Chamberlain's Advice to King George: "Halifax"

[Laplace's Demon]

On May 9th 1940, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax and the co-leaders of the Labour Party, Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood. First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill was not informed of the meeting, having met earlier in the day with Anthony Eden and Kingsley Wood to discuss maneuvering himself into the position of Chamberlain's successor. Whether he went into the meeting still loyal to his old patron Chamberlain or had a change of heart during or after, we cannot know, but Wood informed Chamberlain of the discussion, warning him of Churchill's intentions and allowing the doomed Prime Minister to come up with a plan.

On the way from the meeting with Labour, Halifax informed Chamberlain his condition for being his successor would be the removal of Churchill from the government; as he feared the other man would dominate defense matters and leave him nearly powerless as Prime Minister.

Despite having no confirmed support from the Labour leaders that they could continue to support the National Government with another Tory MP in the premiership, Chamberlain advised the King later that day, when asked, to request Halifax to take the reigns of the government. The King took his advice and called upon Lord Halifax, asking him to lead the government; which he accepted, having been assured by Chamberlain earlier that his condition would be met.

While Halifax was meeting with the King, Chamberlain was meeting with the government MP's; the majority of whom supported the Halifax for Prime Minister. On his final day as Prime Minister on the 10th, Chamberlain dismissed Churchill from his post as Lord of the Admiralty and arranged with the government MP's a temporary system for Halifax, a peer, to function as Prime Minister until a proper procedure could be worked out. Arrangements were made for a Tory MP to stand as the future Prime Minister's proxy in the Commons, with Conservative and Labour leaders agreeing that power could be concentrated in the National Government for the time being without them losing control of their backbenchers.

That same day Germany invaded France and the Low Countries.

On May 11th, Lord Halifax became Prime Minister. By the 15th it was clear to both Halifax and French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud that France had lost the battle. Flying to Paris on the 16th, Halifax met with Reynaud in person and drafted a plan to keep their remaining military forces relatively intact, the French government intact, and the French colonial empire outside of German hands. On the 17th this plan went into effect, with the highest ranking British commander in the cut off coastal enclave North of the German bulge taking command of an early evacuation of Allied troops and officials there, and French high command doing the same in the South. The cut off troops were well across the channel by the time the German army seized the coastal ports, and the French government had bought enough time to evacuate themselves, most of their remaining forces, and as much personnel and infrastructure as possible over the Mediterranean to Algeria.

The British public were shocked, the French public were outraged beyond belief (with General Charles de Gaulle and his troops dying in an unordered counterattack on the German forces) and France fell without much more of a fight after that. Divided into occupation zones by Germany and Italy, the exodus and resulting widespread public resentment of the government, which refused to surrender, led the majority of French civilians to cooperate with their occupiers and even direct their anger towards their own former leaders rather than the enemy.

However, French Africa remained in Allied hands; as did Syria. And the fall of France gave Britain and the French exile government time to redirect their preserved forces to defend their African and Middle-Eastern possessions from intact. A War of Empires was promised in the House of Commons.

...Which brings me to the next step as I think out this outline to a future timeline. Should the War of Empires be fought, or should Halifax make peace to buy time for a military build up? Should Admiral Darlan stage a coup against the evacuated government to console the exiled military, civilian evacuees, and Pied Noirs and take advantage of their anger at the government? And if so should Halifax use that as an excuse to broker a separate peace with Germany, or work with Darlan to win a war fought with the full might of the British and French empires?

[Gosing]

I'm not sure the British public would accept a deal that keeps Churchill out of power entirely; IIRC the only reason Chamberlain's government survived 1939 was because Churchill was brought in.

[patb01]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but as a Peer, wasn't Lord Halifax barred from sitting in the House of Commons?

[Cymraeg]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but as a Peer, wasn't Lord Halifax barred from sitting in the House of Commons?

Yes, he was. Plus I don't think that Labour would have supported him, and that was a deal-breaker.

