Peace in 1940

After the Fall of France in the late spring of 1940, most people in Europe thought that the British would treat with the Germans and the war would end. However, thanks mostly to Churchill being PM at the time, they didn't. But what if another PM was in charge, who sued for peace? In that case, what would the terms be and how would the rest of the war progress?

I think for it to be acceptable to the British they'd at least demand a withdrawal of German forces from the formerly neutral countries, maybe even a withdrawal from France as well. The Germans on the other hand would want to keep some of their irredentist claims and make sure the British and French can't double cross them. Sadly, I think the Poles are screwed in this scenario, because Hitler certainly wouldn't let them go and the British can't do anything about it.

Thoughts?
 
The problem for the British is that if they agree to negotiate and make these demands, the Germans can turn them down and make the negotiations public thus undermining British resolution to continue the war, and get in consequence a peace to Nazi demands

And don't forget that many people in Britain thought that continuing the war was a long hard bloody idea not at all certain of leading to victory - ie there is no assumed eventual victory in this scenario, if Britain negotiates it will be because the fear comes to the fore

They would get their minimum requirements - Germany to leave the Empire alone, and maybe something on the French fleet. They would probably get some cherries such as trading rights with the continent thrown to them

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Germany would have insisted on measures to keep France militarily neutralized until they had dealt with the Soviet Union.
 
The problem with making deals with Hitler (in addition to his being a crazy aggressive mass murderer) was that he broke them when ever he liked.

EG non aggressition treaty with Poland. Also Munich basically transferred majority Germany parts of Czecholsovakia to the Reich (morally defensible in itself) However the Nazi regime having promised to respect the boundaries simply destroyed the Cech sate and created a pupet regime in Slovakia
 
The problem for the British is that if they agree to negotiate and make these demands, the Germans can turn them down and make the negotiations public thus undermining British resolution to continue the war, and get in consequence a peace to Nazi demands

And don't forget that many people in Britain thought that continuing the war was a long hard bloody idea not at all certain of leading to victory - ie there is no assumed eventual victory in this scenario, if Britain negotiates it will be because the fear comes to the fore

They would get their minimum requirements - Germany to leave the Empire alone, and maybe something on the French fleet. They would probably get some cherries such as trading rights with the continent thrown to them

Good points.

I think the British could get away with better terms due to Hitler sometimes fantasizing about bringing the "germanic empirebuilders" in Britain on his side.

It is also important that the Nazis will require guarantees in the west before they start their war on the Soviets. These guarantees will include military security in the west, particularly France, but also secure supply lines. Very difficult to implement these in a lenient peace treaty.

And in the end you'd have a totalitarian regime longing for war in which several factions fight each other (would they want their colonies back? would they annex Alsace or not? What about the loot, particularly the gold reserves?) and in which the biggest maniac would ultimately decide. Those should be interesting negotiations indeed.
 
Peace...

I've seen one or two scenarios predicated on terms being agreed about the time of Dunkirk. I've always thought that IF the BEF had been encircled and forced to surrender, it would have been a hugely opportune moment for the Germans (perhaps through still neutral Italy and the Vatican) to offer terms.

Clearly, Britain and France would have had to recognise the reality of German military supremacy on the Continent though in the short term that would more likely mean Germany formally regaining Alsace-Lorraine and maybe a little bit of Belgian territory.

One point of reference might be to look at what Germany would have demanded in 1914 had they achieved an early victory and project it forward.

It would be in Germany's interest to restore trade and commerce so a restoration of normality would be the key so a withdrawal of occupation forces from Holland, Belgium, Norway and Denmark in exchange for Anglo-French recognition of German economic and political control over these countries.

A demilitarisation of France and Britain (though the latter would have been largely achieved by the loss of most of the mechanised equipment at Dunkirk) seems likely as does German recognition of the continuing role of the British and French colonies outside Europe (except Madagascar for which Hitler had other plans).

Obviously, at that time Russia was tied to Germany through the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact so nothing to involve central and eastern Europe and Italy was neutral so apart from perhaps small territorial adjustments in Italy's favour, no change there either.

I'm sure the armistice would have political repercussions for London and Paris - in Britain a General Election was due which would likely take place in the autumn of 1940.

One other thought - the Far East. Not sure how this would develop.
 
Top