Why didn't they stop while ahead by proposing Nazi favoured peace treaty to Allies?

Why didn't they stop while ahead by proposing Nazi favoured peace treaty to Allies?

Attached: English_map_5_bh-edit.jpg (600x535, 316K)

Other urls found in this thread:

dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf
39-45.org/alainadam/SEELOWE/home force sept 40.pdf
niehorster.org/017_britain/40-05_bef/_bef__.htm
dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a220715.pdf
Anything
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because by 1944 their defeat was guaranteed, and they were in no position to make demands. Earlier in the war, say, early 1941, making peace with the British was still highly unlikely since the Germans had proven willing to rip up any treaty that suited them, meaning that the British had no reason to trust them on any peace treaty.

>what is unconditional surrender

They tried.
They failed.
Stop making ww2 threads.

because Ch*rchill the warmongering Jew ruthlessly declared war on Germany even though they didn't do anything wrong, just because he wanted to destroy Europe for his Jewish financiers

they had no credibility
they were loosing in 1944
the allies public opinion was very much against settling for peace and not crushing the fucking krauts/jerries/bosch.

I have another question.
Would Hitler be able to make a favorable peace deal with the Allies if he actually destroyed BEF in Dunkirk?

They tried but after all the lies no one was buying it.

No. He still has no means to take the Isle.

He doesn’t need to if he just wants to make a peace deal. By the end of 1940, especially if the Germans had managed to destroy the BEF, Germany was in a strong negotiating position.

>hey guys I just destroyed your entire army can you give up pls?
>even though I have no conceivable way of actually threatening you

They could successfully invaded Egypt, take the Suez Canal, split the Empire in two and potentially link up with Japan. Or they could have offered the Brits peace in exchange for keeping their colonial empire.

What about ticking war score? There is no way you can wage war forever, sooner or later someone must give up.

He'd be in a much better negotiating position if he captured the BEF

Better yet, he could have negotiated from the beginning instead of invading like a sperg retard.

If I remember correctly he'd did try to take Egypt but got BTFO
>link up with Japan and split the empire
For what purpose? The Japanese were shit at fighting anything other than unarmed civilians and they had zero naval superiority, compared to the Brits
The first to give up would be Germany

>If I remember correctly he'd did try to take Egypt but got BTFO

Which would have been less likely to happen if the BEF was destroyed at Dunkirk. The North Africa campaign was also conducted at the same time as the war with the USSR, so if the Germans had delayed Barbarossa by a year or so they could have roflstomped the Brits in Egypt.

>The Japanese were shit at fighting anything other than unarmed civilians

Is that why the Brits failed to dislodge them from SEA? Stop getting your idea of Japanese military capabilities from the island hopping campaigns. The Japs stationed shitty conscripts with poor equipment on the islands, their best troops were in mainland Asia.

>they had zero naval superiority, compared to the Brits

How is naval superiority going to help the Brits in a land war in India?

>How is naval superiority going to help the Brits in a land war in India?
>Japan able to wage war against India, by land
You grossly overestimate Japanese logistics.
The rest of your post openly admits that just destroying the forces at Dunkirk is not enough and requires other factors changed.
Also
>best troops were in mainland Asia.
Are you saying the IJA had superior forces to the Ijn?

Stormnigger gtfo.

Attached: Stormfag.png (628x621, 180K)

>>Is that why the Brits failed to dislodge them from SEA?

Except they didn't you dumb cretin. British army crushed Nips in 1944, and pushed them out of Burma. By August 1945, they were prepearing to retake Singapore.

Nips were patheitcally weak, and fucking shitty soliders, who got absolutely slaughtered in Both pacific AND Burma. Not to Mention Manchurian operation, where Soviets in 10 days oblitherated the ''Elite'' Kwating Army, the best land Army of Nips.

And no, Japanese stationed their veterans on paficic islands, you dumb fuck. On Philipines, US army crushed over half Million japanese veterans, and anihilated them.

Also, Krautniggers would not rolfstome British forces in Egypt. Royal navy could have oblithereted Kraut supply lines (Not to mention the industrial backwardness of krauts only allowed them to have horse logistics... really usefull on the fucking desert)

> the ''Elite'' Kwating Army, the best land Army of Nips

The Kwantung army was "elite" in 1939, bu 1945, all of it's good units had been chewed up in the China campaign, cannibalized for the pacific campaign, or recalled to defend Japan. What was left was Manchurian Auxiliaries who were even poorer soldiers than Chinese Nationalists.

