Galbally;754697 wrote: No the politics of the 1930s is not simple and hindsignt is a wonderful thing of course, but the lesson of that time is a stark one. As for Churchill, yes he was not the most liberal or likeable person but he was certainy the right man for the right time.
So, what if Churchill hadn't succeeded Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister in early May 1940, before Dunkirk?In late May 1940, the War Cabinet had a rapid series of meetings over proposals for peace from Germany which threatened to split the government. Churchill, supported by the Labour members Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood, was against the proposals, which were favoured by Lord Halifax. Chamberlain was initially inclined to accept the terms, but this division threatened to bring down the government. Over the course of three days, Churchill, aided by Greenwood and the Liberal leader Sir Archibald Sinclair, gradually persuaded Chamberlain to oppose the terms, and Britain remained in the war.
What if the UK )and consequently the Commonwealth) had signed a non-aggression pact at that point and brought all their forces back across the Channel without Axis interference?
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
spot;754783 wrote: So, what if Churchill hadn't succeeded Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister in early May 1940, before Dunkirk?In late May 1940, the War Cabinet had a rapid series of meetings over proposals for peace from Germany which threatened to split the government. Churchill, supported by the Labour members Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood, was against the proposals, which were favoured by Lord Halifax. Chamberlain was initially inclined to accept the terms, but this division threatened to bring down the government. Over the course of three days, Churchill, aided by Greenwood and the Liberal leader Sir Archibald Sinclair, gradually persuaded Chamberlain to oppose the terms, and Britain remained in the war.
What if the UK )and consequently the Commonwealth) had signed a non-aggression pact at that point and brought all their forces back across the Channel without Axis interference?
Interesting question. I think at this point the british populace were ready to go to war however reluctant they were for another. Many political historians tend to assume that the people just wander along doing what their leaders tell them. The UK was hardly immune from the social and political upheavals of the time. Churchill got support because he suited the mood of the times and seemed right.
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/win.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 604995.ece
What if the UK )and consequently the Commonwealth) had signed a non-aggression pact at that point and brought all their forces back across the Channel without Axis interference?
Interesting question. I think at this point the british populace were ready to go to war however reluctant they were for another. Many political historians tend to assume that the people just wander along doing what their leaders tell them. The UK was hardly immune from the social and political upheavals of the time. Churchill got support because he suited the mood of the times and seemed right.
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/win.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 604995.ece
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
Britain had been at war with the Axis powers for nine months by then. There was an offer from the Axis for peace negotiations which could have led to withdrawal from mainland Europe of all UK and Commonwealth forces. There's no suggestion that the UK would have been occupied by Axis troops, it's a straightforward guarantee of subsequent neutrality. If Halifax had been Prime Minister of the national Government in late May the offer would have been given far more chance of acceptance.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
I think in terms of "what if" its far too hard to really have any idea of what would have been the outcome. No doubt it was to many people of a certain mindset in power in Britain a highly attractive way out of the dire situation they had gotten themselves into, but to their eternal credit they didn't back down in the face of the Nazi's aggression. Of course with the fall of France it became an even more desperate situation and it was at that moment, just after Dunkirk when it really seemed as if there was no hope of even defending Britain from a concerted invasion, let alone actually winning the war, that the remarkable tenacity of a man like Churchill (and to be fair many other Britons) came to be so important. Just as in France there were many who opted for surrender and collaboration to save their own lives, there were doubtless many in Britain who would have wanted the same seeming salvation, so it was by no means a forgone conclusion that Britain decided to fight for its own liberty and that of France and other European Nations. Of course thankfully for us living here now, it did.
Even though its impossible really to say, I am sure that if Britain had left France and Europe to its fate, and sued for peace with Hitler, then the German Chancellor would have been delighted, and would have left Britain alone while he concentrated on war with the USSR and the wholescale genocide and utterly barbaric repression against the non teutonic people's living east of the Vistula for 1941. At least he would have left Britain alone for a while anyway, just like he bided his time for Austria, Czecheslovakia, and Poland.
