The merits or otherwise of a possible negotiated peace between Britain and Germany in 1940

[Axe99]

Just reading something about the Italian Navy, and one (but by no means the only) reason they were less aggressive early in the war was because in June/July/August 1940, they expected it to be over soon (so even if they won a significant naval battle - of which they had a chance to do - unless they took no losses at all it wouldn't necessarily have been viewed as a great result). Germany also expected Britain to surrender, as did the US.

Britain of course didn't, but surely the chance of surrender wasn't zero per cent (although good luck working out an actual probability ). And if they had, for reasonable terms, it could have seen:

- France restored except for Alsace-Lorraine, and Belgium the Netherlands and Luxembourg (all fear Luxembourg!)
- Perhaps the maintenance of a Nazi puppet state in Norway.
- Denmark likely continuing to have some degree of coercion, although less so than if there was a war on.
- A bit of colonial horse-trading, but given Britain hadn't actually lost any significant territory, and Germany wanted peace, it likely wouldn't have been a heap.

This would return Western Europe to a semi-peaceful state, and leave Germany free to build up for an attack on the Soviet Union (or other plays - I'm just running with the benefits of a historical-ish hypothetical) with access to international trade again (I can't imagine them agreeing to a treaty that involved embargos, and breaking any agreements would give Germany a casus belli to charge into France, something much easier to do if the hold Alsace-Lorraine).

There would still be a potentially interesting game for all the majors, but it's not a runaway victory for Germany (it improves their chances against the USSR, but Britain and France are still in play - it might be a good way to keep the US 'less mobilised' for longer though - it could also lead to an interesting situation of Japan vs Britain/France without the US involved (at least directly)).

Just throwing ideas around - trying to think of ways that might help the game play out less deterministically, but still in a historically plausible/immersive way. All this treaty stuff is far from my area of expertise, so feel free to pick apart as approriate .

 

[Gamer_1745]

With Churchill as PM?

I think it would take total Axis control of the Med., no war with USSR, sinking of a major element of the British Navy, Total control of the skys of Britain by the Luftwaffe. In short I think it would take the fall of the Churchill government or never having Churchill as PM for there to be talks between Britain & Germany. War is a political act. Churchill was not going to talk peace on any terms Hitler would have accepted. I think he saw WW II as something like the Napoleonic War that was going to be long with Germany controlling the land & Britain the Seas. To understand Churchill you need to understand his view of British History.

Now it was a very close thing between Churchill & Lord Halifax becoming PM, most everyone in government wanted Lord Halifax. The main person who didn't want Lord Halifax was Halifax himself 9he didn't want to be PM at the time). I say this a lot, but I have plans for when I get to modding Britain for events covering this and if Lord Halifax becomes PM what you describe is more likely to happen.

 

[Axe99]

With Churchill as PM?

I think it would take total Axis control of the Med., no war with USSR, sinking of a major element of the British Navy, Total control of the skys of Britain by the Luftwaffe. In short I think it would take the fall of the Churchill government or never having Churchill as PM for there to be talks between Britain & Germany. War is a political act. Churchill was not going to talk peace on any terms Hitler would have accepted. I think he saw WW II as something like the Napoleonic War that was going to be long with Germany controlling the land & Britain the Seas. To understand Churchill you need to understand his view of British History.

Now it was a very close thing between Churchill & Lord Halifax becoming PM, most everyone in government wanted Lord Halifax. The main person who didn't want Lord Halifax was Halifax himself 9he didn't want to be PM at the time). I say this a lot, but I have plans for when I get to modding Britain for events covering this and if Lord Halifax becomes PM what you describe is more likely to happen.

Thanks for your well-informed thoughts . I definitely agree Churchill wouldn't have offered to surrender, but unlike the US, the PM in Britain doesn't have carte blanche to do what he likes. If enough of the House of Commons decide that they want something else (or at least the war cabinet - I'm not on top of the special arrangements they had in place at the time), then what Churchill wants is neither here nor there (outside of his vote in the Parliament - but the PM's vote holds the same value as everyone else's). Indeed, it was declining confidence in Chamberlain that lead to his replacement by Churchill (amongst other things).

So it wouldn't be "Churchill sues for peace" but more "Parliament overrules Churchill, installs whoever who then sues for peace". Probability wouldn't be high, and the peace mechanics would need to be well handled and differently to the current system (it couldn't just be a Germany/Italy take what they want until they've gobbled up everything!) but it'd add some potential branching to how things played out.

