WI: The British Seek Peace After Dunkirk - What Does the Settlement Look Like?

You are going to have to put this thread in ASB if you think UK will surrender/negotiate a surrender after seeing how Hitler honors treaties........and treats the Poles.
 
That's true, but the time he buys while having access to open markets and a lack of a western front puts the Germans in a far stronger position than historically.
Depends how the British treat the peace and what happens to France. Britain might end up selling 100 Hurricanes to the Greeks, supported by British Volunteers. The Germans might also find that they still need to keep a decent number of troops on the western front to keep Petain in power (Who would have almost certainly signed a peace treaty with the Germans, and would be in control of the entirety of non German France.) and stop the British getting to the Rhine in a afternoon if they re-enter the war and the Vichy French decide not to fight.
 
I share the opinion that any deal the UK signed would have to be a "white peace". The best time for this might IMHO be December 1940 or shortly thereafter. After the Battle of Britain and the defeat of the Italians in Libya but before German intervention there or British troops in Greece. Italy would get nothing but that's its just deserts. Which leaves room for a disgruntled Mussolini or his successor to make mischief much later.

Of course such an outcome would require Churchill to be removed from office (a natural (?) death wouldn't be ASB given his drinking etc.) and his successor's government being unable or unwilling to accept the terms FDR laid down for further aid. Without Lend-Lease the UK could probably not continue the war much beyond end-1941 and could agree to terms that left the Empire intact. What happens then...

Well, Barbarosa could be a bit different for a start and so would any Pacific War. I did a long time ago draft out some thoughts for a TL on this line. I have better info now, so could start it up and see how its received. Maybe in a few weeks.
 
At absolute best, I expect you would see a "White Peace" that would very swiftly devolve back into open warfare when the first good opportunity came along.
 
Not nice; illegal in modern eyes and probably then. But effective.

Anyone done a TL where Operation Vegetarian was launched during 1941-4?

The UK said they would use anthrax if gas is used in the British Isles. The brits are simply following through with that threat though i don't know it had been announced then
 

Deleted member 1487

Not nice; illegal in modern eyes and probably then. But effective.

Anyone done a TL where Operation Vegetarian was launched during 1941-4?
The problem is the first Anthrax test didn't happen until 1942 and likely the cakes wouldn't have been available in sufficient quantities until 1943 (sourced from the US). I've also heard that it was unlikely to be effective in practice, but US anthrax dispensing systems developed to used on German cities in 1944 would have been very lethal.
 
Th
The problem is the first Anthrax test didn't happen until 1942 and likely the cakes wouldn't have been available in sufficient quantities until 1943 (sourced from the US). I've also heard that it was unlikely to be effective in practice, but US anthrax dispensing systems developed to used on German cities in 1944 would have been very lethal.
Thanks for info. A pity in one way but obviously a Good Thing it was never used.
 
Hitler is probably willing to let the British off easy at this point. With France defeated, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway his, he has secured himself in the West and is already thinking about the Soviets. His leverage is a bit weak though. While driven from the continent, the British are at the moment safe on their Island and all he has as bargaining chips are the captured British soldiers. He will offer peace pretty much on the British accepting Vichy and the return of the colonies. He'll drop the demand for the colonies without much pressure.

The British would be playing for time. They will continue to build up their defenses waiting for an opportunity and the Germans are going to go ahead with Barbarossa. The British will declare war once again and then we will see what happens.


the question is then who gains the most from a peace?
 
Britain: OK Germany, you win this round!
Germany: Ha, I knew you wud fold, weak Engländer !
Britain: Yeah, you got us mate. Let's just just put all this nasty business behind us, ok? You can even keep Poland.
Germany: Ah, but you are forgetting something mein Freund. We are currently occupying western Europe, and we will keep doing so until we get our reparations.
Britain: You can't do that. Controlling the resources of the continent will allow you to build a navy capable of making an invasion possible.
Germany: Of course we can. We are the victors after all.
Britain: Not yet you're not. You need to leave France, the Low Countries and Norway, or else we'll keep fighting.
Germany: You are mad. Ze Jews must have poisoned your mind. Be reasonable and surrender. We promise not to invade.
Britain: We'll need more guarantees than that, though.
Germany: Wat guarantees do you want, Schweinehund? Stop your blockade or we will starve your people with our U-Boote and bomb your cities into rubble with our Luftwaffe.
Britain: A fight it is, then...
 
