What would make Britain negotiate in 1940-1?

[Devolved]

The only way to victory for Germany in 1940/41 is to break morale. However, British morale sank to it's lowest point in June 1942 after the fall of Tobruk more than 2 years after Dunkirk. It was the only time Churchill felt that his position was truly threatened in the whole war.

This fall in morale wasn't because the country was in danger from constant attack and blockade but because of frustration that the army was still not delivering victories despite almost 3 years of trying.

A break in morale in 1940 is too soon and there is no reason to expect one. Pre war people were expecting a nuclear style holocaust with cities being flattened and poison gas raining down. Although you got local breakdowns - Plymouth was one example the nation as a whole isn't breaking so soon. Why would it?

As far as public opinion was concerned the present situation wasn't even Churchill's fault. He was in the political wilderness when war broke out less than a year before and had only become Prime Minister on May 10th 1940.

Bombing was expected and the government told them to expect a long war with hardship and rationing. There was little opposition to this policy from Parliament, Trades Unions or the public at large. Of course there were some who wanted to make peace but who were they? Yesterdays men and a few aristocrats that were already largely discredited. No one is looking to them for leadership.

Expecting British morale to collapse so soon is even more non sensical than the Allies later expecting German morale to collapse from 1943 onwards just because they've lost their homes and feel hungry.

Like all of these winning in 1940 threads there's just more than a little wish fulfilment going on. This leads to me to think that the Reich fan boys suffer from the same over confidence and self delusions as those they seem to admire.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Expecting British morale to collapse so soon is even more non sensical than the Allies later expecting German morale to collapse from 1943 onwards just because they've lost their homes and feel hungry.

Like all of these winning in 1940 threads there's just more than a little wish fulfilment going on. This leads to me to think that the Reich fan boys suffer from the same over confidence and self delusions as those they seem to admire.

There is a bit of a difference: Britain wasn't a dictatorship and wasn't expecting to be exterminated if they lost the war.

Germany was a police state where defeatism could get you thrown in a concentration camp and most people literally expected to be exterminated if they lost; the revelation of the Morgenthau Plan did not help matters, though it wasn't quickly dropped from consideration. And then there was the very real fear of the Soviets.

What does Britain have to fear from negotiating if things get unpleasant enough?

 

[AdA]

What does Britain have to fear from negotiating if things get unpleasant enough?[/QUOTE]

The same thing Britain had to fear when Spain was a really major Eurpean power and when Napoleonic France was a realy major european power.
The one thing Britain had done since, I was going to say Elizabeth I but I might say about five minutes after William the conqueror landed in Britain, is try really really hard to prevent any continental power from getting too strong.

 

[Devolved]

There is a bit of a difference: Britain wasn't a dictatorship and wasn't expecting to be exterminated if they lost the war.

Germany was a police state where defeatism could get you thrown in a concentration camp and most people literally expected to be exterminated if they lost; the revelation of the Morgenthau Plan did not help matters, though it wasn't quickly dropped from consideration. And then there was the very real fear of the Soviets.

What does Britain have to fear from negotiating if things get unpleasant enough?

Your last remark kind of highlights the point I was making.

What does a country have to fear from negotiating with Nazis after admitting that they've had enough? You tell me?

You also seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that because Britain was a democracy it was more likely to break under pressure than a dictatorship.

That was certainly the kind of thinking that was prevalent among the German leadership in 1940/41 and with the same lack of understanding when the reality didn't match their fantasy.

Also I cannot think of a major belligerent that negotiated a surrender before being invaded except Japan!But that was after mass fire bombing, almost 100% blockade, two Atom Bombs and the Soviets attacking them. Even Italy waited for Sicily to fall!

But you will try to argue that Britain that still had it's Empire intact and the hope (tenuous in 1940 but still there) of American and Soviet intervention should just shrug its shoulders and ask Hitler for terms after a few bombs are dropped and the meat ration is reduced?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Your last remark kind of highlights the point I was making.

What does a country have to fear from negotiating with Nazis after admitting that they've had enough? You tell me?

You also seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that because Britain was a democracy it was more likely to break under pressure than a dictatorship.

That was certainly the kind of thinking that was prevalent among the German leadership in 1940/41 and with the same lack of understanding when the reality didn't match their fantasy.

Also I cannot think of a major belligerent that negotiated a surrender before being invaded except Japan!But that was after mass fire bombing, almost 100% blockade, two Atom Bombs and the Soviets attacking them. Even Italy waited for Sicily to fall!

