Interesting debate.....

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Warspites post #66 raised a question for me. Lets say Halifax was the PM or that Churchill decided that a honorable peace could be achieved. Entering into talks with Hitler may not have been a bad thing, what could Germany possibly use as leverage to extract terms they found favorable. I have read enough that said Hitler did want peace with England. I don't know what he expected England to give up territory wise or if he just expected some kind of truce. If nothing else changes except UK and Germany are no longer fighting, The Germans would still be freezing in front of Moscow in 41. They would not have as many troops in France perhaps but still not enough to beat Russia.

Several assumptions in the above which simply would not have existed IF the summer of 1940 had witnessed a peace agreement in the west.

1. Hitler would have ordered the bulk of German steel production to be allocated to the Army. No war with Britain means both the navy and airforce would very much take the back seat.

2. Barbarrosa would have started 6 weeks earlier. There would have been no German operation against Yugoslavia and Greece. Those two operations delayed the start of Barbarrosa by six weeks. With the earlier start, even if the exact historical timeline of events occurred, the German objectives would have achieved and the logistics in place to have survived the winter in much better shape.

3. Substantial German garrison forces in the west would have become unneccesary. Even if not fully utilised in Barbarrosa, they would have provided a substantial reservoir to fill out the German army for 1942 OstFront operations. Rather than a single drive in 1942, a two pronged drive which would have prevented STAVKA from accumulating the reserves to undertake operation Uranus.

4. Somewhat problematical that the USSR would receive Lend Lease if no western country received Lend Lease. Unlike Britain and France in 1939/40, the Soviets were not really in a position to greatly benefit from the Cash and Carry policy which predated Lend Lease.

Alfred

[oldman45]

All very good points, but I have to disagree about starting 6 weeks earlier. There is no reason why the events of Yugoslavia would have been any different.

I agree with point #1 and had not thought about point #4.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

All very good points, but I have to disagree about starting 6 weeks earlier. There is no reason why the events of Yugoslavia would have been any different.

I agree with point #1 and had not thought about point #4.

Peace in the West in 1940 means exactly that. There would have been no Yugoslav or Greek operations in 1941.

1. Under the circumstances discussed in this thread there would have been a strong possibility that a peace understanding (probably via an initial armistace) would have been in place before Italy entered the war. At the very least Mussolini would have been aware of the peace negotiations, particularly as Italy had been acting as a peace intermediary in the spring of 1940. No way Italy would have independently declared war against Britain and France if both those countries had complete freedom of action against Italy.

2. Greek independence had been guaranteed by the West. Italy only attacked Greece in October 1940 precisely because she and Germany were already at war with Britain.

3. A Britain at peace would have had nothing to gain in supporting the anti-German Yugoslav coup d'etat of April 1941. With a pro German government in Yugoslavia there would have been no need for a German invasion. Yugoslavia would have been like Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.

4. Unlike AE where an air squadron can be transferred thousands of miles in a single day and be immediately available for combat the very same day, IRL this isn't possible. The German panzers involved in the last minute operation against Yugoslavia and Greece did take time before they could be extricated and returned back into position for Barbarrosa.

5. Barbarrosa was delayed 6 weeks. A major reason for the delay was the last minute German intervention in Yugoslavia. These are just facts, not personal interpretation.

Alfred

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

All very good points, but I have to disagree about starting 6 weeks earlier. There is no reason why the events of Yugoslavia would have been any different.

Warspite1

I have read a number of differing arguments about this. There are those that say Barbarossa could have been launched in May if it had not been for the Yugoslav and Greek/Crete sideshows. There are others that say the ground was too soft to enable a May launch even had everyone been in position.

As it was, didn't Army Group South begin its operations some days after Barbarossa was launched in the North and Centre due to units involved in the Balkans having to get back to their start lines and tanks and vehicles needed refitting?

