Nazi unilateral ceasefire after the fall of France

[Nialironarm]

I don't know if this has been asked before so I apologise in advance if I am wasting time.

It has occurred to me that after the fall of France it may have been possible for Germany to cease combat action against the British Empire.

Would the British have been prepared to make attacks on the European mainland if Nazi Germany declared a unilateral ceasefire, or would the war have just fizzled out?

I know that Churchill was dedicated to the destruction of the Nazis but would the Empire have followed him to war at any cost?

I guess I'm asking if the British will to resist the Nazis would have been so strong if they had been given nothing to resist.

 

[ghappy1000]

I don't know if this has been asked before so I apologise in advance if I am wasting time.

It has occurred to me that after the fall of France it may have been possible for Germany to cease combat action against the British Empire.

Would the British have been prepared to make attacks on the European mainland if Nazi Germany declared a unilateral ceasefire, or would the war have just fizzled out?

I know that Churchill was dedicated to the destruction of the Nazis but would the Empire have followed him to war at any cost?

I guess I'm asking if the British will to resist the Nazis would have been so strong if they had been given nothing to resist.

Shouldn't this be prevalent on the forums? The majority may require the surrender and peace offers of Britain instead of Germany following the fall of France combined with excessive naval losses, more troops lost at Dunkirk, a prime minister other than Churchill and/or a Battle of Britain that results in the British losing severely that they make peace or are vulnerable to Operation Sealion succeeding.

 

[iddt3]

Shouldn't this be prevalent on the forums? The majority may require the surrender and peace offers of Britain instead of Germany following the fall of France combined with excessive naval losses, more troops lost at Dunkirk, a prime minister other than Churchill and/or a Battle of Britain that results in the British losing severely that they make peace or are vulnerable to Operation Sealion succeeding.

He's positing a unilateral ceasefire, not a mutual one. The Germans pick up their toys and go home, giving no further provocation to the British. For example, without the Battle of Britain, it will be much harder for the British to justify introducing city bombing.

 

[Derek Pullem]

He's positing a unilateral ceasefire, not a mutual one. The Germans pick up their toys and go home, giving no further provocation to the British. For example, without the Battle of Britain, it will be much harder for the British to justify introducing city bombing.

Why do the British need to introduce city bombing?

They stick to attacking Wilhelmshaven and mining German coastal waters.

Germany can hardly pretend they are the "good guy" sitting in Holland, Belgium and 50% of France.

The British take the time to rearm, gather resources absent any U-boat war and most importantly boot the Italians out of Africa.

Which will take just long enough for the Germans to launch Barbarossa - which kind of destroys their image of peaceful tourists

 

[Generaloberst]

Why do the British need to introduce city bombing?

They stick to attacking Wilhelmshaven and mining German coastal waters.

Germany can hardly pretend they are the "good guy" sitting in Holland, Belgium and 50% of France.

The British take the time to rearm, gather resources absent any U-boat war and most importantly boot the Italians out of Africa.

Which will take just long enough for the Germans to launch Barbarossa - which kind of destroys their image of peaceful tourists

But the Germans aren't going to be sitting in Holland, Belgium and France. It's a unilateral ceasefire. Once France is defeated they just go back to Germany, telling Britain that this was only in response to their declaration of war and no prolonged occupation will exist as a show of goodwill.

 

[Derek Pullem]

But the Germans aren't going to be sitting in Holland, Belgium and France. It's a unilateral ceasefire. Once France is defeated they just go back to Germany, telling Britain that this was only in response to their declaration of war and no prolonged occupation will exist as a show of goodwill.

The ASB forum awaits............

 

[Generaloberst]

The ASB forum awaits............

I don't know why that is so difficult to fathom. Everything that I've read is that the Germans, aside from Alsace-Lorraine and other historically 'German' possessions, had no desire for conquest in the West.

 

[hasdrubal barca]

I don't know why that is so difficult to fathom. Everything that I've read is that the Germans, aside from Alsace-Lorraine and other historically 'German' possessions, had no desire for conquest in the West.

Right, they only really occupied Northern France and the other countries to keep the British out. If they are unconcerned about this then they have no reason to. It is however still hard to see Germany withdrawing from these countries. They will at least have to still occupy Norway and Denmark at a minimum.

 

[Cymraeg]

But the Germans aren't going to be sitting in Holland, Belgium and France. It's a unilateral ceasefire. Once France is defeated they just go back to Germany, telling Britain that this was only in response to their declaration of war and no prolonged occupation will exist as a show of goodwill.

?????????????????????????????????