But you will try to argue that Britain that still had it's Empire intact and the hope (tenuous in 1940 but still there) of American and Soviet intervention should just shrug its shoulders and ask Hitler for terms after a few bombs are dropped and the meat ration is reduced?

No, the British would require to have their rations dropped by a third to a point lower than that in continental Europe in winter, with coal for heat becoming so scarce that they cannot heat their homes except for a few hours a day if that. On top of this the military's fuel sources would have to drop to the point that they are then having a to make hard choices about what to actually fuel, the RAF or the RN. As Britain loses the ability to defend itself because it is not getting the supplies it needs to wage a war effort and becomes increasingly vulnerable to further attacks, it loses the will to resist an longer and decides that negotiating to end the spiraling misery is better than fully starving and seeing its defenses implode, leaving her open to a much worse peace deal later.

 

[Devolved]

No, the British would require to have their rations dropped by a third to a point lower than that in continental Europe in winter, with coal for heat becoming so scarce that they cannot heat their homes except for a few hours a day if that. On top of this the military's fuel sources would have to drop to the point that they are then having a to make hard choices about what to actually fuel, the RAF or the RN. As Britain loses the ability to defend itself because it is not getting the supplies it needs to wage a war effort and becomes increasingly vulnerable to further attacks, it loses the will to resist an longer and decides that negotiating to end the spiraling misery is better than fully starving and seeing its defenses implode, leaving her open to a much worse peace deal later.

A long list of wishes.

I think most would agree that Germany would be unable to achieve those goals within any reasonable length of time.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

A long list of wishes.

I think most would agree that Germany would be unable to achieve those goals within any reasonable length of time.

And most haven't read more than popular histories on the subject. Majority opinion doesn't mean it is correct.

 

[Devolved]

And most haven't read more than popular histories on the subject. Majority opinion doesn't mean it is correct.

No it doesn't. Most people in Germany in 1940 thought they'd won the war.

Perhaps because they'd swallowed too much German propaganda.

 

[ivanotter]

The thread is valid. After all, we do try to twist history and look at alternatives.

The 1940 period was a rather defining moment and would represent a lot of different possibilities.

Trying to limit discussions is not helpful.

So, let's get back to the original question: What would it take.... etc..

Ridicule is obviously very great, but not conducive to any serious discussion. Same goes for pre-conceived ideas and fixed history positions.

I don't believe that many members here would wish for a Nazi victory, but that will not deter anyone from exploring some historical "twists and turns".

Sorry for being like this, but can we get more serious and more polite?

Ivan

 

[Devolved]

I don't believe that many members here would wish for a Nazi victory, but that will not deter anyone from exploring some historical "twists and turns".

It's difficult to take a Thread seriously when the OP says:

What does Britain have to fear from negotiating if things get unpleasant enough?

I guess I didn't read the 'right' books.

 

[ivanotter]

OK, then.


I had another twist on this:

There may not need to be any negotiations. It can fizzle out!

What are the chances of that?

Nobody is losing face and Hitler can focus on USSR.

Ivan

 

[Devolved]

OK, then.


I had another twist on this:

There may not need to be any negotiations. It can fizzle out!

What are the chances of that?

Nobody is losing face and Hitler can focus on USSR.

Ivan

If Italy and America stayed neutral then there's little Britain can do except bomb Germany and fight U boats for years.

There's a chance that without the war in North Africa and no emotional involvement in any battles the British people would get uncomfortable (maybe bored) with a war in which nothing is happening and nothing is being achieved.

 

[The Sandman]

You know there's a problem with a thread when the Jewish guy feels compelled to support the more-favorable-outcome-for-Nazi-Germany side's assertions due to the other side mainly being argued by two smug assholes who fail at basic things like comprehending the difference between the equipment and manpower required to unload crates of food and bullets over a beach versus the equipment and manpower required to unload tanks and machine tools for further transport by railway.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

If Italy and America stayed neutral then there's little Britain can do except bomb Germany and fight U boats for years.

There's a chance that without the war in North Africa and no emotional involvement in any battles the British people would get uncomfortable (maybe bored) with a war in which nothing is happening and nothing is being achieved.

And they would have run out of money by 1941 and LL is just going to indebt the UK to the US without promise of victory. Financially it makes no sense for Britain to continue to hold out without the Soviets or US getting involved to actually win the war.

