UK-Nazi Cease Fire 1940?

I am trying to find a scenario where I can have the UK sign a cease-fire / white peace with Nazi Germany in 1940, but still have Winston Churchill become prime minister. Now, I am not familiar with British politics but how possible (albeit improbably) are these two options.
1. Chamberlain does not resign on May 10, 1940 but instead sticks it out till Dunkirk, where despite protests he secures a cease-fire with Nazi Germany in order to save the British troops. Following this he either resigns himself or is pressured to resign, and like our TL Churchill becomes PM. Although he doesn’t break the cease-fire immediately Churchill plans to rebuild the British military, support anti-Nazi forces in Europe, and when the time is right re-enter the war.
2. Basically the same thing as #1 except that Chamberlain does resign on May 10 as in our TL but Halifax becomes PM. Same thing happens but Halifax soon resigns and Churchill becomes PM.
Thanks for the feedback
 
It's very hard to have this come about if not impossible. However Halifax wasn't a complete sap as history likes to portray him, he could have potentially been as good a PM as Churchill if thata's what you want.
 
Everyone seems to think Halifax would kneel under to the Germans, and he might sign that armastice.

Lest we forget though, Britain yielded to Napoleon long enough to remuster it's strength for the next round of the fight. I honestly think that's what Halifax would be doing, instead of stubbornly fighting on by themselves and risking casualties to little gain.
 
Everyone seems to think Halifax would kneel under to the Germans, and he might sign that armastice.

Lest we forget though, Britain yielded to Napoleon long enough to remuster it's strength for the next round of the fight. I honestly think that's what Halifax would be doing, instead of stubbornly fighting on by themselves and risking casualties to little gain.

Indeed, in this case Halifax/Chamberlain would be signing a cease-fire to save what any logical person would deem to be a hopeless situation knowing that the forces saved can be used in the future. I think Hitler would probably agree to this as he had no real desire to invade the UK.
 
I think Hitler would probably agree to this as he had no real desire to invade the UK.

I disagree. A victory in the British Isles would completely wipe out the western front, save the French, and I guess British Resistance movements, until America joins. Hitler could send more men out towards the Soviet Union when Barbarossa comes around; Hitler knew he was eventually going to invade the USSR. Plus, I think he'd feel committed to Sea Lion once he started bombing London. Just my opinion.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I disagree. A victory in the British Isles would completely wipe out the western front, save the French, and I guess British Resistance movements, until America joins. Hitler could send more men out towards the Soviet Union when Barbarossa comes around; Hitler knew he was eventually going to invade the USSR. Plus, I think he'd feel committed to Sea Lion once he started bombing London. Just my opinion.

Some points:

The only really damning event for Germany in WWII is America joining the war in Europe. If Hitler gets smart for a PoD and really wants it, he can prevent it from ever happening, not declaring war after Pearl Harbor, keeping the KM off American merchant shipping, and affecting a defensive stance towards the British Isles. The American people and the Congress won't ever purposefully pick a fight with Germany in these circumstances, either before PH in their isolationist phase, or after PH when they are hell-bent on revenge with Japan, no matter how much FDR may wish otherwise. Without American cobelligerance, the damage that Britain, even with Land-Lease, may do to the Nazi Empire is sharply limited: no invasion of Italy or France, no Torch, little more than a defensive stance in North Africa, a much less effective bombing offensive.

Even the amount of Land-Lease that Soviet Russia shall get in these circumstances is rather limited: Britain is a fellow democracy and an ally against Japan, but the Congress and public won't tolerate that too much American wealth is wastefully diverted from the US war effort in Asia to save the skins of desplicable godless Bolsheviks that are no allies against Japan. A Russia without any hope of a second front and sharply limited L-L is going to fare rather worse than OTL. Although this alone won't likely give Hitler Moscow, Leningrad, or Stalingrad, a Soviet victory (defined as getting any better deal than the 1939 border at the very best) becomes impossible, and even a white peace becomes unlikely. Most likely, Russia and Germany reluctantly sign a Brest-Litovsk peace in late 1943.

As such, the amount of war effort that Germany needs to keep in Western Europe until PH is quite low, little more than what is needed for occupation duties.

