What would make Britain negotiate in 1940-1?

[BlondieBC]

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.

First, the thread does not need saving. Despite what you seem to be implying, no one has appointed you as the person who determines if "threads need to be saved".

Second, you mischaracterize what I said. I was not saying the UK and German had the same foreign policy, but merely pointing out the UK also has credibility issues related to honoring treaties. It is a mistake to view all characteristics of either Hitler or the Nazi's as unique. Many of their actions were similar to what many nations do, while others were in a much more unique category.

 

[Devolved]

Second, you mischaracterize what I said. I was not saying the UK and German had the same foreign policy, but merely pointing out the UK also has credibility issues related to honoring treaties. It is a mistake to view all characteristics of either Hitler or the Nazi's as unique. Many of their actions were similar to what many nations do, while others were in a much more unique category.

No I didn't 'mischaracterize' what you said.

I pointed out that you were putting Nazi and British foreign policy on the same level of morality.

And you've just done it again.

 

[ivanotter]

well, British ability to not honour agreements etc is not new.

So, let's get realistic. Would Hitler perceive Halifax/Churchill at his level of "realpolitik"?

Maybe that was his mistake before Poland? believing it was only bluster?

Ivan

 

[Snake Featherston]

A war with someone not-Hitler in the 1940-1 timeframe.

 

[Snake Featherston]

After the fall of France Britain was betting a lot on a friendly USA giving help and eventually joinning in the fight. Since Barbarossa shifts the focus of the war away from Britain the time for a negotiated peace is btw the fall of France and the attack on the USSR and the only thing that would bring the British Goverment to the negotiating table would be a radically different US policy in wich the US would mediate peace instead of supporting Britain in the war. This requires a totally diferent USA in 1940, and would probably take the form of a super Munich with who ever replaces Roosevelt in this POD playing the Neville Chamberlain part...
The Germans would then turn east anyway...

Given that the Nazis made the decision for Operation Barbarossa in October of 1940........

Wiking has not said the Axis win, just they do better.

To believe the Axis could not have done any better is to believe the Nazi were the perfect warriors. It also requires the UK and France to be the worst warriors in history.

One of the most popular TL on the board has the Axis winning in the 1940's, until later reverses in the 1950's.

Given that the Axis made the decision for Barbarossa in October 1940, there is no means for them to crush the British in that timeframe, even if we factor in that Hitler didn't want to defeat the British. He wanted to kill everyone not-German in Eastern Europe, defeating the British was never on his list of priorities.

 

[krull1m]

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.

Neither side would stick by their agreements. The Nazis were pathalogically incapable of keeping an agreement, and certainly not if they thought that Britain would re-arm during a "peace".
Even assuming Britain did sue for peace they would certainly use that time to rebuild and prepare to come back fighting. They would not under any circumstances tolerate the Nazis being in control of mainland Europe, such a thing would be to great a threat to ignore. It may have been the waining days of the Empire but the national pride would not allow them to sit back and do nothing.

Hitler would have to impose extremely harsh terms in order to try to mitigate the threat for the future and that would not sit well with the population. Much like the ill feeling that came in Germany after their defeat in WW1.

So you will have a situation where Britain will rearm and come back, Hitler will be aware of this and the only way to stop them would be the total surrender and occupation of the British Isles....

I cant imagine the leaders on both sides not being able to see the progression here and eventually they would all come to realise that any kind of negotiated peace or forced surrender would simply not last and would be more damaging for the Nazis in the long run.

Both sides wouldnt keep their word so why bother going through the motions when the end result is already pretty clear?

Hitler massively misread the mood of the British people from day one and without massive amounts of handwaving that would allow a successful invasion then there really is no possible way to get a surrender or capitulation. If the Nazis had the ability to completely cut off the British Isles from all external supplies (as has been called for here) then they certainly would have the resources to launch a successful invasion after a disasterous Dunkirk

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Neither side would stick by their agreements. The Nazis were pathalogically incapable of keeping an agreement, and certainly not if they thought that Britain would re-arm during a "peace".
Even assuming Britain did sue for peace they would certainly use that time to rebuild and prepare to come back fighting. They would not under any circumstances tolerate the Nazis being in control of mainland Europe, such a thing would be to great a threat to ignore. It may have been the waining days of the Empire but the national pride would not allow them to sit back and do nothing.

Hitler would have to impose extremely harsh terms in order to try to mitigate the threat for the future and that would not sit well with the population. Much like the ill feeling that came in Germany after their defeat in WW1.

