Should Britain have made peace with Germany?

[Alexander's Horse]

In WWI in 1915.

In WWII in 1940.

In both cases there was an offer on the table.

Britain was knackered by world wars. Did they really "win"?

[Zkribbler]

Depends on the offers.

[Traianvs]

They didn't win, for sure, but I think they got the most out of it. How could signing peace with Germany on unfavourable terms have benefited them more? The British empire would've gone down anyhoo

[VetLegion]

Brits had always sided against the strongest power on the continent. They knew that if one power prevailed, an economic disruption for them or even an invasion of their islands would only be a matter of time. Them accepting any of those two offers would have been completely contrary to their long term goals.

[Qilue]

It could even be argued that the EU is a failure of 4+ centuries of British foreign policy.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Qilue
It could even be argued that the EU is a failure of 4+ centuries of British foreign policy.

eh what do you mean?

[Barnabas]

That England does not want a united europe

[C0ckney]

we're hardly alone there...

[C0ckney]

as to the OP.

in 1915, probably not. in 1940, certainly not.

the wars did finish britain as the worlds #1 power, but fighting them ensured that liberal democracy survived and prospered in western europe.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Brits had always sided against the strongest power on the continent. They knew that if one power prevailed, an economic disruption for them or even an invasion of their islands would only be a matter of time. Them accepting any of those two offers would have been completely contrary to their long term goals.

I think this assumes that the same interests were always directing the foreign policy, and that isn't the case.

The first Stuart monarchs backed Spain and France in the 17th Century- James VI & I sought a Spanish marriage for his son Charles, and ended up with a French daughter-in-law.

Charles studiously avoided any undue entanglement in the 30 Years' War when he was king and his son, Charles II, was definitely a friend of France.

James II fought the Dutch and only really under Mary II and Queen Anne do we see the familiar pattern of the English becoming entangled in continental alliances against would-be European hegemons.


Should Great Britain have fought in WWI ? It should certainly have been better prepared to fight, but yes, it should have carried on fighting.

Wilhelm II was dangerously unstable and a victory for war party in Germany would have been disastrous given what they wanted- a German dominated European customs' union, the industrialized sectors of Belgium and France, all of Luxembourg and great swathes of European Russia and French and British colonial concessions.


As for WWII, Hitler was hardly principled- he lied, schemed and bullied and broke treaties to get what he wanted. Despite his admiration for the British empire,he was completely untrustworthy and even worse for Europe than Wilhelm II.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Depends on the offers.

In 1915 the Kaiser offered peace on the basis of a return to the pre-war status quo

In 1940 Hitler offered Britain peace in return for recognising German hegemony on the continent

Both offers were rejected.

[Arrian]

Then I'll go with Cockney's answer. In 1915, probably not and in 1940, definitely not.

-Arrian

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Hitler was hardly principled- he lied, schemed and bullied and broke treaties to get what he wanted. Despite his admiration for the British empire,he was completely untrustworthy .

And this made him different from British leaders from QEI onwards how?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


In 1915 the Kaiser offered peace on the basis of a return to the pre-war status quo

I don't think this is true. I believe they demanded concessions in the Balkans which the Russians would never have agreed upon. Either that or the British requested that they withdraw from Serbia, Poland France and Belgium as a sign of good faith prior to the signing of a peace treaty. Even though originally Britain had entered the war to honor its treaty with Belgium it had subsequently signed treaties with Russia and France and therefore could not make a peace without agreement with its partners.

In 1940 Hitler offered Britain peace in return for recognising German hegemony on the continent

Both offers were rejected.

Oh well, if that's all then obvious Churchill was a Jew loving capitalist warmongering pig bent on keeping the decent people of Europe in submission under his corrupt cowardly heel.

[Barnabas]

What if Germany instead of trying to conquer europe, had stopped at just reconquering the territories it lost after ww1, (+ annexed austria and german territories in czech republic)

Wouldn England have accepted peace?