The notion of a BEF surrender at Dunkirk leading to a negotiated peace has done the rounds of alternate historians over the years.

Even if the BEF is lost, France is still fighting and there are substantial British forces not yet engaged.

A peace offer to Britain in isolation would be rebuffed but what of an offer to both London and Paris at this time ? Again while much of France is unoccupied and large elements of the French Army have yet to fire a shot in anger it seems implausible such an offer (even if brokered via neutral Italy and Switzerland) would be accepted.

Once France falls, I suppose Hitler could (as he indeed did) have made a second offer to Britain - would a Halifax-led Government have shown any interest with thousands of British troops captured and being marched off to Germany ?

I don't accept this notion Halifax would have yielded - there's no evidence for it that I can see apart from his association with Chamberlain. The naval and air strength still available to London made the notion of an invasion (as distinct from an upscale raid) fanciful. The danger the loss of the Atlantic coast presented was the possibility of supplies coming to Britain being attacked and lost (as happened in WW1). As the Germans themselves discovered in 1918, you can have all the materiel at your command but if your soldiers are starving they can't or won't fight for long. The possibility of Britain being starved to peace in 1941 was obvious.

The TL suggests Britain would sue for peace after a disaster at Dunkirk - it's more likely they would seek terms after a Dunkirk disaster AND the surrender of France.

Hitler wasn't serious about invading the British Isles initially and would probably have been told the victorious Armed Forces needed time to rest and refit after the western campaign. He was still ideologically determined to crush Russia so the idea of neutralising Britain as a potential adversary would not have been unattractive and to do that without firing a shot would be the icing on the cake.

The terms would therefore be generous - in exchange for British recognition of German domination on the European Continent (no ceding of Malta or Gibraltar), the Germans would recognise the territorial integrity of the British Isles (including the Channel Islands, occupied on July 1st but which would be demilitarised) and the Empire and resume cross-Channel trade (this was lucrative to both sides and would aid the economic reconstruction of those areas of northern Europe damaged by the German onslaught). This would also encourage neutral countries to resume commerce. There would perhaps be a phased return of British POWs from Germany and rules for British and German military traffic in the Channel and North Sea.

It's also probable Hitler would prevail on Mussolini to suspend his campaigns in North Africa and against Greece and for both sides to withdraw to the frontiers ante bellum which would effectively give Hitler a free hand in the Balkans to mop up/coerce those countries not already in alliance with Germany.

Even if a successful Barbarossa in the spring of 1941 leads to the capitulation of the USSR in the autumn (and that's a big IF), Britain wouldn't use the time to sit idly by but would rebuild the armed forces and re-arm as best as possible.

There is the often-used argument that an isolated Britain would naturally gravitate toward German political and economic control but it now starts getting difficult as we ask about the intentions of Japan - does Pearl Harbour still happen or does Japan strike against the remnant of Russia ? IF Japan strikes against the US and history follows as it did in OTL, Washington would square off against both Germany and Japan - would London break its Treaty and side with Washington anyway ?

With no active Eastern Front, liberating Europe becomes much harder but the Manhattan Project lurks in the background so in the summer of 1945 it's not Hiroshima and Nagasaki but Hanover and Nuremburg which are incinerated followed perhaps by Berlin. Decapitated and in chaos, does the Nazi regime collapse to be replaced by a military Government which seeks terms with Washington and London based on a withdrawal to the 1933 German borders ? Would the SS and Wehrmacht fight a civil war for control of the German Empire ?
 
