Did the UK have any other choices in 1940...

[King Thomas]

other then a) doing what it did in OTL & losing it's Empire, much of it's power and getting bankrupted in the short term or

b) ending up as a Nazi puppet state like Vichy France?

Could it have done anything else? (such as staying neutral until Hitler declared war on the USA in 1941 & the USA was ready to fight in Europe.)

 

[Novosibrisk]

A cynical British government could have cut a deal with Hitler and then stabbed him in the back, though you'd probably need a POD earlier than 1940. Though that would leave the Nazis domminant on continental europe, which is probably worse than national bankrupcy. Also Roosevelt is going to have a hell of a time selling a war to the American public if the even British aren't fighting.

 

[Draco]

In the long run if Britain decides not to fight it’ll mean eventually having to choose between either Germany or the US in regards to who it wants to play second fiddle to assuming the former isn’t eventually crushed by the Soviets. And I think it’s also rather unlikely that the US and Germany would end up at war on OTL’s schedule if Britain isn’t at war. So I don’t really see the UK being all that better off in the long run more likely its a lot worse off in fact.

 

[lothaw]

Make it a series of shorter wars, kinda like the Napolenoic Wars... that could be interesting.

 

[rast]

There's a good prospect that without Anglo-French warranty for Poland (etc.), Hitler wouldn't have turned against France and Britain at all. He was not interested in Western Europe, he wanted to get at the Jews and the 'Lebensraum' in the East and finish the Bolsheviks (which were synonym with Jews for him).
Western Europe could just have sat back and watch the two totalitarian empires getting at each others throats. - And the surviving Soviet Union would have been much weaker than Stalin's Empire of 1945.

 

[fhaessig]

There's a good prospect that without Anglo-French warranty for Poland (etc.), Hitler wouldn't have turned against France and Britain at all. He was not interested in Western Europe, he wanted to get at the Jews and the 'Lebensraum' in the East and finish the Bolsheviks (which were synonym with Jews for him).
Western Europe could just have sat back and watch the two totalitarian empires getting at each others throats. - And the surviving Soviet Union would have been much weaker than Stalin's Empire of 1945.

check 'Mein Kampf'. He wanted to declaw France before attacking USSR to get rid of the chance of a two front war. However, it's correct he wanted to avoid fighting UK if he could.

 

[SunilTanna]

other then a) doing what it did in OTL & losing it's Empire, much of it's power and getting bankrupted in the short term or

b) ending up as a Nazi puppet state like Vichy France?

Could it have done anything else? (such as staying neutral until Hitler declared war on the USA in 1941 & the USA was ready to fight in Europe.)

A. Hitler wouldn't have declared war on the USA in 1941, Pearl Harbor or not, if Britain had already dropped out the war.

1. One of the reasons why the Japanese felt able to attack in 1941, was the European war. In retrospect, we know now the much of British Empire, Dutch and Free French forces in the Far East were defeated by the Japanese, and if anything were overestimated by the Japanese - but we don't know that in retrospect, and we don't how the Japanese would have felt if these forces had been able to draw on Royal Navy and European reinforcements.

2. The main reason that German-US relations were bad, were German u-boats were sinking ships bound for Britain, and the USN had also started engaging German subs in an undeclared war.


B. Churchill made a number of mistakes during the war, but his handling of the summer crisis of 1940 led to the correct decision, to fight on

Churchill wanted to fight on, even if it meant defeat - and while he hoped for victory, in mid 1940, he expected defeat (he said himself he expected to be dead in a couple of months) .

In summer 1940, everybody, including Hitler, Churchill, and most of the world's politic and military elites expected Britain to be defeated, and soon. They nearly all, vastly overestimated Germany's capacity to bomb, blockade (via u-boat) and invade Britain into submission.

But in cabinet, Churchill couldn't argue that he was arguing to a fight on towards defeat, so basically he argued that even if a peace deal might have to eventually be reached, hanging on would at least get Britain better terms than a deal in summer 1940. I think this was correct argument (a peace deal say in Jan 1941, would have been much more favorite to the UK than one in say July 1940) - even if it was slightly disingenious of Churchill to argue it the time, when he really wanted to fight on to victory or defeat.

 

[The Kiat]

The Reich did offer Britain terms that were something along the line of Britain would have a free hand in its empire, while Germany would have a free hand in Europe. But Churchill was one defiant and stubborn man, and had sense enough not to trust the Reich to honor its treaty.

 

[thevaliant]

... either Germany or the US in regards to who it wants to play second fiddle to assuming the latter isn’t eventually crushed by the Soviets.

I assume you mean the former of the two, as the United States isn't likely to be crushed by the Soviet Union in the 1940's.

 

[67th Tigers]

other then a) doing what it did in OTL & losing it's Empire, much of it's power and getting bankrupted in the short term or

b) ending up as a Nazi puppet state like Vichy France?