[Anaxagoras]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but as a Peer, wasn't Lord Halifax barred from sitting in the House of Commons?

Yes, but he still could be Prime Minister.

[Garrison]

I don't think the Labour party would have accepted Halifax, so no unity government. They didn't like Churchill but they knew he would fight.

Also if Halifax did make peace I doubt the terms would have allowed for rearming; with the fear of invasion and the 'bomber will always get through' belief still in place it he wouldn't have dared press for any terms that left open the possibility of a resumption, and he would almost certainly have had to throw the Free French to the wolves, and yes I read the POD but the notion of the French government evacuating is a non starter without some radical additional changes.

[whatisinaname]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but as a Peer, wasn't Lord Halifax barred from sitting in the House of Commons?

Halifax foreign secretary, so a Peer is not barred from the House of Commons, though it would be unusual for a Peer to become PM, but after all this is war and strange things happen...

[Garrison]

Halifax foreign secretary, so a Peer is not barred from the House of Commons, though it would be unusual for a Peer to become PM, but after all this is war and strange things happen...

It wouldn't have been against the rules but it would have been awkward in terms of the unwritten conventions of how things were done. And as has been said he wasn't acceptable to Labour so it's unlikely he could have formed a coalition and he would likely have been in real trouble after the fall of France so it might just have postponed Churchill's ascent to the top job rather than prevented it.

[Anaxagoras]

Halifax foreign secretary, so a Peer is not barred from the House of Commons, though it would be unusual for a Peer to become PM, but after all this is war and strange things happen...

It wouldn't have been all that strange. Salisbury was PM for most of the years between 1885 and 1902 (with a three year stint as leader of the opposition from 1892-1892), which was not that long before. And the Lord Carrington was Foreign Minister as recently as 1982.

[whatisinaname]

The only way I can think of keeping Churchill at bay is laying the blame for the Norwegian campaign on him and forcing Churchill to resign, this would be similar to May 1915 after the disastrous Battle of Gallipoli. Churchill had felt obliged to resign from the war cabinet because he had proposed the Gallipoli expedition.

[Cymraeg]

It wouldn't have been all that strange. Salisbury was PM for most of the years between 1885 and 1902 (with a three year stint as leader of the opposition from 1892-1892), which was not that long before. And the Lord Carrington was Foreign Minister as recently as 1982.

Yes, but even by the end of Salisbury's time in office it was becoming clear that a peer as PM was no longer really working. His nephew Balfour did a lot of his work towards the end. By 1940 a peer as PM was an anachronism.

[Laplace's Demon]

Well I've always been interested in the simplified version of Halifax making a peace and to damn with everyone other than Britain, building up the RAF and consolidating the Empire in the meantime; but this is the first time that I had actually looked closely at the days in which Chamberlain was replaced.

The relevant Wikipedia articles are what lead me to believe that the majority of the coalition government would have gone for Halifax; but I suppose even if that was a majority of the Labour members of the government, which it wouldn't have to be, that wouldn't necessarily mean the parliamentary party would be that way. It is easy to forget about the diffusive nature of parliamentary systems when you don't live in one.

France, well that's kind of an ass-pull I'm not going to try to maintain. Though even if things went just like OTL in terms of the fall of France, in the same breath as selling out the French to get peace I can see Halifax, or some other Prime Minister, not doing what Churchill did in terms of sinking the French Fleet. I think that in a standard fall of France as per OTL scenario, there is a lot of potential in Darlan and the Algerian Fleet surviving; even if Algeria is indefensible at that point there is always relocation to the Caribbean.

Hmmm...here's a thought: an organized evacuation of France is madness, I concede, but what about an organized rallying of the Marina Nationale, rather than the OTL dispersal that left them scattered about? Anyone have any thoughts concerning how the French navy could have survived the fall of France more intact and what they might have done afterwards?

Considering there were already in OTL a small number of non-Free-French units fighting the Vichy, I almost like the potential of really screwing France over by splitting the resistance; De Gaulle one one hand and a navy guy like Darlan or another admiral on the other.

