Interesting debate.....

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: redcoat

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

I may have got this wrong but I have the impression that the decision not to seek peace terms was a near-run thing. Wasn't it the case that Halifax was strongly urging HMG to seek terms, but failed due to Churchill's defiance? If so, and if Churchill were taken out of the equation, perhaps the Halifax lobby would have proved irresistible.

If I remember Andrew Marr correctly the decision on whether to continue the war in 1940 was down to the five-man coalition War Cabinet. Two of the Conservatives – Chamberlain and Lord Halifax - were in favour of a negotiated peace with Germany that preserved the independence of the UK/Commonwealth and the integrity of the Empire.

Would Chamberlain's Government have survived such an attempt? These were the same idiots that had promised "Peace in our times" two years earlier, then had to go to war to a year later. Hard to see them doing another "flip-flop" and getting away without a "vote of confidence".

It is strange but true that Chamberlain still wanted a negotiated settlement in 1940 after what had happened to his worthless piece of paper from Munich. As I said in my last post I don’t believe that Parliament would have accepted a negotiated peace in any case. I believe that any PM who suggested such a negotiated peace would have faced and lost a ‘Vote of No Confidence’ at some point – either during the negotiations themselves or after the terms of the proposed treaty had been put before – and rejected by – the House of Commons.

[redcoat]

This video (Link) – from the BBC series The Making of Modern Britain – tells the story of what actually happened. Andrew Marr’s book looks at the subject in more detail.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: redcoat

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

I may have got this wrong but I have the impression that the decision not to seek peace terms was a near-run thing. Wasn't it the case that Halifax was strongly urging HMG to seek terms, but failed due to Churchill's defiance? If so, and if Churchill were taken out of the equation, perhaps the Halifax lobby would have proved irresistible.

If I remember Andrew Marr correctly the decision on whether to continue the war in 1940 was down to the five-man coalition War Cabinet. Two of the Conservatives – Chamberlain and Lord Halifax - were in favour of a negotiated peace with Germany that preserved the independence of the UK/Commonwealth and the integrity of the Empire.

.........These were the same idiots that had promised "Peace in our times" two years earlier........

Warspite1

I think idiots is a little harsh though I understand where you are coming from. Chamberlain was not the bad guy here, he was a decent man - a good, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a decent enough peace time leader. In acting as he did to try and achieve peace in Europe, he was aware of the carnage of WWI and he was all too aware of Britain's parlous financial position, caused largely by that war.

He thought he could deal with Hitler (he was not the first or last politician to be so misguided - didn't Roosevelt say the same of Uncle Joe?) but clearly failed to grasp that the man was a sociopath; a man who simply couldn't be dealt with using the normal rules that Chamberlain and others worked to.

With the horror of WWI in mind, I don't blame Chamberlain and others for trying their utmost to keep the peace; it is just such a crying shame that Czechoslovakia was sold out by Britain and France in their efforts to do so.....

Quite simply, he was the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

How many British troops (non-commonwealth) were commanded by Montgomery in Normandy in June-August 1944?

I think there were something like 150,000 Allied troops ashore on D+1, 500,000 by D+7 and 2 million by late July. Losing 200,000 PWs at Dunkirk may have slowed down D-day planning or minimized the subsequent British contribution on D-day itself, but the end result for the war in Europe would likely have been the same-provided that the D-day lodgement itself was still successful.

If victory in Europe were delayed, however, I can't help but think that there would be a strong chorus of American military voices voting for use of the first nuclear device on Berlin rather than Hiroshima. In many ways, the Germans got out of the war *just* in time. Who knows how the post-war landscape would have looked then?

Warspite1

Assuming, as the OP opened up with, there was no "Miracle of Dunkirk" and further assuming that the British stubbornly refused to give in, I think by the time we come to 1944, it is too difficult to predict.

The absence from the Order of Battle of these 200,000 combat troops and support elements would surely have had a knock-on effect on strategy in the Middle East and possibly the Far East. Even if that was somehow not the case, i.e. the
campaigns there followed roughly the same path, then that still leaves 200,000 less men for Torch, Husky, Mainland Italy etc.

It is well known that many in the US favoured hitting France in 1943, but ultimately Churchill's "soft-underbelly" strategy won that argument. With less troops available to carry out that strategy maybe the US would have got their way?

It may have taken longer, been more costly and achieved in a slightly different manner, but I agree with CB, the end result would have been the same for the Nazi's. It's why Britain and the Commonwealth's decision not to give in, despite the situation they found themselves in post the fall of France, should never be overlooked.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: redcoat



If I remember Andrew Marr correctly the decision on whether to continue the war in 1940 was down to the five-man coalition War Cabinet. Two of the Conservatives – Chamberlain and Lord Halifax - were in favour of a negotiated peace with Germany that preserved the independence of the UK/Commonwealth and the integrity of the Empire.