Of course had he subsequently beaten the USSR (and that is one big if) and then been the master of Europe from the Pyrenees to the Urals, its unlikely he would have allowed Britain to exist unmolested for very long, perhaps he would have demanded that the British Empire adopt a similar foreign policy outlook to that of the Third Reich, and eventually wanted some form of explicit political and military alliance. British Jews would have not slept easily. He would also have undoubtedly mustered British facists to stage a coup detat eventually, and then either by aquiescence or force incorporated Britain and Ireland into his contintental tyranny.
If Germany had lost the war against the USSR anyway, then Britain would again have been faced with a choice of either allowing the Red Army to get as far as Bordeaux or trying to somehow face down a Soviet Union and Stalin in control of the entire Western European peninsula.
What is clear is that in reality the only option left to a Britain that wanted to remain a free and sovereign nation for any length of time was to continue somehow, with what must have seemed to many including Churchill a very bleak war. Of course in the end a badly mauled Britain emerged victorious from the war along with the new superpowers of the USSR and the US, it was at great cost, but Britain survived even it is empire did not and in that outcome, never mind the moral imperative of destroying the Third Reich, Churchill's place in world history is secured.
Even though its impossible really to say, I am sure that if Britain had left France and Europe to its fate, and sued for peace with Hitler, then the German Chancellor would have been delighted, and would have left Britain alone while he concentrated on war with the USSR and the wholescale genocide and utterly barbaric repression against the non teutonic people's living east of the Vistula for 1941. At least he would have left Britain alone for a while anyway, just like he bided his time for Austria, Czecheslovakia, and Poland.
Of course had he subsequently beaten the USSR (and that is one big if) and then been the master of Europe from the Pyrenees to the Urals, its unlikely he would have allowed Britain to exist unmolested for very long, perhaps he would have demanded that the British Empire adopt a similar foreign policy outlook to that of the Third Reich, and eventually wanted some form of explicit political and military alliance. British Jews would have not slept easily. He would also have undoubtedly mustered British facists to stage a coup detat eventually, and then either by aquiescence or force incorporated Britain and Ireland into his contintental tyranny.
If Germany had lost the war against the USSR anyway, then Britain would again have been faced with a choice of either allowing the Red Army to get as far as Bordeaux or trying to somehow face down a Soviet Union and Stalin in control of the entire Western European peninsula.
What is clear is that in reality the only option left to a Britain that wanted to remain a free and sovereign nation for any length of time was to continue somehow, with what must have seemed to many including Churchill a very bleak war. Of course in the end a badly mauled Britain emerged victorious from the war along with the new superpowers of the USSR and the US, it was at great cost, but Britain survived even it is empire did not and in that outcome, never mind the moral imperative of destroying the Third Reich, Churchill's place in world history is secured.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
Galbally;754886 wrote: If Germany had lost the war against the USSR anyway, then Britain would again have been faced with a choice of either allowing the Red Army to get as far as Bordeaux or trying to somehow face down a Soviet Union and Stalin in control of the entire Western European peninsula.
I don't see many other ways it would have panned out. The push to the East was inevitable, Stalin winning was inevitable, you'd just have the Iron Curtain at the Channel instead of where it ended up.
Given how hard it was to keep those buffer states under control I expect the USSR would have collapsed a lot earlier than 1989 if they'd had that much territory to handle. In which case, Churchill's determination to continue to fight past May 1940 was the reason the cold war lasted so long.
I don't see many other ways it would have panned out. The push to the East was inevitable, Stalin winning was inevitable, you'd just have the Iron Curtain at the Channel instead of where it ended up.
Given how hard it was to keep those buffer states under control I expect the USSR would have collapsed a lot earlier than 1989 if they'd had that much territory to handle. In which case, Churchill's determination to continue to fight past May 1940 was the reason the cold war lasted so long.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
spot;754904 wrote: I don't see many other ways it would have panned out. The push to the East was inevitable, Stalin winning was inevitable, you'd just have the Iron Curtain at the Channel instead of where it ended up.
