Would England keep her Empire if she made peace with Germany in early 1940?

Do we see the Germans taking colonies from France, Belgium, and the Netherlands here? May be they just want those states to act as fronts, with lots of German investors and board members who make sure Germans got a large amount of raw goods and luxuries.

the most cynical plan ... the Dutch and Belgians pay ... while British and French keep their colonial empires? of course Nazi regime did not have a plan only vague ideas (at best) of Vichy continued control over French colonies?

be like chess pieces to settle between Japan, Italy, and Vichy. if they had strategic plan they would want to retain Surinam and Greenland (for bauxite and cryolite mines)
 
In this sort of settlement, the ability of the Nazis to take over colonies of the occupied countries is limited. In the western hemisphere the USA can ensure nothing goes on they don't want to happen, and Canada can occupy St Pierre and Miquelon "to provide stability". Similarly, at least for Dutch and Belgian colonies in Africa and the Far East the UK and potentially ANZACS can achieve an overall control to keep the Nazis out and potentially limit the ability of them to lot the natural resources in addition to stationing military forces.

With proper planning, most of the colonies can be transitioned to a friendly Commonwealth position. I can't see many of the colonies, if any, deciding that aligning with the Nazis (or the Japanese) as a better deal than independent but in a Commonwealth. South Africa might be an exception here. Of course this requires that Britain realizes that the majority of Imperial countries will want to be, and could be truly independent - obviously smaller bits like Hong Kong, small islands etc, might stay in a more "controlled" situation.
 
the most cynical plan ... the Dutch and Belgians pay ... while British and French keep their colonial empires? of course Nazi regime did not have a plan only vague ideas (at best) of Vichy continued control over French colonies?

be like chess pieces to settle between Japan, Italy, and Vichy.

In this sort of settlement, the ability of the Nazis to take over colonies of the occupied countries is limited. In the western hemisphere the USA can ensure nothing goes on they don't want to happen ... Similarly, at least for Dutch and Belgian colonies in Africa and the Far East the UK and potentially ANZACS can achieve an overall control to keep the Nazis out and potentially limit the ability of them to lot the natural resources in addition to stationing military forces.

cannot argue with any of that ... historically Nazis leaned on Vichy regime over Indochina for little gain to themselves (they hinted a desired Japanese move on Singapore) and an overall souring of collaboration with French? (and waved away any claim on DEI similarly)

IF GB signed some type of treaty or otherwise looked to be faltering, Germany might have a different plan? would GB and US battle Axis over Dutch and Belgian colonies? how far would Vichy regime collaboration extend? (especially if Congo was dangled before them)
 
the most cynical plan ... the Dutch and Belgians pay ... while British and French keep their colonial empires? of course Nazi regime did not have a plan only vague ideas (at best) of Vichy continued control over French colonies?

be like chess pieces to settle between Japan, Italy, and Vichy. if they had strategic plan they would want to retain Surinam and Greenland (for bauxite and cryolite mines)

But a peace in early (I.E the first four months) of 1940 means that we're talking about a peace prior to the Fall of France, meaning even if you get a Vichy-esque government in power they still have an intact and rebuilding military, the national reputation and will intact, and a negotiating position. As such, why would they have to give up their Empire at all? France standing also boosts Britain's position, meaning she can probably get better terms (and better expectations of Germany keeping her end of any peace)
 
But a peace in early (I.E the first four months) of 1940 means that we're talking about a peace prior to the Fall of France, meaning even if you get a Vichy-esque government in power they still have an intact and rebuilding military, the national reputation and will intact, and a negotiating position. As such, why would they have to give up their Empire at all? France standing also boosts Britain's position, meaning she can probably get better terms (and better expectations of Germany keeping her end of any peace)

yes you are correct everyone had kind of drifted away from OP so my post was response to those.
 
If London had allowed limited self government on the Existing Dominion's model (own parliament, civil service, armed forces, budget), it might even have lasted longer.

Why would Indians want this, and why would they trust Britain? "London can't defend Holland, do we really think it can defend Bombay?"
 
Well I think it actually worked out pretty well for Lenin. Didn't the treaty of Versailles give back much of what Germany took in the negotiated peace of 1917?

... No. They seized what they did during the Russian Civil War in spite of the Entente. And the only reason he had to negotiate such a major lose at B-L in the first place was his due to dissolving his military presence on the Eastern front and unilaterally declaring the hostilities over, allowing the Germans to roll forward over huge swaths of land virtually us opposed.
 
The problem with peace in 1940 is not the issue of colonies. These are all incidental. The issue with Britain making peace with Germany is that it tacitly acknowledges Germany as the continental hegemon, a colossus stretching from Cadiz to Danzig.

In the words of the immortal Sir Humphrey's, "Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see". To accept peace is to accept the failure of British foreign policy. In any case, it is inevitable that once peace is had, the Germans who will by now have secure southern borders will build up their navy and eventually outbuild Britain.

