Was the Blitz a mistake?

[mursolini]

The moment Chamberlain leaves office and Churchill becomes PM, there is literally 0 chance of Britain conceding anything to Germany. If you read the War Cabinet papers, this will become clear. You have to remember that in 1940, Britain was still considered by many in Churchill's cabinet as the premier world power.

I have also not seen anything that would indicate Hitler would abandon his lebensraum in France - expanding the German straight was, after all, a major objective of his.

"If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground"
I think the War Cabinet Crisis perfectly outlines Britain's willingness to fight to the last drop of blood. People like Halifax and DLlG were open to the possibility of a negotiated surrender, true, but few others were.

"Wilingness to fight", aside from bravada and chest pumping, tend to be extremely circumstantial.

Had Italy pushed succesfully in the Med, Germany made treaty with USSR and attacked/perswaded Turkey, faced with invasion into Iraq and maybe, pressure on Persia, UK could see things different. Had a succesfull submarine blockade be established, things could get different as well. Obviously, it is easy to do the chest pumping if you`re sure that your position is safe, which it pretty much was in 1940.

 

[misterbean]

"Wilingness to fight", aside from bravada and chest pumping, tend to be extremely circumstantial.

Had Italy pushed succesfully in the Med, Germany made treaty with USSR and attacked/perswaded Turkey, faced with invasion into Iraq and maybe, pressure on Persia, UK could see things different. Had a succesfull submarine blockade be established, things could get different as well. Obviously, it is easy to do the chest pumping if you`re sure that your position is safe, which it pretty much was in 1940.

Actually, in 1940 nobody was sure what would happen. Nobody could have stated with any certainty that Britain was safe. If they were, they wouldn't have send their children north. Twice.

 

[Aries666]

When I read the original question I just got an image of some poor German pilot getting dragged before Hitler to explain why his bombs landed on London and not some RAF base

 

[Secret Master]

Actually, in 1940 nobody was sure what would happen. Nobody could have stated with any certainty that Britain was safe. If they were, they wouldn't have send their children north. Twice.

I thought they were doing that so they could form an alliance with Narnia? Or am I mixing up my HOI and CS Lewis fan fiction again?

Seriously, though, I thought moving the children north was more about saving them from bombs than from invasion.

 

[misterbean]

Mostly about the bombs. Bad example, but my theory remains that noone would have put a bet on UK surviving intact until, say, early '41 when it became obvious that there wasn't going to be any invasion.

 

[Praetori]

"If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground"
I think the War Cabinet Crisis perfectly outlines Britain's willingness to fight to the last drop of blood. People like Halifax and DLlG were open to the possibility of a negotiated surrender, true, but few others were.

Then why did the cabinet crisis occur?

 

[mursolini]

Actually, in 1940 nobody was sure what would happen. Nobody could have stated with any certainty that Britain was safe. If they were, they wouldn't have send their children north. Twice.

Mostly about the bombs. Bad example, but my theory remains that noone would have put a bet on UK surviving intact until, say, early '41 when it became obvious that there wasn't going to be any invasion.

Well, Britain was safe, the leadership was well aware of that. Sending children north was far more PR and fearmongering that any real practical necessity.