Could it have done anything else? (such as staying neutral until Hitler declared war on the USA in 1941 & the USA was ready to fight in Europe.)

There was no possibility of Britain ending up a German puppet state, ever. Britain was always totally secure. Germany cared not a jot about Britain or France, the Nazi ideal was to have a united German race, with no non-Germans inside their borders. The Slavic races would have their own nations based on racial lines, and the Jews would be exiled to Madagascar. Britain and France were simply an inconvenience getting in the way of the main effort, the destruction of Bolshevik Russia.

 

[Sandman396]

Can I suggest reading "Fateful Choices" by Ian Kershaw

 

[Grimm Reaper]

67th Tigers, except for Alsace-Lorraine and the little detail of murdering a few tens of millions of Poles, Russians and other Slavs...

 

[Andrew Hudson]

Yes accomodation could have been reached on more favourable terms than those obtained by Vichy France. The bulk of the empire would be retained apart from a few former German colonies and Hitler would be the dominant force in Europe outside the USSR. Britain had not been invaded or suffered any major defeat. There would have been complications if Italy had joined in for some of the spoils and maybe the Italians would have wanted a few colonies but the prospect of peace may have led to Hitler leaning on them.

The long term consequences would be Germany becomes a superpower and Britain a backwater with the British Army being bogged down in a war of attrition in India and eventually being kicked out

 

[67th Tigers]

Yes accomodation could have been reached on more favourable terms than those obtained by Vichy France. The bulk of the empire would be retained apart from a few former German colonies and Hitler would be the dominant force in Europe outside the USSR. Britain had not been invaded or suffered any major defeat. There would have been complications if Italy had joined in for some of the spoils and maybe the Italians would have wanted a few colonies but the prospect of peace may have led to Hitler leaning on them.

The long term consequences would be Germany becomes a superpower and Britain a backwater with the British Army being bogged down in a war of attrition in India and eventually being kicked out

Hitler deliberately stated he didn't want any extra-European colonies.

I fail to see how Britain suddenly becomes a backwater if they don't fight the Germans. Italy will be isolated and defeated. Japan may not be forced into war by bullheaded US "diplomacy". It's a **** thing for Eastern Europe, but matters not one iota to Britain's position and power.

 

[Cornelius]

Italy will be isolated and defeated.

67th Tigers, if Great Britain accept an armistice with Germany after the italian declaration of war, Italy will be included into the peace talks. After all Hitler asked several times Mussolini to join the war...

This doesn't mean that Mussolini is going to carve up the british empire as he dreamed. Realistically he would get Savoy, Nice and maybe (really maybe) Corsica from France and the british Somalia from the UK (a useless piece of land). Gibouti could become part of the package too, but nothing else.
Mussolini could ask for more, of course, but since the peace with Uk is extremely important for Hitler, he would pressure his fellow dictator to accept.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

67th Tigers, except Italy is already in the war and territorial concessions for Mussolini will be insisted on by Hitler. Presumably more at the expense of French colonies rather than British but still...Hitler is not going to sign a peace settlement which knifes his closest ally in the back.

Hitler did want the pre-WWI colonies back, more in terms of correcting the alleged injustice of Versailles rather than any personal yearning for them.


And once Europe is united under Hitler the crumbling British Empire's position and power is thoroughly f---ed. They were facing the loss of India in the 1930s, with the inevitable loss of other colonies to follow. Now the UK is in a permanent cold war state without the NATO allies and in a much worse strategic position so economic matters will only be more urgent and keeping colonies which cost but do not produce will be less justifiable.


Apparently you are unaware that Japan had already been in the war as far as China was concerned since 1937 and as far as the British(and French) were concerned since Tokyo seized French Indochina in 1940. Without US 'bullheaded diplomacy' Japan will get to seize what it likes from the British at Tokyo's leisure and without any allies save the Commonwealth Japan will win.

 

[perfectgeneral]

An earlier seizing of Norway by Britain might be forgivable in the long run? It would mean less of a BEF in northern France, but that isn't such a bad thing. America would condemn it, hell Britain would condemn it,but it would seriously shorten the war.

 

[67th Tigers]

Apparently you are unaware that Japan had already been in the war as far as China was concerned since 1937 and as far as the British(and French) were concerned since Tokyo seized French Indochina in 1940. Without US 'bullheaded diplomacy' Japan will get to seize what it likes from the British at Tokyo's leisure and without any allies save the Commonwealth Japan will win.

http://www.da.mod.uk/podcasts/20060127-neilson-japan.mp3/

 

[Faeelin]

http://www.da.mod.uk/podcasts/20060127-neilson-japan.mp3/

What's it say?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

67th Tigers, won't open.

Does it show that Japan did not invade China in 1937 nor seize French Indochina in 1940?

Or does it just pretend everything was well in the Far East until FDR blocked oil and steel sales to Japan after Japan spent years ignoring diplomatic overtures from everyone, not to mention an invasion of China which was brutal even by Nazi or Soviet standards?