Britain In 1940 (Evacuation at Dunkirk)

[Flying10uk]

Post 4, I did state "at a later date", i.e. after a peace deal with Germany had been signed.

The point that I was trying to imply and make was that I do not believe that Hitler would have offered us a peace deal in 1940, after Dunkirk, out of the goodness of his heart and wanting nothing in return. Hitlers version of a peace deal in June 1940 would probably have involved extracting the maximum amount possible from Britain in terms of war material and anything we had left to defend ourselves, like ships and aircraft. Hitlers version of a peace deal in 1940 would have left us pretty much defenceless.

Hitler had a peace deal with Russia yet he still invaded. Hitler had an armistice with Vichy France yet he still invaded. Hitler invaded numerous neutral countries.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[mrclark303]

Post 4, I did state "at a later date", i.e. after a peace deal with Germany had been signed.

The point that I was trying to imply and make was that I do not believe that Hitler would have offered us a peace deal in 1940, after Dunkirk, out of the goodness of his heart and wanting nothing in return. Hitlers version of a peace deal in June 1940 would probably have involved extracting the maximum amount possible from Britain in terms of war material and anything we had left to defend ourselves, like ships and aircraft. Hitlers version of a peace deal in 1940 would have left us pretty much defenceless.

Hitler had a peace deal with Russia yet he still invaded. Hitler had an armistice with Vichy France yet he still invaded. Hitler invaded numerous neutral countries.

Evening F10, there is still the fundamental difference that the UK was still a powerful country,even after Dunkirk. You have to bare in mind that the UK was still a leading industrial power at this time, it's industry in the process of turning to War production.

The Germans knew that breaking the UK would be difficult, if not impossible, so a settlement would be the ideal, especially after the Luftwaffe was broken and effectively beaten in the Battle of Britain.

The losses from Dunkirk were well on the way to being replaced by August/September 1940, personnel numbers and equipment being rebuilt and rapidly expanding across all three services as a total War footing took hold in the UK.

To negotiate the UK out of the War would have given Hitler a clear run at Russia without hinderance.

The potential what if's really are facinating...

[Flying10uk]

there is still the fundamental difference that the UK was still a powerful country, even after Dunkirk.

But you are assuming that Hitler would have wanted nothing in return for a peace deal with Britain, after Dunkirk, in 1940. I do not believe that this would have been the case. Whatever sort of deal may have emerge after negotiations with Hitler in 1940, I believe that it would have been a very one sided deal stacked very much in Germany's favour, leaving Britain severely weakened and very venerable.

---------- Post added at 11:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 PM ----------

If there was a deal then what of the English fleet and its ships!

We wouldn't have got to keep the entire Royal Navy because it was too much of a threat to Germany. There are several ways that any peace deal with Hitler could of addressed the matter.

[mrclark303]

But you are assuming that Hitler would have wanted nothing in return for a peace deal with Britain, after Dunkirk, in 1940. I do not believe that this would have been the case. Whatever sort of deal may have emerge after negotiations with Hitler in 1940, I believe that it would have been a very one sided deal stacked very much in Germany's favour, leaving Britain severely weakened and very venerable.

---------- Post added at 11:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 PM ----------



We wouldn't have got to keep the entire Royal Navy because it was too much of a threat to Germany. There are several ways that any peace deal with Hitler could of addressed the matter.

Evening F10, your assertion regarding German demands for a ceasefire and terms depends on your point of reference, in May 1940, in the direct aftermath of Operation Dynamo or in September 1940 or early 1941, when the Germans had in effect been decisively defeated in the Air.

So May, when Britain was at a low ebb and voices to negotiate for peace were vocal in some quarters, or September when military strength was rapidly increasing along with substantial and growing input and help from our Commonwealth friends.

[Flying10uk]

, your assertion regarding German demands

My assertion is that had we entered into negotiations with Germany, following the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940, Hitler would have wanted something in return for any peace deal offered and the result would have been to put us in an even more vulnerable position. I have not, in any way, said that we should have entered into peace negotiations with Germany in 1940.

It is not the job of the Admiralty to decide how large or small the Royal Navy is, as this is decided by central government. It was in WW2 and still is today.

[Surpmil]

But you are assuming that Hitler would have wanted nothing in return for a peace deal with Britain, after Dunkirk, in 1940. I do not believe that this would have been the case. Whatever sort of deal may have emerge after negotiations with Hitler in 1940, I believe that it would have been a very one sided deal stacked very much in Germany's favour, leaving Britain severely weakened and very venerable.

---------- Post added at 11:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 PM ----------



We wouldn't have got to keep the entire Royal Navy because it was too much of a threat to Germany. There are several ways that any peace deal with Hitler could of addressed the matter.

It seems to be pretty clear from his statements that Hitler, and some of the Nazi leadership wanted a modus vivendi with Britain. Hitler at least stated that he would give up all overseas ambitions and guarantee the security of the British Empire in exchange for a free hand on the Continent.

This would seem to have been greatly to Britain's advantage, but as must have been realized at the time, if only by Churchill and some others, Hitler would not live forever, and his wishes even if they remained constant, would not survive him.

If peace was made in 1940 or 41, Lend Lease would never have occurred and the Soviets would have missed it more than Britain ever did. In fact given a true free hand, it seems almost certain Germany would have defeated the USSR even with Hitler's interference and mistakes. Hitler rushed into war, when he generals and admirals were expecting to be ready by 1944/45, not 1939. If Germany had begun with 150 U boats instead of 45, the war would have been lost almost certainly.

Having defeated the USSR, the imperatives of Nazi philosophy alone to say nothing of the national psychology it sprang from, would have inevitably led to ever-increasing pressure and ultimately a renewed war with Britain. The temptation after constant victory would be irrresistable. But who would be more ready in 1943, 44 when Hitler returned in triumph from the East?

Isolationism would have resurged in the USA, with Lend Lease probably a dead letter, where were the resources to prepare for war with a Germany that had the whole resources of Europe, human and material at her disposal?

No, there was no other option but to fight on and hope for the best; the public mind and mood alone would not have permitted any other course of action.

Certainly, it could do no harm to encourage Hitler to think that should he crush the USSR, the question might be re-opened, and I suspect some trouble was taken to encourage him in that belief. Not the sort of thing that ends up in the PRO however!