No Operation Barbarossa is a negotiated peace with the Western allies possible

[NoMommsen]

i wouldn't say Hitler doesn't change his mind. He did regularly, like with case blue. Not sure why you make that a point.

The USSR, that was the nemesis, not the UK. Along with hating jews and restoring German glory(by taking back German territory), the USSR had to be taken out. That was the strategy way before Hitler looked to the west.

Exactly because of the latter part of your post ...

Everybody seems to rule out the possibility, that Hitler might 'change' his mind and make destroying defeating GB, perfidious albion, having betrayed his very personal hopes, first objective ... at least for the time being.

 

[NoMommsen]

...
In the West the Germans would face the impossible task of preventing Allied breakthroughs in Normandy and Southern France under conditions of total air inferiority -
...

... what 'time scale' you're talking about ? ... what has happened since when ? ... for such a scenario to be of interest here ?

... just curious ...

 

[Anchises]

Exactly because of the latter part of your post ...

Everybody seems to rule out the possibility, that Hitler might 'change' his mind and make destroying defeating GB, perfidious albion, having betrayed his very personal hopes, first objective ... at least for the time being.

This basically. Hitler changed his mind regularly and often. An attack on the Soviet Union is likely to occur in the 1940-42 timeframe and very likely to happen if Germany makes peace with the West.

This isn't a certainty though, there could be a hundred reasons why Hitler decides on a Britain First strategy. He could feel personally insulted by the British oligarchy, that prevents a just peace for the Germans and their Anglo-Saxon brethren. Some of his favorite Generals convince him that the Afrikakorps is the way to go. He deludes himself into thinking: "One more defeat and they have to oust Churchill"

... what 'time scale' you're talking about ? ... what has happened since when ? ... for such a scenario to be of interest here ?

... just curious ...

Total air superiority would take much longer to reach for the WAllies, in a no Eastern Front scenario. The Axis still doesn't have the industry to compete long term but without the Eastern Front chewing up ressources they have much more breathing room.

 

[NoMommsen]

...
The Axis still doesn't have the industry to compete long term but without the Eastern Front chewing up ressources they have much more breathing room.

... for doing much more harm to the british isles as IOTL that could be rendered even more existence-threatening than IOTL as well, making an eventual - after another change of minds of the dictator ? - peace-proposal look even more interesting than IOTL.

Notwithstanding a still possible later switch-of-sides of the Wallies again, when Hitler eventually turns against the SU later.

 

[Anchises]

... for doing much more harm to the british isles as IOTL that could be rendered even more existence-threatening than IOTL as well, making an eventual - after another change of minds of the dictator ? - peace-proposal look even more interesting than IOTL.

Notwithstanding a still possible later switch-of-sides of the Wallies again, when Hitler eventually turns against the SU later.

Both is possible yes. A lot of people on this forum subscribe to a very rigid interpretation of Nazi/WW2 history. I am not a fan of this.

The whole trope that only "unconditional surrender and nothing else" was possible after Germany initiated WW2 is wrong in my book. Between the end of Fall Gelb and the failure of Barbarossa there is a big window where the war can develop in a lot of ways. Denying that ignores how dangerous the Nazis where, how much acceptance or even symphathy there was for Fascism and that war is more than a block of industrial statistics in a history book.

Britain in 1940 is still ruled by politicians who view it as an Empire. In 1940 it is still entirely possible to rationalize Nazi behaviour as "WW1: Season 2" (especially if the person in question has some symphaties for Fascism). From a certain imperialist point of view it makes a lot of sense to cut a deal with the Nazis. It was clear after the BEF barely escaped, that the British Empire as a first rate power would be finished if this war continues, even if Britain wins.

Adding 2-5 years (depending on how the alt-Western Front plays out) on top of that, where the Nazis are free to throw their whole warmaking and terror ability against the British Empire, makes a negotiated peace not that unlikely. Its not like the USA is able to protect the British Isles in 1940,1941,1942 or maybe even 1943.