Despite my limited Eastern Front knowledge, gut feel says that the Soviets would have been in big trouble had the Commonwealth come out of the war. In addition to Alfred's comments above, there would have been:

- No Battle of Britain, with the drain on experienced pilots and machines suffered there.
- No desert sideshow. Okay this is only a few German divisions, a Fliegerkorps or two and one decent general, however these units also needed plenty of replacements due to Rommel's aggressive tactics. These units and their replacements would all have headed east instead.
- German Fallschirmjägers would not have suffered losses in Crete. With Student itching to get them into action, maybe they would have been used to "good" effect in the east?
- Once the bomber offensive began in earnest, the number of artillery pieces needed for the defence of Germany and the occupied countries was huge.
- A bigger Italian army could have been fielded. Though they may have been of questionable combat value, their sheer numbers could have been important against an army demoralised and on the run.
- Perhaps one of the more unknown factors though is morale. Stalin fought on despite horrendous losses knowing that Britain was still in the game - and - by December 41, the US too. Would his willingness to save his own skin be heightened by the knowledge that the French and the British had signed an armistice?

[warspite1]

Alfred - looks like our posts have crossed.

[sprior]

No desert sideshow. Okay this is only a few German divisions, a Fliegerkorps or two and one decent general, however these units also needed plenty of replacements due to Rommel's aggressive tactics. These units and their replacements would all have headed east instead.

More Axis troops surrendered in Tunisia (230,000) than were captured at Stalingrad.

[oldman45]

WoW. I had not thought out things like you two did. Thanks for the input!

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: sprior

No desert sideshow. Okay this is only a few German divisions, a Fliegerkorps or two and one decent general, however these units also needed plenty of replacements due to Rommel's aggressive tactics. These units and their replacements would all have headed east instead.

More Axis troops surrendered in Tunisia (230,000) than were captured at Stalingrad.

Some papers at the time called it "Tunisgrad"...

[Nikademus]

In the early days however, just to keep things in context....the German committment in the desert was a shadow of that in the East. It should also be pointed out that the a large % of the captured troops in Tunisia were Italian. Depending on the author, the entire Med Theater is either painted as a big wasteful sideshow, or a vital battleground that gave the Western Allies a perfect "training" ground for what would be the main event in Europe. (i'm in the latter camp personally) I think Porch, Atkinson and Neillands were on the mark.

However the interesting [new] point is Greece. I share the reservation that a peace treaty with the UK auto-negates Greece. Mussolini attacked Greece without informing or getting approval from Hitler.

If the UK had gone to Greece's aid, this would have put Germany in a pickle re: Barbarossa. At the very least it would have delayed things as the diplomats acrue overtime and drink lots of coffee.

As a side comment, Everything i've read on Hitler's desire for peace with England would have been generous as what he wanted above all else was not English territory, or money etc etc....what he wanted above all else was England's non-interference in his future plans. He actually was a great admirerer of the British Empire and saw it and the new Germanic empire as standing side by side.....at least for the "near" future. Once Russia was taken care of and Germany had it's Lebensraum, a naval race would probably have ensued as Hitler, like the Kaiser before him saw the classic Z-plan fleet as "prestige" units to spread German influence and power throughout the world.

Would make a great Turtledove novel.

[DuckofTindalos]

Or a mediocre Gingrich one...

[Nikademus]

hey if Aliens can invade during WWII....why not a more....er, "down to Earth" alternate WWII history.

[DuckofTindalos]

Indeed... Go right ahead, LogBoy...

[Nikademus]

me?!!

lol.....actually back in the 90's i did a brief stint as a naval fiction author on warships1, including a last (uncompleted) story that combined Gotterdamerung for the Kriegsmarine and IJN with the Philadelphia Experiment.

Corny, but amusing for some.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: sprior

No desert sideshow. Okay this is only a few German divisions, a Fliegerkorps or two and one decent general, however these units also needed plenty of replacements due to Rommel's aggressive tactics. These units and their replacements would all have headed east instead.

More Axis troops surrendered in Tunisia (230,000) than were captured at Stalingrad.

Warspite1

Just to be clear (I don't want anyone ever thinking I would underplay the British Commonwealth contribution to final victory), the sideshow reference was not meant in a negative way, and re the German contribution, I was referring to their contribution early on in the desert fighting.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

However the interesting [new] point is Greece. I share the reservation that a peace treaty with the UK auto-negates Greece. Mussolini attacked Greece without informing or getting approval from Hitler.

