Just wondering
What would have happened in Mid 1940?
Western Europe is beaten and Britain stands alone.
This is before Battle of Britain and Churchill has just taken power'but he is one of the few who is enthuastic about a continued war with Germany and has just replaced Chamberlain.
Hitler calls a meeting in the Reichstag.
"Blah de blah de blah.I have never wanted war with the British People(which was true) and basically have what i want.
I know propose to end all Hostilities between ourselves and the British and Commonwealth Forces apart from U-Boat Operations.But all Land and Air Units will cease hostilties and will only return fire if fired upon.
If the British Goverment agrees to this and if no further hostilities take place for the next month'then the U-Boat Campaign will cease...Bla Bla Bla"
Extremely Far fetched i know!!!
But apart from Churchill i personally believe that most of the British would maybe have accepted this.
If i had the choice of fighting or sending my sons off to war'when it looks like we are already beaten and for already beaten countries such as Poland and France'or just saying "ok'no more deaths on either side'wars lost'lets just call it quits" then i may have taken the second choice.
The Pro's
1)I personally believe that the vast Majority of the Population would like a ceasefire.
2) Full Bellies.In just over 1 month the U-Boat campaign would stop.
An Army marches on it's stomach and so does the Civilian Poplace.
3) No more deaths.Sons and Fathers will return home alive.
4) No impending Blitz
5) Even if Germany attack us in the future'we will have had a respite from the U-Boat Campaign to rebuild and strengthen our country.
The Cons
1) Churchill Churchill Churchill !!!!!
This guy hates the Nazi Regime and won't appease anyone.
He's the Head Cheese and his personal answer will be "No !! and
make sure you Bomb Berlin tonight'so Herr Hitler gets the message"
2) Treaty Obligations.
Means basically tearing up and ignoring your Treaty Obligations.
Your Honour and honour of your Nation would be in Tatters.
Anyway guys pure fantasy now.
But if Hitler had proposed a ceasefire in 1940 even after BoB with the "You don't hit us and we won't hit you" idea'I wonder what would have happened.
My own personal opinion is The British Goverment(Churchill) would reject the idea and carry on the fight'though and the Wr would continue full scale.
Though the majority of the people would have favoured it.
You don't hit me and i won't hit you.
Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil
I'd have to go with the fight would continue. The BEF took quite a beating, and that ticked off alot of people. They'd want to see the national honor restored. Plus, people saw what the Chamberlin "appeasement" policies did, and voted in Churchill for that specific reason. I don't think they'd go for it once again, to go with an uneasy peace with an agressive neighbor, but stranger things have happened.
In the battle between good and evil, evil usually has more fun.
The only way I could see....
that senario play out is if Hitler and Rundstedt hadn't stopped Guderians tanks outside of Dunkirk. It was a British victory in terms of retaining an Army which to fight with. You lose those forces and it would have been hard to continue fighting Germany. The flip side to my agrument is that by allowing the forces to escape Hitler hoped to show the British mercy and that would be favorable in terms of a peace proposal.
To those who fought reguardless of nationality
You said "But apart from Churchill i personally believe that most of the British would maybe have accepted this.
If i had the choice of fighting or sending my sons off to war'when it looks like we are already beaten and for already beaten "
People had different attitudes then regarding war duty and honor and would still have sent their sons off. I personally think that most commanders didn't give two figs about anyone's son as long as they got glory. ( Monty , Haig, Montbattan, etc). Just look at Dieppe.
In the 70's nobody wanted to send their son to Nam, but now they'll send them to 'Ghan.
Do we never learn?
If i had the choice of fighting or sending my sons off to war'when it looks like we are already beaten and for already beaten "
People had different attitudes then regarding war duty and honor and would still have sent their sons off. I personally think that most commanders didn't give two figs about anyone's son as long as they got glory. ( Monty , Haig, Montbattan, etc). Just look at Dieppe.
In the 70's nobody wanted to send their son to Nam, but now they'll send them to 'Ghan.
Do we never learn?
-
brendan-moloney
- New Member
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 4:39 pm
- Location: erith, south east london in the uk
1940
If hitler had offered the truce it should have been after dunkirk i dont beleive the uk would have taken the truce and would have continued the war as to churchhill the only thing he hated more than the germans were the comunists and if hitler had made a pact with the uk before the war about the threat from the ussr the uk would have jumped with both feet and a differant picture might have emerged.
the germans needed at least 3 years prep before taking on the would.
the germans needed at least 3 years prep before taking on the would.
Sir you are drunk:
madam you are ugly, but i will recover in the morning
Winston churchill.......
madam you are ugly, but i will recover in the morning
Winston churchill.......
-
LiL_Puma
- New Member
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 5:50 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, West Coast USA
Churchill was a very stubborn person. Any German peace offer would've been rejected by him, probably with a simple reply like "Never!" or "Nuts!"
As for war morale, nearly all the Allied countries and their civilians supported the war. Everyone from Moscow to Washington knew that the Axis was taking over Europe and bent on conquest. Take for example Pearl Harbor. It was indeed a major shock to the Americans, but it only strengthed American will to defeat the Axis and their evil ways. Soldier's ethusiasticly volunteered to join the Army wanting to "fight to protect democracy."
Now, Pearl Harbor was twice of a shock than Dunkirk, so we can see that defeats, which the Allies saw as acts of terror and evil, only strengthen Allied will and determination to fight.
It that example isn't enough, here's one with the Soviets. The Germans were 20 miles away from their capitol, and had sucussfully occupied most of the core of Russia, yet Russian nationalism proved to be a very strong factor in the defeat of the Germans on the Eastern Front. Russians everywhere united to "defend the Motherland."
