Could Hitler have forced Britain to make peace?

[K9Buck]

After the Germans took France, the Germans quickly seized France's tanks, artillery, rifles, ammunition, aircraft, and huge stores of oil. In other words, they disarmed the French army and "air force". The French Navy was left untouched.

Here's what I posit that Hitler could have done differently that would have resulted in peace with Britain. Leave. Yep, leave France. Leave Norway. Leave Denmark, the Netherlands and, Belgium. Hitler could have told the British, French, Norwegians, etc., that he never wanted war with the west and that he has no territorial ambitions against them nor their colonies. He could (and did) disarm their militaries, destroy their defenses and then leave.

The British would have lost the moral upper-hand. Their European allies would NOT have wanted to go to battle again against the Nazis. The pressure in England for the British to end the war would have been IMMENSE. Besides, without the permission of western, European nations to enter their air space, coastal areas, etc., I don't know how the British could have waged war against Germany.

And if it had been successful, there would have been no "Battle of Britain". Hitler would not have had to fear a British entry into Greece, which resulted in the Germans going into Greece (after Mussolini's inept army failed) which delayed his attack on the Soviet Union.

As well, look at the immense losses the Germans suffered in the Battle of Britain not only in terms of aircraft but, more importantly, good pilots. Imagine that the Germans did not need huge numbers of forces tied up occupying France and the rest of western Europe.

Imagine the Germans not having to contend with a daily barrage of British and then, British & American bombers (this assumes that Germany does NOT declare war on the U.S.).

Of course, one impediment to all of this is that Hitler was apparently obsessed with deporting Jews from France, Belgium, etc., and exterminating them. Would Hitler have given up on that endeavor in return for all of the above? And what would the west have done once they learned (eventually) what Hitler was doing to the German, Polish, and Jews from the Soviet Union? Then again, if the U.S. chose to remain isolated, what could they have done?

With all that said, I still don't believe that the Germans could have taken and kept the great territories in Ukraine that Hitler fantasized about settling with German farmers. The war may have lasted years beyond 1945 but, ultimately, the Soviet Union's vast resource of manpower would have been too much for the Germans to overcome and the outcome would have been the same, albeit a few years later, perhaps.

Thoughts?

 

[Picaro]

Britain still had a vast empire to draw resources from, and the Navy to keep the war going. the Germans simply didn't have the means to invade and they were spread out way too thin, which is why they had to win quickly or face the same stalemate they did in WW I. Even if the French hadn't scuttled their fleet it was still not on a par with Britain's, and the British had a large line of credit with the U.S. and in South America. As William Slim proved in India and the Indian sappers and engineers proved in the Italian invasion, the Empire also had a large reserve of manpower they could have eventually borught to bear. Many of Britain's colonial populations were anglophiles, but we wouldn't know that from the modern versions of history they feed to school children now., and even with the French and Dutch colonies they most certainly didn't like the Japanese over their former European rulers.

And, the alleged 'vast resources' of the Soviet Union didn't exist, they needed all kinds of machinery, metals and alloys, fuel additives, ammo, uniforms, and factory engineers, in order to stay in the war. They only excelled in making mines, and oddly enough they were great bridge builders, with portable bridges and the like that were pretty cool. They didn't even have much in the way of radios, in or outside of their tanks.

However, having most of the air force in the battle against the Soviets would have made a large difference on that front, no doubt. I think they were still spread too thin, and we have the record of British supplied partisans behind German lines and their successes to point to as well; the number of bridges and trains and depots they blew is pretty huge. They would have made shipments of oil by rail from the oil fields to Germany a very tough go over such long lines. The Brits wouldn't have won the war, but they could certainly stalemate the Germans and dominated the oceans. It was they who developed the most effective submarine hunting tactics and technologies. They forced Hitler to mothball his Navy early on in the war.

 

[fncceo]

Could Hitler have forced Britain to make peace?

Forced? No. He tried to force them, it didn't work.

Under a different leader, the results might have been different.

 

[K9Buck]

Ok, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.

 

[Picaro]

The Soviets would have invaded sooner or later anyway; there shouldn't be any doubts about that. Hitler just went first, which is what any other commander would have done in the same position. He didn't have to invade Poland and provoke an alliance against Germany. That was certainly stupid.