Hitler, in his twisted worldview, actually intended to leave Britain as an overseas Empire. He wants the continent as a sphere of influence, so he would obviously ignore all the prior treaties trying to reign in his influence on the continent. This doesn't mean that Hitler would attack the British Empire once he has what he desires from Britain. I very much doubt that all British decision makers at the time believed that every deal with Hitler was worthless.

And yeah, a switch-of-sides is still in the books. By 1940 the Soviet Union is still a pariah state that fueled the Nazi war machine for its own sinister goals.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Does Germany possess the means to defeat the WAllies outright? No.

Would political exhaustion result in the WAllies settling for a negotiated peace with the Nazis? Maybe, maybe not. There's arguments for that both ways.

Does, assuming for a moment that they do eventually reach an armistice, that lead to a lasting peace and stable Nazi Germany? Certainly not. The WAllies would remain hostile even in peace and the most likely result is Germany breaking itself economically engaged in a double Cold War with the US-UK on the one hand and the USSR on the other.

Its not like the USA is able to protect the British Isles in 1940,1941,1942 or maybe even 1943.

[emphasis added]
That's a good joke. Tell another one.

 

[Anchises]

[emphasis added]
That's a good joke. Tell another one.

Sure, in every possible timeline the USA enters the war at the same time. And then by 1942/43 they always have total air superiority over the British Isles and are able to prevent Nazi commando raids and stuff like that.

Protection means more than preventing Sea Lion you know.

 

[Derek Jackson]

My assumption is that Hitler could decide to 'postpone' Barbarossa and try to concentrate on Britain (thinking possibly that Britain would help in the eventual war on Russia.

More efforts to sink British ships could cause serious problems. I do not think that they win but who knows.

Possibly Hitler tries to avoid war with the USA

This assumes a rational murdering thug which Hitler was not or maybe a dead Hitler and smarter leadership

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Sure, in every possible timeline the USA enters the war at the same time.

You could probably delay things a month or two, but roughly the same time yeah. That's determined more by the Japanese then anything the Germans do.

And then by 1942/43 they have total air superiority over the British Isles and are able to prevent Nazi commando raids and stuff like that.

Pretty much, yeah. Or are you really that ignorant of the massive air and naval forces the US deployed to Britain in 1942-43? Do you think the huge American daylight strategic bombing raids that commenced in mid-1943 materialized out of thin air and that they weren't preceded by the US ensuring they had enough air power to assure the security of their bases on the British isles? Do you really think the Americans were that stupid?

And German commando raids... well, they may have been workable in 1940. By 1941, however, the British alone had built up enough security that they would have been suicide.

 

[Anchises]

You could probably delay things a month or two, but roughly the same time yeah. That's determined more by the Japanese then anything the Germans do.

Pretty much, yeah. Or are you really that ignorant of the massive air and naval forces the US deployed to Britain in 1942-43?

Because its not like Germany DOWed the USA... I mean Hitler would never betray his Japanese allies............

Yeah in every timeline the exact naval and air forces are stationed on the British Isles at the same time. There is no way that the arrival of these assets is delayed, they are used elsewhere etc.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Because its not like Germany DOWed the USA... I mean Hitler would never betray his Japanese allies.........…

Given prevailing American attitudes following Pearl Harbour, it's very much either Hitler abandons his efforts to defeat Britain or goes to war with the US. Because the next American sailor dead at a German bomb or torpedo is all Roosevelt needs for his own DoW in the post-Pearl environment and given the loads of war material which would be ferried by American vessels to the British, escorted by American warships with orders to defend themselves, there'll be a lot of opportunity for American sailors to meet their ends to a German bomb or torpedo.

Yeah in every timeline the exact naval and air forces are stationed on the British Isles at the same time. There is no way that the arrival of these assets is delayed, they are used elsewhere etc.

Give or take a few months, yes. The US had a surfeit of assets and there wasn't much else they could be doing. Some of them might have seen more immediate profitable use in North Africa, but the bases weren't ready for them. Britain was where the infrastructure was already set-up and ready to receive them since the British had been preparing bases there for years by that point.

