Minimum Acceptable Terms for a British-Nazi Peace

BlondieBC

Banned
What the fuck has any of that got to do with terms that Britain would accept with Germany in the Second World War?

Simple really. It has to do with what terms Germany and Italy will accept with Britain. For a peace Treaty, all parties have to agree.

Could the UK be trusted to honor a treaty?

Hitler past history of breaking treaties made it harder for British politicians from wanting to make peace with Hitler. I was pointing out the the British past betrayal of Italy made it both harder for Germany and Italy to make peace with the UK because they could not trust them.

The public feelings in Italy towards the UK is also relevant when negotiating peace.

Then some poster started to argue that the UK did not break the WW1 treaty with Italy, and one poster wanted sites. I was providing the information to the factual events based on the possibility the poster was unaware of the Treaty of London (1915) and the interwar related issues.

BTW, do you think profanity makes your posts better?
 
Look back to the Coalition Wars against Napoleon or to wars fought by Britain from the 17th Century on. The UK would regularly make 'peace' but just treat it as a temporary cease fire. They made war and peace as it suited them and treaties were only honored so long as they served a purpose.

Not really condemning the British for this though. France, Austria, Spain, Russia, and Prussia were no better. Just consider how many peace treaties Napoleon made with Austria, Prussia, and Russia that were ignored the second they saw a chance of beating France.

NO European power say treaties as sacrosanct.
 

Cook

Banned
Could the UK be trusted to honor a treaty?The public feelings in Italy...
Italian ‘public opinion’ is completely irrelevant; Italy was a dictatorship. And the string of treaties that Italy did sign with Britain and other parties in the 1920s and ‘30s renders your argument completely without basis. Since Mussolini was a peripheral player out to pick up choice morsels of real estate in the Mediterranean for the lowest cost possible, he is hardly likely to refuse to sign a peace treaty.


All your posts have done is derail the thread.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Italian ‘public opinion’ is completely irrelevant; Italy was a dictatorship. And the string of treaties that Italy did sign with Britain and other parties in the 1920s and ‘30s renders your argument completely without basis. Since Mussolini was a peripheral player out to pick up choice morsels of real estate in the Mediterranean for the lowest cost possible, he is hardly likely to refuse to sign a peace treaty.


All your posts have done is derail the thread.

I believe that public opinion matters even in a dictatorship. It maters less, but it still matters.

Second, even if i grant for argument sake, that public opinion does not matter, past behavior of countries do matter in determining both Mussolini's and Hitler's behavior. I find it a bit strange that the UK not trust Hitler because he has broken treaties impacts negotiations, but the reverse is not true. Also, Churchill was both in the government that signed the Treaty of London (1915) and would have to make a peace deal with Hitler. His prior behavior would likely be important in review the details of a peace offer.

My post did not derail the thread. What derailed the thread was at least two other posters disputing known historical facts. I then replied on the disputed facts, which I am correct on. If you want to rant on who "derailed" the thread, you should quote these posters.

If the other posters had stated that they did not believe Italian public opinion matter as opposed to what they did state, which is that the UK did not break the Treaty of London (1915), about a page of the thread could have been skipped. Or if they would have sited a source that showed Mussolini or Hitler did not consider the Treaty of London (1915) relevant, things would have been on post.

As a general rule, when I am challenged on a historical fact, I respond. When I am accused of misconduct, I respond. Often when asked for a cite, I respond, if i can easily find it.

BTW, do you realize by accusing me of misconduct, without a basis, you have added 4 needless posts to this thread?
 

Cook

Banned
I believe that public opinion matters even in a dictatorship. It maters less, but it still matters.
It was wholly irrelevant; there was no popular enthusiasm in Italy for going to war in June 1940, or for widening the war in December 1941.
I find it a bit strange that the UK not trust Hitler because he has broken treaties impacts negotiations, but the reverse is not true. Also, Churchill …His prior behaviour would likely be important in review the details of a peace offer.
Churchill’s behaviour is not significant because he would not have been the Premier of any British government willing to sign a Peace Treaty. Dr Luny acknowledged that with his original post regarding reshuffling the cabinet.
What derailed the thread was at least two other posters disputing known historical facts.
Your so called historical fact is nothing of the sort. Mussolini had no reluctance to sign treaties with Britain and France in the ‘20s or ‘30s, so referring to a treaty that was signed in 1915, years before he came to power, is fairly pointless and fails to explain his willingness to sign the treaties he did sign.

Getting back to the actual subject of the thread. People need to realise that any Peace treaty would be dependent on the relative strength of the two parties and if Britain was willing to seek terms it means they are in a very poor state, or at least do not see any future improvement of their war effort and no hope of eventual victory.
 
I suppose the question could be rearranged to be "What would be suitable ceasefire terms until Tube Alloys (likely without any American involvement) is ready?"
 

BlondieBC

Banned

It was wholly irrelevant; there was no popular enthusiasm in Italy for going to war in June 1940, or for widening the war in December 1941.

Churchill’s behaviour is not significant because he would not have been the Premier of any British government willing to sign a Peace Treaty. Dr Luny acknowledged that with his original post regarding reshuffling the cabinet.

Your so called historical fact is nothing of the sort. Mussolini had no reluctance to sign treaties with Britain and France in the ‘20s or ‘30s, so referring to a treaty that was signed in 1915, years before he came to power, is fairly pointless and fails to explain his willingness to sign the treaties he did sign.

Getting back to the actual subject of the thread. People need to realise that any Peace treaty would be dependent on the relative strength of the two parties and if Britain was willing to seek terms it means they are in a very poor state, or at least do not see any future improvement of their war effort and no hope of eventual victory.

We just disagree on the relevance of public opinions in dictatorships and other authoritarian regimes.

Again, on Churchill, we disagree. I believe the PM of England is relevant, and even if out of power in opposition, he would have relevance. Also, relevance is not control, just it matters. On the whole thread, it is really ASB, since the terms each side wanted were so far apart. It would take a large POD, or more likely several POD's for peace to be negotiated.

IMO, Iran is closer to joining NATO in 2012, than Germany and England were to making peace in 1940 or 1941.

You see, here is the key thing, the reason the tread is so long. People are assigning statements to me, that I did not say. Then I have to go back on, and restate my position, then it gets misstated yet again.

My fact is the ToL (1915) and that the UK broke it. This is what i gave a site too. My analysis was it would impact negotiations. If people had just disagreed with my analysis, instead of stating my facts were wrong, it would have save about two pages of posts. Notice, how above I simply stated that we disagree on couple of issues. This is substantially different when people dispute the facts I states. And since you brought up my facts incorrectly again, it will become a longer post.

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.

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.

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.

Notice that I said the UK broke treaties. I did not say a treaty would never be signed. That Italy would overrule Germany, etc.

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.

Now my facts are disputed that the UK broke treaties. This is where the thread goes off topic. I understand the debate tactic that are being used. Posters are changing what I said, which they apparently can't refute to a position they prefer to debate.

Also note, I did not say Hitler was trustworthy, a nice guy, etc. Also note that a historical fact, ToL 1915, was called a fantasy. The treaty existed, and the UK broke it, of its own free will. These are facts, not opinions. If his position was a fact, he would refer to the section of the treaty which said something like, "If Italy fails to capture XXX and YYY by ZZZ date, then Italy does not get the following list of lands."

Also note, I said coming to the Czech's aid. I was referring to not going to war to defend Czechoslovaki, not Hitler being mistreated.
 
Top