 

[Tomnoddy]

for reasonable terms, it could have seen:

- France restored except for Alsace-Lorraine, and Belgium the Netherlands and Luxembourg (all fear Luxembourg!)
- Perhaps the maintenance of a Nazi puppet state in Norway.
- Denmark likely continuing to have some degree of coercion, although less so than if there was a war on.
- A bit of colonial horse-trading, but given Britain hadn't actually lost any significant territory, and Germany wanted peace, it likely wouldn't have been a heap.

This would return Western Europe to a semi-peaceful state, and leave Germany free to build up for an attack on the Soviet Union (or other plays - I'm just running with the benefits of a historical-ish hypothetical) with access to international trade again (I can't imagine them agreeing to a treaty that involved embargos, and breaking any agreements would give Germany a casus belli to charge into France, something much easier to do if the hold Alsace-Lorraine)..

I think this should be an event that pops up when France falls, with a very low chance of firing with historical focus on. It certainly is an interesting alternate history scenario.

The UK would be very unlikely to take this armistice, because it loses less than the Axis do by staying at war, even if it becomes little more than a "phony" one. The British Isles are not under threat of invasion. There would certainly be significant short term economic benefits from ending hostilities. But this violates UK foreign policy of preventing Europe from being dominated by a single power, which would then have the resources to challenge UK.

In a few years, Nazi Germany would have the resources of Russian territory added to its own. At this point it would probably return to France & Benelux with an "accept peaceful annexation or be invaded" proposition, and would have the industrial capacity to overmatch the UK in Navy and Airforce as well as Army. WWII round 2 would then go badly for us.

In short, we can keep fighting, get ourselves into vast amounts of debt, and have our empire fall apart, or sign the armistice, and be forced to hand over our colonies at the barrel of a gun in a few years. After Hitler annexed the rump of Czechoslovakia I think the sense of betrayal made the second option politically impossible.

 

[Bigleady]

With obvious bias I agree with the position on the Napoleonic wars, but the same position has existed King John got us booted out of our sovereign territories on the continent (some people refer to them as France). Basically for hundreds of years we have caused trouble on the mainland by sortieing from the largest castle in the world. So I don't thinking that suing for peace that early would ever realistically be on the cards, though without the BoB or the Italians forcing the defence of North Africa we would have kept it mostly naval.

 

[GeneralZorro]

Actually, Italy was offering itself to broker a peace deal between the UK and Germany after the fall of France. And this was something that was even considered by the British war cabinet when the British Expeditionary Force was surrounded at Dunkirk. A very interesting topic I run into by accident a few months ago (Search for May 1940 War Cabinet Crisis, as I am not sure we are allowed to post Wikipedia links here). Who know what would have happened if the Germans actually captured the whole BEF in Dunkirk, the British might have considered a negotiated peace which would have likely included returning Germany's pre WW1 colonies in Africa, the annexation of Alsace Lorraine, the potential loss of Gibraltar for the British, and little more.

This post actually got me thinking (What a miracle!). What if you could negotiate peace with a defeated enemy and part of it could be disarmament requirements and reparation payments in the form of temporary free civilian factory and resource transfer. In the case of a potential treaty after the fall of France, Germany could get Alsace Lorraine, part of France's military equipment at the time of the war, and a portion of France's civilian factories, military equipment production and resources traded for free for 2 years. The benefit of this would be to end the war with much lower World Tension and while having some benefits.
It could also have a similar demilitarised zone as was the case in Rhineland for Germany, and if after one year France decides to break the treaty by denouncing any of the conditions, Germany could have the option to go to war for it.

I think this would make a very nice addition to the game, as it would add a lot of options to the peace deals. Feedback always welcome, and if I receive some positive feedback I might make a suggestion out of it.

 

[Tomnoddy]

This post actually got me thinking (What a miracle!). What if you could negotiate peace with a defeated enemy and part of it could be disarmament requirements and reparation payments in the form of temporary free civilian factory and resource transfer. In the case of a potential treaty after the fall of France, Germany could get Alsace Lorraine, part of France's military equipment at the time of the war, and a portion of France's civilian factories, military equipment production and resources traded for free for 2 years.

The historic armistice that created Vichy France did almost exactly all of these things. The Third Reich confiscated the mechanised equipment and factory machine tooling it wanted. An "occupation fee" was charged to the Pétain regime for garrisoning their coast for them against British incursions. The exchange rate to the Reichsmark was held artificially low so that raw materials and goods could be purchased below cost. In addition, it made it attractive for many French to commute across the border - the wages they earned in German factories would have much greater spending power back home.

