Peace after Dunkirk: When does the UK rejoin the war (if at all?)

For sake of argument, lets assume that a complete or near complete capture of the British Expeditionary Force by the Germans (no halt order on May 23rd?) leads to a different resolution of the War cabinet crisis in May 1940, and as consequence the British seek armistice terms, and eventual peace negotiations with Germany within the next month or two.

Regardless of how plausible you believe the above scenario is - I think most people can agree on two things:
1) that any peace worked out with the Germans will be signed by the British with the understanding that Nazi Germany's word means nothing - and as such, a non-negotiable condition of the British will be that any peace agreement cannot limit the United Kingdom's ability to rearm. Additionally, (with the possible exception of a few colonial possessions that would be difficult to defend like Malta or British Somaliland), there will be zero cessation of British territory to Germany or Italy (assuming they join the war before an armistice is signed). In short, the British will only seriously entertain peace with Germany if they believe it leaves them in a stronger position than continuing the war would.

Given that Russia was always the big prize for Hitler, Germany can probably be amenable to this sort of peace.

2) Nazi Germany's dominant position on the continent will be viewed as a long term threat to British security, and as such many of the leading political figures in Britain would be perfectly willing to re-enter the war at an opportune moment to defeat Germany, provided they can find a sufficient pretext or marshal enough support for the moment.

As such, I ask the question: When would the United Kingdom rejoin WWII, if at all?

I've currently thought of two moments that offer the most promise.

First, the Italian invasion of Greece could trigger British re-entry. The United Kingdom had extended a guarantee of Independence to Greece, similar to the one they had extended to Poland, after Italy had invaded Albania. Unlike Romania, at no point did Greece renege this guarantee. With Italy either participating in the War against the UK and France for only a few weeks, or not at all in this scenario, it seems unlikely they will come away with many spoils - as such the Italian motivations for attacking Greece are arguably even greater than OTL. That being said, it is sort of up in the air if Italy would be willing to risk war with the United Kingdom over Greece or not. Italy might not be bold enough to attack Greece with a British guarantee, so instead might just do nothing or attack someone else (Yugoslavia).

The Second, and more obvious moment, would be some time after the German invasion of the Soviet Union. With Germany's forces tied down in the East, the British might attempt to re-establish a Western front, attack peripheral Nazi possessions, or start a bombing campaign against German industry. It might depend on the specific Prime Minister as to if this re-entry would occur sooner (when there's still a lot of fighting to do) or later (when Germany is clearly beaten and on the ropes)

Something to potentially consider is that the United Kingdom would probably have elections in late 1940 that could lead to a different British government and shakeup in party leaderships. If Italy makes a move on Greece on a similar time table to OTL, it will coincide almost exactly with the British election in 1940, which complicates things.

Any thoughts or feedback?
 
Last edited:

Khanzeer

Banned
There is no reason To sue for peace for England, what can they possibly gain from it? They are in a position of strength
 
This is extremely unlikely. Hitler had already proven he couldn't be trusted to keep his word, so unless things truly were hopeless, there's no way Britain would sue for peace if he was in charge.
 
Thoughts:
If the war is over for the UK in 1940, then yes, the UK ought to have a general election... (The previous one was 1935, and with the war over it gets difficult to make a case that 'these are exceptional circumstances' and to hold off having one.)
I have no idea how the blame for the appeasement will be divied up though; pacifism was quite popular in the UK after WW1, even as late as Munich, when Chamberlain came back promising 'Peace for our Time.'

Does Mussolini actually invade Greece if he still has Libya and his East African empire? He doesn't need to try to regain any prestige.
 
More thoughts:
Also, the UK has problems in the empire which require attention, such as Gandhi's desire to progress India towards independence, and stuff going on in Palestine.
Also, given some of the trouble communists have been causing, there may be an at least vocal minority in the UK saying 'if Hitler and Stalin want to fight, let them.' (Edit: If original timeline Barbarossa kicks off or anything like that.)
 
Does Mussolini actually invade Greece if he still has Libya and his East African empire? He doesn't need to try to regain any prestige.

My understanding is that while Italy had long desired Greece in its sphere of influence, the invasion of Greece in 1940 was catalyzed by the fact that both Mussolini and Foreign Minister Ciano felt deeply humiliated by the degree to which Germany excluded them from the formulation of the Second Vienna Award, and wanted to assert Italy's ability to act as an independent power, rather than a junior partner of Germany.