.........These were the same idiots that had promised "Peace in our times" two years earlier........

Warspite1

I think idiots is a little harsh though I understand where you are coming from.

Quite simply, he was the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Not sure I can agree. When you think you can buy safety for yourself by selling someone else down the river, you're an idiot. And by stepping in and "negotiating" the surrender of Czechoslovakia to Hitler he proved himself a coward and a fool. His guiding principle seems to have been "I don't have to run faster than the bear..., I only have to run faster than you." Which works for a while..., then the bear gets hungry again. Chamberlain was definately "the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time"..., but when is it the right time to be led by an idiot?

[Raverdave]

It is doubtful that Churchill would have remained in office if Dunkirk had fallen. You couldn't loose 220226 men and still have the confidence of Parliament.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

It is doubtful that Churchill would have remained in office if Dunkirk had fallen. You couldn't loose 220226 men and still have the confidence of Parliament.

Warspite1

But he had only been in charge since May 10th - how could he be blamed for that? He remained in office post Singapore and THAT could be laid at his door.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: redcoat



If I remember Andrew Marr correctly the decision on whether to continue the war in 1940 was down to the five-man coalition War Cabinet. Two of the Conservatives – Chamberlain and Lord Halifax - were in favour of a negotiated peace with Germany that preserved the independence of the UK/Commonwealth and the integrity of the Empire.

.........These were the same idiots that had promised "Peace in our times" two years earlier........

Warspite1

I think idiots is a little harsh though I understand where you are coming from. Chamberlain was not the bad guy here, he was a decent man - a good, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a decent enough peace time leader. In acting as he did to try and achieve peace in Europe, he was aware of the carnage of WWI and he was all too aware of Britain's parlous financial position, caused largely by that war.

He thought he could deal with Hitler (he was not the first or last politician to be so misguided - didn't Roosevelt say the same of Uncle Joe?) but clearly failed to grasp that the man was a sociopath; a man who simply couldn't be dealt with using the normal rules that Chamberlain and others worked to.

With the horror of WWI in mind, I don't blame Chamberlain and others for trying their utmost to keep the peace; it is just such a crying shame that Czechoslovakia was sold out by Britain and France in their efforts to do so.....

Quite simply, he was the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't know modern British history that well--I'm an American teaching in England--but my experience of British and European politicians in the ten years I've been here has made me appreciative of American politics. There doesn't seem to be anyone with as much brains, leadership skills and simple common sense as Obama and a few others. Chamberlain is a familiar figure from UK politics--a PM in water well over his head. Never willing to question his assumptions. Trying to muddle through and getting sucked deeper and deeper into the whirlpool. Neither prudent nor courageous. And in the end not really very wise.

[warspite1]

Yeah Mike as I said, I know where you are coming from on this. In his defence - and it's not much of one, but simply proves he was the wrong man etc - is that in handing over the Sudetenland, he naively thought he was keeping the peace by giving back to the Germans their former territory.

Should he have known that Hitler would not stop there and simply walk into Czechoslovakia, now shorn of it's defences, six months later? Well one Winston S Churchill had been telling anyone that would listen what Hitler was about.......

[warspite1]

.....and British politicians are different from US one's because? Strange comment.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

.....and British politicians are different from US one's because? Strange comment.

Much smaller gene pool. Also, much narrower educational background--they have a three year degree if they went to university, a one-year degree if they have a military background--and absolutely hagridden by class. They never question their assumptions as far as I can tell. There is no Plan B.

[fcharton]

ORIGINAL: redcoat
It is strange but true that Chamberlain still wanted a negotiated settlement in 1940 after what had happened to his worthless piece of paper from Munich. As I said in my last post I don’t believe that Parliament would have accepted a negotiated peace in any case. I believe that any PM who suggested such a negotiated peace would have faced and lost a ‘Vote of No Confidence’ at some point – either during the negotiations themselves or after the terms of the proposed treaty had been put before – and rejected by – the House of Commons.

But wouldn't the capture of 200-300 thousand British soldiers after the failure of Dunkirk sway public opinion? In France, the prisoners proved to be a very strong card, that the Germans used to their advantage throughout the Occupation. Of course, the number of French POWs was much higher than what the British would have suffered at Dunkirk. Yet, a quarter of a million "boys" in enemy hands would affect public opinion.

Also, national morale was bolstered by the fact the evacuation could be presented as a heroic quasi-victory, after an unending series a humiliating defeats. Without it, and with all the Expeditionnary Force lost in France, would support for that Continental war continue?

