How would things have been if, after defeating France and the Low Countries, Hitler had signed a peace treaty and a non-agression treaty with all those countries and then pulled all his troops back to the east of the Rhein?
If Hitler had used the tactic of turning these countries into allies and had not tried to occupy them, could Britain have waged war against Germany alone?
I'd like to hear all opinions.
Z
WHAT IF AFTER THE BLITZKRIEG....
-
Zapfenstreich
- Member
- Posts: 630
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:58
- Location: The Old Northwest Territory
-
Eva
- Member
- Posts: 325
- Joined: 22 Jul 2002 05:56
- Location: Bellevue, WA- USA
-
Tim Smith
- Member
- Posts: 6177
- Joined: 19 Aug 2002 12:15
- Location: UK
What about Norway and Denmark? Britain would have wanted a German withdrawal from there because the German naval bases posed a serious threat to British shipping.
Naturally, unless Italy pulled back as well, Britain would have continued the war against her. Churchill might even have demanded an Italian withdrawal from Eithiopia as well.
Britain might have upheld the Polish cause for a while, which was the original publicised reason for going to war in the first place. But with France and the Low countries neutral, she would be reliant on naval blockade and strategic bombing (Britain might have violated Belgian and Dutch airspace even if they were neutral.) These methods would have been almost completely ineffective (as they were historically in 1940-41), and Britain would have had to give it up eventually.
The other option open to Britain is to declare the French government illegal and wage war against Petain's ex-Vichy administration, ostensibly supporting Charles De Gaulle's pro-British government-in-exile. This would have been unpopular with the US as an unnecessary and aggressive move by Britain against France, and the US might have withdrawn all support for Britain, even setting up arms and oil embargoes. Britain could not have continued the war against Germany for very long in that situation.
Naturally, unless Italy pulled back as well, Britain would have continued the war against her. Churchill might even have demanded an Italian withdrawal from Eithiopia as well.
Britain might have upheld the Polish cause for a while, which was the original publicised reason for going to war in the first place. But with France and the Low countries neutral, she would be reliant on naval blockade and strategic bombing (Britain might have violated Belgian and Dutch airspace even if they were neutral.) These methods would have been almost completely ineffective (as they were historically in 1940-41), and Britain would have had to give it up eventually.
The other option open to Britain is to declare the French government illegal and wage war against Petain's ex-Vichy administration, ostensibly supporting Charles De Gaulle's pro-British government-in-exile. This would have been unpopular with the US as an unnecessary and aggressive move by Britain against France, and the US might have withdrawn all support for Britain, even setting up arms and oil embargoes. Britain could not have continued the war against Germany for very long in that situation.
-
kchuah
- Member
- Posts: 213
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002 22:30
- Location: Texas
I will migrate to Germany or France.
How would things have been if, after defeating France and the Low Countries, Hitler had signed a peace treaty and a non-agression treaty with all those countries and then pulled all his troops back to the east of the Rhein?
If Hitler had used the tactic of turning these countries into allies and had not tried to occupy them, could Britain have waged war against Germany alone?
How would things have been if, after defeating France and the Low Countries, Hitler had signed a peace treaty and a non-agression treaty with all those countries and then pulled all his troops back to the east of the Rhein?
If Hitler had used the tactic of turning these countries into allies and had not tried to occupy them, could Britain have waged war against Germany alone?