 

[esalla]

After the Germans took France, the Germans quickly seized France's tanks, artillery, rifles, ammunition, aircraft, and huge stores of oil. In other words, they disarmed the French army and "air force". The French Navy was left untouched.

Here's what I posit that Hitler could have done differently that would have resulted in peace with Britain. Leave. Yep, leave France. Leave Norway. Leave Denmark, the Netherlands and, Belgium. Hitler could have told the British, French, Norwegians, etc., that he never wanted war with the west and that he has no territorial ambitions against them nor their colonies. He could (and did) disarm their militaries, destroy their defenses and then leave.

The British would have lost the moral upper-hand. Their European allies would NOT have wanted to go to battle again against the Nazis. The pressure in England for the British to end the war would have been IMMENSE. Besides, without the permission of western, European nations to enter their air space, coastal areas, etc., I don't know how the British could have waged war against Germany.

And if it had been successful, there would have been no "Battle of Britain". Hitler would not have had to fear a British entry into Greece, which resulted in the Germans going into Greece (after Mussolini's inept army failed) which delayed his attack on the Soviet Union.

As well, look at the immense losses the Germans suffered in the Battle of Britain not only in terms of aircraft but, more importantly, good pilots. Imagine that the Germans did not need huge numbers of forces tied up occupying France and the rest of western Europe.

Imagine the Germans not having to contend with a daily barrage of British and then, British & American bombers (this assumes that Germany does NOT declare war on the U.S.).

Of course, one impediment to all of this is that Hitler was apparently obsessed with deporting Jews from France, Belgium, etc., and exterminating them. Would Hitler have given up on that endeavor in return for all of the above? And what would the west have done once they learned (eventually) what Hitler was doing to the German, Polish, and Jews from the Soviet Union? Then again, if the U.S. chose to remain isolated, what could they have done?

With all that said, I still don't believe that the Germans could have taken and kept the great territories in Ukraine that Hitler fantasized about settling with German farmers. The war may have lasted years beyond 1945 but, ultimately, the Soviet Union's vast resource of manpower would have been too much for the Germans to overcome and the outcome would have been the same, albeit a few years later, perhaps.

Thoughts?

If you still have your emergency cyanide pill. it's time to use it

 

[Picaro]

Ok, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.

I think the Brits under Churchill and the other pols were pretty obstinate and had been at this game a long long time. They also weren't stupid about Stalin, but Hitler made them shift their priorities temporarily. They went right back to The Great Game of surrounding Russia with enemies as soon as Germany was finished. Leopards don't change their spots, as the old say8ing goes, and the Russians were always expansionists; becoming 'Reds' didn't change that fundamental fact about them. They still are today as well. All the dictatorships are.

 

[there4eyeM]

This is all just saying that if Hitler had not been Hitler, with all his distorted thinking, things would have been different. They certainly would have been. What might have happened, if the right had not taken over in Germany, is that the left would have. Imagine the Soviet Union and a Marxist Germany together. One catastrophe can occult another. This no defense of Nazism, it is merely an observation about totalitarianism of whatever 'flavor'.

 

[there4eyeM]

Ok, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.

I think the Brits under Churchill and the other pols were pretty obstinate and had been at this game a long long time. They also weren't stupid about Stalin, but Hitler made them shift their priorities temporarily. They went right back to The Great Game of surrounding Russia with enemies as soon as Germany was finished. Leopards don't change their spots, as the old say8ing goes, and the Russians were always expansionists; becoming 'Reds' didn't change that fundamental fact about them. They still are today as well. All the dictatorships are.

We can only add to the last phrase, "and must be".

 

[Taz]

Hitler's dumbest move was to try to take Russia.

 

[K9Buck]

Ok, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.

I think the Brits under Churchill and the other pols were pretty obstinate and had been at this game a long long time. They also weren't stupid about Stalin, but Hitler made them shift their priorities temporarily. They went right back to The Great Game of surrounding Russia with enemies as soon as Germany was finished. Leopards don't change their spots, as the old say8ing goes, and the Russians were always expansionists; becoming 'Reds' didn't change that fundamental fact about them. They still are today as well. All the dictatorships are.

