Why does the UK need to seek a peace settlement in this situation? It is already supplying the ME armies from India or the US/UK via the Cape of Good Hope. It can maintain an army in Palestine, East Africa and elsewhere easier than Germany can supply one in Egypt. British submarines can be based in Palestine or Lebanon and with its aircraft make it expensive to ship fuel etc. to Alexandria - even assuming the docks aren't wrecked.
Why, by that point they know any deal with AH is worthless so simply know they cant really do any deal, losing none core areas (ie anything outside the ASB Sea Mamma) doesn't stop them fighting on with unlimited US support?
The issue is that all the above are basically linked and can't without near ASB efforts be changed, why be interested, plan and build for something that will be almost certainly impossible?
Indeed, which is why the lack of consideration for British participation in a European war was perhaps the Nazi regime's most fundamental mistake. The German buildup for war was beset by wishful thinking and willful ignorance from the very start. One could say Germany was setting itself up for defeat the very moment Hitler assumed power.
Again, just not possible , it all comes down to logistics. Simply the Germans/Italians just cannot supply a big enough Army in Egypt. Look at 1st El Alamein, the battle that stopped the drive, the Axis 96k vs 150k men , 50 vs 179 tanks, 500 vs 1500 aircraft. Once Rommel had to fight through a position ( El Alamein could not be flanked, its why the stand was made there ) , numbers count. Once he was stopped, as history shows, he does not have a the supplies to do anything but pull back. His slowness in doing so is what aids an Allied Advance across Libya.
In OTL, Quit India protests were peaceful and gandhian, which is why British were able to defeat them by just ignoring them
Possibly but British were really at keeping their leaders loyal to them
British were not keeping thecleaders loyal, other than muslim league which was still minuscule, most leaders protested against the war and were jailed or house arrested, it would only take a one charismatic violent revolutionary to tip the balance
IMO there's no chance that Germany can force the UK to sign a peace. And even if the UK considers a peace there's two factors which would prevent it:
All I can think of is a Treaty of Amiens type scenario. Not a peace, just a short pause because both side think they would benefit from a ceasefire and a chance to re-arm and prepare ready for round 2. But I struggle to imagine what that could look like in practice, if it leaves Germany in effective control of Europe then the UK cannot agree (it leaves Germany too strong) but if just cannot see Germany accepting anything less with AH and co in charge.
Indeed. Even with an unopposed initial landing it's going to fail.
Not really, none of the empire is sufficiently important if GB has US supplies it can simply ignore the empire as OTL most of the empire (-Canada) stuff was used in eastern Med/Far East and the European theatre was mostly supplied from the USA/South America due to distance and to save shipping anyway.... Almost all the shipyards and spitfire factories are in UK proper so fighting a Sea/Air dominate war (ie west post FoF to D day) is perfectly possible without the colonies.
TBF, it might just about be possible IF the British army had fallen back in such disarray it could not form a line across the gap. AND the Germans had sufficient reserves and supplies to push on before the British could reorganise. Even then, getting beyond Alexandria will be a problem. (Unless the Egyptian army revolts?)
So what is the British response? Can they defuse the situation by handing over the Civil government to a Congress Leader as Viceroy and the cabinet all Indian? Provided India stays in the war, with independence effective immediately after the end?