The moment open war breaks out the Germans cannot possibly build the necessary superiority in forces for any realistic successful offensive action. They cannot defeat both the USN and the RN, supported by the USAAF and the RAF, and the British and American armies, and they cannot sink transports faster than the Americans and British can build them and hunt and sink U-boats. They would, without the distraction of the Eastern Front, be better able to resist an Allied invasion of the continent and maybe force a defensive peace via political exhaustion but they cannot under any circumstances triumph in an offensive war themselves at this point.

 

[Anchises]

Given prevailing American attitudes following Pearl Harbour, it's very much either Hitler abandons his efforts to defeat Britain or goes to war with the US. Because the next American sailor dead at a German bomb or torpedo is all Roosevelt needs for his own DoW in the post-Pearl environment and given the loads of war material which would be ferried by American vessels to the British, escorted by American warships with orders to defend themselves, there'll be a lot of opportunity for American sailors to meet their ends to a German bomb or torpedo.



Give or take a few months, yes. The US had a surfeit of assets and there wasn't much else they could be doing. Some of them might have seen more immediate profitable use in North Africa, but the bases weren't ready for them. Britain was where the infrastructure was already set-up and ready to receive them since the British had been preparing bases there for years by that point.

So lets assume a TL where Japan strikes a month or two later. Germany doesn't DOW the USA and as a result and Roosevelt has to "search" for a dead American sailor for a while. Then deploying American assets takes much longer for a number of mundane reasons. If we factor in that Germany probably has much more at its disposal than IOTL, there is a sizeable window of time even in your conservative view.

If you ask a lot more can go wrong.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

So lets assume a TL where Japan strikes a month or two later. Germany doesn't DOW the USA and as a result and Roosevelt has to "search" for a dead American sailor for a while. Then deploying American assets takes much longer for a number of mundane reasons. If we factor in that Germany probably has much more at its disposal than IOTL, there is a sizeable window of time even in your conservative view.

I'm not seeing where the "much longer" is coming from outside of your wishful thinking. Even before the open war, the US would be making preparations and likely even deploying forces to Britain "for training purposes in regards to the Pacific War" shortly after the Japanese attack... something which was already under way. At least by declaring first, Hitler was able to catch the Americans before they got organized and inflict more losses then he might have otherwise. A few months is not a remotely sizeable window of time, particularly not for the sort of naval-air war that Britain would be engaging in with Germany...

 

[The Red]

For former times I might name the Berlin-Congress of 1978 or the treaty of Dan Stefano of 1878 as well or the several british "dealings" about the portuguise colonies (with Germany btw.)

... Munich 1938 after throwing not only the ToV military restrictions in 1935 but also the Locarno-treaty in 1936, the ban of german-austrian unification - just reaffirmed in 1931 - in also 1938 under the bus. There Hitler violated not only the 'meanings# but also the words of the treaties.

Using analogies that happened in the past are just as unhelpful if they aren't relevant to Nazi Germany, which as you've pointed out had a track record of breaking every agreement and treaty they had signed. The failure of appeasement was the historical context in which any future with deal with Germany would have been viewed, and the anger of the British public in regards to this was palpable.

With his grab for Prague in 1939 he "only" violated the meaning while strictly by the words he did not violated the Munich agreement.

He violated the words of the text as well,

The final determination of the frontiers will be carried out by the international commission. The commission will also be entitled to recommend to the four Powers, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy, in certain exceptional cases, minor modifications in the strictly ethnographical determination of the zones which are to be transferred without plebiscite.

The Germans unilaterally dismembering Czechoslovakia was neither a "minor modification" nor was it based on any recommendation by international commission.

About your argument, that "threat-of-existence" suddely changes this ... see the Curchill comment in post #56 by @Anti-GrammarNazi .

As Churchill points out in that comment though, he had no confidence that Hitler would actually make peace on those terms, rather than merely exploit such a deal to grow even stornger before restarting the war. This was why when the Germans offered such terms, Churchill dismissed them. A year later the situation was far less desperate for Britain, and going on with the Americans directly getting involved the situation will continue to improve. The British dismissed the notion of peace with Germany in the face of total destruction, they aren't going to embrace it when victory is in sight.

 

[NoMommsen]

@The Red
... as I said on another thread on almost the same topic: I won't fight faith.

 

[The Red]

@The Red
... as I said on another thread on almost the same topic: I won't fight faith.