As we can see, human determination is indeed a force to be reckoned with. The Russians would've kept the fight going even if they were diven to shores of the Pacific, and Churchill would still be grinning at the Reich from the shores of Canada had he lost Britan.
There are still many examples, even today. The Sept '11 attacks were devastating to the United States, but all of us today are itching to beat the living daylights out of Osama bin Laden. People are more patriotic because of the 9/11 attacks, so once again there we have another example.
- LiL_Puma
As for war morale, nearly all the Allied countries and their civilians supported the war. Everyone from Moscow to Washington knew that the Axis was taking over Europe and bent on conquest. Take for example Pearl Harbor. It was indeed a major shock to the Americans, but it only strengthed American will to defeat the Axis and their evil ways. Soldier's ethusiasticly volunteered to join the Army wanting to "fight to protect democracy."
Now, Pearl Harbor was twice of a shock than Dunkirk, so we can see that defeats, which the Allies saw as acts of terror and evil, only strengthen Allied will and determination to fight.
It that example isn't enough, here's one with the Soviets. The Germans were 20 miles away from their capitol, and had sucussfully occupied most of the core of Russia, yet Russian nationalism proved to be a very strong factor in the defeat of the Germans on the Eastern Front. Russians everywhere united to "defend the Motherland."
As we can see, human determination is indeed a force to be reckoned with. The Russians would've kept the fight going even if they were diven to shores of the Pacific, and Churchill would still be grinning at the Reich from the shores of Canada had he lost Britan.
There are still many examples, even today. The Sept '11 attacks were devastating to the United States, but all of us today are itching to beat the living daylights out of Osama bin Laden. People are more patriotic because of the 9/11 attacks, so once again there we have another example.
- LiL_Puma
Russians everywhere united to "defend the Motherland"
You have confused human determination with Total Fear. Russians were more afraid of their Commissars than of the Germans. Their battle tactics were primitive and brutal not to mention costly. (11,000,000 casualties in Stalingrad alone.) How many germans really wanted to go to Stalingrad, how many Americans wanted to land in Normandy. It is always the incompetent leaders that inspire with lofty ideals, its always the poor slob on the line that dies for those hollow ideals. With a gun to your back you have nowhere to go but into battle. This didn't just apply to the Russians
Look at this bill introduced in New Zealand (1997) to pardon executed deserters.
The rationale for considering this bill is largely the result of the re-evaluation of circumstances surrounding each case in light of current knowledge:
It is now understood that shell shock is a seriously debilitating condition causing serious behaviour disorders; for which veterans of recent conflicts have been paid disability benefits
It is now historically recognised that the conditions in WW1 were inhuman in the extreme, with military campaigns embarked upon which it is now known were fraught with incompetence on the part of the command
Low morale and disease were rife among soldiers engaged in such combat
The standard of military judicial process prevailing was such that in retrospect there cannot be faith in the justness of the verdicts.
Each of the Desertion cases follow the same pattern and are well documented in Pugsley's book. Each soldier suffered shell shock, was patched up and subsequently sent back to the front. After repeated instances of being "Absent Without Leave", each faced a court martial and were sentenced to death by firing squad.
(Russians even dispensed with the court martial)
You have confused human determination with Total Fear. Russians were more afraid of their Commissars than of the Germans. Their battle tactics were primitive and brutal not to mention costly. (11,000,000 casualties in Stalingrad alone.) How many germans really wanted to go to Stalingrad, how many Americans wanted to land in Normandy. It is always the incompetent leaders that inspire with lofty ideals, its always the poor slob on the line that dies for those hollow ideals. With a gun to your back you have nowhere to go but into battle. This didn't just apply to the Russians
Look at this bill introduced in New Zealand (1997) to pardon executed deserters.
The rationale for considering this bill is largely the result of the re-evaluation of circumstances surrounding each case in light of current knowledge:
It is now understood that shell shock is a seriously debilitating condition causing serious behaviour disorders; for which veterans of recent conflicts have been paid disability benefits
It is now historically recognised that the conditions in WW1 were inhuman in the extreme, with military campaigns embarked upon which it is now known were fraught with incompetence on the part of the command
Low morale and disease were rife among soldiers engaged in such combat
The standard of military judicial process prevailing was such that in retrospect there cannot be faith in the justness of the verdicts.
Each of the Desertion cases follow the same pattern and are well documented in Pugsley's book. Each soldier suffered shell shock, was patched up and subsequently sent back to the front. After repeated instances of being "Absent Without Leave", each faced a court martial and were sentenced to death by firing squad.
(Russians even dispensed with the court martial)
-
LiL_Puma
- New Member
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 5:50 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, West Coast USA
The people of Russia would be more afraid of a buncha Nazis who thought of them as inferior, and wanted to exterminate them as part of the Nazi plan for the master race.
At least with the Communists, the people of Russia were allowed to live. I don't think you need to force someone at gunpoint to fight against someone who wants to do nothing but destroy you and your country due to a racist ideology. The Russians fought did fight in part to fear, fear of the Germans, however they also fought to protect their home country from invaders.
Soldiers join armies not to die of course. They know it's a risk, but there is always a chance of glory. Soldiers are willing to take that gamble, in the case of say Stalingrad, they were unlucky.
- LiL_Puma
At least with the Communists, the people of Russia were allowed to live. I don't think you need to force someone at gunpoint to fight against someone who wants to do nothing but destroy you and your country due to a racist ideology. The Russians fought did fight in part to fear, fear of the Germans, however they also fought to protect their home country from invaders.
Soldiers join armies not to die of course. They know it's a risk, but there is always a chance of glory. Soldiers are willing to take that gamble, in the case of say Stalingrad, they were unlucky.
- LiL_Puma