True or false England surrenders

Is it true or false that England would have surrendered if the English army at Dunkirk have been destroyed(pod:no miracle of Dunkirk)
 

SsgtC

Banned
False. Look at the forces still in the UK during the evacuation. There was more than enough there to throw Hitler back into the channel, assuming any Germans even made it ashore after the Royal Navy got through with them. I forget who said it (other than an RN Admiral), but to quote him, "I do not say that they will not come. Only that they will not come by sea."
 
False. Look at the forces still in the UK during the evacuation. There was more than enough there to throw Hitler back into the channel, assuming any Germans even made it ashore after the Royal Navy got through with them. I forget who said it (other than an RN Admiral), but to quote him, "I do not say that they will not come. Only that they will not come by sea."
But politically would England make peace?
 
Not a chance. Politically, they were already prepared to write off something like 90% of those men. Never in a million years did they think they would get them all out.

It would presumably make Halifax's position stronger in cabinet though, given the Italians were nearing their own entry and the situation would look somewhat more hopeless than OTL.
 

SsgtC

Banned
It would presumably make Halifax's position stronger in cabinet though, given the Italians were nearing their own entry and the situation would look somewhat more hopeless than OTL.
Possibly. But even Halifax wasn't a "peace at any cost" politician. Churchill could rally the people pretty easily. Hell, the people of TTL wouldn't know how successful OTL evacuation of Dunkirk was, so Churchill would trumpet every soldier brought off as a success.
 
Is it true or false that England would have surrendered if the English army at Dunkirk have been destroyed(pod:no miracle of Dunkirk)
I’m confused why is this in the after 1900 section? The English haven’t had an army since 1707 following the act of union with Scotland. So this question must be referring to something that happened before then.
 
I’m confused why is this in the after 1900 section? The English haven’t had an army since 1707 following the act of union with Scotland. So this question must be referring to something that happened before then.

In the United States, the United Kingdom is often just referred to as England, similar to those who call the Netherlands Holland.
 
In the United States, the United Kingdom is often just referred to as England, similar to those who call the Netherlands Holland.
I know, but the fact that people are often ignorant, and wrong is no reason for me not to try to educate them in interesting ways.
I know a guy who had an American ask him if he was English or British. Some confused geographical thinking going on there. He was actually a New Zealander.
 
The thing is Hitler never wanted the war with the UK. If any kinds of talks would open at this chaotic time, wouldnt terms be quite mild and hard to refuse once dialogue had been initiated?
Which might happen here... no harm in hearing the terms...?
 
They're not going to surrender. They might be inclined to sign a peace, but they won't offer a peace where Hitler keeps all his conquest, so it's not going to happen.
 
I know, but the fact that people are often ignorant, and wrong is no reason for me not to try to educate them in interesting ways.
I know a guy who had an American ask him if he was English or British. Some confused geographical thinking going on there. He was actually a New Zealander.

There’s actually quite a difference between English and British in terms of national identification and identity. Compare to the ethnic terms “Anglo” and “Australian” and “British Australian” all of which code different meanings.

As far as I’ve heard it the only British people are English ;)
 
Britishness is under attack from those who wish to destroy the union that made the modern world. I was born in England as were my parents. My ancestors come from all parts of the United Kingdom. I'm British and those who say there's no such thing can go to H***.

Back on topic no I doubt Britain surrenders even with the loss of most of the BEF. The main strength of the country is untouched and there is a large army building in the UK. So long as the German's can't cross the channel, and they can't, there's no reason to give up.
 
Last edited:
Britishness is under attack from those who wish to destroy the union that made the modern world. I was born in England as were my parents. My ancestors come from all parts of the United Kingdom. I'm British and those who say there's no such thing can go to H***.

Honestly there is no reason to say that just because the modern world was partially shaped by the British Empire, which isn't a good thing anyhow, that the world owes the British people anything.

I do agree on your right to nationalist pride, just don't like this particular offhand remark.
 
Is it true or false that England would have surrendered if the English army at Dunkirk have been destroyed(pod:no miracle of Dunkirk)
Assuming all of the Troops evacuated at Dunkirk are captured then that is 200,000 men. The British Empire put 9 million men into uniform during WW2. So no. False.
 

Deleted member 94680

Dunkirk was an unexpected ‘triumph’ - the plan was already being put into motion to fight on if a tenth of the figure had been saved. New units were being formed and aircraft production was ramping up. Britain had experience of losing a core professional army and replacing it with a New Army over time while a War was being fought, so a loss at Dunkirk wouldn’t be a nation shattering event.

On the English/British thing: English was commonly used to refer to Britain until the 50s at least. The terms were pretty much interchangeable.
 
Top