So you will have a situation where Britain will rearm and come back, Hitler will be aware of this and the only way to stop them would be the total surrender and occupation of the British Isles....

I cant imagine the leaders on both sides not being able to see the progression here and eventually they would all come to realise that any kind of negotiated peace or forced surrender would simply not last and would be more damaging for the Nazis in the long run.

Both sides wouldnt keep their word so why bother going through the motions when the end result is already pretty clear?

Hitler massively misread the mood of the British people from day one and without massive amounts of handwaving that would allow a successful invasion then there really is no possible way to get a surrender or capitulation. If the Nazis had the ability to completely cut off the British Isles from all external supplies (as has been called for here) then they certainly would have the resources to launch a successful invasion after a disasterous Dunkirk

Rearm with what money? They were broke in December 1940. There was LL, but they didn't start taking goods without payment until May-June 1941. By December they would be in a war with Japan. And after all of this you expect the British to start another war with Germany? And the public wants to why?

 

[BlondieBC]

No I didn't 'mischaracterize' what you said.

I pointed out that you were putting Nazi and British foreign policy on the same level of morality.

And you've just done it again.

Yes, you did mischaracterize. I never mention "morality", that is you trying to put words into my mouth.

We we discussing a treaty, and how it would make it harder for the UK to accept a treaty with Hitler. The FACT the UK had broken treaties and attacked neutrals makes it easier for the UK to accept a treaty.

You are acting like Hitler is the only person every to break a treaty, when in fact it is quite common.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Yes, you did mischaracterize. I never mention "morality", that is you trying to put words into my mouth.

We we discussing a treaty, and how it would make it harder for the UK to accept a treaty with Hitler. The FACT the UK had broken treaties and attacked neutrals makes it easier for the UK to accept a treaty.

You are acting like Hitler is the only person every to break a treaty, when in fact it is quite common.

But not when white people do that to white people.

 

[BlondieBC]

Given that the Axis made the decision for Barbarossa in October 1940, there is no means for them to crush the British in that timeframe, even if we factor in that Hitler didn't want to defeat the British. He wanted to kill everyone not-German in Eastern Europe, defeating the British was never on his list of priorities.

Agreed, the New and Improved Luftwaffe has a very narrow chance to know UK out of the war and a very narrow window where Hitler can be persuaded to do the UK first.

 

[sharlin]

Oh look its blondie leaping to the defence of the Germans in WW2 again. Give us examples please of RECENT british governments going back on treaty obligations. Also it has to be major treaties, not gunboat colonialism.

Lets say from 1850 onwards so you can't point at the obvious one and go 'Denmark and the attack on Copenhangen.'

 

[Snake Featherston]

First, the thread does not need saving. Despite what you seem to be implying, no one has appointed you as the person who determines if "threads need to be saved".

Second, you mischaracterize what I said. I was not saying the UK and German had the same foreign policy, but merely pointing out the UK also has credibility issues related to honoring treaties. It is a mistake to view all characteristics of either Hitler or the Nazi's as unique. Many of their actions were similar to what many nations do, while others were in a much more unique category.

Except we have the most interesting subversion of this in the USSR, which did rigidly adhere to the exact words of treaties, which is more than most of its clients did. If Stalin could decide to adhere to the exact terms of treaties and chose to use treaties as his means of conquest, why couldn't Hitler? Stalin was a very bad man, too, after all.

 

[BlondieBC]

Neither side would stick by their agreements. The Nazis were pathalogically incapable of keeping an agreement, and certainly not if they thought that Britain would re-arm during a "peace".
Even assuming Britain did sue for peace they would certainly use that time to rebuild and prepare to come back fighting. They would not under any circumstances tolerate the Nazis being in control of mainland Europe, such a thing would be to great a threat to ignore. It may have been the waining days of the Empire but the national pride would not allow them to sit back and do nothing.

Hitler would have to impose extremely harsh terms in order to try to mitigate the threat for the future and that would not sit well with the population. Much like the ill feeling that came in Germany after their defeat in WW1.

So you will have a situation where Britain will rearm and come back, Hitler will be aware of this and the only way to stop them would be the total surrender and occupation of the British Isles....

I cant imagine the leaders on both sides not being able to see the progression here and eventually they would all come to realise that any kind of negotiated peace or forced surrender would simply not last and would be more damaging for the Nazis in the long run.