Yes, and the chances of Hitler doing this are approximately the same as him laying down his powers and opening a small shop outside Stuttgart that sells kittens. Minimal in other words. He wanted vengeance for Germany's defeat in World War II. Leaving the countries he invaded and is busy looting for economic resources is antithetical to his entire mindset. At the end of the war there were still German troops in Norway and Courland that could have helped with the defence of Germany. Did he abandon these areas? Of course not.
Why are we discussing the rationality of Adolf Hitler? The man believed that power really did come from the barrel of a gun.

 

[hasdrubal barca]

?????????????????????????????????

Yes, and the chances of Hitler doing this are approximately the same as him laying down his powers and opening a small shop outside Stuttgart that sells kittens. Minimal in other words. He wanted vengeance for Germany's defeat in World War II. Leaving the countries he invaded and is busy looting for economic resources is antithetical to his entire mindset. At the end of the war there were still German troops in Norway and Courland that could have helped with the defence of Germany. Did he abandon these areas? Of course not.
Why are we discussing the rationality of Adolf Hitler? The man believed that power really did come from the barrel of a gun.

Sepp Dietrich store clerk?

 

[Nialironarm]

Would Germany even have to abandon their conquests in the West?

Though such a gesture would be hard for Britain to ignore.

I just wonder whether the British people would be so eager to spend lives and money resisting Nazi Germany if they were not directly threatened.

It seems to me that Britain's will to fight on was in part engendered by the feeling that there was no other choice. Blitzkrieg, Battle of Britain and the threat of invasion resulted in an almost universal consensus to continue fighting.

If Germany made no aggressive moves against the British after the fall of France this consensus would be unlikely to come about.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Would Germany even have to abandon their conquests in the West?

Though such a gesture would be hard for Britain to ignore.

I just wonder whether the British people would be so eager to spend lives and money resisting Nazi Germany if they were not directly threatened.

It seems to me that Britain's will to fight on was in part engendered by the feeling that there was no other choice. Blitzkrieg, Battle of Britain and the threat of invasion resulted in an almost universal consensus to continue fighting.

If Germany made no aggressive moves against the British after the fall of France this consensus would be unlikely to come about.

Which is clearly why Britain didn't continue to fight France for almost ten years after Trafalgar had pretty much removed the risk of a French invasion?

The British can be peculiarly stubborn when it comes to fighting wars.

 

[King Augeas]

But the Germans aren't going to be sitting in Holland, Belgium and France. It's a unilateral ceasefire. Once France is defeated they just go back to Germany, telling Britain that this was only in response to their declaration of war and no prolonged occupation will exist as a show of goodwill.

Disregarding the political plausibilities of this... the practicalities are to set up a puppet regime in France (Vichy will probably do) and announce that France is free unless it tries anything stupid. Like rearming or inviting British troops in. After all, much of Vichy France was "free", only the coastal areas were occupied.

Unfortunately, it changes nothing about the British perception of the nature and trustworthiness of the German regime or its intentions in the east. The main effect is to doom the Italians in North Africa because Germany can't send Rommel there, which is very bad news for Japan. Subsidiary effects are to probably lessen the chance of strategic surprise in the East for Barbarossa while increasing the strength of German forces there, although the threat of a British landing and French "backstab" during Barbarossa remains, and to cause some confusion in the US about the desire and capability of the British to resist the German-Italian alliance, until Operations Compass and Barbarossa come along, anyway.

So it's bad news for Italy and Japan, good news for Germany and the UK, mixed news for the USSR and nothing really changes for the US.

 

[CalBear]

We had a decent discussion on this a couple months ago.

The general consensus (from which I abstained) was that the UK wouldn't back off. The one element of the general trend that I did very much agree with was that Hitler had made it so clear that he wasn't to be trusted, regardless of what he proclaimed, that no one would seriously believe it.

The real issue, IMO, with the concept is that it requires Hitler to act in a rational manner and would demonstrate the sort of realistic strategic foresight that was notably lacking among the 3rd Reich's leadership as a whole.

 

[VirginiaHistoryTeacher]

Even setting Hitler's insanity aside, why would the Wehrmacht just abandon ground that they bled to seize? It would spit on the graves of every German soldier from both world wars. Define mutiny.

 

[marathag]

Even setting Hitler's insanity aside, why would the Wehrmacht just abandon ground that they bled to seize? It would spit on the graves of every German soldier from both world wars. Define mutiny.

Why?

They turned France into a Puppet, in record time.