THANK YOU

SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS THE JAPANESE WERE A MEME

Instead of attacking Russia, the Nazis should have finished taking Egypt and then move on and take the Arabian Peninsula and the oil. Then they could connect with the Japanese directly by sea.

I think what you forget is that Britain back then wasn't just the British isles, it was an empire encompassing 25% of the world's population and wealth. It doesn't matter if you wipe out an army of a few hundred thousand, they have no reason to surrender to you because given enough time, they WILL crush you.

They did though

Retarded post. If the British public heard that their entire army was not just annihilated, but worst, CAPTURED, the government would have to surrender. And it was no certainty that Britain could not be invaded. They didn't have the knowledge that we have now. In the previous war, Germany nearly toppled British dominance of the Sea, they were the second greatest sea power. The naval arms race was fresh in the British public's conscious, there would be utter panic if the BEF hadn't made it back.
Image being in that position - the continuously triumphant Wehrmacht is a mere handful of miles over the Channel and you now have essentially only one line of defense, the Royal navy. If any cracks appear in that, the only thing left is the Home Guard, not even a professional military. Even though the BEF was small its preservation was critical from a civilian morale standpoint.
Would this have ensured a German victory? By no means. Would it have forced the British to at least consider negotiation? Probably

yes, while their entire army is bogged down in Egypt there's absolutely no chance of the russians taking a shot at invading them from their unprotected east

They would not get bogged down.

>There is no way you can wage war forever, sooner or later someone must give up.

Korea.

They would, due to the logistics of the campaign. The tiny port capacity, lack of fuel for Italian shipping, and the extremely long supply lines stretching more than 2,100km from Tripoli to the front where nearly half of their fuel was used to bring supplies up, meant that even the paltry force of 2 German divisions along with 5 Italian ones was barely able to be supplied. Historically, Rommel's forces were not strong enough to capture Egypt, but these logistical bottlenecks mean that attempting to focus more on the campaign will actually make the situation worse.

The Germans were on the verge of completing the task before the Americans began sending Lend Lease. The Germans weren't as logistically deficient as their enemy, in other words.

Because Hitler's word is worthless and nobody is giving them a peace treaty that they know he'll break the second it's convenient to him.

How exactly does destroying about 10 divisions cripple the UK?

No they can't.
dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf

tl;dr, they do not have the local shipping capacity to fuel and support an army big enough to defeat the Mid-East command, whcih by the way, got a grand total of zero reinforcements from England before Battleaxe.

Again, how do you deal with the fact that you have no railroads worth mentioning and your only major harbor in the region can't even fully support an offensive posture of the historical DAK, let alone a bigger force?

> If the British public heard that their entire army was not just annihilated, but worst, CAPTURED, the government would have to surrender.
How exactly do you figure that? Especially when the army was sent there on the orders of the last government, not Churchill's.

>And it was no certainty that Britain could not be invaded.
That doesn't mean they'll give up before it's even attempted.

>If any cracks appear in that, the only thing left is the Home Guard, not even a professional military
Absolutely wrong.

39-45.org/alainadam/SEELOWE/home force sept 40.pdf

Here's a listing of the formations of the BEF niehorster.org/017_britain/40-05_bef/_bef__.htm
you'll note a very limited overlap.

No they weren't. They were stuck at Tobruk, had been for months, and would be facing down Crusader in the near future meaning all their gains in 1941 would be lost again.

>The Germans weren't as logistically deficient as their enemy, in other words
The Germans were facing an enemy with a railroad network, much more developed ports, and a greater supply of trucks and fuel. Of course they were.

