Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Different PM in Britain?

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

  • grognard
    replied
    If Britain has signed a peace treaty with Germany and Italy in 1940, it would not aid Yugoslavia in 1941 for fear of German repercussions, nor would Britain aid Greece in those circumstances.

    Japan did need oil nad had taken a bloody nose from the Soviets at Nomahan, so Japan would have left Russia to Germany while it sought oil from Indonesia--aka NEI.

    Leave a comment:


  • Galen107
    replied
    One of Japan's motivations for war was the need for oil, to maintain it's war effort, among other things....They probably would have sought war in the Pacific still, to try and obtain some oil resources

    Leave a comment:


  • piero1971
    replied
    I can speak about ITaly in 1940.

    if in may-June 1940 the british started some negotiations with Germany, Italy would have entered the war - that was the idea of Mussolini... get in the war before it would end... with France down, it was obvious for him that Britain would negotiate and the war end, italy wanted something (probably Nice in south of France.)

    had britain made peace with Germany, Italy would have ratified it as well. and probably stay put for the time beeing. probably still sending some forces to a german clash with the USSR, but no way in more clash with britain and france.

    the world would be a 3-power world. with USA, British empire and a Germany Reich going east. as for Asia, who knows, with the USSR down by mid 1942, Japan might have gone for Siberia instead of the Pacific...

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Phoenix
    replied
    Originally posted by grognard View Post
    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.
    Actually, there were three plans drawn by the Italian Supreme Command:

    1) an attack of Yugoslavia with subsequent security measures on border with Greece
    2) an attack on Greece with subsequent security measures on border with Yugoslavia
    3) nothing

    Mussolini felt jealous of Hitler and wanted to tag along. So 3 wasn`t an option. Which leaves 1 and 2.

    Allthough Mussolini considered 1, Hitler didn`t want any trouble in the Balkans due to his preparations for Barbarossa. Not only that, the Italians had a high respect of Yugoslavian armed forces due to the succesfullness of the Serbian Army in WW1. Which left option 2, a option most fitting for the Italians as they didn`t have a good opinion of Greece so they though the conquest of Greece would be easy. Of course, they were proven wrong....dead wrong.

    Also, I would say that had Yugoslavia been attacked, British aid to it would be even more likely as unlike the Greek Prime Minister Metaxas, the Yugoslav goverment had many pro-British elements in it as proven by the March 27 coup. Infact, Regent Paul was himself a pro-Allied person. The only reason why he followed pro-Axis politics is beacuse he had little choice....besides Greece, all countries surrounding Yugoslavia were part of the Axis.

    Leave a comment:


  • Galen107
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • grognard
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Redwolf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Phoenix
    replied
    It is also notable that it was Lord Gorts own decision to retreat towards Dunkirk.

    Leave a comment:


  • redcoat
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Galen107
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • redcoat
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Major Bloodnok
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Redwolf
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Major Bloodnok
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Phoenix
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X