Frederick the Great didn't have to occupy the Empire and Russia to 'Win' their part of of the Seven Years' War to get Britain to support the Prussian side

 

[Catspoke]

To pursue something like this I see two paths.

1) Just make a final peace with Vichy without Britain being involved. Evacuate to whatever boundry is decided to be final. Release the French POWs. Peace terms would keep France demilitarized. Probably would include reparations. Similarly make peace with Holland and every one else they want. Make public possible final (easy) peace terms with Britain. Hope that Britain eventually comes around to deal.

Britain would keep up the blockade in the mean time but that would probably be it. A France limited to a 100,000 man army would hardly want to start a round 2, especially if the terms were halfway reasonable.

The Vichy regime's prestige would be enhanced and it would be difficult for the British to support a Free French movement or attach French colonies as OTL.

Britain could pick on Italy easily here though whenever she wanted and probably would in Africa. Italy would be wise not to provoke Britain and attack over the borders of British colonies in this scenerio or do something silly like attack Greece.

If Germany attacked USSR anyway in 1941. Britain would give even more aid to the USSR than OTL and probably would start major bombing at that point so a deal would have to be before then.

2) or close to OTL but Don't do a Battle of Britain. so you don't invite a major British bombing response. You could even have the submarines do prize rules instead of unrestricted. Make public possible (easy) terms with Britain. Hope that Britain eventually comes around to deal.

Britain could pick on Italy or Vichy easily still here though.

As above: If Germany attacked USSR anyway. Britain would give even more aid to the USSR than OTL and probably would start major bombing at that point so a deal would have to be before then.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

To pursue something like this I see two paths.

1) Just make a final peace with Vichy without Britain being involved. Evacuate to whatever boundry is decided to be final. Release the French POWs. Peace terms would keep France demilitarized. Probably would include reparations. Similarly make peace with Holland and every one else they want. Make public possible final (easy) peace terms with Britain. Hope that Britain eventually comes around to deal.

Britain would keep up the blockade in the mean time but that would probably be it. A France limited to a 100,000 man army would hardly want to start a round 2, especially if the terms were halfway reasonable.

The Vichy regime's prestige would be enhanced and it would be difficult for the British to support a Free French movement or attach French colonies as OTL..

The peace treaty with France & Belgium would be at the core of this. Germany does not have to "walk away". The Belgian leaders & Petains government wanted & expected a peace treaty to be negotiated in the autum/winter of 1940-41. That had been a central understanding when the Belgian & French governments had asked for a cease fire & signed armistice agreements. Both sincerely believed Germany would start peace negotiations before winter. When Hitler did not it was a early and large blow to the governments prestige.

Had Germany just started negotiations with the appearance of sincerity in August 1940, with Belgium and France it would have undercut support for not only Churchills war cabinet but also for the Norwegian & Dutch governments in exile. In the case of Holland there was a fair sized part of the population sympathetic to Germany, and a fair number of facist sympathysers as well. If folks can be convinced that 'This Time' Hitler is not lying the war hawks in Britain will be weakened.

This last part; convincing folks that Hitler is not continuing a straight run of broken agreements & lies is the trick, and a tough one.

 

[Catspoke]

If folks can be convinced that 'This Time' Hitler is not lying the war hawks in Britain will be weakened.

This last part; convincing folks that Hitler is not continuing a straight run of broken agreements & lies is the trick, and a tough one.

The terms offered to Britain could be as easy status quo before war, no repararations, no return of colonies. Only allow the resumption of German trade and the return of captured German merchants and in return any British POWs are returned. So even if Britain is skeptical about Germany's future plans she hasn't given up anything security wise and she could restart the blockade again if need be.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

A quick review recalls the following items: After the cease fire with France Hitler thought he had a unilateral cease fire. While there was some skirmishing for the next few weeks of June & early July he was in his mind holding back. This is coupled with the Reichtag speech where he made the vague allusion to peace with the former Allies, and the low level diplomatic contact made via Sweden. Those two incidents are very vague & were not interpreted as actual peace offers by the Brits. However Hitler did not think like a Brit. In his mind the victor received peace offers from the losers. He seems to have expected Britain & Co to come to him with their proposals, as did France & Belgium in May & June. My guess is he was waiting for the Brits to come shuffling up with bowed heads begging for terms. When he got Churchills fiery speeches he decided to punish them further with more military defeat & a invasion.

The other Nazi leaders made no move AFAIK to push Hitler to further peace overtures. So, while a extended stand down is possible, as folks here no doubt understand a German or Hitler peace offer is near ASB. Just against the mentality of the Nazi leaders. Still interesting to speculate on what might have happened had they gone against character