It was indeed Hitler's intention to have peace with Britain since the beginning of the war.
Churchill was a warmonger (for real though, I'm not a stormnigger) and genuinely did not mean to give up especially given the victory in the battle of Britain.
From his point of view, the war was still feasible, especially if America joined. Also the people shared alot of his views and would probably feel betrayed by a peace treaty.
Now cones the logistics of the war. People seem rlto underestimate the power (not efficieny though lol) of the British empire. They controlled wealth, resources and manpower on a scale far greater than that of the third reich. The reason why the empire is downplayed is its susceptibility to being devastated by surprise attacks as mobilisation of a global empire takes time. From the safety of the island, the empire could be mobilised without threat to the home island all in preparation for campaigns in North Africa, then Italy and finally an invasion of France. Regardless of whether the USSR partcipates or not, the empire will likely mobilise a significant military apparatus, galvanised by threat of Nazi war crimes and the 'promise' of independence.
India alone could produce a significant army.
All this combined with equipment sold or leased by the US will eventually arm this large force to stage a much more violent D-Day landing (assuming the USSR doesn't join)

Attached: 1517865996066.png (662x819, 227K)

>The British would surrender if a bad thing happened

It's like you have no understanding of the British national psyche...

>only thing left is the Home Guard, not even a professional military

Protip: the BEF wasn't the entire British Army.

Pretty wierd definition of warmonger you have there.

>It's like you have no understanding of the British national psyche...
muh stiff upper lip britons never surrender!

>a person who encourages or advocates aggression towards other countries or groups.

Lol nice 'argument'
Britain literally didn't surrender despite being constantly bombed

no country in history has ever surrendered due to a sub-nuclear aerial bombing campaign

In Egypt? No. Pre-Lend Lease, the logistics couldn't help them in any event.

He said they should've chosen war, but they chose dishonour and will have war

And he was completely right.

Not him, but Egypt most definitely had a railroad network that connected Suez, Cairo, and Alexandria. While that didn't entirely bridge the gap to Tobruk, at most the British had an overland trek of about 650 km without railroads, as opposed to the Axis trek of about 1,250. They also had greater access to littoral shipping. Those are colossal advantages; and remember, the problem gets worse if the Germans actually advance past Tripoli, since the goal is to take Suez itself. They'll now have to truck their supplies even further, while the British are pushed into their own railheads.

>the citation needed fag
>education needed for this fag

They had that at Singapore, too. It's an advantage if you have something to ship, which they didn't before Lend Lease.

Yes, but i was just pointing out that churchill would never sign a peace treaty with nazi germany

>Handing over the Sudetenland for nothing will not stop the Krautniggers, and will just make it harder for us when they do chimp out
>Chimp out occurs
>"Oh Churchill that warmonger, he had it out for us poor Aryans, wir haben nichts getan"

Are you retarded? The British shipped their own supplies and reinforcements before Lend-Lease was a thing. When the 4h Indian infantry division was shipped into the theater right as Italy entered the war, then shipped out to fight in Ethiopia, and then shipped back in to invade Syria, what do you think was moving their supplies and manpower?

I literally never said that

Are you retarded? Rommel was about to drown them in the Suez before Lend Lease.

No he wasn't. By the time Lend-Lease started coming in, Rommel hadn't even managed to evict the British from the stuff they took from the Italians before he got into the theater.

By the way, I assume you're tacitly admitting that you were absolutely buttfuckingly wrong about your earlier statement that the British didn't send their own supplies? Or would you like to do some reading?

dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a220715.pdf

>Why didn't they stop while ahead by proposing Nazi favoured peace treaty to Allies?
Hitler literally asked for Peace with the Allies hundreds of times and at all stages of the war.
Britain would never accept.

Yes, he was. I assume you're tacitly admitting that you were absolutely buttfuckingly wrong about your earlier statement that glorious Singapore never happened because of the glorious supply situation. Or would you like to do some reading?

Anything ever written on the subject for retards who don't already know

>Yes, he was
No, he wasn't. Crusader had M3 tanks, built in America, as part of the British force. Crusader was fought inside Libya.

> I assume you're tacitly admitting that you were absolutely buttfuckingly wrong about your earlier statement that glorious Singapore never happened because of the glorious supply situation
Nobody brought up Singapore until you did. I have made a grand total of 0 claims concerning Singapore.

>Break every promise and agreement you've ever made
>REEEEEEEE WHY WON'T THOSE PERDIFIOUS UNTRUSTWORTHY BACKSTABBING WARMONGERING ANGLOS TRUST ME?!?!?!?!????

Yes, he was. But then came Lend Lease

Singapore had the same glorious supply network you're clamoring about. How'd that work out?

>get completely outclassed, outperformed, and out industried by a bunch of snaggle toothed anglos with half your population

some master race lmao