A split resistance and no Vichy could be interesting. Ifone can remove Petain from the equation one way or another, it is hardly inevitable that when the French government surrendered an acceptable puppet state would have been agreed upon by the Germans and allowed to rule a large portion of the country, is it?

[ivanotter]

Halifax as PM is one of the most interesting options.

from Wiki:
""" The Conservative historian Maurice Cowling wrote in 1975: "To history, until yesterday, Halifax was the arch-appeaser. This, it is now recognised, was a mistake. His rôle, however, was complicated. In these pages he is not the man who stopped the rot, but the embodiment of Conservative wisdom who decided that Hitler must be obstructed because Labour could not otherwise be resisted".

So, maybe Halifax was not so interested in any peace offers?

It is somewhat fascinating that Halifax after all met both Goering, Hitler et. al. in Germany. Social ties etc.

Maybe Halifax was in a better position to understnd what Hitler really wanted?

Churchill never met Hitler (as far as I know) nor Goering.

Would it make Halifax a better PM? How well would he have interacted with the professional soldiers? I can see him make some "logical" selections, which could just lead further down the slippery slope.

After all, Churchill made some good decisions in tht department.

Halifax himslef felt that Churchill would be a better choice at that point in time.

I can see Halifax conducting the war in a very urbane and civilised way, but that would not lead to victory?

Ivan

[Some Bloke]

Fletcher of Saltoun did a very interesting timeline where Halifax is a devious bastard who turns the peace into a Twentieth Century Amiens.

[ivanotter]

La Place:
Ok, so we were both reading Wiki at the same time!

There is another dimension to this. The fall of France. As much as we can see the reasons, hindsight is 20-20 vision.

I believe that everyone, from Churchill to Halifax to whomever, would never have believed that the French army could be defeated in hours, not months or years.

Maybe that's why my favourite commander, Brooke, was shouted down when he dared to raise his voice, claiming that the battle was already lost.

It is hard to compare the fall of France to anything I think. 9/11 can be one event, bujt here we are talking about something which is like people from Mars landing in the back-yard

Now, if that is correct, maybe Halifax did believe that Hitler could be contained by showing a firm hand after Munich.

All said, I cannot see Halifax as the fighter, like a Churchill.

Ivan

[Laplace's Demon]

The bit from Halifax's personal writings dating back to the Chamberlain succession gave the impression to me anyway that rather than thinking Churchill was better for the job, that he thought Churchill would dominate the government if he (Halifax) was PM. So if Churchill could be given the sack, I think Halifax would have accepted the job.

Traditionally I've gotten the impression from other fictional uses of Halifax, by balancing them all together and considering it, that there is a sort of consensus or good footing just broadly speaking for him as wanting Britain to have more time to prepare for the war. So ultimately the best scenario for a classic Halifax as PM timeline would be an early enough peace that Britain doesn't have to make any solid promises. Something more akin to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, really.

And in hindsight we know Stalin needed all the time he could get to prepare after having purged the Soviet military something awful, so it is not an unattractive prospect to consider a quick white peace with Britain being desirable for Germany to pull a 1940 Barbarossa while the Soviets are still prepping. But the question is how clear that would be to people in that situation at that time, hindsight can make things clear today that would not have been obvious at all at the time.

Also, am I wrong in assuming that Halifax might be good at managing the British empire and marshaling its resources, considering his foreign policy and colonial governor experience?

Edit: Peace in Europe by the start of July 1940 also means that FDR can bow out of a third term and Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. can get elected, for some good old-fashioned isolationist U.S. shenanigans to keep things interesting. There is something interesting about a timeline where the Democrats are Anglophobes who go from favoring the Germans to favoring the Soviets, while the isolationist Republicans die out or jump ship and the Yale alumni Eastern establishment take over the GOP in the name of Anglophilia.

[ivanotter]

so... what about Eden as PM after Chamberlain?