If the UK had gone to Greece's aid, this would have put Germany in a pickle re: Barbarossa. At the very least it would have delayed things as the diplomats acrue overtime and drink lots of coffee.

Would make a great Turtledove novel.

Warspite1

Depending on the author, the entire Med Theater is either painted as a big wasteful sideshow, or a vital battleground that gave the Western Allies a perfect "training" ground for what would be the main event in Europe. (i'm in the latter camp personally) I think Porch, Atkinson and Neillands were on the mark.

It was definitely a vital battleground imo. Just like the Iberian Peninsular in the Napoleonic Wars, the Western Desert gave the British a place where they could fight the Germans/Italians (or French previously), and steadily erode their forces whilst the Russians fought the "big one".

Some people just don't learn from history do they? [:)]

As a side comment, Everything i've read on Hitler's desire for peace with England would have been generous as what he wanted above all else was not English territory, or money etc etc....what he wanted above all else was England's non-interference in his future plans. He actually was a great admirerer of the British Empire and saw it and the new Germanic empire as standing side by side.....at least for the "near" future. Once Russia was taken care of and Germany had it's Lebensraum, a naval race would probably have ensued as Hitler, like the Kaiser before him saw the classic Z-plan fleet as "prestige" units to spread German influence and power throughout the world.

I think Hitler was an admirer of anything that suited his dreams for a Greater German Empire - and that admiration would turn to hatred at the drop of a hat - ask the Yugoslavs...

As an insurance policy, I cannot imagine Hitler not demanding significant concessions such that we could not simply re-arm and then look to fight Germany at a later date.

[chesmart]

Nik they still miss you on warships 1

[Panther Bait]

Regarding North Africa, another drain on the German supply system was that for every ton of supplies that actually made it to NA, a significant amount of supply was sunk on the way across the Med, although this depends somewhat on the timeframe you consider.

Mike

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Pascal
It seems Hitler's decision to declare war on the US was motivated by the expectation that the US would be in any case heavily involved with Japan and that, given he expected it was inevitable that there would be a war with the US, it was in Germany's interest to declare sooner rather than later given the potential of US industrial output (which Hitler and the Germans recognized).

I must say I have not been totally convinced by the arguments, though they are pretty good. We'll never know for sure, but this is the weight of the documentary evidence.

I'm wishing i could remember the source, but i recall reading a confirmation on what you said about Hitler's true motivation for declaring war on the US. The usual story is that it was simply one of his "insane" moves but given the time period he was hardly at that breaking point as of yet. Rather, the source in question suggested that he'd been misled by his Intelligence service(s) that indicated the US was about to declare war on Germany so he [Hitler] opted to beat Roosevelt to the punch.

It's impossible to know whether or not FDR could have gotten Congress to add Germany to the list in the immediate aftermath of Dec 7 without a German declaration....but i think it's likely. Ultimately of course Hitler's decision played into FDR's hands as if FDR had scripted it himself.

I remember seeing a documentary about Hitler's speeches that listed complaints against the actions of the US prior to his dow. Some of it was based on the argument concerning the neutrality of the US used by Germany in WW1 . . . how neutral are you if 99% of your trade goes to one side. Some complaints were of specific instances . . . lend-lease, asw patrols, attacks on subs, escorting convoys, etc. Not saying that those factors applied to his decision (afterall how much truth is ever contained in a political speech) but at least they form the ostensible basis for a dow given to the German people.

Imo he dow'd the US because he thought he would be finished with the USSR soon, thought that the current threat of the US was limited (he was right but if someone is not a threat why dow them) and figured what we were doing at the time wasn't much different from being at war. Had Japan attacked the US in 4/42 when some in the military expected (certainly Mac did) it would have made a dow by Hitler on the US far more problematic.

Re: Halifax

World at War had a good clip about the meeting between Chamberlain, Halifax and Churchill regarding Chamberlain's recommendation to the King about the formation of a new government.

Re: British Surrender

Imo I've always thought Hitler would have accepted something along the lines of status quo ante bellum but who really knows the value to Hitler to conclude the first front prior to opening a second?

