Maybe not.
If the lion has clearly caught its prey and is busy devouring it, why annoy it pointlessly by throwing stones at it? Germany would take a long time to digest its eastern conquests.
If not at risk of invasion, Britain’s problem was to keep its sea lanes open to allow it to survive economically, both for British import and export industries.
Maybe Germany and Britain come to an accommodation that allows each to live with the other. Britain can live with Germany exploiting eastern Europe, in which it has no real interest. Germany can live without being a naval force in the Atlantic, which had no bearing on its ability to exploit eastern Europe. If this happens, America will trade with everyone in sight, as indeed its captains of industry generally did anyway until December 1941. And maybe a little later, under the blanket.
If so, then Germany would have far more resources at its disposal to combat Britain and the allies.
I’d still be concerned by the size of the occupation armies required in Russia. Ejecting and exterminating millions upon millions of people requires a lot of men and resources, as does protecting the exterminators from guerrilla actions generated by these actions. And guarding the lines of communication exploiting those conquests.
This would have far reaching effects on the war in Norht Africa and Burma.
True.
But it goes beyond Burma to all British possessions in the Far East. Which Britain will duly lose in any event if it doesn‘t alter its dispositions there.
North Africa in this scenario doesn’t matter greatly, apart from prestige; control of the Mediterranean; and access to the Middle Eastern oilfields which are the crucial issue as they were important for Britain.
With Germany in control of Europe, Britain would be better off abandoning North Africa and re-deploying those forces to home defence or to its Far Eastern colonies. If the latter, it might alter the course in Malaya etc. Many of the main forces in place at the time of the Japanese attack and almost all the reinforcements actually sent afterwards were woefully green. Some had never even handled a rifle during their couple of weeks of training before embarking. These forces were never even remotely as well equipped or led or battle hardened as the North Africa forces, which had a serious chance of beating the Japanese.
If North African British and or Commonwealth forces defeat, which was quite possible, or even just hold the Japanese in Malaya, the pivot of the Japanese advance is neutered. Britain retains Singapore as a pivotal naval point. Whether or not Britain can actually put much there in the way of ships is less important than the need for the enemy to deploy its naval forces as if Britain can, which seriously hampers Japan’s other operations.
The US had only just entered the war, and, therefore, were unready to launch an offensive in Europe or North Africa. Britain would be unable to ‘leach’ North Africa of troops to send to the Far East. Hence, both theatres of operations would become much more precarious than even they had been.
Only if Britain hangs on in the Med. Churchill always said (although I think it was at best well-intentioned bullshit) that if Australia was invaded by a substantial Japanese force he would abandon the Med and send all those forces to our defence. (Like it’s that easy to disengage at divisional and corps strengths, and load troops and materiel on ships under bombardment and happily sail away unscathed to fight another foe, with air and naval forces also intact. FFS!)
Would Britain have made a deal with Germany? Chiurchill has been reported to have been a little surprised by Roosevelts decleration that he would only accept unconditional surrend, at Casablanca, in 1943. Would Britain have negotiated with a Germany free of the Nazis?
Would Churchill have reached a negotiatied agreement with the Germans before then if the war was not going well?
Would CHurchill have been sacked and someone such as Halifax have taken over and negotiated a peace deal?
Although there are reports of him wavering early on, I don’t think Churchill would have made peace with Germany or any other active enemy of England while he had breath in his body and England had a chance of defending itself. The man was an outdated, arrogant and dangerous prick in some respects, but he had more guts and determination and unwavering commitment to the English cause that just about anybody else, although some other occasional solid leaders like the Queen Mother come to mind.
As for waverers like Halifax and Butler and various elements of the English ruling classes who were rather fond of Herr Hitler, they might have produced a negotiated peace if they had gained the ascendancy. I don’t know enough about the intricacies of English political and constitutional arrangements to know how easy or how hard that might have been for them at the time.