[theman from the ministery]

this might be of help (http://www.alternatehistory.com%20this%20might%20be%20of% 20help%20/discussion/showthread.php?t=135299&highlight=Halifax)


EDIT: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=135299&highlight=Halifax

[Some Bloke]

That's the one I was talking about.

[theman from the ministery]

That's the one I was talking about.

Your welcome

[Faeelin]

Why is there this sudden movement for peace with a totalitarian dictator who has broken his word in the UK that wasn't present in OTL?

[Laplace's Demon]

Hm? There's no vague POD's or changes necessary, not like a out of nowhere Sealion. If Halifax had become PM, especially if he had succeeded in toppling Churchill in the May 20's instead of becoming PM instead of Churchill, he probably would have brokered peace. That's something that exists IOTL, it does not require any backtracking or early POD's. The peace camp was still there during the fall of France and lead up to the Battle of Britain. Heck, even after Churchill got over those initial impediments, the parliament is said to have responded to Chamberlain far more enthusiastically than they had to the "We Will Fight on the Beaches" speech.

[stevep]

Laplace's Demon

Some very interesting ideas. Not sure what Halifax would do or how successful or not he might be compared to Churchill as don't know enough about him.

If France fights on then probably Algeria and the bulk of the rest of the French empire is secure for the alliance. Italy is near to Tunisia and they have the base in Libya but the French colonial forces are fairly strong and the combined fleets would make reinforcement for the Italians even more costly than OTL. Going to be a big question of what happens with FIC. Does Japan try and pressurise the French government and if so what happens. Could be anything from a war in the Pacific a year earlier, with or without US involvement or FIC staying outside Japanese domination which makes a drive south through Malaya virtually impossible and also affects things in China.

If Halifax makes peace I could see Hitler going for fairly moderate terms as he wants peace quickly to free his hands for Russia. Also he thinks the western powers are clearly defeated and that he can always go back on his word after crushing the Soviets if need be. However likely he will want colonial concessions that could be nasty in terms of the bases it would give Germany when the war resumes. [Also there is the danger that some, although not many I suspect, would seek to make it a lasting peace, sacrificing Europe for the idea of avoiding further conflict].

Not so sure Roosevelt wouldn't go for a 3rd term, even if Britain does make peace. Things are in some ways looking even more dangerous for the US in those circumstances as it faces both a triumphant Germany and an aggressive Japan with its two main potential allies against both gravely weakened.

Can't see Joe Kennedy making a seriously bid for the Presidency. He's Catholic, which is still a lot more of a problem at this point, other than wealth he has no real abilities or contacts and he is quite possibly open to blackmail on some of his business dealings. Also while appeasers might favour him I can't see Roosevelt and he will have a large say on who follows him if he doesn't stand again.

Steve

[Devolved]

I think it was clear that Labour would not enter a coalition government with Lord Halifax as Prime Minister.

It's also obvious that Halifax as Prime Minister would have worked for a negotiated peace as soon as the Dunkirk disaster started to loom. He was a realist and he despised Churchill as did Rab Butler as a 'half breed American' and he disliked the 'we shall fight them on the beaches' kind of mentality. He viewed the Churchill position as hysterical emotionalism.


His goal would have been to save Britain and the Empire He wouldn't have supported the continuation of a war that he thought was lost. He was also disdainful of Americans and it was OTL Churchill's sense of humour that made him ambassaor to Washington.

[Laplace's Demon]

If Britain does sue for peace, papa Joe is gonna be looking pretty smooth, as being the guy that predicted they would fold and that the U.S. shouldn't get involved. And the real life guy waiting in the wings to run in 1940 if FDR didn't run for a third term, which according to some posters here on these boards he wasn't going to do if there was peace in Europe, was political machinist turned Postmaster General James Farley, also an Irish Catholic.

So Joe winning is probably up to chance, even with the OTL landslide victory of FDR against Landon, but considering the OTL candidate if FDR didn't run for a third term was going to be an even shadier Irish Catholic than Kennedy, it is consider it implausible.

