Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Different PM in Britain?

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

  • Different PM in Britain?

    I just found this when i was looking at upcoming games, or at least games that are supposed to upcoming, and I wondered what people thought.

    "In 1931, Winston Churchill was hit by a taxi in New York. In the real world, he survived, and went on to rally the British people to fight the Nazi threat. But what if he hadnít? "

  • #2
    Originally posted by Galen107 View Post
    I just found this when i was looking at upcoming games, or at least games that are supposed to upcoming, and I wondered what people thought.

    "In 1931, Winston Churchill was hit by a taxi in New York. In the real world, he survived, and went on to rally the British people to fight the Nazi threat. But what if he hadnít? "
    What if the taxi-driver was an Austrian-immigrant named Adolf Hitler?
    Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

    Prayers.

    BoRG

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

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

    Comment


    • #3
      A different PM probably would have asked for peace when France fell--Churchill's determination really carried the day.
      So: June 1940, Britain and Germany agree to end the fighting.
      Germany can concentrate it's full might on Russia. Even if Italy gets messed up in Greece, with no Brits, Germany can help Italy clean up easily. Barbarrossa goes forward whenever Hitler wants (May, early June?), with more Luftwaffe and a couple more Pz. divisions that are not in North Africa.
      The Bismark is bombarding the fleet and Leningrad. Subs are all over the Black, Baltic and even Arctic.

      Odessa doesn't supplied from the sea because of the u-boats, Leningrad is getting pounded by the German surface fleet, and the extra fighters (and pilots not lost in the Battle of Britain) are keeping the Red Falcons more at bay while the Stukas hit the ground troops.
      Is it enough to defeat the Soviets?
      I don't think so

      Comment


      • #4
        chamberlain would still be prime minister (if he didn't resign,) signed more pieces of paper and would have been stunned when the first nazi jackboot set foot on britain. britain couldn't sit back and watch her neighbours been invaded. he did the right thing on the 3rd of september 1939. churchill was the right man at the right time. saying that, if he had been prime minister before hand, we would have been at war a lot earlier and not signed 'a piece of paper' with herr hitler. could you imagine sir winston sitting down with hitler over a cuppa and chatting with him. i think it would have been all out war in that room.
        Last edited by pompey john; 10 Oct 06, 04:16.
        Big40 events. By skinheads for skinheads.

        Comment


        • #5
          Actually, there was an oppurtunity later on which could have prevented Churchill from gaining power. This was in late April 1940 when Chamberlain needed to find a successor for his position of Prime Minister. Since the labour party refused to cooperate under Chamberlain, he had two candidates: Halifax and Churchill. In Feilings biography of Neville Chamberlain, he states he perferred Halifax over Churchill and was forced to pick him beacuse Halifax belived the Labour party wouldn`t want to work under him. So another what-if question is....what if Halifax accepted the position?
          Last edited by Tom Phoenix; 11 Oct 06, 09:48. Reason: Grammar mistake
          "Beneath its gilded beauty, though, there lies a poorly designed game which rewards the greedy and violent, and punishes the hardworking and honest; and if you think about it, that's a good representation of capitalism" - Nightfreeze about Eve Online

          Comment


          • #6
            Halifax was much preferred by the Conservative Party. At the time (and even until the 1960s), leaders of the Conservatives were not elected; rather, senior party figures met and decided it between themselves. In 1940, Chamberlain had lost the confidence of the House of Commons (one Conservative MP quoted Oliver Cromwell and told Chamberlain: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!) A new leader was needed and the Conservatives wanted Halifax - Churchill was still mainly remembered for being an adventurer and for opposing the government over political reforms in British India. However, Halifax was a peer - Lord Halifax - and it had been half a century since a peer had been PM. Senior Conservatives spoke to both Churchill and Halifax and asked them each whether they felt that it was appropriate for a peer to be Prime Minister. Halifax mumbled something indistinct whereas Churchill said pretty baldly that he felt it was something the country and the party would not stand. So, Churchill became PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Even without Churchill, the British would have defended themself during the Battle of Britain. The Battle of Britain was not winnable for the Germans so that outcome wouldn't have been different.

              At the time that Chamberlain resigned the British prime minster had no influence over events either way. France would have lost no matter what the British did at that point, Germany would have attacked and failed against Britain that year.

              The more interesting question is what would have happened if a more aggressive P.M. would have been in power from September of 1939 on?

              Comment


              • #8
                That's a very good question - Churchill in No10 in September 1939 and we might have seen an Allied offensive into Germany while Poland was still fighting.

                However, I think you do perhaps underestimate the importance of Churchill in May - June 1940; Halifax (as Foreign Secretary) had spoken with the Italian ambassador in London who was willing to act as intermediary with the Germans for armistice terms. Halifax saw no good coming of continuing the war, that effectively German dominance on the continent was complete, and that Britain should look to our Empire and Commonwealth, leaving Europe to Hitler.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Redwolf View Post
                  Even without Churchill, the British would have defended themself during the Battle of Britain. The Battle of Britain was not winnable for the Germans so that outcome wouldn't have been different.
                  If the British had decided to fight, you are correct, the outcome would be the same.
                  However, all the evidence points to the fact that if any other Conservative party leader had been in charge, they would have done some sort of deal with the Nazi's. Because while the Germans didn't have the ability to invade Britain, Britain didn't have the ability to defeat Germany on her own either.
                  It was only Churchill's faith that the Nazi's would over-reach themselves against another enemy or enemies led him to believe the war was winable.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The Major thing that could have been changed had Churchill not been PM...would be Operation Dynamo (Dunkirk) The Evacuation may not have happened, and the British may have sought peace with the Nazis

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Galen107 View Post
                      The Major thing that could have been changed had Churchill not been PM...would be Operation Dynamo (Dunkirk) The Evacuation may not have happened, and the British may have sought peace with the Nazis
                      There is no reason to suppose that under another leader that the evacuation wouldn't have taken place.
                      The success of the operation was due to the skill and bravery of the RN and RAF.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It is also notable that it was Lord Gorts own decision to retreat towards Dunkirk.
                        "Beneath its gilded beauty, though, there lies a poorly designed game which rewards the greedy and violent, and punishes the hardworking and honest; and if you think about it, that's a good representation of capitalism" - Nightfreeze about Eve Online

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Dunkirch was too early after the change for Churchill to have any effect.

                          I very seriously doubt that any other British P.M. would have come to terms with the Germans.

                          Terms over what?

                          So let's say the British give the Germans something that makes the Germans not attack Britain in the Battle of Britain. What happens then? Italy messes up both the north and the south shore of the Mediterranean and clashes with the British in both Greece and North Africa. Then what? Would the Germans let the Italians go to hell? Maybe, just maybe in North Africa, but certainly not in Greece and on the Balkans. If the British are there they threaten the southern flank of the attack on the Soviet Union. The British can under no circumstances give up because they need the Suez channel.

                          So even if British and Germans come to terms in 1940, all hell would break loose in 1941 again no matter what a British P.M. might decide.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Not necessarily. Italy considered an invasion of Yugoslavia instead of Greece.
                            If italy went into Yugoslavia, Britain would not have intervened. And if Italy tried to take on Britain after France fell, Germany could have left Italy to fail in North Africa while Germany took on Russia. Brits in both N. Africa and Jugoslavia is a real stretch. Greece would not break its neutrality unless invaded.
                            The Germans would figure once Russia was taken, the rest would be a mop up.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I still think it was largely due to Churchill's determination that the Brits even attempted Operation Dynamo....ANother PM as has been started here, would have probably sued for peace with Germany, and Germany could focus all of it's might on other endeavours, whatever they may be

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X