$0.02

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: che200

Nik they still miss you on warships 1

awww.....[:D]

Figured after all this time i'd been long ago forgotten. Those were fun days, especially debating with Jim (Mr. Letterstime) over German and British capital ship designs.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: warspite1

... One thing that has not been mentioned in all this was that he was a peer, and as such was not able to enter the House of Commons. Perhaps, given this was a time of national crisis, this rule may have been circumvented, but I do not know that for certain. We do like our traditions you know [:)].

But even if it was not really an obstacle to his becoming PM, did Halifax use that as a convenient excuse? Did he really want the job...

Halifax being a peer would not in itself have precluded him from becoming Prime Minister.

The last peer to become Prime Minister before Churchill had been the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury (PM 1895-1902). The most recent peer to become Prime Minister was the 14th Earl of Home (PM 1963-64).

As a peer and a member of the House of Lords, Halifax was precluded from sitting and voting in the House of Commons. That Prime Ministers had, since 1902, only been "appointed" from the House of Commons, was and remains only a modern convention. Any convention can be broken and there is no legal remedy to a broken convention.

The modern convention to have as Prime Minister, a member of the House of Commons is based on the following practical considerations.

(1) Since the Parliament Act 1911 severely emasculated the powers of the House of Lords (subsequent legislation has further reduced the Lords), the ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons is the key factor to maintain a stable government.

(2) Money Bills originate in the Commons. The Lords cannot amend nor stop a government's budget

(3) Only the Commons is elected and therefore the proper representation of the popular will in a democracy with universal suffrage.

Prior to the passage of the Parliament Act 1911, any government needed to get the approval of both Houses to get its legisation through Parliament. There was no structural benefit to having the Prime Minister sitting in one House over the other. Hence Prime Ministers came from both Houses. However with the passage of the 1911 legislation, a most definite structural benefit was gained by having the Prime Minister sitting in the Commons and being the Leader of the Commons.

There was therefore no constitutional bar to Halifax being appointed Prime Minister. The difficulty he would have faced was that he could not sit in the Commons and that would have created considerable difficulties in maintaining the confidence of the Commons, particularly as the government was a coalition.

When the 14th Earl of Home was appointed Prime Minister on 19 October 1963, he was a member of the House of Lords. Note that the other leading Tory candidate to succeed Macmillan was another peer, the 2nd Viscount Hailsham. It was the Earl of Home's view that because of the modern convention, the Prime Minister should be a member of the House of Commons. Accordingly, he disclaimed his hereditary title and subsequently entered the Commons by winning on 7 November 1963, the by-election for the seat of Kinross and West Perthshire. But the point remains that when appointed Prime Minister he was both a peer and not a member of the House of Commons.

Today there is no longer a bar on any peer from sitting and voting in the House of Commons and still retaining their titles. Thus a peer can still become Prime Minister and adhere to the modern convention of the Prime Minister sitting in the Commons. How well they would be treated by Fleet Street is another matter.[:)]

Alfred

Warspite1

It was Halifax himself, in his memoirs, that made a point of the peerage being an obstacle to becoming an effective Prime Minister.

But this is the point I was trying to make. If the peerage was not actually an insurmountable barrier, AND Halifax was in pole position for the top job, why did he allow Churchill to out manoeuvre him? Did he really want the job, or did he not fancy wanting to go down in history as the man in charge when the UK became a puppet state of Hitler's Germany? Did he therefore use this as a convenient excuse for allowing WSC to take the Premiership?Unlike WSC, Halifax seemed to regard a peace deal as the only realistic option at the time, although, as I said earlier, what would even Halifax have been prepared to give up AND, what would Hitler have insisted upon?

All very interesting questions, and we will never know for certain.

Warspite1

What a coincidence! Re my comment in bold above, I have just started "The Battle of Britain" by James Holland. In this book the author states that when, over the course of those few critical days in May, Halifax looked likely to become Prime Minister, just the thought of it brought about chronic stomach pains. Holland does not give any direct sources for that info, but presumably its true, and makes the possibility Halifax did not actually want the job seem more likely. Interesting....