And Roosevelt was planning prior to Pearl Harbor to lift the trade embargo with Japan, so if things start looking more dangerous in the world, that plan could quite easily rise to the surface earlier and be transmitted to any chosen successor.

Detaching Japan from the Anti-Komintern Pact shouldn't be so hard in terms of a temporary measure. All it takes is selling them oil again, I've been led by the information to believe. And Britain could, if it had peace, do that if the U.S. does not.

What is going to complicate the West's relationship with Japan is the Japanese invasion of French and Dutch Pacific colonies. Japan might stay off of British and U.S. territory temporarily if both those nations are at peace and thus not vulnerable and are trading with them as normal, but unless both countries are willing to just ignore Japan preying on the weaker Pacific colonial empires there are going to be problems quite quickly after a June peace along the Fletcher Saltoun model in his timeline that was linked.

Of course, if the anti-war faction who blame the war for the loss of territory or militarists who blame the government's surrender for loss of territory win power or seize it in France, that could give Halifax an excuse to ignore whatever trouble France gets into. And who knows, the Dutch East Indies and French Indochina might whet the Japanese military's need for raw materials enough, especially if Germany pulls an earlier Barbarossa due to peace in the West. Even formally detached from Germany thanks to a British or American bribe of lifted sanctions isn't necessarily going to stop Japan from kicking the Soviet Union while it is down, declaring a separate war on it (thinking of the war as multiple different wars was how Spain rationalized its weird international political position after all) to invade the Russian Far East.

Or Britain, the United States, and France could beat the crap out of Japan while Germany is eviscerating an ill-prepared and not-getting-lend-lease Russia.

Also, I think rather than British troops stationed in France to get by post-WWI troop limits imposed on France in the peace as Fletcher has it in his timeline, maybe if the wording of treaty is to continental France, France would mobilize additional troops and build/move military infrastructure beyond the treaty limits in the colonies.

So maybe something like this...
Halifax instead of Churchill on May 9th/10th
Successful evacuation of Allied troops cut off on the North French coast in early June, followed swiftly by a request for ceasefire. Then the peace treaty is hashed out, with peace by the start of July.
Walking into the Democratic convention in July with peace in Europe, FDR is pressured (quite big pressure OTL already) to not run a third term and can't justify one. Though Farley wants it, finagling and negotiations in the Democratic Machine faction land on Joe Kennedy, the ambassador to Britain who predicted the peace. Joe is considerably less tainted with political corruption than Farley or the other New York and Chicago Machinists.
Britain is under no obligations by the treaty regarding arms and troops, and begins military build-up. France circumvents treaty and checks future aggression from the concessions, likely in Tunis, it gave up to the Axis in the peace by building up its troops and war industries in remaining colonies like Algeria and West Africa.
Japan's Pearl Harbor ITTL is not being willing to change its invasion plan of French Indochina in July in order to embargo oil imports into China, even though France and Britain are now at peace with Germany. Germany can't pay attention to their Far East frenemy, because they're rapidly shifting their forces for a much sped up sneak attack on the Soviets.

What follows is a British-French (and colonial Dutch) fight against Japan, with newly elected Joe P. Kennedy Sr...selling to both sides? And thus establishing an Anglophobic stance to the isolationist wing of the Democrats, now in ascent. The Brits have no love lost for the guy regardless and there's no point predicting that the U.S. is better off not joining in the early war against Germany due to Britain being likely to fold only to them get in a war with the Japanese, so bribing them with a lifted trade embargo to focus on other things before turning their eyes to the Philippines is not unreasonable.

[Snake Featherston]

Halifax would arguably have been a better leader than Churchill. Given the immense number of British disasters in that war that were purely of Churchill's devising, the British doing a better job in the war before Hitler goes to rape-loot-pillage Russia would be certainly helpful for the UK.

[Snake Featherston]

I think it was clear that Labour would not enter a coalition government with Lord Halifax as Prime Minister.