Also, what prestige in IOTL did Mussolini need to regain by invading Greece? By that point, the war was going well for Italy. Italy invaded Greece before Operation Compass (so the Italians were holding onto part of British Egypt), and after they had successfully captured British Somaliland.
 
My understanding is that while Italy had long desired Greece in its sphere of influence, the invasion of Greece in 1940 was catalyzed by the fact that both Mussolini and Foreign Minister Ciano felt deeply humiliated by the degree to which Germany excluded them from the formulation of the Second Vienna Award, and wanted to assert Italy's ability to act as an independent power, rather than a junior partner of Germany.

Also, what prestige in IOTL did Mussolini need to regain by invading Greece? By that point, the war was going well for Italy. Italy invaded Greece before Operation Compass (so the Italians were holding onto part of British Egypt), and after they had successfully captured British Somaliland.
I thought the timing was slightly later than that; okay: well if the Axis has clearly won in mid 1940 and Hitler is planning his Russia shindig, would there be value in them pressuring Greece into joining the Axis instead of invading?
It looks to me from wikipedia (the Metaxas article) like some sort of pressure was put on Greece to sign up as a junior member and allow foreign military in, in 1940, but that they said 'no'. Would they still say 'no' if Germany and Italy were so clearly ascendant, and without anyone fighting them/distracting them?

Wikipedia said:
...Metaxas' efforts to keep Greece out of World War II came undone when Mussolini demanded occupation rights to strategic Greek sites. When the Italian ambassador Emanuele Grazzi visited Metaxas' residence and presented these demands on the night of 28 October 1940, Metaxas curtly replied in French (the language of diplomacy), "Alors, c'est la guerre" ("Then it is war")...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioannis_Metaxas#Foreign_policy_and_the_war_with_Italy
 

thaddeus

Donor
More thoughts:
Also, the UK has problems in the empire which require attention, such as Gandhi's desire to progress India towards independence, and stuff going on in Palestine.
Also, given some of the trouble communists have been causing, there may be an at least vocal minority in the UK saying 'if Hitler and Stalin want to fight, let them.' (Edit: If original timeline Barbarossa kicks off or anything like that.)

if the Soviets moved towards India, and perhaps hosted Chandra Bose? as he went there before venturing to Nazi Germany (historically)

British may see some wisdom in pointing Hitler towards USSR?
 
I thought the timing was slightly later than that; okay: well if the Axis has clearly won in mid 1940 and Hitler is planning his Russia shindig, would there be value in them pressuring Greece into joining the Axis instead of invading?
It looks to me from wikipedia (the Metaxas article) like some sort of pressure was put on Greece to sign up as a junior member and allow foreign military in, in 1940, but that they said 'no'. Would they still say 'no' if Germany and Italy were so clearly ascendant, and without anyone fighting them/distracting them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioannis_Metaxas#Foreign_policy_and_the_war_with_Italy

I don't think there was much initial interest to pressure Greece into joining, unlike Yugoslavia, it didn't border Germany or Romania (with its oil supplies), and could probably be ignored. Of course, that calculus changed decisively when Greece invited British soldiers into the country.

While maybe Greece might attempt to improve relations with Germany after Dunkirk Peace, I don't think Germany would actively make the move - so I think the Italians are still likely to invade unless they back down at the prospect of the United Kingdom defending Greece and restarting the war.
 
Britain's main desire - IMHO - in any 'peace' deal is to avoid any form of occupation, to maintain British Kaw & Order - without bowing to any German demands to hand over this or that person - no working down any List!
German will be over joyed by the 'peace' - but if no occupation - they will want some form of safeguards e.g. limit on defence spending, and access to arms factories. It will pay lip-service to British ideals of a 'free press' - any anti-German article is immediately objected to.

They will be no distraction in the Balkans - both Greece & Yugoslavia - 'will see which way the weather blows' and be pro-German.

While, in the East Germany will oblige Holland (DEI) to supply oil to Japan,
 

Deleted member 94680

Britain's main desire - IMHO - in any 'peace' deal is to avoid any form of occupation, to maintain British Law & Order - without bowing to any German demands to hand over this or that person - no working down any List!
German will be overjoyed by the 'peace' - but if no occupation - they will want some form of safeguards e.g. limit on defence spending, and access to arms factories. It will pay lip-service to British ideals of a 'free press' - any anti-German article is immediately objected to.

I can fully see the Germans being arrogant (stupid?) enough to demand something like this, but it will mean there is no peace if they do.
 