There are certain draconian scenarios above. All are rendered implausible by the continued strength of the Royal Navy and the RAF, and by the geographic fact of the English Channel. Hitler would go for a relatively soft deal because he just wanted the British out of the way while he invaded Russia. Mussolini would get zilch. Britain, unoccupied, would continue to rearm. Without the expense of continuing the war at that point, the British would have the resources for developing more advanced weapons. Unless pro-Nazi elements came to power in Britain, it would still be ready to become the unsinkable aircraft carrier for an American-led invasion of Western Europe.
 
While - quite rightly - people commit on Hitler not to be trusted over any 'deal', many assume that Britain will rejoin the war at a later date - thereby breaking the 'deal'. So, what safeguards would Germany want to ensure British continued compliance?
From - Churchill removed from Government, to the more extreme nominated German to be UK Defence Minister!!
 
The notion of a BEF surrender at Dunkirk leading to a negotiated peace has done the rounds of alternate historians over the years.

The TL suggests Britain would sue for peace after a disaster at Dunkirk - it's more likely they would seek terms after a Dunkirk disaster AND the surrender of France.

Yes, Britain and France would have to ask for terms together, and if they did before Case Red proceeds, or during its opening stages, (perhaps Case Red is delayed a couple of days in this TL due to use of armor cleaning up pocket). Then terms to the French would be a whole lot easier (and Italy may not be in or just has gotten in).

Armistice terms would be:
a) Germans occupy a line from where the Seine reaches the sea to Belfort, i.e. German have a bridgehead over seine at Rouen, German occupy Le Harve and the Maginot Line, French still control Paris, Cherbourg and Atlantic ports.
b) All German POWs returned, detained merchant vessels returned, German trade resumes.
c) French to pay occupation costs similar to OTL
d) French to turn over, locomotives, rolling stock, trucks, large quantities of armor, fuel stores, and a good chunk of their air force.
e) Allied enlisted POWs returned (but officers still held until a general peace)
 
We should do a sort of mock negotiation, with one side being the German team and one side the British team, and see if we come up with something (obviously on a platform that also allows members to communicate in private amongst themselves as well). Could even throw in extra people playing the French, Italian, Polish and Benelux delegations!
 

iddt3

Donor
We should do a sort of mock negotiation, with one side being the German team and one side the British team, and see if we come up with something (obviously on a platform that also allows members to communicate in private amongst themselves as well). Could even throw in extra people playing the French, Italian, Polish and Benelux delegations!
I mean, the British won't accept a peace that compromises their sovereignty in any meaningful way, but Hitler isn't looking for one, and doesn't need one. I actually think there are multiple possible outcomes that both sides would "agree" to, but exactly how faithful they are and how long they last is open for debate.

Things UK Needs:
1. It's Navy
2. It's Airforce
3. It's Army
4. Time to rearm

Things the UK Really, Really wants:
1. France channel ports under French control.
2. Alliance with France Maintained

Things the UK Really Wants:
1. Unoccupied France
2. Ability to rearm France
3. Unoccupied Belgium and Netherlands

Things the UK Wants:
1. Unoccupied Norway
2. Break the Italian German Alliance

Things Germany Needs:
1. Resources
2. Ability to fight Russia without being worried about two front war

Things Germany really, really wants:
1. Access to world Markets
2. France neutralized
3. UK to accept the new status quo

Things Germany Really wants:
1. Assistance from the West with Russia
2. Legitimacy

Things Germany Wants:
1. Active assistance/alliance with West to take on Russia.
2. Territorial Adjustments with France
--------
I probably missed some points here, but the core of it is the Britain wants time, space and allies, and Germany wants resources, allies, and security. Needs going unmet probably means no treaty, things they really really want going unmet means a treaty that's basically meaningless, things they really want going unmet is probably Molotov Ribbtrop pact level stability, but further than that it might actually last a few years, or even form the basis for something longer.
 
Top