Perhaps but, shortly after the end of the war, the British voters largely opposed Churchill and his fellow conservatives. I maintain my belief that, had Hitler pulled his forces out of western Europe and made peace, the British people would NOT have supported all-out war against Germany. They would rightly ask, why should hundreds of thousands (or millions) of British boys die for Poland? The fact that the conservatives did so poorly in the elections right after the end of WW2 lends credence to my theory, or so I believe.

 

[K9Buck]

Hitler's dumbest move was to try to take Russia.

That's easy to say now. The Soviet military appeared to be a bad joke. Had the Germans invaded 30 days earlier and focused all their forces on taking Moscow, it's possible that the Germans could have taken Moscow. That wouldn't have ended the war, but it would have been a monumental victory.

 

[fncceo]

Hitler's dumbest move was to try to take Russia.

Actually, it was a doable plan. Initially, Operation Barbarossa was a success. Millions of square miles of Soviet territory taken and over a million casualties.

The biggest failure was lack of strategic planning for a long campaign. The successes of Poland and France made the Germans overconfident that the campaign would be short.

 

[Taz]

Hitler's dumbest move was to try to take Russia.

Actually, it was a doable plan. Initially, Operation Barbarossa was a success. Millions of square miles of Soviet territory taken and over a million casualties.

The biggest failure was lack of strategic planning for a long campaign. The successes of Poland and France made the Germans overconfident that the campaign would be short.

There's NO WAY they could take Russia. It's too big. Like fighting in Africa, senseless.

 

[harmonica]

Ok, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.

I think the Brits under Churchill and the other pols were pretty obstinate and had been at this game a long long time. They also weren't stupid about Stalin, but Hitler made them shift their priorities temporarily. They went right back to The Great Game of surrounding Russia with enemies as soon as Germany was finished. Leopards don't change their spots, as the old say8ing goes, and the Russians were always expansionists; becoming 'Reds' didn't change that fundamental fact about them. They still are today as well. All the dictatorships are.

Perhaps but, shortly after the end of the war, the British voters largely opposed Churchill and his fellow conservatives. I maintain my belief that, had Hitler pulled his forces out of western Europe and made peace, the British people would NOT have supported all-out war against Germany. They would rightly ask, why should hundreds of thousands (or millions) of British boys die for Poland? The fact that the conservatives did so poorly in the elections right after the end of WW2 lends credence to my theory, or so I believe.

1. they just completed one of the greatest triumphs ever, and then they will give it all up? no way--humans are not like that
2. thousands of dead/missing/wounded and Britain will just say ''ok''?
3. Britain went to war over the invasion of Poland--so is hitler getting out of there also? --but Russia is in there also....???!!!
4. Germany had enemy armies on both fronts in Germany/cities destroyed by bombing/etc and they still did not surrender
Japan had most of her major cities bombed to hell with the US taking Okinawa and they still did not surrender
why would Britain give up?
5. upper hand?? they unlawfully went into all of these countries and they are pissed.
....Denmark had a non-aggression pact with Germany!--so, like the Americans were pissed off at Pearl Harbor, the Danes are pissed off at Germany --they want revenge/etc
6. that's not how wars work--you start a war, and don't get your way --like ''let's go back to the way it was'''

 

[beautress]

After the Germans took France, the Germans quickly seized France's tanks, artillery, rifles, ammunition, aircraft, and huge stores of oil. In other words, they disarmed the French army and "air force". The French Navy was left untouched.

Here's what I posit that Hitler could have done differently that would have resulted in peace with Britain. Leave. Yep, leave France. Leave Norway. Leave Denmark, the Netherlands and, Belgium. Hitler could have told the British, French, Norwegians, etc., that he never wanted war with the west and that he has no territorial ambitions against them nor their colonies. He could (and did) disarm their militaries, destroy their defenses and then leave.

The British would have lost the moral upper-hand. Their European allies would NOT have wanted to go to battle again against the Nazis. The pressure in England for the British to end the war would have been IMMENSE. Besides, without the permission of western, European nations to enter their air space, coastal areas, etc., I don't know how the British could have waged war against Germany.

And if it had been successful, there would have been no "Battle of Britain". Hitler would not have had to fear a British entry into Greece, which resulted in the Germans going into Greece (after Mussolini's inept army failed) which delayed his attack on the Soviet Union.

As well, look at the immense losses the Germans suffered in the Battle of Britain not only in terms of aircraft but, more importantly, good pilots. Imagine that the Germans did not need huge numbers of forces tied up occupying France and the rest of western Europe.