It's also obvious that Halifax as Prime Minister would have worked for a negotiated peace as soon as the Dunkirk disaster started to loom. He was a realist and he despised Churchill as did Rab Butler as a 'half breed American' and he disliked the 'we shall fight them on the beaches' kind of mentality. He viewed the Churchill position as hysterical emotionalism.


His goal would have been to save Britain and the Empire He wouldn't have supported the continuation of a war that he thought was lost. He was also disdainful of Americans and it was OTL Churchill's sense of humour that made him ambassaor to Washington.

That's historical revisionism. Halifax was no pacifist. He was if anything more consistent in organizing a British role to resist Hitler than the mercurial, disaster-prone Churchill. Given the litany of British WWII disasters Churchill made, from Norway, to Greece and Crete, to the bungling conduct of North Africa, Singapore, Gazala, Anzio, and the Dodecanese Campaigns, how would Halifax screw up even worse?

[Devolved]

If Britain does sue for peace, papa Joe is gonna be looking pretty smooth, as being the guy that predicted they would fold and that the U.S. shouldn't get involved. And the real life guy waiting in the wings to run in 1940 if FDR didn't run for a third term, which according to some posters here on these boards he wasn't going to do if there was peace in Europe, was political machinist turned Postmaster General James Farley, also an Irish Catholic.

So Joe winning is probably up to chance, even with the OTL landslide victory of FDR against Landon, but considering the OTL candidate if FDR didn't run for a third term was going to be an even shadier Irish Catholic than Kennedy, it is consider it implausible.

And Roosevelt was planning prior to Pearl Harbor to lift the trade embargo with Japan, so if things start looking more dangerous in the world, that plan could quite easily rise to the surface earlier and be transmitted to any chosen successor.

Detaching Japan from the Anti-Komintern Pact shouldn't be so hard in terms of a temporary measure. All it takes is selling them oil again, I've been led by the information to believe. And Britain could, if it had peace, do that if the U.S. does not.

What is going to complicate the West's relationship with Japan is the Japanese invasion of French and Dutch Pacific colonies. Japan might stay off of British and U.S. territory temporarily if both those nations are at peace and thus not vulnerable and are trading with them as normal, but unless both countries are willing to just ignore Japan preying on the weaker Pacific colonial empires there are going to be problems quite quickly after a June peace along the Fletcher Saltoun model in his timeline that was linked.

Of course, if the anti-war faction who blame the war for the loss of territory or militarists who blame the government's surrender for loss of territory win power or seize it in France, that could give Halifax an excuse to ignore whatever trouble France gets into. And who knows, the Dutch East Indies and French Indochina might whet the Japanese military's need for raw materials enough, especially if Germany pulls an earlier Barbarossa due to peace in the West. Even formally detached from Germany thanks to a British or American bribe of lifted sanctions isn't necessarily going to stop Japan from kicking the Soviet Union while it is down, declaring a separate war on it (thinking of the war as multiple different wars was how Spain rationalized its weird international political position after all) to invade the Russian Far East.

Or Britain, the United States, and France could beat the crap out of Japan while Germany is eviscerating an ill-prepared and not-getting-lend-lease Russia.

Also, I think rather than British troops stationed in France to get by post-WWI troop limits imposed on France in the peace as Fletcher has it in his timeline, maybe if the wording of treaty is to continental France, France would mobilize additional troops and build/move military infrastructure beyond the treaty limits in the colonies.

So maybe something like this...
Halifax instead of Churchill on May 9th/10th
Successful evacuation of Allied troops cut off on the North French coast in early June, followed swiftly by a request for ceasefire. Then the peace treaty is hashed out, with peace by the start of July.
Walking into the Democratic convention in July with peace in Europe, FDR is pressured (quite big pressure OTL already) to not run a third term and can't justify one. Though Farley wants it, finagling and negotiations in the Democratic Machine faction land on Joe Kennedy, the ambassador to Britain who predicted the peace. Joe is considerably less tainted with political corruption than Farley or the other New York and Chicago Machinists.
Britain is under no obligations by the treaty regarding arms and troops, and begins military build-up. France circumvents treaty and checks future aggression from the concessions, likely in Tunis, it gave up to the Axis in the peace by building up its troops and war industries in remaining colonies like Algeria and West Africa.
Japan's Pearl Harbor ITTL is not being willing to change its invasion plan of French Indochina in July in order to embargo oil imports into China, even though France and Britain are now at peace with Germany. Germany can't pay attention to their Far East frenemy, because they're rapidly shifting their forces for a much sped up sneak attack on the Soviets.