 

[George_VI]

A negotiated peace between Britain and the Axis would require Viscount Halifax to be the Prime Minister, since he, IIRC, was quite amicable to the idea of negotiating a peace through Italy (even though he didn't really want to be PM), which hadn't joined the war at the time of the May 1940 Cabinet Crisis. The game has the event for that Crisis, and you can choose between Churchill or Halifax, but it doesn't actually make a difference. There ought to be some kind of event if you choose Halifax, with an option for peace, which probably necessitates Britain handing over some colonies to Italy (probably Malta and Somaliland, and maybe a degree of Italian influence in Egypt) and accepting German annexation of Poland, or at least Danzig and Poznan) and parts or all of France and the Low Countries, and another option to continue the war. Otherwise, there's no difference in the game between going with Churchill or Halifax, despite the fact that Halifax becoming PM in 1940 would probably have led to a much different outcome in real life.

 

[MadDjinn]

Since there are a number of German decision points and the Allies get to way in, the 'chance' to have a peace post-France capitulation could just depend on those decisions. The more land Germany or Italy takes via the decisions, the less the UK would want to make peace.

Breaking the pact for the split of Poland would also matter. Effectively have a 'diplomacy rating' for German decisions. if they only 'fix' historical/WWI decisions (wrt Hungary/balkans/etc) rather than take stuff themselves (including puppets) then maybe if Halifax is in charge it could work.

Same thing for the med. If Italy gets the suez and/or Spain picks off Gibraltar, then they may be more willing to get out of the war with whatever little they still had.

Ofc, the US and Soviets could not have entered the war already. Or Japan and their choice to head south.

 

[Killerrabbit]

- France restored except for Alsace-Lorraine, and Belgium the Netherlands and Luxembourg (all fear Luxembourg!)
- Perhaps the maintenance of a Nazi puppet state in Norway.
- Denmark likely continuing to have some degree of coercion, although less so than if there was a war on.
- A bit of colonial horse-trading, but given Britain hadn't actually lost any significant territory, and Germany wanted peace, it likely wouldn't have been a heap.

I do believe the terms offered historically were for Alsace-Lorraine and otherwise a full withdrawal from all occupied areas, except in the east. (And thus to have a completely free hand when attacking the Soviet Union.) Scholars still debate on how serious the proposial were. In any case, the UK was expecting the US to come to their side in the war if they held out long enough.

 

[Tomnoddy]

Since there are a number of German decision points and the Allies get to way in, the 'chance' to have a peace post-France capitulation could just depend on those decisions. The more land Germany or Italy takes via the decisions, the less the UK would want to make peace.

Breaking the pact for the split of Poland would also matter. Effectively have a 'diplomacy rating' for German decisions. if they only 'fix' historical/WWI decisions (wrt Hungary/balkans/etc) rather than take stuff themselves (including puppets) then maybe if Halifax is in charge it could work.

Same thing for the med. If Italy gets the suez and/or Spain picks off Gibraltar, then they may be more willing to get out of the war with whatever little they still had.

Ofc, the US and Soviets could not have entered the war already. Or Japan and their choice to head south.

For me, I think the key is if they honoured the Munich agreement. Hitler's negotiating tactics took "driving a hard bargain" to a whole new level. We bent over backwards to accommodate their demands, overruling concerns that giving up the Sudeten hills and forts would leave the country indefensible, in exchange for the assurance the Nazis would respect the integrity of remaining Czech territory. 5 months later the Nazis broke their word and showed that negotiation with them was impossible.

Alternative history scenario - Hitler honours the Munich agreement, leaves rump Czech republic independent.

War breaks out because Poland won't cede Danzig . Possibility of negotiated peace after Fall of France, restoring most of Poland (minus Danzig and Poznan) and most of France (minus Alsace Lorraine, Savoy/Corsica, Indochina). Britain might have to give up Gibraltar and Suez.

Even then, I can only see that arrangement working in the short term. The Third Reich was like the Roman empire, driven by perpetual expansion. Would those negotiated borders still be in place ten years later? I doubt it !

