No it hasn't. Britain will have only lost the war if German troops are goose stepping down The Mall. Losing the BEF is a blow, but not a fatal one so long as the RN controls the seas.
Dunkirk Disaster and colonies exchanged for withdrawal from France and Netherlands
- Thread starter John Gault
- Start date
Given Hitler's superweapon fetishes in OTL, I can absolutely see him wanting the French battleships. I cannot see the French let alone the Dutch giving them to him. All that would do is at best (for the Germans) drive Darlan to scuttle his fleet earlier than in OTL. Alternatively he could set sail for any of the French colonies beyond Nazi reach. The Nazis trying to seize the French fleet sounds like what you would propose in an AHC to get the notorious Vichy admiral to join Free France.
The French are not going to agree to give Germany half their fleet. We know this because they scuttled it rather than hand it over in OTL, and it wasn't even an admiral of the Free French who did it; it was a Vichyite.
Although a Japanese attack on Russia would be devastating, particularly because it would cut them off from most Lend-Lease Aid, getting Japan to do that at just the right time would be tricky. Japan's going to be facing American sanctions over the seizure of French Indochina and even the die-hard militarists knew they couldn't wage war on Russia, China, and the Western Allies at the same time. If for some reason they were stupid enough to do so, the result wouldn't be good for the axis; it would just mean the western allies would be a much better position at the start of the Cold War, assuming it doesn't get averted completely by the destruction and resulting turmoil in the USSR. Also, Britain, France, and the Netherlands are not going to agree to that deal. Britain is not going to make peace unless the Nazis withdraw from Poland, which they weren't going to do; even getting a peace deal where Germany would keep the Danzig corridor would be a stretch, but anything more than that is ASB.
So what you're saying that when the treaty is broken, the situation goes back to the one in july 1940 (after some fighting I guess). There's one difference though. The German navy is stronger, so the position Britain finds itself in is worse. Also it's going to be more difficult for the British to occupy the German colonies, than for the Germans to occupy the Netherlands and France, since they're demilitarized, while the colonies are fortified. This is not just shooting yourself in the foot, but shooting yourself in both feet and tying you hands behind your back.
There's literally nothing in this deal that appeals to the Dutch. They loose their colonies, their navy and know they're occupied again if Germany wants it, because they're demilitarized and also have Germans on their southern border now. In OTL only the forces in the Netherlands surrendered, unlike the Fremch, the Dutch fought on. They'd push the British not to agree to this. Which would be quite easy, hecause with the DEI in German hands, the British colonies are threatened by Japan and Germany.
Of all the peacedeals I've seen suggested, this is the most ludicrous one.
Literally the only thing that would happen here is that Hitler would resume the war and occupy France and the Netherlands the instant he had his new fleet, and nobody involved was stupid enough not to know that. By 1939, everybody in Europe except for the one person in it who was almost as crazy as Hitler, Stalin, had finally woken up to that.
@John Gault , game theory this out. In one scenario, France and the Netherlands get occupied and Britain suffers a severe but not nearly fatal battlefield defeat. In other (this would be yours), France and the Netherlands still get occupied, but now Germany has a nice shiny new battle fleet and colonies around the world that will need to be rolled up. Think about it, Britain had enough trouble with the Italians in the Mediterranean IOTL. How is this going to affect that? It will result in a very difficult battle there and basically force them to end even the pretense of being able to do anything east of Suez. This is a suicidally idiotic idea in every possible way. It results in every one of the bad things that happened to the Allies in 1940 still happening, except that the British Army doesn't lose some casualties and a lot of equipment at Dunkirk, both of which are replaceable. But now, the Germans have a weapon that can actually threaten the very existence of the Empire, plus a much stronger hand otherwise. So in game theory terms, put one extremely marginally positive point on the board next to a whole heaping mountain of very negative ones. Any government that proposed this would unanimously lose a confidence vote, and if ASB's somehow made it so it didn't, this would be enough to make the King break precedent and unilaterally dissolve it. And rightly so.
The British army lost a battle not the war - but then they expect to lose battles except the one that counts - the last one!
