Could Germany convince england for a peace after the fall of France?

Did Germany tried a peace with England after France fell and would it be possible to convince England despite Churchill?

1 Like

Yes on many occasions Hitler did try to propose a peace deal with England but each time it was I remember blocked by Winston Churchill


Yes, please see my post from yesterday titled, CRUDE OIL, THE DECIDING FACTOR IN OUTCOME OF WW2.
After Chamberlain stepped down from his PM post, almost the entire parliament wanted Lord Halifax, and Halifax was one of the many on the war council calling for peace negotiations. If Ole’ Winny had not become PM, i believe a peeace deal would have been made between Britain and Hitler. Winny’s unwavering will to keep fighting means their blockade on Germany prevented Hitler from being able to purchase imported oil, or even already refined fuel. Since the German take-over of Denmark, Norway, Belgium, and France, Hitler now needs to supply oil/fuel to the new concurred territories. So on one hand, basically seizing all mainland West Europe was great, but it now places a huge burden of responsibility to now supply these new territories w/ resources. Germany had only enough Romanian oil, and their own synthetic oil converted into fuel for themselves at the outset of his wars w/ the Scandinavian/Belg/French campaigns. So Hitler knows he has to take the natural resources from Russia. So when they do invade Russia, they lose their main source of oil/fuel from the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact immediately. So now the race is on to concur the nat. resources from Russia b4 their meager supply runs out. Please see my post i made yesterday that i mentioned above, and i highly rec. watching the two video sources i added to my post.



Ian Kershaw’s “Fateful Choices: 10 Choices that Changed the World” is well worth reading. It explains the decision that Churchill pushed through the British cabinet in June 1940 - namely that if Britain surrendered, it would be peace on Hitlers terms. If they fought (the Battle of Britain) and won, they would avoid Nazi subjugation. But if they fought and lost the Battle of Britain, they would be no worse off in terms of having to have peace on Hitlers terms.

No way with a ruler like Churchill would the British ever have made peace with Nazi Germany… Now if history had played out a little differently, such as Hitler never pauses the panzers at Dunkirk and there is no mass evacuation of the BEF, who knows how that affects Churchill and others thought process. I still believe Churchill wouldn’t want to surrender had Dunkirk been a disaster, but more people in Britain might have wanted it had the BEF not escaped.

Even setting aside Churchill’s determination to fight, what peace terms would have been acceptable to both Germany and the UK in the latter half of 1940 or early 1941?

The UK might thrown in the towel on eastern Europe and maybe even Denmark. However, Norway, the Low Countries, and especially France under indefinite German occupation seems too much for the Brits to voluntarily accept. There’s also likely pesky issues involving Italian designs on North Africa and German interests in the Middle East (oil).


Churchill was not “a ruler”. He could not have convinced the country to fight the Germans if they did not agree to it. The Brits who wanted peace after France were in a tiny minority.

A thing to remember is that after Dunkirk, the Brits were not in a good way if the Germans had managed a landing. They had left behind all their vehicles, all their artillery, and all their heavy weapons. The only things that could have contested a landing was the RN (under continuous attack by the Luftwaffe) and the RAF (which had lost a bunch of Spits and Hurricanes in France.)

The British people were the brave ones. Churchill could say whatever he liked, but it was the people as a group that decided to stand up to Hitler come what may.

No, but the Nazi goverment was very stupid enough to chance that. Beeing a victory drunk nazi, Hitlers proposals about peace were unacceptable.

In that minority, at the critical moments of late May, was the Foreign Secretary…Churchill compelled the cabinet to continue the fight and they agreed unanimously,… only then, the FS accepted that a peace agreement wouldn’t be pursued and the British directive on continuing alone, if necessary, became clear.

1 Like

Lol, you’re implying I am calling Churchill a monarch or Emperor, that’s not what I meant when I used the term ruler. I meant that he led by example with his courage and devotion to his people. His belief in the final victory fueled British confidence and morale, I don’t know how anyone can deny this. There is no doubt without his leadership it would have been far more possible that the British might actually have opted for peace. Yeah, Dunkirk and the loss in France in 1940 were bad, but the Germans let the British off the hook at Dunkirk. Not sending in the Panzers and destroying the BEF left the British Army intact despite the loss of its heavy weapons and other equipment. And the RAF is not to be underestimated, also the foolish decisions by Hitler and Goring during the Battle of Britain. Instead of methodically destroying key British infrastructure one at a time, radar stations, airfields, etc, the Germans kept switching targets which let the British have vital time to replenish their pilots. This ability of the Germans to make mistakes can not be left out of conversations. Over the course of the war these types of blunders were made by the germans, especially Hitler. No one said the British weren’t brave, off course they were. But I don’t think you can deny that sometimes the right man or woman for the job comes along to be a leader. That man was Churchill for Britain in 1940.