Pete Clarke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course he did.
>
> He had the chance to negotiate a peace with Hitler
> in early 1941 and decided that such a move was
> unacceptable.
>
> Was it a mistake? Alan Clarke argued that a peace
> in 1941 would have allowed Britain to reinforce
> the Pacific fleet and Asian colonies which may
> have been enough to stop the Japanese - and
> probably enough to to prevent the Japanese
> attacking the USA and thus Britain effectively
> losing the wealthiest part of the Empire. From a
> purely practical point of view Britain would have
> been better off.
>
> On the other hand Hitler broke every promise that
> he ever made and it would have meant leaving the
> whole of Europe occupied by Nazi Germany.
> Churchill would not accept that and gambled that
> the USA would get involved at some point (which he
> knew was essential if the Nazi occupation was to
> be rolled back).
>
> Under that scenario the Channel Islands weren't
> important enough to be a priority.
>
> Glad I wasn't the one that had to make the
> decision!
I hear that.
One possibility is that the Russians would have been bigger worldstage players if Churchill had not prolonged the war. Thus, it's likely that the liberation of Europe would have had a much redder tinge to it than the postwar power and boundary compromises effected with Allied and American influence.
Sue