Deleted member 94680
@John Gault read the wiki page on the War cabinet crisis, May 1940 - it'll give you a better understanding of the British attitudes and even what Halifax was actually proposing.
They are paying with half the French Fleet. That alone is a deal breaker not to mention everything else. Agreeing to that really jeopardizes Great Britain, particularly because any treaty Hitler signs is not worth the paper it is written on.
A question thats come up before on this subject. My guess is a year to work up effective crews & make essential technical changes, like German compatible radios, & other service equipment. Even with enthusiastic French help its a long process. My thought is the Germans would be better off taking the French submarine fleet & spending that year crewing and converting it to their use. Of course that is the equivalent of waving two red flags at the British. So politically its the same result.
Meanwhile the RAF treats the German prizes to the same treatment as the German raiders in French ports, or the Italian fleet in its exposed ports OTL.
By the time the work up is completed US entry is just around the corner, so theres still a fleet of USN Standards a couple fleet carriers, and some new ships lurking a half block ahead.
Brits are limited by logic. The Soviets and US show no signs of entering the war in 1940. The embargo will not work with the Soviets supplying the Germans. With a semi-permanent German occupation of France and the Netherlands, Germany will have the industrial capacity to outproduce Britain in planes and ships if Britain pursues the war. Britain will know by 1940 that it doesn't have the capacity to be master of all seas like in the 19th century. German occupation of France is the existential threat- not far flung German colonial outposts. Germany lost its colonies in WW1 and will be invested in peace with Britain if Germany regains colonies. Even during the Napoleonic wars Britain always had a continental ally fighting on their behalf. The only reasonable course if there is no continental ally to fight with is to rearm, encourage a confrontation between the Germans and Soviets and see if Germany slips up.
Again you show a basic ignorance of facts. France was forced to pay massive indemnities under the guise of 'occupation costs', so Germany gains nothing from withdrawing. And again you seem fixated on the idea that the loss of the BEF leads to a complete collapse of British morale and a willingness to trust Hitler that contradicts the historical evidence. Have you bothered to take up any of the suggestions for research made to you in the previous threads?
Again, a complete contradiction of reality. The US was making moves to support Britain in 1940 and these accelerated after the fall of France when German hegemony seemed like a real possibility. The British embargo succeeded despite the supplies to Germany from the USSR, which were of course subject to constantly increasing demands from Stalin. The notion that Germany can outproduce Britain is not realistic and the rest of your proposal simply again shows you've done no research on Hitler's goals and intentions.
The British would sooner (And absolutely would 150% of the time) sink these ships themselves before letting the Germans get their hands on them. End of Story. And the French and Dutch would sooner sail their fleets to England or sink them themselves. Hitler has proven himself entirely and completely untrustworthy at this point, why waste your time with a treaty which will be broken within two to six months. And this is the critical bit, the bit you have singularly failed and refuse to grasp: It would be. Did the Munich Treaty buy the Czech's safety? It did not. From Hitler's point of view, why get ships and some colonies when you can get ships AND the industrial capacity of the nations in question? Anyone actually agreeing to sail their fleets to Kiel is an absolute fool.
Last edited:
Deleted member 94680
But you are not?
So unimportant to the British that they basically ignored Soviet attempts at alliance
Except it did. The Soviets can’t supply everything that the Germans needed.
So why did the British express confidence they could do the exact opposite? As to the Germans out producing the British in ships? That’s just an outrageous claim to make.
So why in 1940 did they believe that they would be able to do just that? Why did they have the largest navy in the world?
So interested in peace that they marginalised their own Colonial proponent?
This even shows an ignorance of the British during the Napoleonic Wars, so I suppose you’re consistent at least.
So the same situation as during significant stretches of the Napoleonic Wars? If the Brits didn't throw in the towel then I see no reason this will impact their thinking in 1940.
No they don't. The Brits outproduced the Germans IOTL by nearly 40,000 aircraft, and the German collapse in aircraft production in 1945 is more than counterbalanced by the fact that the German production totals were biased far more towards single-engine fighters than the Brits, which of course leads to more overall aircraft produced because single-engine fighters are cheaper and less stressful on scarce resources like engine production than multi-engine bombers.