Imagine the Germans not having to contend with a daily barrage of British and then, British & American bombers (this assumes that Germany does NOT declare war on the U.S.).

Of course, one impediment to all of this is that Hitler was apparently obsessed with deporting Jews from France, Belgium, etc., and exterminating them. Would Hitler have given up on that endeavor in return for all of the above? And what would the west have done once they learned (eventually) what Hitler was doing to the German, Polish, and Jews from the Soviet Union? Then again, if the U.S. chose to remain isolated, what could they have done?

With all that said, I still don't believe that the Germans could have taken and kept the great territories in Ukraine that Hitler fantasized about settling with German farmers. The war may have lasted years beyond 1945 but, ultimately, the Soviet Union's vast resource of manpower would have been too much for the Germans to overcome and the outcome would have been the same, albeit a few years later, perhaps.

Thoughts?

Free oil and gas for war. In exchange for wiping out and the genocide of all European Jews. Hitler was promised this by the then-Mayor of Jerusalem along with thousands more muslim fighters who would assist with the assassination of all Jews in Europe and expropriation of all Jewish assets in Europe. The mayor also made clear his payback would be Hitler's agreement to go after the Jews in Jerusalem and upon the Arabian peninsula as well. That ended when Hitler died.

Seeing their fellow Jews' fate and their own peril, the Jews procured their ancestral Promised Land in the war of 1948. Israel now had a homeland once more.

 

[harmonica]

Hitler's dumbest move was to try to take Russia.

Actually, it was a doable plan. Initially, Operation Barbarossa was a success. Millions of square miles of Soviet territory taken and over a million casualties.

The biggest failure was lack of strategic planning for a long campaign. The successes of Poland and France made the Germans overconfident that the campaign would be short.

There's NO WAY they could take Russia. It's too big. Like fighting in Africa, senseless.

thank you..a lot of people don't understand that simple aspect

 

[K9Buck]

Ok, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.

I think the Brits under Churchill and the other pols were pretty obstinate and had been at this game a long long time. They also weren't stupid about Stalin, but Hitler made them shift their priorities temporarily. They went right back to The Great Game of surrounding Russia with enemies as soon as Germany was finished. Leopards don't change their spots, as the old say8ing goes, and the Russians were always expansionists; becoming 'Reds' didn't change that fundamental fact about them. They still are today as well. All the dictatorships are.

Perhaps but, shortly after the end of the war, the British voters largely opposed Churchill and his fellow conservatives. I maintain my belief that, had Hitler pulled his forces out of western Europe and made peace, the British people would NOT have supported all-out war against Germany. They would rightly ask, why should hundreds of thousands (or millions) of British boys die for Poland? The fact that the conservatives did so poorly in the elections right after the end of WW2 lends credence to my theory, or so I believe.

1. they just completed one of the greatest triumphs ever, and then they will give it all up? no way--humans are not like that
2. thousands of dead/missing/wounded and Britain will just say ''ok''?
3. Britain went to war over the invasion of Poland--so is hitler getting out of there also? --but Russia is in there also....???!!!
4. Germany had enemy armies on both fronts in Germany/cities destroyed by bombing/etc and they still did not surrender
Japan had most of her major cities bombed to hell with the US taking Okinawa and they still did not surrender
why would Britain give up?
5. upper hand?? they unlawfully went into all of these countries and they are pissed.
....Denmark had a non-aggression pact with Germany!--so, like the Americans were pissed off at Pearl Harbor, the Danes are pissed off at Germany --they want revenge/etc
6. that's not how wars work--you start a war, and don't get your way --like ''let's go back to the way it was'''

For all intents and purposes, Hitler had won the war. It was over. Hitler didn't know how to win the peace after he had won the war. Hitler's delusions knew no bounds. He felt that he could occupy most of Europe and fight Britain, the USSR, the U.S., Canada, along with everyone else.

We can agree to disagree if Britain would have been willing to make peace under the scenario that I provided.

 

[K9Buck]

The "Palestinians" have a long and distinguished history of being on the wrong side of the war EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

 

[rightwinger]

Hitler's dumbest move was to try to take Russia.

If he had maintained his fragile peace with the Soviets, it would have been extremely costly to dislodge them from Western Europe