks the treaty (just like every other one they have done) France will fall easily, so the UK has given up too much for nothing. That is your fundamental flaw. You pretend Germany is out of France, when you have so weakened France that Germany can invade and conquer it within 48 hours.
Well, then that begs the question of why Germany is offering this at all. The Nazis' ambitions were very much European; giving up the chance to get European resources for colonies they can't properly make use of seems very unlike something they'd actually do.
Deleted member 94680
The sensible answer would be that Berlin is accepting this “deal” because they know full well they can overturn it at a time of their choosing. In fact, they would probably be aiming to do so months or a few years down the line when France “proves itself incapable of proper governance” or some manufactured Crisis. You know, like they’ve done before...
What exactly was their excuse for doing exactly that in the Czech rump state?
Deleted member 94680
After the Slovakia seceded, they ‘agreed’ a Protectorate with the remainder of Czecho-Slovakia, minus the Hungarian and Polish seizures. The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was declared shortly after.
According to wiki:
The German government justified its intervention by claiming that Czechoslovakia was descending into chaos as the country was breaking apart on ethnic lines, and that the German military was seeking to restore order in the region.
The British KNOW they can survive a hostile Europe provided they have secure sea lanes. They've done it often enough in the past. There is no way they will agree to a treaty that gives Germany close to naval parity even without the Italian fleet allied to it.
The UK isn't giving up anything. Its France that's paying the price. Britain can reimpose the blockade of Germany just as easily as Germany can re-occupy France. Then both sides are back where they started. Britain would see peace as window of opportunity to rearm itself after Dunkirk. If the Soviets hang on for long enough, which they probably wont with a Japanese attack in their rear, the British may intervene in a Soviet war
In a French/British negotiated surrender I do not see Germany giving up its French conquests. A bunch of colonies in Africa and Pacific Islands is more of a burden than an asset. Even with French warships colonial exploitation requires a large merchant marine. It also gives Germany a lot more non Aryan subjects to rule. I do not see a German push to colonize these new territories with Germans and, if anything, Hitler's racial policies would encourage immediate anti-colonial movements.
Even losing the British Expeditionary Force does not significantly increase the danger of a German invasion. Perhaps if Halifax had become Prime Minister the British would have accepted a peace, really more of an armistice on the basis of the status quo.
Even losing the British Expeditionary Force does not significantly increase the danger of a German invasion. Perhaps if Halifax had become Prime Minister the British would have accepted a peace, really more of an armistice on the basis of the status quo.
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
No, the British are giving up a lot. Sep 1 1939 they have an alliance with France, so the math is UK+ France >= Germany, but you are trying to say UK>=Germany and the same deal Britain had in 1939, but even OTL they would do the same math I did and realize Germany is gaining too much. Again, while on paper only France is losing stuff, in reality it is *Britain's* ally that is loosing an army and navy, thus weakening Britain itself. Britain had tried for a continental ally since at least Frederick the Great, so their leaders will know exactly and how much they are losing. Ergo, this treaty is useless to them.
Just exactly how would Germany actually crew these battleships?
And you still have to somehow get the French fleet from North Africa/the Med to link up with the German fleet, while the RN is concentrated in the middle and controls multiple choke points.
Not that I'm seriously entertaining this as plausible, but you run into all sorts of problems even IF you handwave this into existence.
And you still have to somehow get the French fleet from North Africa/the Med to link up with the German fleet, while the RN is concentrated in the middle and controls multiple choke points.
Not that I'm seriously entertaining this as plausible, but you run into all sorts of problems even IF you handwave this into existence.
Britain lost the war it can't realistically expect to go back to the pre-war status quo. Britain has no way of directly attacking Germany in 1940. Therefore a colonies for withdrawal deal is the least best alternative. Halifax even said so.
If Britain wants a continental ally Britain can finance with the Soviets with what little currency reserves Britain has left and let the Soviets do the fighting for them.
Britain lost a campaign, not a war. Germany can't directly attack Britain or the Empire. Just because Britain can't directly attack Germany at the time doesn't mean they give up their long term advantages over Germany, in exchange for German de jure withdrawal but de facto dominance over France.
Makes no sense to me.
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
*Germany* has no way of attacking the UK, therefore a complete withdrawal from the Low Countries and France is the best Germany can hope for. Halifax was not in the driver's seat, and the Labour Party would leave the national government if presented with such a disastrous treaty, forcing the King to sack a PM Halifax and pick someone more gung-ho in fighting. And Britain can continue blockading Germany, waiting for the U-boats to sink US ships, bringing the US into the war. Time is on Britain's side- every day, the blockade tightens, while Hitler wants to destroy the Soviet Union, FDR despises Hitler and wants in the war, and American businessmen are frozen out of their lucrative European trade deals due to Nazis. And Britain could finance itself and the Soviet Union. Sterling was one of the reserve currencies (gold and dollars the other 2), and had the "Stirling Zone" to produce war materials. War takes only 2 side, but peace takes both sides. Germany must offer Britain enough of a deal that war is too costly. The treaty you suggested is no where enough for peace.
Last edited: