Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The controversial "halt order"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The controversial "halt order"

    When Boulogne was abuot to fall on the 24th of may, Guderian decided to bypass Calais and put his force into a thrust to Dunkirk; this Rundstedt overruled...the tank forces should remain where they were.

    What if the whole BEF would have been captured at Dunkirk, would the Brittish hav fought on?
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix

  • #2
    I think the BEF would have been captured and Britain would have kept on fighting. IMO I beleive that they would have transferred a lot of troops from the pacific and kept on fighting.
    He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat.
    --Napoleon Bonaparte

    Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets. --Napoleon Bonaparte

    We are not retreating - we are advancing in another direction. --Douglas MacArthur

    Comment


    • #3
      Hey Maybe Sealion Would Have Been Possible!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by M.Joensen View Post
        What if the whole BEF would have been captured at Dunkirk, would the British have fought on?
        One would have to ask 'with what'? Guns and ammunition can be bought, trained personnel to use them cannot. Halifax would have made peace.
        Signing out.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TheGrandArmee View Post
          I think the BEF would have been captured and Britain would have kept on fighting. IMO I beleive that they would have transferred a lot of troops from the pacific and kept on fighting.
          It would have taken weeks just to transport them! Then there's the problem of organising the transportation, marshalling the men and equipment, etc. etc. The Germans would have been ready to invade long before the Empire 'police' could have been brought back home. Pragmatism would have won out over empty rhetoric in this timeline (WSM - 'We shall fight them on the beaches ....' Everyone else - 'With what Winnie?').
          Signing out.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
            One would have to ask 'with what'? Guns and ammunition can be bought, trained personnel to use them cannot. Halifax would have made peace.
            Would this snap the United States out of it's isolationist policy, and declare war on the axis anno 1940?

            German subs with bases in Japan patroling the Pacific Ocean in 1941.
            Now that's an interesting scenario.
            When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.
            Jimi Hendrix

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by M.Joensen View Post
              Would this snap the United States out of it's isolationist policy, and declare war on the axis anno 1940?
              The peace terms on offer in 1940 were reasonable. I don't see them being appreciably different in this timeline since Hitler's primary objective was to neutralise the West so he could focus on the East. I can't see the US getting involved if Britain isn't invaded and there's no direct threat to American interests.

              German subs with bases in Japan patroling the Pacific Ocean in 1941.
              Now that's an interesting scenario.
              It is. What would they be doing though, helping the Japanese or blockading Soviet ports?
              Signing out.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by dirkymarky View Post
                Hey Maybe Sealion Would Have Been Possible!!
                It would no longer have been needed.
                Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                Prayers.

                BoRG

                http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                Comment


                • #9
                  Britain would definitely have accepted peace, but then Stalin might have rethought how he positioned his forces on the border since Russia would be the only remaining Nazi target (in range that is.)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Britain wouldn't have given up, but it would have forced them to make a decision about troop dispositions that may have led to some difficulties in Asia or Africa. It's not likely they could have built up in Egypt to stop the DAK, but given they were at the extreme end of their supply lines, it by no means guarantees panzers in Alexandria or Cairo.

                    It's possible Indian and SA forces would be moved en masse into Africa to shore up the forces blocking the DAK from getting to the Suez leaving India more open to the Japanese when they come through Burma endangering the Allies in the CBI theater or possibly the Solomons as ANZAC forces are moved further NW.
                    If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by chrisvalla View Post
                      Britain wouldn't have given up, but it would have forced them to make a decision about troop dispositions that may have led to some difficulties in Asia or Africa. It's not likely they could have built up in Egypt to stop the DAK, but given they were at the extreme end of their supply lines, it by no means guarantees panzers in Alexandria or Cairo.

                      It's possible Indian and SA forces would be moved en masse into Africa to shore up the forces blocking the DAK from getting to the Suez leaving India more open to the Japanese when they come through Burma endangering the Allies in the CBI theater or possibly the Solomons as ANZAC forces are moved further NW.
                      The DAK wasn't in Africa in 1940 so not a problem. However, it does raise the question of what would happen in the region. Would the British had to have given up terrirtories in North and Central Africa to the Italians as part of surrender agreements?
                      Last edited by Wolster; 30 Jul 07, 23:27.
                      Wolster

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        very interesting discussio!
                        "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Wolster View Post
                          The DAK wasn't in Africa in 1940 so not a problem. However, it does raise the question of what would happen in the region. Would the British had to have given up terrirtories in North and Central Africa to the Italians as part of surrender agreements?
                          I would imagine that Mussolini would have insisted upon it. Certainly Egypt would have fallen under the Italian sphere of influence. Although whether Hitler would have wanted this to happen is anyones guess.
                          "The Eastern front is like a house of cards. If the front is broken through at one point all the rest will collapse."- General Heinz Guderian


                          "Oakland Raiders: Committed to Excellence"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The peace terms on offer in 1940 were reasonable. I don't see them being appreciably different in this timeline since Hitler's primary objective was to neutralise the West so he could focus on the East. I can't see the US getting involved if Britain isn't invaded and there's no direct threat to American interests.
                            What would the terms be?
                            On june 14. 1940, Brittish and French warships bombarded Genoa.
                            Would Mussolini have accepted anything less then a Mediterranean with no Brittish Navy?
                            What about Malta?
                            Would DAK be needed?

                            Another more interresting thing if Great Britan would have surrenderd in 1940, it wouldnt be a two front war when Hitler invaded Russia.
                            Would Barbarossa be launch at an earlyer date?

                            In the Chinese-Japanese war in 37-38, Japanese and Soviet soldiers constantly skirmished, with the risk of full-scale war.
                            Japanese military activities in Southeast Asia made the US to impose economic sanctions against Japan, including the freezing of Japanese credit in America. Tokyo took this as a serious affront...almost as an act of war.
                            This made the Japanese take protective measures against the risk of war on two fronts, and sing a non-aggression pact with the Soviet in april 1941 behind Hitler's back (repaying him in kind for the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement)
                            I don't belive that Japan would have done this if Great Brittan had surrenderd in 1940.
                            When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.
                            Jimi Hendrix

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              well.
                              Had Teh BEF been completely captured, it woudl have been a very strong psychological blow to the British population - that's a LOT of fathers, brothers and sons in captivity. With the soon to be collapse of France, you may have a very low morale.

                              Hitler shoudl have then suggested generous peace terms - certainly terms that would perhaps not change much frontiers of France (still take Elsass and Lorraine) but put back Belgium and the Netherlands of course and probably not even take anything for Italy - after all, after the only accomplishment of Italy was to loose 1/3 of it's merchant fleet on the first day of the war and did not field any victory. At most, Italy would get Nice and Tunisia. At most.

                              with such terms, with France out of the picture, with a return to the status quo, Britain would certainly have cut it's losses and acceped.

                              and the world would have been a much better/worst place????
                              "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X