The French Resistance movements (or for that matter, in Western Europe, perhaps with the partial exception of Norway) were a tiny fringe of the population up to 1943-44. The Balkans were the only place, outside of European Russia where they purposefully stirred up a hornet's nest with their genocidal efforts, where they faced a serious insurgency from the start. The Vichy regime, like the fascists in Italy, carried at least the passive consensus of the vast majority of the population and had a tight grip on the country. The Western European populations were for the most part fairly content with the relatively gentlemanly German rule, which only targeted Jews and Communist fringes (the Nazis has no racist issues with the "Aryan" Western European peoples, they wanted to coopt them as second-best to the German "master race" in their empire). It is only when things started to look really bad for the Axis in 1943-44, that the resistance started to draw real numbers, which prodded the Nazis to react with their usual brutal methods of repression, triggering a revolt-repression cycle that alienated subject peoples more and more.

After the Soviet Union makes a compromise peace, and Germany is the unquestioned imperial overlord of continental Europe, Britain shall sooner or later be forced to make peace as well by the realization that it is an unwinnable war, and switch back to a Cold War.
 
Last edited:
Some points:

The only really damning event for Germany in WWII is America joining the war in Europe. If Hitler gets smart for a PoD and really wants it, he can prevent it from ever happening, not declaring war after Pearl Harbor, keeping the KM off American merchant shipping, and affecting a defensive stance towards the British Isles. The American people and the Congress won't ever purposefully pick a fight with Germany in these circumstances, either before PH in their isolationist phase, or after PH when they are hell-bent on revenge with Japan, no matter how much FDR may wish otherwise. Without American cobelligerance, the damage that Britain, even with Land-Lease, may do to the Nazi Empire is sharply limited: no invasion of Italy or France, no Torch, little more than a defensive stance in North Africa, a much less effective bombing offensive.

This much is essentially true. We can't switch to the offensive in any meaningful without America. Nevertheless, you as usual handwave away American involvement that was the logical upshot of te strategic situation. American naval forces in the Atlantic were already giving more help than a mere friendly neutral would when PH hit.

Even the amount of Land-Lease that Soviet Russia shall get in these circumstances is rather limited: Britain is a fellow democracy and an ally against Japan, but the Congress and public won't tolerate that too much American wealth is wastefully diverted from the US war effort in Asia to save the skins of desplicable godless Bolsheviks that are no allies against Japan.

This is manifestly contrary to American strategic interests, where of coure the domination of Europe by one agressive power is worse than only some of it coming under one power which is less agressive, and you've never provided much evidence for your view that the American public was fanatically Russophobe. They didn't like Stalin's regime, but if FDR was the only man in the country who believed it was the lesser evil, why did the American people accept LL, pro-Russian propaganda, the works?

A Russia without any hope of a second front and sharply limited L-L is going to fare rather worse than OTL. Although this alone won't likely give Hitler Moscow, Leningrad, or Stalingrad, a Soviet victory (defined as getting any better deal than the 1939 border at the very best) becomes impossible, and even a white peace becomes unlikely. Most likely, Russia and Germany reluctantly sign a Brest-Litovsk peace in late 1943.

But if we assume Russia will still receive LL, which I think is extremely likley, the situation is much more in Russia's favour. The second front was, let's not kid ourselves, basically a distractuon for Germany: Churchill said as much. A major distraction, but the Russians are quite capable of fighting back to the '41 line and holding it.

As such, the amount of war effort that Germany needs to keep in Western Europe until PH is quite low, little more than what is needed for occupation duties.

The French Resistance movements (or for that matter, in Western Europe, perhaps with the partial exception of Norway) were a tiny fringe of the population up to 1943-44. The Balkans were the only place, outside of European Russia where they purposefully stirred up a hornet's nest with their genocidal efforts, where they faced a serious insurgency from the start. The Vichy regime, like the fascists in Italy, carried at least the passive consensus of the vast majority of the population and had a tight grip on the country.

With you so far.

The Western European populations were for the most part fairly content with the relatively gentlemanly German rule, which only targeted Jews and Communist fringes (the Nazis has no racist issues with the "Aryan" Western European peoples, they wanted to coopt them as second-best to the German "master race" in their empire).

Whoa-whoa-whoa! "Gentlemanly" is our word. Germany has Volksgemeinschaft. Russia has the Rodina. France has Liberte Egalite Fraternite. We have gentlemaniness. And Nazis! Aren't! Gentlemen! :p
 
I am trying to find a scenario where I can have the UK sign a cease-fire / white peace with Nazi Germany in 1940, but still have Winston Churchill become prime minister. Now, I am not familiar with British politics but how possible (albeit improbably) are these two options.
1. Chamberlain does not resign on May 10, 1940 but instead sticks it out till Dunkirk, where despite protests he secures a cease-fire with Nazi Germany in order to save the British troops. Following this he either resigns himself or is pressured to resign, and like our TL Churchill becomes PM. Although he doesn’t break the cease-fire immediately Churchill plans to rebuild the British military, support anti-Nazi forces in Europe, and when the time is right re-enter the war.
2. Basically the same thing as #1 except that Chamberlain does resign on May 10 as in our TL but Halifax becomes PM. Same thing happens but Halifax soon resigns and Churchill becomes PM.
Thanks for the feedback

MacGregor

I would suggest the best bet might be Norway goes a bit better for Chamberlain. Say a couple of naval intercepts come off, most noticeably Repulse [or possibly Renown, can't remember which] not only cripples one of the German BCs but sinks or forces to withdraw the Dds laiden with the Narvik invasion force. Basically Norway isn't such an obvious disaster so quickly. Which is not necessarily a good think for the allies as they might commit more forces to the front. However it means that Chamberlain isn't disgraced and stays in power until the Germans smash apart the western front. It's that which forces his resignation but in the process he signs a cease-fire to save the army. Needs a bit of luck with the timing but could well fit your needs. Then the anger and frustration at the defeat sees Churchill easily defeat Halifax for the Conservative leadership. Wouldn't resume the war immediately because Britain needs to regroup and Hitler, being confident he could win his holy war in the east in one campaign isn't too worried. Up to you where you go from there.;)

Steve
 
I Blame Communism said:
This much is essentially true. We can't switch to the offensive in any meaningful without America. Nevertheless, you as usual handwave away American involvement that was the logical upshot of te strategic situation. American naval forces in the Atlantic were already giving more help than a mere friendly neutral would when PH hit.
I have to agree with you. We did everything short of declaring war on Germany to help ensure she could stay in the fight. If Great Britain is at war with Germany by hook or by crook we'll get into it.

I Blame Communism said:
This is manifestly contrary to American strategic interests, where of coure the domination of Europe by one agressive power is worse than only some of it coming under one power which is less agressive
America's strategic interest in the time period was staying clear of European struggles. The general attitude was the "Old country" was the European's sandbox and Americans had no stake in dying in some pointless and largely constant war. While we can't say how the sticks will fall if Germany doesn't declar war on the US you can't claim not declaring war in turn is manifestly contrary to America's interests. Second it isn't likely the Soviets would be viewed as less agressive than the Nazi's, they have afterall invaded a nation or two by this point, so from the American viewpoint their handing Europe over either to one militant, toltaltarion dictatorship or the other militant, toltatarion dictatorship. Not much choice.

I Blame Communism said:
and you've never provided much evidence for your view that the American public was fanatically Russophobe. They didn't like Stalin's regime, but if FDR was the only man in the country who believed it was the lesser evil, why did the American people accept LL, pro-Russian propaganda, the works?
Not Russophobe, any more than the OTL had Germanphobe, but a hatred of comunism. It wasn't just Stalin either considering most of what he did didn't come out until later and we really didn't find out the true horror of the soviets until after they collapsed, but a disgust of their ideology which is totally at odds with ours. Now we would gladly work with the Soviets, whitewash them and call them defenders of liberty, if they are allies against a common enemy. If the US is not already at war with Germany the US is not going to go die in Europe for the USSR. The best you are going to get is lend-lease.

I Blame Communism said:
But if we assume Russia will still receive LL, which I think is extremely likley, the situation is much more in Russia's favour. The second front was, let's not kid ourselves, basically a distractuon for Germany: Churchill said as much. A major distraction, but the Russians are quite capable of fighting back to the '41 line and holding it.
If Russia recieves LL I'd agree but a US not at war with Germany, but at war with Japan, might send less or none at all to Russia. A lot depends on how the wind blows.
 