Given how hard it was to keep those buffer states under control I expect the USSR would have collapsed a lot earlier than 1989 if they'd had that much territory to handle. In which case, Churchill's determination to continue to fight past May 1940 was the reason the cold war lasted so long.
I think thats an interesting take on it, though blaming Churchill's desire to prevent his own country being overwhelmed by Nazi Germany in 1940 for the subsequent post-war 50 year annexation of Eastern Europe by the USSR is a little churlish Spot. He really didn't have a lot of options and I think he correctly percieved that if Britain had signed a treaty with Nazi Germany then the country he believed in and was part of would not have long survived in any recognizable form. Its interesting that the British were always far more alive to the strategic danger of leaving Russia free to take Berlin and in the process most of Eastern Europe than the Americans were at the time. Understandably the US was also fighting Japan and the long term future of Eastern Europe was not perhaps as worrying to them as it was to the British Government. Again, this shows quite clearly what happens when you take aggressive totalitarian states at their word to "do the honourable thing".
Its also true that it was Churchill himself who coined the phrase of their being an "Iron Curtain" as he seemed to have a good sense of what totalitarianism is all about, much more so than most liberal democratic politicians. Perhaps because he had a good deal of the imperialist in himself, that he knew what Nazi Germany, and (eventually) the USSR were all about. I think we can all agree that specifically in the case of WWII its direct cause was the meglomania of Adolf Hitler and the utterly brutal regime he led. I think also to suppose that USSR would have stopped at the Channel and left the home nation of the largest Imperial and Capitalist empire in the world alone is extreme wishful thinking. Britain would not have survived whoever won.
Given how hard it was to keep those buffer states under control I expect the USSR would have collapsed a lot earlier than 1989 if they'd had that much territory to handle. In which case, Churchill's determination to continue to fight past May 1940 was the reason the cold war lasted so long.
I think thats an interesting take on it, though blaming Churchill's desire to prevent his own country being overwhelmed by Nazi Germany in 1940 for the subsequent post-war 50 year annexation of Eastern Europe by the USSR is a little churlish Spot. He really didn't have a lot of options and I think he correctly percieved that if Britain had signed a treaty with Nazi Germany then the country he believed in and was part of would not have long survived in any recognizable form. Its interesting that the British were always far more alive to the strategic danger of leaving Russia free to take Berlin and in the process most of Eastern Europe than the Americans were at the time. Understandably the US was also fighting Japan and the long term future of Eastern Europe was not perhaps as worrying to them as it was to the British Government. Again, this shows quite clearly what happens when you take aggressive totalitarian states at their word to "do the honourable thing".
Its also true that it was Churchill himself who coined the phrase of their being an "Iron Curtain" as he seemed to have a good sense of what totalitarianism is all about, much more so than most liberal democratic politicians. Perhaps because he had a good deal of the imperialist in himself, that he knew what Nazi Germany, and (eventually) the USSR were all about. I think we can all agree that specifically in the case of WWII its direct cause was the meglomania of Adolf Hitler and the utterly brutal regime he led. I think also to suppose that USSR would have stopped at the Channel and left the home nation of the largest Imperial and Capitalist empire in the world alone is extreme wishful thinking. Britain would not have survived whoever won.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
spot;754864 wrote: There was an offer from the Axis for peace negotiations which could have led to withdrawal from mainland Europe of all UK and Commonwealth forces. There's no suggestion that the UK would have been occupied by Axis troops, it's a straightforward guarantee of subsequent neutrality.
Given Hitlers' previous attitude to guarantees (Poland, Checoslovakia, Schleswig-Holstein etc), this is not really believeable. Nor, indeed is it a guarantee of anything.
Given Hitlers' previous attitude to guarantees (Poland, Checoslovakia, Schleswig-Holstein etc), this is not really believeable. Nor, indeed is it a guarantee of anything.
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
Chookie;754977 wrote: Given Hitlers' previous attitude to guarantees (Poland, Checoslovakia, Schleswig-Holstein etc), this is not really believeable. Nor, indeed is it a guarantee of anything.
