I think there is a very simple answer to the original question.
Churchill knew, that after the fall of France, and the loss of so many men and equipment, and the obvious strength of the German war machine, that the future outcome for Great Britain was bleak indeed.
He knew from the Great War, that a modern war was one of resources, and only by immense effort and engagement by every citizen, in every factory, and every workshop, could the situation be turned. More planes, more tanks, more guns, more soldiers, and urgently.
The British, (in my view) only excel when their backs are against the wall, and Churchill knew it. he needed, effort, money and momentum from every walk of life.
An Armistice in 1940 would have been a disaster. It would have sent a message to the British people and the Americans, and worse, the British Parliament, that we were ok, and the result would have been widespread mediocrity, inactivity, limited spending, and ultimately certain defeat.
We could never have pulled out of the bag, what we went on to do, and we probably would never have got the Americans on board.
I believe the idea of signing an Armistice, and still managing to go hell for leather in the war effort, to be wholly incompatible politically.
We have a great deal to thank Mr Churchill for. But Hey, that’s old news. The whole country knew it in 1945, and it is only modern people who forget it.
Guy
Sign In