Both sides wouldnt keep their word so why bother going through the motions when the end result is already pretty clear?

Hitler massively misread the mood of the British people from day one and without massive amounts of handwaving that would allow a successful invasion then there really is no possible way to get a surrender or capitulation. If the Nazis had the ability to completely cut off the British Isles from all external supplies (as has been called for here) then they certainly would have the resources to launch a successful invasion after a disasterous Dunkirk

You are right about the UK intent. The question would be, "Are they capable?" Which becomes, "Would FDR be able and willing to send large amounts of war material to the UK if the UK signed a peace treaty?" A lot would depend on the TL, but there would be a lot of pressure to build up the USA military first, and there would be a lot more pressure to spend less by Congress.

Hitler does not have to push harsh terms on the UK. The UK has not lost any territory. Now Hitler might try to, but I think it is more likely, that he would try to get the UK out of the war so he could slaughter the Slavs faster.

Another question is who benefits more from no naval war. Yes, the UK can rearm faster, but the Nazi also have access to more resources. Who is helped more? I can't answer that question on a TL that is not written.

Rearm with what money? They were broke in December 1940. There was LL, but they didn't start taking goods without payment until May-June 1941. By December they would be in a war with Japan. And after all of this you expect the British to start another war with Germany? And the public wants to why?

If the UK makes peace in early 1941, I don't think we can assume the Pacific war starts on time. And it might not even start. In many ways, the terms that Japan would demand (free hand in China, no fuel blockade) are less threatening to the UK than Nazi in Calais. And with a good negotiator, the UK might get Japan to agree to stay out of the Pearl River basin.

 

[b12ox]

The best idea would have been too keep away fom the island. Hitler was mad with Churchill coming to Downing Street so much that he made the irrational thing, because it was nothing else than that. Had he let it pass, he would still have had Churchill against him there, but not half as pissed and desperate as after the Battle of England.

 

[mrmandias]

No I didn't 'mischaracterize' what you said.

I pointed out that you were putting Nazi and British foreign policy on the same level of morality.

And you've just done it again.

Yep. Intellectual argument for a revisionist position is one thing, an emotional commitment to Nazi apologia is another. This thread had some promise, but what a waste its become.

 

[ivanotter]

well,

1899-1902: South African war - also called 3rd war of independence
It started via an ultimatum which was a bit "not cricket"


Jameson's raid: the background: Grey's underhanded dealings

British naval attack on French fleet?

Those sort of just pops ouit the woodwork without any effort.

 

[ivanotter]

I somehow also believe we should drop it now as it is "going off the rails".

 

[BlondieBC]

Oh look its blondie leaping to the defence of the Germans in WW2 again. Give us examples please of RECENT british governments going back on treaty obligations. Also it has to be major treaties, not gunboat colonialism.

Lets say from 1850 onwards so you can't point at the obvious one and go 'Denmark and the attack on Copenhangen.'

First, by adding the 1850 exception, you are conceding that the UK broke them before then. By the colonialism, you are conceding the UK broke treaties in colonial areas.

As for Copenhagen in modern times, I would site Norway and Oran, both with 2 years of Hitler treaty breaking.

Italy, Treaty of London 1915.

Czechoslovakia - 1938. The phrase no more Munich's came from here.

As for the UK not following commitment, there is not repaying the WW1 war debts. I am sure there are more examples of lack of trusty worthiness on both sides.

While it may be an unpopular view, both sides broke major treaties. And they both had attacked neutral countries in wars of aggression. Both sides (UK/Germany) would have to carefully consider if a treaty would be honored, and it would make both sides less likely to accept a treaty from the other. It sounds nice to say, Hitler should have offered to leave France/Belgium for a peace, but would the Allies have actually honored the treaty or would they have attack as soon as it looked as if they could win?

 

[BlondieBC]

But not when white people do that to white people.

Your reply does not make sense. Whites were betrayed - Slavs (Munich betrayal), French (Oran), and Norway (UK invasion fleet left first) as white.

I will concede that Europeans from 1800-1950 treated Africans and Asians a lot worse than they did Europeans in international affairs.

 

[ivanotter]

If Churchill could order the French Fleet attack, on an ally of recent note, just to impress the US, well, I would not exactly trust non-intervention in terms of Holand and Belgium.

Mustard gas on the landing beaches? Treaties anyone?

So, lets just conclude: Countries have a tendency to look out for #1 and that's about it.