More thoughts:
Also, the UK has problems in the empire which require attention, such as Gandhi's desire to progress India towards independence, and stuff going on in Palestine.
Also, given some of the trouble communists have been causing, there may be an at least vocal minority in the UK saying 'if Hitler and Stalin want to fight, let them.' (Edit: If original timeline Barbarossa kicks off or anything like that.)
I don´t think the UK will immediately declare war if Hitler invades the USSR. I can see them selling stuff to the Russians though. In OTL the Russians ordered lots of military equipment after the start of Barbarossa. And with the peace, the UK can just ship them to the USSR, and as soon as the U-boats kick in, they'll declare the war.

I can fully see the Germans being arrogant (stupid?) enough to demand something like this, but it will mean there is no peace if they do.
Exactly, I can't see the UK signing such a peace.
 
If my memory is working today, I believe that there was a timeline about this scenario with Lord Halifax. In the timeline, my memory said that Britain spent the time upgrading and rearming their military. They eventually reentered the war.
 
Wiking had a scenerio (Three Little Fish???) where Nelson was sunk by submarine with Churchill on board (torpedoes were duds OTL). Peace happened, Germany went to war and beat Soviets in a multi year campaign.

The tricky part here, is that France is still fighting, and is willing to give it a go until June 11th or so OTL, before pretty much giving up.

So if a peace proposal goes out end of May, early June, it would be a joint French/British peace request where France still controls Paris and has a large army in the field, Italy is not yet it, terms from Germany would have to be more reasonable than OTL. I think terms would be more about a final peace than an armistice.
 

Deleted member 94680

Wiking had a scenerio (Three Little Fish???) where Nelson was sunk by submarine with Churchill on board (torpedoes were duds OTL). Peace happened, Germany went to war and beat Soviets in a multi year campaign.

Problem is, removing Churchill isn’t the only thing needed for the British to come to terms.

Winston wasn’t a dictator, forcing the Empire to play to his tune against their will. If you remove him, it’s not as if everybody will come to, shake their heads and leap to sign terms with Hitler.
 
There is no reason To sue for peace for England, what can they possibly gain from it? They are in a position of strength
This is extremely unlikely. Hitler had already proven he couldn't be trusted to keep his word, so unless things truly were hopeless, there's no way Britain would sue for peace if he was in charge.

Is there no way to compel the United Kingdom to seek armistice, then? If Russia and Germany never come to blows, does the UK just stay in the war until Nuclear Weapons can be developed and used against Germany?
 
Elephant in the room: does Pearl Harbor still happen, or any other event that leads to a war between Japan and the United States? Does Hitler still declare war on the United States afterwards, thus bringing America into the European Theater? Furthermore, do the Japanese also still go on the offensive against European colonial possessions in the Pacific and Southeast Asia?

If so, the two war efforts are going to become so intertwined as to offer London any number of justifications to restart the war against Germany if they have not already.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Is there no way to compel the United Kingdom to seek armistice, then? If Russia and Germany never come to blows, does the UK just stay in the war until Nuclear Weapons can be developed and used against Germany?
I suspect
it will be like germans trying the napoleon and the continental system all over again but will fail again
Britain will maintain blockade
Air attacks on Germany
Keep wooing allies away from Germany
Maybe a small scale incursions on the continent
 
Elephant in the room: does Pearl Harbor still happen, or any other event that leads to a war between Japan and the United States? Does Hitler still declare war on the United States afterwards, thus bringing America into the European Theater? Furthermore, do the Japanese also still go on the offensive against European colonial possessions in the Pacific and Southeast Asia?

If so, the two war efforts are going to become so intertwined as to offer London any number of justifications to restart the war against Germany if they have not already.

Unless a hypothetical peace agreement happened before Japan occupied northern Indochina and/or allowed the Dutch East Indies to sell oil to Japan, then the American oil embargo will probably compel Japan to attack (unless there's some political change that I'm not aware of that empowers the peace faction).

If Britain has made peace in 1940, I suspect Hitler would leave Japan to their own devices, so he can consolidate and focus on Russia (either if the war has started, or even if he's still preparing for it).

However, if Britain is still in the war by the time Pearl Harbor occurs, that's probably it for Germany. The US can now ship supplies under US escort directly to the UK (ostensibly for use "against Japan" - but that would fool nobody). Germany would either have to just allow this, and deal with a fully provisioned United Kingdom for a long time, or attack US shipping and start a war. Assuming they are still at peace, the Soviets would probably utilize Germany's weak political position to extort more out of Germany or cut off vital grain and fuel shipments.
 
Top