 

[CalBear]

You know there's a problem with a thread when the Jewish guy feels compelled to support the more-favorable-outcome-for-Nazi-Germany side's assertions due to the other side mainly being argued by two smug assholes who fail at basic things like comprehending the difference between the equipment and manpower required to unload crates of food and bullets over a beach versus the equipment and manpower required to unload tanks and machine tools for further transport by railway.

That is a pretty pointless insult.

Cut it out.

 

[Simreeve]

What does Britain have to fear from negotiating if things get unpleasant enough?

After the Munich agreement ("This is my last territorial ambition in Europe") had been followed by the invasion of Poland, why the hell should Britain be willing to believe that Germany would actually negotiate in good faith ?

 

[krull1m]

After the Munich agreement ("This is my last territorial ambition in Europe") had been followed by the invasion of Poland, why the hell should Britain be willing to believe that Germany would actually negotiate in good faith ?

Thats a very good point. Even if the morale of the British people was being destroyed by the Nazis (assuming a major POD that puts the Nazis in a position where they could do this) why would they believe anything promised by Hitler?

Hitler had already proven that he couldnt be trusted to keep his word, his actions troughout the 30's and towards neutral countries at the start of the war do not encourage trust. And you can be sure that everyone of these actions would be inflated and broadcast to the British people as further reasons why they should not ever give in.

The only way I see Britain being willing to surrender is of that unmentionable sea mammal actually succeeded. Otherwise it is simply not within the British character to give up, certainly not at that time in history, they were simply to damm stubborn and proud.

 

[BlondieBC]

Thats a very good point. Even if the morale of the British people was being destroyed by the Nazis (assuming a major POD that puts the Nazis in a position where they could do this) why would they believe anything promised by Hitler?

Hitler had already proven that he couldnt be trusted to keep his word, his actions troughout the 30's and towards neutral countries at the start of the war do not encourage trust. And you can be sure that everyone of these actions would be inflated and broadcast to the British people as further reasons why they should not ever give in.

The only way I see Britain being willing to surrender is of that unmentionable sea mammal actually succeeded. Otherwise it is simply not within the British character to give up, certainly not at that time in history, they were simply to damm stubborn and proud.

Yes, Hitler's prior actions made it many times harder to make peace. And the UK is not shameless in breaking treaties as Munich shows or Italy it WW1 or Oran. You could fill a bookcase with books on various treaties the UK broke/bent. The Nazi would also have to consider if the UK could be trusted to honor the terms of the treaty, or they were just buying time for the USA/UK to rearm.

The UK would make peace when facing starvation or impending military doom. When facing certain disaster a 10% chance of Hitler keeping the treaty can look favorable to mass starvation combined with a never ending war.

Also, the surrender term is a bit misleading. It is closer to a white peace, with harsh terms. The UK had lost no land excluding perhaps parts of Egypt and a few Islands in the Med. It is similar to the short peace the UK had with Napoleon.

 

[ivanotter]

AAAAAHHHHH, there is the parallel: The brief "peace" with Napoleon!

So, there is a presedence in terms of a fizzle.

Maybe I am getting paranoid on this, but I am really starting to see a situation where there is no real movements, US not coming in (we are busy on that as well), and no front in Egypt (lost or just stalemate).

A fizzle, after some years Britain gets tired of it all, but there are no negotations. After all, it does not need to get into negotiations if both parties sort of just leave it alone! sort of mutual un-spoken agreement to just leave it.

When will they start trading? Suppose Churchill gets kicked out, because he only offers "blood and sweat and tears and grief and all other great things"?

The crux is of course the US intervention. Without that, it could fizzle!

Ivan

 

[Devolved]

Yes, Hitler's prior actions made it many times harder to make peace. And the UK is not shameless in breaking treaties as Munich shows or Italy it WW1 or Oran. You could fill a bookcase with books on various treaties the UK broke/bent. The Nazi would also have to consider if the UK could be trusted to honor the terms of the treaty, or they were just buying time for the USA/UK to rearm.

The UK would make peace when facing starvation or impending military doom. When facing certain disaster a 10% chance of Hitler keeping the treaty can look favorable to mass starvation combined with a never ending war.

Also, the surrender term is a bit misleading. It is closer to a white peace, with harsh terms. The UK had lost no land excluding perhaps parts of Egypt and a few Islands in the Med. It is similar to the short peace the UK had with Napoleon.

Changing the language (white peace with harsh terms) and then putting British foreign policy on the same level as Hitlers' isn't going to save this thread.