What follows is a British-French (and colonial Dutch) fight against Japan, with newly elected Joe P. Kennedy Sr...selling to both sides? And thus establishing an Anglophobic stance to the isolationist wing of the Democrats, now in ascent. The Brits have no love lost for the guy regardless and there's no point predicting that the U.S. is better off not joining in the early war against Germany due to Britain being likely to fold only to them get in a war with the Japanese, so bribing them with a lifted trade embargo to focus on other things before turning their eyes to the Philippines is not unreasonable.

I think you are just trying to get Joe Kennedy into the Whitehouse in 1940 and you don't care how you do it. It's a no no.

As someone else has said he was a Catholic. It was a problem for JFK in the 1960 election and he had to make a speech in which he said he accepted the separation of church and state and pretty much had to tell people that he wouldn't be taking his orders from the Pope.

In 1940 it would be a much bigger problem.

Also with Halifax making peace in late May early June it doesn't make Joe Kennedy a great prophet who saw the future clearly. Things would have happened too quickly for that.

[Devolved]

That's historical revisionism. Halifax was no pacifist. He was if anything more consistent in organizing a British role to resist Hitler than the mercurial, disaster-prone Churchill. Given the litany of British WWII disasters Churchill made, from Norway, to Greece and Crete, to the bungling conduct of North Africa, Singapore, Gazala, Anzio, and the Dodecanese Campaigns, how would Halifax screw up even worse?

I never said he was a pacifist. Please read before banging on the keyboard.

I stated he was a realist and that he would have favoured a negotiated peace as Dunkirk and the French collapse loomed. Favouring peace when you think you've lost a war doesn't make you a pacifist.

I'm not sure how the anti Churchill rant was relevant.

[Snake Featherston]

I never said he was a pacifist. Please read before banging on the keyboard.

I stated he was a realist and that he would have favoured a negotiated peace as Dunkirk and the French collapse loomed. Favouring peace when you think you've lost a war doesn't make you a pacifist.

I'm not sure how the anti Churchill rant was relevant.

Except that the British hadn't lost the war, and Churchill was not, despite what he wrote his memoirs to record, alone in thinking so. And kindly eschew the personal attacks when you're making statements based on obsolete views of history that haven't mattered since say, the 1960s.

[Devolved]

Except that the British hadn't lost the war, and Churchill was not, despite what he wrote his memoirs to record, alone in thinking so. And kindly eschew the personal attacks when you're making statements based on obsolete views of history that haven't mattered since say, the 1960s.

I wasn't making a personal attack. I was simply advising you to read what people write instead of commenting on words that aren't there.

As a response to my post you accused me of being a Revisionist. Your evidence for this was that Halifax wasn't a pacifist and Churchill was not alone in thinking the war wasn't lost.

I never stated Halifax was a pacifist or that Churchill was the only one who believed the war wasn't lost.

You then went into an irrelevant anti Churchill rant that had nothing to do with anything I had written or anyone else on this thread.

Finally your statement that Halifax would have made a better war leader has no evidence to support it.

[Laplace's Demon]

I think you are just trying to get Joe Kennedy into the Whitehouse in 1940 and you don't care how you do it. It's a no no.

As someone else has said he was a Catholic. It was a problem for JFK in the 1960 election and he had to make a speech in which he said he accepted the separation of church and state and pretty much had to tell people that he wouldn't be taking his orders from the Pope.

In 1940 it would be a much bigger problem.

