What would be the minimum peace terms Britain could accept after the French capitulation in late June/early July 1940? Assume for the sake of argument that Hitler is willing to make considerable concessions to bring the war to a close. If you need to shift the British cabinet around a bit to make them more amenable to a negotiated peace, that's allowed.
Minimum Acceptable Terms for a British-Nazi Peace
- Thread starter Dr. Luny
- Start date
Alex Richards
Donor
I think it would be something along the lines of evacuating France and leaving the low countries demilitarised/domestically independent, while writing off the east.
Agreed, and I think Britain would not agree to France being puppetized/demilitarized either. Britain's security against Germany relies on France being a bulwark, so if its not, you might as well fight it out while Russia is still looming in the East, instead of waiting for Germany to secure its eastern flank.
Cook
Banned
In July 1940 Germany had won, or so Hitler thought, so concessions aren’t on the table unless you are willing to change Hitler’s character as to be unrecognisable.
With a change of British Prime Minister and a few cabinet members, producing a government open to negotiations, then the most reasonable terms would be an end to hostilities with the new boundaries as established by the reality on the ground; the British would acknowledge German hegemony on the Continent while Hitler would acknowledge British dominance of its Empire and pre-eminent position in Oceania.
Such a scenario wasn’t unlikely, a realistic assessment of Britain’s position and that of Germany could have been enough to bring Churchill down; throughout 1940 and ’41, the British sustained themselves with the delusion that the German state was on the verge of internal collapse, at the same time the true state of affairs with regard to Britain’s very limited ability to wage war was kept a secret even from the outer cabinet, and almost no-one knew that Churchill’s only hope to win involved bringing the United States into the war.
Last edited:
Max Sinister
Banned
Hitler had planned to build up a great colonial empire in the long run. In that case, not much would've been left of the British Empire.
Shadow Master
Banned
I think that everyone is looking at mainly just the allied side, so I"ll try from the German side:
All German boarders from pre WWI re-established, German trade not to be blockaded ever again, free to persue her fate on the eastern front.
Germany is going to include a demand in the treaty that the British and/or the Americans not interfere when Germany invades the USSR?
As for the issue of German trade being blocked...if Germany goes to war with Great Britain again the idea that the British would not be permitted to try a blockade is absurd.
As for the pre-WWI boundaries the odds of Germany agreeing to surrender Austria or the Czech Republic at the talks...
As for the issue of German trade being blocked...if Germany goes to war with Great Britain again the idea that the British would not be permitted to try a blockade is absurd.
As for the pre-WWI boundaries the odds of Germany agreeing to surrender Austria or the Czech Republic at the talks...
LOGICALLY if Britain is of a mind to make peace then Churchill is gone, Norway is irrelevant, and the French can be left to their own devices. Mostly these were Churchill's issues, and with him out of the picture anyone agreeing to deal with the Nazis know that the ONLY key issues for Britain are her own.
And these Hitler was willing to agree to - no restrictions to British trade, no impositions on the British Empire, nothing about armaments etc including the Royal Navy
Obviously, Britain is also going to demand the return of ALL PoWs ASAP, and that would include any in punishment camps and any Jewish ones. Again, the Nazis aren't going to bother arguing.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
And these Hitler was willing to agree to - no restrictions to British trade, no impositions on the British Empire, nothing about armaments etc including the Royal Navy
Obviously, Britain is also going to demand the return of ALL PoWs ASAP, and that would include any in punishment camps and any Jewish ones. Again, the Nazis aren't going to bother arguing.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Snake Featherston
Banned
Evacuation of all occupied territory in France and in Poland would be the *minimum* starting points.
Shadow Master
Banned
Was the time frame in this thread specified to be pre-barbarossa? I must have missed that. MY BAD.Germany is going to include a demand in the treaty that the British and/or the Americans not interfere when Germany invades the USSR?
My post does not mention any new war with the UK, it deals with peace with the UK, not renewed war.
Ok, ya got me this time, I should have taken more time with that last post so as to leave no room for the picking of nits, lol.
Germany needs not ask Austria (again) whether or not they want the Anschluss. interested in hearing your views w/regard Cezchloslavika.
I don't think they exist. After the invasion of rump Czechoslovakia, the British Establishment decided there was no point negotiating with Germany at all, as they couldn't be relied upon to keep to the terms of their agreements.
Snake Featherston
Banned
I don't think so given the UK had gone to war to protect Poland's independence at least gave that rhetorical lip service even into 1944 when Churchill was unofficially writing off a good-sized chunk of that part of Europe as the Soviet Empire. If they were willing to do this when a state they had an official alliance treaty with was poised to capture Warsaw, the odds of them letting Hitler continue to dynamite synagogues, imprison Jews in Ghettoes, and begin the extermination of all Poles, whether Jewish or Catholic are slim to non-existent.