As for the reasons for a negociated settlement, I am not sure "saving the Empire" would have been the most important aspect. In early 1940, there was no Pacific War, just (in the eyes of most europeans) a local conflict in China, and a couple border disputes in Manchuria. The first real evidence that Japan would go for Western colonies was the invasion of Indochina, in September 40.

Francois

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yeah Mike as I said, I know where you are coming from on this. In his defence - and it's not much of one, but simply proves he was the wrong man etc - is that in handing over the Sudetenland, he naively thought he was keeping the peace by giving back to the Germans their former territory. Problem here is that the Sudetenland had NEVER been German territory. It had once belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but not to Germany.

Should he have known that Hitler would not stop there and simply walk into Czechoslovakia, now shorn of it's defences, six months later? Well one Winston S Churchill had been telling anyone that would listen what Hitler was about....... And Chamberlain and his buddies refused to listen..., in spite of Churchill being proved right again and again. Believing only what you want to believe in the face of continuing proof to the contrary is not brilliance..., it's lunacy.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: herwin
I don't know modern British history that well--I'm an American teaching in England--but my experience of British and European politicians in the ten years I've been here has made me appreciative of American politics. There doesn't seem to be anyone with as much brains, leadership skills and simple common sense as Obama and a few others. Chamberlain is a familiar figure from UK politics--a PM in water well over his head. Never willing to question his assumptions. Trying to muddle through and getting sucked deeper and deeper into the whirlpool. Neither prudent nor courageous. And in the end not really very wise.

Personally herwin, I'd swap Maggie Thatcher for ANY and ALL of our last four loser Presidents.

[5thGuardsTankArmy]

Eh.. Well Truman survived the US Public when he on 14th August lyed to the US Public and said that Japan had agreed to a Unconditional Surrender...    He sort of forgot to mention that it was a Conditional Surrender, and one of Japans conditions was that the Empiror would remain Head of State. ..   so why not?

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy

Eh.. Well Truman survived the US Public when he on 14th August lyed to the US Public and said that Japan had agreed to a Unconditional Surrender...    He sort of forgot to mention that it was a Conditional Surrender, and one of Japans conditions was that the Empiror would remain Head of State. ..   so why not?

He didn't lie. Hirohito was regarded by the US Government as a quaint tradition.NOT A HEAD OF STATE. His treatment at the hands of MacAurthur illustrates this. Hirohito went to visit Mac, not the other way around. Hirohito dressed in full diplomatic costume, whereas Mac didn't even bother to put on a tie. Mac kept Hirohito waiting, not the other way around. And lastly, Hirohito bowed to Mac. I don't know if you've ever spent any time in Japan 5th Guards, but I have, and I can tell you that there is no more carefully watched act than who bows to whom, and how deeply. ANY Japanese seeing the photo's of that meeting would have no doubt whatsoever as to who was in charge.

The only concession that Truman gave the Japanese , was that Hirohito would not be tried as a war crime, and could be treated however the Japanese wanted to. That wasn't a concession (or lie, as you styled it) It was an act of mercy, both to Hirohito and the Japanese people.

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


Problem here is that the Sudetenland had NEVER been German territory. It had once belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but not to Germany.

[/b]

Sorry, but this is somehow wrong.
Bohemia was, as a matter of fact part of "Germany" for almost 1000 years. Until Napoleon Austria was part of Germany. The people living in the area felt as Germans. Would the victors of WWI have stood to their word and have asked people to which counttry they liked to belong to, large parts of Silesia and Westprussia would have stayed German and the Sudeten would have joined, too.

So, with all respect, your statement is plain wrong.

[LeeChard]

Without those 200.000 men would the Brits have been able to spare enough troops to defend North Africa? If Rommel had taken the Suez the war would have been very different, IMO

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I dunno, 200,000 is a lot of men.

Didn't the USA leave a similar number in the PI? And how many did the UK lose at Singapore? Maybe not as many , but I don't see the British tossing in the sponge. Quitting just isn't in their nature. It might give them pause, but I think mthey'd still fight on.

[fcharton]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Didn't the USA leave a similar number in the PI? And how many did the UK lose at Singapore?

American troops in the Philippines in 1941 were around 30 000, the rest of the 150k+ were local recruits. It makes a huge difference, public opinion wise.

More British troops were captured in Malaya, but at this point, the UK had been in war for 18 months, the war had become global, the Home Islands had been bombed, some territories had been invaded... Quitting was impossible by then.

Dunkirk is different, I believe, because it is at the very beginning of the conflict, at a time when Britain is still intervening abroad.

Francois