Come on Chookie, the Axis couldn't do it even after Dunkirk and I'm suggesting we'd have brought the entire army and its equipment back intact. Why do you think we'd have been occupied, given that we weren't even without peace?
Come on Chookie, the Axis couldn't do it even after Dunkirk and I'm suggesting we'd have brought the entire army and its equipment back intact. Why do you think we'd have been occupied, given that we weren't even without peace?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
Given your scenario, Halifax is in power. Had he allowed the Germans to land (peaceably) after they had requested that they be allowed to have "observers" (a bit like weapons inspectors in Iraq) to ensure that Commonwealth forces were actually leaving.
Don't forget, the armed forces are supposed (yes, really) to serve at the favour of the crown. Senior members of the "Royal" family were, to say the least, Nazi sympathisers. I suggest that, given orders from both crown and prime minister, the British armed forces would have, for the most part, sat on their fat arses in barracks. Thus letting Hitler get on with his next project.
Don't forget, the armed forces are supposed (yes, really) to serve at the favour of the crown. Senior members of the "Royal" family were, to say the least, Nazi sympathisers. I suggest that, given orders from both crown and prime minister, the British armed forces would have, for the most part, sat on their fat arses in barracks. Thus letting Hitler get on with his next project.
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
Actually a major point about WWII that is often missed, is that until the USA and Britain provided the USSR with enormous amounts of military equipment and aid in 1942 the Wermacht was wiping the floor with the Red Army, and they did after all get to within a few kilometers of Moscow, and reached the Volga in their ill-fated campaign of 1942. The Germans made their own huge mistakes of course which helped seal the fate of the Wermacht, but the absolute critical importance of the assistance given to Russia by the US and Britain in them being able to turn the tide of the war against the Germans should not be overlooked. Its understandable that the Russians don't emphasize it, but less so that the British and the Americans gloss over their huge contribution to keeping the USSR alive in this period, then again considering the nature of Stalin and his regime perhaps it isn't.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
I haven't suggested the USSR would have won without that aid - I do recognize it was essential. I don't think the participation of the UK, Commonwealth or USA was though.
As for allowing Axis troops across the channel I see no reason at all to think it likely, or even desirable as far as the Axis was concerned. Merely a non-aggression pact. And I emphasize again that even without peace the Axis couldn't physically achieve it. It's not part of the scenario I offered and it's not a consequence.
As for allowing Axis troops across the channel I see no reason at all to think it likely, or even desirable as far as the Axis was concerned. Merely a non-aggression pact. And I emphasize again that even without peace the Axis couldn't physically achieve it. It's not part of the scenario I offered and it's not a consequence.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
It is in fact an extrapolation of you original plot. You said in your OP:-
spot;754783 wrote: What if the UK )and consequently the Commonwealth) had signed a non-aggression pact at that point and brought all their forces back across the Channel without Axis interference?
Assuming Hitler followed his normal pattern, and I see no reason to not follow that pattern, he would press on with his own ideas.
spot;754783 wrote: As for allowing Axis troops across the channel I see no reason at all to think it likely, or even desirable as far as the Axis was concerned. Merely a non-aggression pact. And I emphasize again that even without peace the Axis couldn't physically achieve it. It's not part of the scenario I offered and it's not a consequence.
Merely a non-aggression pact? Like that with the Soviet Union?
I can't disagree that the Axis lacked the resources to achieve their ends, but I do think that Halifax (and the "Royals") would have been amenable to German "observers" in large numbers.
spot;754783 wrote: What if the UK )and consequently the Commonwealth) had signed a non-aggression pact at that point and brought all their forces back across the Channel without Axis interference?
Assuming Hitler followed his normal pattern, and I see no reason to not follow that pattern, he would press on with his own ideas.
spot;754783 wrote: As for allowing Axis troops across the channel I see no reason at all to think it likely, or even desirable as far as the Axis was concerned. Merely a non-aggression pact. And I emphasize again that even without peace the Axis couldn't physically achieve it. It's not part of the scenario I offered and it's not a consequence.
Merely a non-aggression pact? Like that with the Soviet Union?