MacGregor

I would suggest the best bet might be Norway goes a bit better for Chamberlain. Say a couple of naval intercepts come off, most noticeably Repulse [or possibly Renown, can't remember which] not only cripples one of the German BCs but sinks or forces to withdraw the Dds laiden with the Narvik invasion force. Basically Norway isn't such an obvious disaster so quickly. Which is not necessarily a good think for the allies as they might commit more forces to the front. However it means that Chamberlain isn't disgraced and stays in power until the Germans smash apart the western front. It's that which forces his resignation but in the process he signs a cease-fire to save the army. Needs a bit of luck with the timing but could well fit your needs. Then the anger and frustration at the defeat sees Churchill easily defeat Halifax for the Conservative leadership. Wouldn't resume the war immediately because Britain needs to regroup and Hitler, being confident he could win his holy war in the east in one campaign isn't too worried. Up to you where you go from there.;)

Steve

Excellent, I might very well use that.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Nevertheless, you as usual handwave away American involvement that was the logical upshot of te strategic situation. American naval forces in the Atlantic were already giving more help than a mere friendly neutral would when PH hit.

I'm well aware that FDR exploited his CiC powers to order the USN into all but undeclared naval war with Germany in 1941. But my point is different. Even with L-L flowing uninterrupted to Britain, UK cannot go to a meaningful strategic offensive (besides some pinpricks here and there) if America doesn't join the war in Europe. If the U-boats are called home, all the USN can do for FDR in this situation is to waste fuel patrolling the Atlantic. If Germany is not attacking American merchant shipping and is on the obvious defensive against Britain, no air offensive, no u-boat blockade, America is not ever picking a purposeful quarrel with Germany, especially not with a war with Japan already engaged. They may worry if Britain itself would risk being conquered, but in 1940-41 they don't really care if one power becomes the overlord of continental Europe, for the reasons that mr. Nobody said.

This is manifestly contrary to American strategic interests, where of coure the domination of Europe by one agressive power is worse than only some of it coming under one power which is less agressive, and you've never provided much evidence for your view that the American public was fanatically Russophobe. They didn't like Stalin's regime, but if FDR was the only man in the country who believed it was the lesser evil, why did the American people accept LL, pro-Russian propaganda, the works?

What mr. Nobody said. You project traditional British attitudes on pre-WWII USA. As it concerns hegemony over continental Europe, they certainly didn't lost sleep during the one of Napoleon, nor would they ever messed with WWI if not for the unrestricted submarine warfare. As far as 1940-41 America is concerned, the relative degree of brutal aggressiveness between Hitler and Stalin is a matter of inches, and if anything, Communism is slightly more odious than Fascism (since the latter is not so blatantly opposed to free-enterprise and religion). As far as post 1941 cooperation with USSR, wartime alliances of convenience justify a great amount of stuff. But then again, with a slightly different leadership in Berlin, one could easily reverse the WWII roles of Germany and Russia towards UK and USA.

But if we assume Russia will still receive LL, which I think is extremely likley, the situation is much more in Russia's favour. The second front was, let's not kid ourselves, basically a distractuon for Germany: Churchill said as much. A major distraction, but the Russians are quite capable of fighting back to the '41 line and holding it.

True, Russia may still get some L-L, as it did pre-PH, with FDR in charge. But my point on this it, its amount shall be hugely inferior to the OTL post-PH one. Propping up a wartime ally, if one of convenience and an ideologically disgusting one, is only a lot of good sense. An entirely different thing is going out of your way and waste a large amount of your national wealth to prop up a totalitarian dictatorship in its private quarrel with another one, especially while your country is quite busy in its own wholly different war. FDR may well be able to keep sending some L-L to Russia during the American-Japanese war, but he shall constantly have the Congress and the public on his back trying to downsize it or cut it off and reprimanding him for "wasting" precious US wealth, that ought to be used in the Pacific, for his own private ideological crusades. A situation not quite unlike Reagan and the aid to the Contra.
 
Last edited:
Top