 

[Killerrabbit]

Good point that Germany had not honored any previous agreements and thus diplomacy with them is pretty futile unless you could enforce it with superior strength. The UK certainly could not do that at this point in time. However an alternate history "what if" where the UK believes that they could trust Germany you got:

Germany wants, in decending order:
- Promises that the UK will be neutral if they attack the Soviets
- As much as possible of Poland
- Alsace-Lorraine
- Some concessions to reward Italy
- A friendly regime in France
- Friendly regimes in Denmark and Norway
- Colonies

The UK wants:
- An situation in Europe where the strength of anti-German regimes is at least equal to Germany-alligned powers, thus giving UK the upper hand in european diplomacy
- France, restored to pre-war borders
- Denmark and Norway liberated
- Poland restored

What the UK knows:
- That Germany wants to attack the Soviet Union.
- That Germany has zero chance of defeating the Royal Navy

Assuming that the UK thinks Germany will defeat the Soviet Union if the Soviets fight alone, (based on German supremacy against the west, and poor Soviet performance against Finland) then no real deal will be reached.

Germany will have as much as possible of Poland as it's main non-negotiable position, and also for the UK to not intervene or aid the Soviets. The UK will not accept an Poland without an coastline, because such an Poland would never be in a position to oppose Germany as part of an democratic alliance if the Soviets fall. The UK already knows that them + France and some minor nations can't oppose Germany + Italy.

The UK might agree that Poland can be dismantled, if Germany promise not to attack the Soviets, and that the UK, France and the Soviet Union enter an defensive alliance to counter the axis. Without an balance of power in Europe that at least slightly is slightly in balance, there can be no negotiated peace deal.

Germany will easily trade away all other points they want for Poland + the Soviet war, but it would never be agreed to unless the royal navy was sunk or something.

 

[Killerrabbit]

If Germany abandoned it's plans to attack the Soviets, and the Allied nations entered an defensive alliance with the Soviet Union, I believe Germany could get the following:
- All of Poland (with an sham collaboralist Polish gov so the UK does not lose all of it's credibility)
- Alsace-Lorraine
- Minor concession to Italy from France + all of Albania. If after the Yugoslav and Greece wars, they could also get some small land gains there.

 

[GeneralZorro]

Sorry in advance for the long post to follow below.

I think Germany would never accept a re militarised France in the dealings. Let us remember that at this point Germany controlled Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium, was underway to control the whole of France and had around 400´000 allied troops surrounded at Dunkirk (possibly soon to be captured and held as a bargaining chip). At this point in history, Germany seemed like an unstoppable juggernaut, for whom the English channel was but a minor obstacle. The UK had almost no armament and/or trained troops in the Islands at this point and if their troops in France would have been captured, the possibility of peace with little losses would have probably been very alluring.
If I remember correctly, the English would have considered a peace deal which would have returned the pre WW1 colonies to Germany, plus providing some territorial gains to Italy as a peace deal broker. One could only assume that they would expect a treaty where France would be independent (at least in paper), but I do not think that they would have been in the position to expect anything from Germany on the Poland issue, especially considering that Poland at that point had been invaded by both Germany and the Soviet Union, and it was in fact already split by the two countries.

So, for me the likely scenario would be (maybe even tie it to an event for which I list the trigger conditions):

Conditions for the trigger:

1) Germany is at war with the Allies,
2) Poland is occupied and has been split by Germany and SU
3) Germany occupies Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark and Norway
4) Germany captures Paris (alternatively Germany has capitulated France)
5) (Optional) Germany has surrounded X number of UK´s Divisions.

After the Trigger if the peace is accepted:

UK: Returns German pre WW1 colonies to Germany, remains an independent nation, no need to disarm, no reparation payment, loses Malta to Italy, and possibly grants independence to Egypt and/or returns Gibraltar to Spain. Also all surrounded UK troops are returned to them.
Poland: Annexed by Germany and SU.
France: Loses Alsace Lorraine to Germany, possibly Savoy and/or Corsica to Italy (Savoy was ceded to France when Italy unified in the 19th century). Also temporarily, France has a demilitarised zone like the one they forced on Germany after WW1 and France has to pay significant reparations to Germany in the form of resources and military factories transferred for free. For France, its re-militarisation and the cancellation of reparation payments would be possible but would give Germany a casus belli.

BENELUX, Denmark and Norway: neutral or fascist leaning governments, but independent, but possibly also paying reparations to Germany (resources/factories).
Plus a non aggression pact is in place between Britain and the Axis (excluding Japan) including a no intervention clause in the case of war between Germany and the SU. This would also most likely push England to make a defensive alliance with the USA.