Also with Halifax making peace in late May early June it doesn't make Joe Kennedy a great prophet who saw the future clearly. Things would have happened too quickly for that.

Well I'm keeping it. Kennedy supposedly thought he had a shot IRL, Farley was going to take the nod in 40 if Roosevelt didn't take a third term, so obviously the nomination makes sense. If you don't think they would have one...eh, elections are very fluid and hard to predict; plus historically speaking the evidence is the people were ready to vote for Roosevelt a landslide for a third term, so with his support a Catholic could have probably gotten by alright.

Your main problem seems to be with a Catholic getting the nomination, but since that was already going to happen OTL, that is not a problem after all.

[Devolved]

Well I'm keeping it. Kennedy supposedly thought he had a shot IRL, Farley was going to take the nod in 40 if Roosevelt didn't take a third term, so obviously the nomination makes sense. If you don't think they would have one...eh, elections are very fluid and hard to predict; plus historically speaking the evidence is the people were ready to vote for Roosevelt a landslide for a third term, so with his support a Catholic could have probably gotten by alright.

Your main problem seems to be with a Catholic getting the nomination, but since that was already going to happen OTL, that is not a problem after all.

Good luck.

[stevep]

Laplace's Demon

On Kennedy we will have to differ. Not sure Roosevelt would support him or even if he did he would get elected, although likely with an endorsement.

On a Pacific war, if Kennedy did get it then Japan might risk peace with the US while striking south. However it won't mean much trade for Japan as with the neutrality acts in place, once Japan goes to war with the allies their going to have to pay up front for any goods and provide the MS, which across the Pacific is going to require a lot, even without losses from allied attacks. At this point the Japanese skills would be a nasty shock for the allies but they have less bases and ships, since they only have 4 CVs and two of them haven't been in service long plus some a/c such as the Zeros aren't in active service yet. As such they are likely to lose such a war, although it would seriously distract Britain and France from Europe for a couple of years.

I couldn't see Britain allowing an attack on the Dutch East Indies as that would both set a dangerous precedent and expose the British colonies to attack.

Germany will attack the Soviets but I doubt they could do it before spring 41 as they would have to regroup after the losses suffered in the attacks in the west, rebuild supply stocks etc. Therefore doubt they could get anything together before the winter closes in. Both sides will be weaker with less time to build-up, although less so for the Germans without the western front fighting. However Germany will still have to leave forces to guard their western borders or occupied France if they stay in part of that. [Which could well be likely but is likely to make the French pretty unhappy].

Germany will have no blockade but will be limited by their restricted funds, although they might force the transfer of assets as part of the peace.

Even Stalin I think won't be surprised by a German attack in TTL as Germany is free of clear threat elsewhere. Therefore likely to be at least some preparation, unless he does something really, really stupid like deciding on a pre-emptive attack.:(:( Would expect the Soviets to do worse against a Germany not committed elsewhere but its still not going to be easy. Britain would almost certainly start sending supplies to the Soviets but probably a fairly small amount and later, depending on events in the east.

If you do go for a Kennedy Presidency then relations with the allies are likely to be tense. Especially since in the aftermath of the defeat and with case funds running low they are likely to cut back on purchases from the US. Unless Kennedy is able to dramatically increase the US military spending, or other government spending [not sure what his policies would be?] then you could see another slump in the US.

If Japan was to strike north once the Germans attack the Soviets its even worse for the Soviets but not good for the Japanese as their likely to suffer heavy losses for minimal gains. However it would cause additional pressure by preventing eastern resources being available for the front against Germany.

Steve

[ivanotter]

Churchill might be disaster-prone, but he still managed to get everyone on the same page.

I am not sure Halifax could do that.

I also believe that his appointments of key military people will be much more "logical" but far less effective.

His track record in India is not impressive.

I do see it as "we lost the war with honours", instead of "we won - because we are nasty bastards" - somewhat like that.

If new evidence is anything to go by, Halifax was - after Munich - not interested in any more negotiations with Axis.

However, how to get it across to the nation?

Ivan