Agreed. Certainly under Churchill.... and probably any British PM.
The whole point of the war (certainly from what I remember of Churchills books) is Poland.
Churchill will demand everything restored. He *may* just accept Austria being left German.
Any other reasonable PM would probably want all restored except perhaps Czechoslovakia and Denmark. And even then, they know Hitler is a lying no good two faced b*stard and any treaty isn't worth the paper it's written on. There would be a round 2.
Given the right PM, I think you could have a peace deal where the West is freed in exchange for acknowledging Germany's conquests in Poland and Czechoslovakia.
Granted, freeing Poland was why you fought the war in the first place. But that was before Barbarossa knocked out at least half of your fighting strength. Getting that strength back and time to re-arm for the inevitable Nazi betrayal is probably worth it.
I guess what I'm saying is it comes down to an evaluation of what the French political leadership will be like if the Nazis evacuate France. If they'll take their second chance seriously, then the deal might be worth it. If they'll be cowed or half-nazi themselves like the Vichy, it isn't.
Granted, freeing Poland was why you fought the war in the first place. But that was before Barbarossa knocked out at least half of your fighting strength. Getting that strength back and time to re-arm for the inevitable Nazi betrayal is probably worth it.
I guess what I'm saying is it comes down to an evaluation of what the French political leadership will be like if the Nazis evacuate France. If they'll take their second chance seriously, then the deal might be worth it. If they'll be cowed or half-nazi themselves like the Vichy, it isn't.
BlondieBC
Banned
Germany is going to include a demand in the treaty that the British and/or the Americans not interfere when Germany invades the USSR?
As for the issue of German trade being blocked...if Germany goes to war with Great Britain again the idea that the British would not be permitted to try a blockade is absurd.
As for the pre-WWI boundaries the odds of Germany agreeing to surrender Austria or the Czech Republic at the talks...
It is just not the 1914 borders, but also Austria, Sudetenland, Poland, etc. Britain would have had to recognize most the Greater German Reich.
As to how to prevent blockade, it is just not saying it, but taking actions to make it very hard to do, including:
1) Fortified Antwerp
2) Brest (France) as fortified German Naval bases.
3) A few other Naval bases on French soil, including at least one in the channel.
4) A DMZ in the channel, limiting Britain ability to blockade. This probably involves limits on fortifying ports, and types of ships allowed in the Channel.
5) Probably some naval limitation treaty where Germany is allowed to build as many ships as the UK.
6) German naval bases in Africa might also be required.
The sides were too far apart to make peace, only after years more of war just between the UK and Germany would peace be considered.
BlondieBC
Banned
I am sure this was believe by the UK, but in reality lots of treaties are broken. For example the UK betrayed Italy in WW1, and it defaulted on USA loans. We can also talk about Oran or not coming to the Czechoslovakia aid. So one could also say with good basis that the UK could not be trusted.
IMO, if Britain had made peace, Britain will use this time to prepare for the next war. If Germany was doing badly in Russia, the UK might also break the peace deal.
It would depend on how much leverage each side had. After the war, one of Hitler's generals (whose name I can't remember, unfortunately) said that Germany should have seized Gibralter, and shut the British out of the Mediterranean, allowing them back in only on the condition that they sign a peace treaty and agree to provide war material and some troops to help the Germans in their invasion of the USSR. I guess this would have meant Britain joining the Anti-Comintern Pact, essentially.
BlondieBC, it was believed in the UK because it was true.
The British and French in 1938 provided Germany with terms of astounding and undeserved generosity solely because if Hitler's word diplomatically was shown to be trustworthy it meant that war in Europe could yet be averted. Instead Hitler shredded the treaty as soon as he could seize the remnant Czech state, making clear in the process that he could not be trusted.
As for this fantasy of Great Britain betraying Italy in WWI there were certain goals Italy was supposed to meet. These goals did not include near military collapse and becoming a drain on Anglo-French supplies and even requiring substantial numbers of troops.
The British and French in 1938 provided Germany with terms of astounding and undeserved generosity solely because if Hitler's word diplomatically was shown to be trustworthy it meant that war in Europe could yet be averted. Instead Hitler shredded the treaty as soon as he could seize the remnant Czech state, making clear in the process that he could not be trusted.
As for this fantasy of Great Britain betraying Italy in WWI there were certain goals Italy was supposed to meet. These goals did not include near military collapse and becoming a drain on Anglo-French supplies and even requiring substantial numbers of troops.