This seems like a bit of a cop-out, which is fine, but I'm not sure which of my arguments are faith based.

 

[RightHoJeeves]

I know this is a less exciting topic than military matters but if Germany doesn't invade the Soviet Union and is basically out of countries to loot and pillage what does that mean for its economy?

I've read a few threads on similar subject matter in which others have stated Germany was playing fast and loose with economic reality and that once the war started it was either keeping going until they conquer all of Europe or watch their economy collapse like a house of cards.

 

[NoMommsen]

Does Germany possess the means to defeat the WAllies outright? No.

Who actually 'knew' (not assumed or rather hoped for) this in 1940/1941 ?

...
Or are you really that ignorant of the massive air and naval forces the US deployed to Britain in 1942-43? ...

Why would they do so - or be allowed to do so, if there's some kind of peace between Britain and Germany ?

Sure, in every possible timeline the USA enters the war at the same time.

You could probably delay things a month or two, but roughly the same time yeah. That's determined more by the Japanese then anything the Germans do.

Because its not like Germany DOWed the USA... I mean Hitler would never betray his Japanese allies............

... esp. as it were not the Japanes, who 'betrayed' Hitler and the Anti-Komintern-Pact with their Non-Agression pact with Stalin in 1941.

Could ('could' I assign to this possibility about the same probability as the other way around) well convince Hitler to leave the japanes in the lurch with their american affairs also.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Who actually 'knew' (not assumed or rather hoped for) this in 1940/1941 ?

Pretty much everyone on the WAllied side. That a Anglo-American alliance would be unassailable directly, whatever the doubts about it's capacity to take the offensive against German dominated continental Europe, was apparent even before the US entered to everyone who wasn't a member of the Axis. While the Axis could temporarily maintain some momentum in secondary theaters, like North Africa, it would only be a matter of time before overwhelming American resources crush them there too.

Why would they do so - or be allowed to do so, if there's some kind of peace between Britain and Germany ?

The OP doesn't specify any sort of change that would permit peace in 1940 and if it isn't concluded by the end of summer 1940 then it probably isn't ever going to be concluded prior to the Americans coming in, seeing as how even those who advocated for a "Peace of Amiens" style affair had been sidelined by then.

... esp. as it were not the Japanes, who 'betrayed' Hitler and the Anti-Komintern-Pact with their Non-Agression pact with Stalin in 1941.

Could ('could' I assign to this possibility about the same probability as the other way around) well convince Hitler to leave the japanes in the lurch with their american affairs also.

I already dealt with this...

Given prevailing American attitudes following Pearl Harbour, it's very much either Hitler abandons his efforts to defeat Britain or goes to war with the US. Because the next American sailor dead at a German bomb or torpedo is all Roosevelt needs for his own DoW in the post-Pearl environment and given the loads of war material which would be ferried by American vessels to the British, escorted by American warships with orders to defend themselves, there'll be a lot of opportunity for American sailors to meet their ends to a German bomb or torpedo.

And if anything, the Japanese NAP with the Soviets is even less of a "betrayal" then IOTL (which it really wasn't... indeed, Hitler encouraged it since he wanted to distract the Americans and not share the spoils of the USSR with the Japanese) given that the German non-aggression pact with the Soviets is holding (for now)...

 

[The Red]

I know this is a less exciting topic than military matters but if Germany doesn't invade the Soviet Union and is basically out of countries to loot and pillage what does that mean for its economy?

I've read a few threads on similar subject matter in which others have stated Germany was playing fast and loose with economic reality and that once the war started it was either keeping going until they conquer all of Europe or watch their economy collapse like a house of cards.

The Germans were hurting from the British blockade and were bankrupting the countries around them for their own benefit but without Barbarossa they can offset their economic problems far better than they did IOTL. In January '41 the Germans had signed an extended trade deal with the Soviets that was projected to last until the Autumn of '42, at which point they likely would have been able to arrange another deal. They would have to pay the Soviets of course, and as the war turned against them it's likely that the terms would become more and more unfavourable but they would never want for oil and other resources in the same way as OTL. At least until the Soviets pull the plug.