This is with French and Dutch industry available to help out the Germans. Neither were big aircraft producers - in the one year they were in the war and unoccupied they produced about 4300 aircraft combined. Even assuming they kept producing at those levels that's another 16,000 aircraft or so, not enough to close the gap in British and German aircraft production. Of course, that assumption doesn't hold water because the Germans were not in the business of letting either country's aviation industry have the resources to run full-tilt and actual Franco-Dutch production under German occupation amounted to a whopping 880 aircraft.
Military production during World War II - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
As for ships, please. Not only was Plan Z a pipe dream, the Brits had the means and motivation to outbuild it sooner and with a more balanced force structure. Given the aforementioned inability for the Germans to leverage French aircraft production, what makes you think adding Dutch and French construction facilities is going to actually help the Germans?
And don't try to say the Germans will reduce the size of their army in this scenario, they're still going to want to go after the Soviet Union.
Why? The Nazis showed no interest in gaining extra-European colonies.
No they didn't. There was a solid year in 1803 and 1804 between Britain declaring war on France and then signing an alliance with Sweden. Then another year-long gap in 1807 and 1808 between the collapse of the Fourth Coalition and the start of the Peninsular War.
Yeah, which they can do without signing such a one-sided armistice.
Britain was without Continental allies twice in WWII.
Between June 22nd 1940 (The French Surrender) and October 28th 1940 (The Italian invasion of Greece), and
Between April 23rd 1941 (The Evacuation of Greece) and 22nd June 1941 (The launch of Op Barbarossa).
Standing alone while Britain rearmed was not a concern, just being able to pay for what was needed and to keep the sea lanes open.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
The British fought on in 1940 with a fully permanent occupation of France & the Netherlands by Germany, despite logic leaving the Soviet Union (1 year) and the US (18 months) out of the war. What's changed?
Indeed, there is simply no reason for the Brits to give up .... and would certainly not offer Hitler anything in exchange for pulling his forces out of France etc. (unless he lets France re-arm) .. and Hitler is not going to retreat his forces anyway since, after all, he is winning ...
The situation faced by Churchill in 1940 is how to hang on long enough until the Americans come in (or Hitler falls out with Stalin). It is thus conceivable that, having lost the BEF, he might play the diplomatic game long enough to string Hitler along whilst British forces are built up. After all, the Royal Navy is essentially intact, so there is no real fear of immenent invasion ...
The situation facing Hitler is that he wants peace with the Brits. so he can go focus on Russia.
Thus, it's Hitler who is going to have to make the concessions .... the French fleet is of little use against Stalin, so thats part of the package he can offer. Dutch East Indies plus the French far east/african colonies make up another part. Add the return of the BEF on top and JUST MAYBE that will seem attractive enough (Churchil can maybe swing taking over the DEI + French colonies to the Ameicans under the guise of 'protectorates until they can be returned to their legitimate rulers')
Of course that screws Mussolinni in the med. so maybe not ....
Last edited:
None of this is true. The U.S.'s "Neutrality Patrols," a joke that everyone was in on, started immediately after the war began. The Soviets' stock was extremely low after they they basically got defeated in the Winter War, and to a lesser extent the fact that they'd put up a pretty underwhelming performance in the Polish-Soviet War and WWI. They really weren't factoring into anybody's thinking as being that significant of a military power in 1940. The embargo did not work. Germany still had major issues with shortages, and the cutoff of international trade was devastating to them.
The colonies can still eat up a lot of British time and resources like the Vichy colony campaigns IOTL. And while I agree that by itself isn't an existential threat to the Empire, their new navy in combination with Italy and Japan definitely will be. This is not going to happen no matter how badly you want it to. Britain was a fairly small island that was completely dependent on maritime trade and control to survive much less to be a major power (recall their dependence on food exports). They will not go for this or allow it. There is absolutely no reason why France or the Netherlands would either.
There are exactly two powers on Earth that Germany could be wanting to fight with that sort of a navy, Britain and the U.S., and they'd have to fight the British before they could fight the U.S. This is asking London to hand Hitler the carving knife while hog tying themselves in exchange for literally nothing of value. This is completely ASB.