In essence, to accept peace is to accept that Britain no longer rules the waves.
 
The problem with peace in 1940 is not the issue of colonies. These are all incidental. The issue with Britain making peace with Germany is that it tacitly acknowledges Germany as the continental hegemon, a colossus stretching from Cadiz to Danzig.

In the words of the immortal Sir Humphrey's, "Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see". To accept peace is to accept the failure of British foreign policy. In any case, it is inevitable that once peace is had, the Germans who will by now have secure southern borders will build up their navy and eventually outbuild Britain.

In essence, to accept peace is to accept that Britain no longer rules the waves.

You mean Metz to Danzig, right? Because , again, remember this is EARLY (Pre-Fall of France) 1940. While it's certainly not the ideal situation, a peace at this point is merely a recognition of German power in the East and as One of several powers in the world, at least for now. The French and Soviets both in this case act as the counterweights
 
All, after looking at my OP I realize I didn't make a few things clear enough.
  • The Chamberlain government falls early (say January of 1940)
  • Churchill does form the new government and talks to Germany
  • A truce/negotiated settlement is made PRIOR to Germany attacking Norway or the West.
  • In the settlement Churchill basically says to Hitler you can't do anything more to the Western countries or in the Balkans; thereby giving him carte blanche to attack the SU.
So France, Great Britain and all other Western European countries are left untouched and their empires intact. In the War between Germany and the SU, England can sell war goods to Germany and actually make money during the war instead of IRL. (Remember Churchill is a devout anti-communist) They could actually sell the Russians raw materials through Vladivostok as well, maybe if they want to play both sides.

The ideal situation for GB is a 4 year war between Germany and the SU that breaks down both sides and has no victor.
 
For a few years. But the following also become plausible:

*USSR joins the Axis (which may cause Japan to leave it?)
*Capitulation of Belgium et al to Germany
*Spain and Turkey move closer to Berlin and might join too
*Washington might become hotbed of European exiles
*Dutch monarchy may flee to Suriname or Caribbean
*UK loses much credibility both politically and perhaps financially, may cause fall if Prime Minister and permit Churchill to rise again
*War may be delayed until 1945 or 1950 with jets and primitive computers along with SKS or crude assault rifles as standard equipment at the start of the war
 
You mean Metz to Danzig, right? Because , again, remember this is EARLY (Pre-Fall of France) 1940. While it's certainly not the ideal situation, a peace at this point is merely a recognition of German power in the East and as One of several powers in the world, at least for now. The French and Soviets both in this case act as the counterweights

I don't think its Metz. If the point of discussion is before the capitulation of France, the UK would certainly never sign a peace treaty because the French will do the hard fighting for them (as usual). Peace only really becomes somewhat acceptable because there is no one else on the continent that can stand up to Germany. Hence, Cadiz to Danzig..
 
I don't think its Metz. If the point of discussion is before the capitulation of France, the UK would certainly never sign a peace treaty because the French will do the hard fighting for them (as usual). Peace only really becomes somewhat acceptable because there is no one else on the continent that can stand up to Germany. Hence, Cadiz to Danzig..

All, after looking at my OP I realize I didn't make a few things clear enough.
  • The Chamberlain government falls early (say January of 1940)
  • Churchill does form the new government and talks to Germany
  • A truce/negotiated settlement is made PRIOR to Germany attacking Norway or the West.
  • In the settlement Churchill basically says to Hitler you can't do anything more to the Western countries or in the Balkans; thereby giving him carte blanche to attack the SU.
So France, Great Britain and all other Western European countries are left untouched and their empires intact. In the War between Germany and the SU, England can sell war goods to Germany and actually make money during the war instead of IRL. (Remember Churchill is a devout anti-communist) They could actually sell the Russians raw materials through Vladivostok as well, maybe if they want to play both sides.

The ideal situation for GB is a 4 year war between Germany and the SU that breaks down both sides and has no victor.

See the OP's clarification
 
In the past I've suggested that the smartest thing for Germany to do after the fall of France would have been simply to unilaterally declare peace or at least a ceasefire. As you might imagine, this hasn't exactly been received with universal acclaim here in the forums.

But really, in what sense is Germany in a position to impose demands on Britain in 1940? What are they going to do if the British reject such demands, invade? Stamp their feet really hard?

I agree 100% with you here. Had Germany just signed treaties with France, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and evacuated them I really wonder what the British would have done. They couldn't set up puppet governments, just sign and go! The other thing Germany couldn't have done in this situation was attack Holland. There was no military purpose so to maintain these attacks as "defensive" they'd have to leave Holland alone. The entire thing would have been blamed on France's declaration of war against Germany.
 
well Hitler never wanted colonise if he wanted them he would get them but the thing is he never wanted any colonise he wrote it in his book and he wanted peace whit the west so he could take on the bear
 
Top