I can't disagree that the Axis lacked the resources to achieve their ends, but I do think that Halifax (and the "Royals") would have been amenable to German "observers" in large numbers.
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
Chookie;755627 wrote:
I can't disagree that the Axis lacked the resources to achieve their ends, but I do think that Halifax (and the "Royals") would have been amenable to German "observers" in large numbers.
Why?
They might or might not have included Nazi sympathisers but they were not suicidal.
I can't disagree that the Axis lacked the resources to achieve their ends, but I do think that Halifax (and the "Royals") would have been amenable to German "observers" in large numbers.
Why?
They might or might not have included Nazi sympathisers but they were not suicidal.
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
Chookie;755627 wrote: It is in fact an extrapolation of you original plot. You said in your OP:-
Assuming Hitler followed his normal pattern, and I see no reason to not follow that pattern, he would press on with his own ideas.
Merely a non-aggression pact? Like that with the Soviet Union?
I can't disagree that the Axis lacked the resources to achieve their ends, but I do think that Halifax (and the "Royals") would have been amenable to German "observers" in large numbers.
They may very well have been but I suspect they would have been lynched.
posted by chookie
Don't forget, the armed forces are supposed (yes, really) to serve at the favour of the crown. Senior members of the "Royal" family were, to say the least, Nazi sympathisers. I suggest that, given orders from both crown and prime minister, the British armed forces would have, for the most part, sat on their fat arses in barracks. Thus letting Hitler get on with his next project.
Actually no they don't. They may swear an oath of loyalty but it's parliament that's sovereign in the UK not anyone else. Parliament can also stop a prime minister dead in his tracks if they choose to do so.-as they should have done Blair and they should also call him to account. That they don't is a comment on our MP's not the principle of the thing. He has no authority apart from what the MP's let him away with. He can make decisions in an emergency but he still has to get parliament to agree with him, if they don't he's stuffed. The armed forces would have waited to see what the outcome was.
In WW1 the royal family had to change their name to the more acceptable Windsor because of public sentiment. That hadn't been too long before.
Assuming Hitler followed his normal pattern, and I see no reason to not follow that pattern, he would press on with his own ideas.
Merely a non-aggression pact? Like that with the Soviet Union?
I can't disagree that the Axis lacked the resources to achieve their ends, but I do think that Halifax (and the "Royals") would have been amenable to German "observers" in large numbers.
They may very well have been but I suspect they would have been lynched.
posted by chookie
Don't forget, the armed forces are supposed (yes, really) to serve at the favour of the crown. Senior members of the "Royal" family were, to say the least, Nazi sympathisers. I suggest that, given orders from both crown and prime minister, the British armed forces would have, for the most part, sat on their fat arses in barracks. Thus letting Hitler get on with his next project.
Actually no they don't. They may swear an oath of loyalty but it's parliament that's sovereign in the UK not anyone else. Parliament can also stop a prime minister dead in his tracks if they choose to do so.-as they should have done Blair and they should also call him to account. That they don't is a comment on our MP's not the principle of the thing. He has no authority apart from what the MP's let him away with. He can make decisions in an emergency but he still has to get parliament to agree with him, if they don't he's stuffed. The armed forces would have waited to see what the outcome was.
In WW1 the royal family had to change their name to the more acceptable Windsor because of public sentiment. That hadn't been too long before.
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
gmc;755747 wrote: They may swear an oath of loyalty but it's parliament that's sovereign in the UK not anyone else
The oath, as far as I can remember includes the words "God, Queen and Country".
The oath, as far as I can remember includes the words "God, Queen and Country".
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
What if: Halifax instead of Churchill
Chookie;755991 wrote: The oath, as far as I can remember includes the words "God, Queen and Country".
Yes it does but that doesn't mean she can actually tell the army what to do. Parliament is sovereign the last monarch that disputed that got his head chopped off. If she were to try it I suspect she would not be queen for very long.
Yes it does but that doesn't mean she can actually tell the army what to do. Parliament is sovereign the last monarch that disputed that got his head chopped off. If she were to try it I suspect she would not be queen for very long.