AHC: How big a Britwank can WW2 get?

[Saphroneth]

Killing off Churchill probably goes a long way towards improving things.

That man was not qualified to run a war effort and Britain's military fortunes were directly proportional to how far its generals were willing to ignore and disobey him.


Norway, loss of the second BEF, Greece (rendering Britain's only early war success useless) and in part the far east catastrofuckstorm can all be laid partly at his feet.

There were many talented individuals in his cabinet and government who would on a technical level been an order of magnitude better.

One quibble there - only if it's after September 1940. The man was instrumental in making sure Britain would fight the war to the finish, getting them in morale terms over the "darkest hour" where a peace deal is a possibility - from lingering pacifism, if nothing else.

 

[deathscompanion1]

One quibble there - only if it's after September 1940. The man was instrumental in making sure Britain would fight the war to the finish, getting them in morale terms over the "darkest hour" where a peace deal is a possibility - from lingering pacifism, if nothing else.

I'd be willing to doubt it.

I don't hold that Britain would have fought to the death no matter what like many people seem to but it takes some doing and even the defeatists all wanted to fight on until there was something in the way of victories to use as bargaining chips.

I think that Churchill being the one man to stop Britain surrounding and this great inspirational figure who was instantly adored and supported was a post war myth. He took time to build his legend and support during the war and most of the moral boost his premiership brought was the sense of energy and purpose which was brought about by his government composed of many talented men who actually ran the country and brought energy of their own to the process that got associated with him.

Its possible that him not being in power during the darkest days may be a net negative but I think its an open question.

 

[pdf27]

I'd be willing to doubt it.

I don't hold that Britain would have fought to the death no matter what like many people seem to but it takes some doing and even the defeatists all wanted to fight on until there was something in the way of victories to use as bargaining chips.

I think that Churchill being the one man to stop Britain surrounding and this great inspirational figure who was instantly adored and supported was a post war myth. He took time to build his legend and support during the war and most of the moral boost his premiership brought was the sense of energy and purpose which was brought about by his government composed of many talented men who actually ran the country and brought energy of their own to the process that got associated with him.

Its possible that him not being in power during the darkest days may be a net negative but I think its an open question.

Who can you replace him with? IIRC there were no other Tories that Labour could accept, and since the Tories had a big majority the leader had to be one of them - but all agreed a national government was needed. Halifax has no chance with labour and the only alternative I can think of was - God help us -
Lloyd George.

 

[deathscompanion1]

Who can you replace him with? IIRC there were no other Tories that Labour could accept, and since the Tories had a big majority the leader had to be one of them - but all agreed a national government was needed. Halifax has no chance with labour and the only alternative I can think of was - God help us -
Lloyd George.

Perhaps someone not quite in the circles of power yet?

Eden? Foreign secretary, Dominion secretary and would soon be secretary of war and leader in house of commons?

 

[Look More Closely Later]

1941

Greece in 1941 and North Africa in 1941 happened at the same time as a pro-German revolution in Iraq, and Vichy Syria needing to be rolled up in order to stop the Axis from use Vichy Syria to funnel further agents and troops into the Middle East.
But whilst British & Allied reverses in Greece and North Africa in 1941 are frequently berated, it seems to me that British & Allied successes (thereby securing their rear and preventing further such distractions) in 1941 in Iraq and Syria are frequently forgotten.

 

[pdf27]

Perhaps someone not quite in the circles of power yet?

Eden? Foreign secretary, Dominion secretary and would soon be secretary of war and leader in house of commons?

Unlikely - he was a failure as Foreign Secretary 1935-38, and was Lord Privy Seal for a year or so before that (Dominion Secretary not being on of the Great Offices of State). He's also only 42 when Chamberlain resigns - which would make him the youngest Prime Minister since Lord Liverpool in 1812. Finally, he was not highly regarded in his initial period as Deputy Leader of the Opposition after the 1945 election (Churchill being the formal leader but spending a lot of his time writing).

Realistically the candidates from Chamberlain's government are Sir John Simon, Sir John Anderson, Lord Halifax (realistically ruled out as he couldn't command a majority in the Commons from the Lords when opposed by Labour) and Churchill. Churchill in OTL seems to have been the only candidate that Labour could live with, so he got the job.

 

[deathscompanion1]

Unlikely - he was a failure as Foreign Secretary 1935-38, and was Lord Privy Seal for a year or so before that (Dominion Secretary not being on of the Great Offices of State). He's also only 42 when Chamberlain resigns - which would make him the youngest Prime Minister since Lord Liverpool in 1812. Finally, he was not highly regarded in his initial period as Deputy Leader of the Opposition after the 1945 election (Churchill being the formal leader but spending a lot of his time writing).

Realistically the candidates from Chamberlain's government are Sir John Simon, Sir John Anderson, Lord Halifax (realistically ruled out as he couldn't command a majority in the Commons from the Lords when opposed by Labour) and Churchill. Churchill in OTL seems to have been the only candidate that Labour could live with, so he got the job.

Churchill to date had betrayed his party. Killed thousands of Australians (and many others) for no gain and wrecked the British economy.... I think there was a pretty high willingness for second chances (third, fourth, fifth?)

 

[Saphroneth]

Churchill to date had betrayed his party. Killed thousands of Australians (and many others) for no gain and wrecked the British economy.... I think there was a pretty high willingness for second chances (third, fourth, fifth?)

I get the feeling that the best candidate, whoever it was, would have been "the only acceptable candidate".

 

[deathscompanion1]

I get the feeling that the best candidate, whoever it was, would have been "the only acceptable candidate".

Although I am now curious who that would have been.

Its not really explored unless Halifax is used to surrender to the Nazis.

 

[Saphroneth]

Although I am now curious who that would have been.

Its not really explored unless Halifax is used to surrender to the Nazis.

And, in the case of Fletcher of Salton's TL, the Halifaxed British peace treaty is just the beginning of the problems... for the Nazis.

 

[deathscompanion1]

And, in the case of Fletcher of Salton's TL, the Halifaxed British peace treaty is just the beginning of the problems... for the Nazis.

I might look that up some day.

I'm an axis wanker myself because I find it more interesting how to make the side against 80% of the world's war making capacity do better than to break them by having probability actually work as its supposed to and have them get wrecked but it would be nice to see a somewhat realistic take on how the British would cope with defeat...gearing up for round two.

 

[Drunkrobot]

Who can you replace him with? IIRC there were no other Tories that Labour could accept, and since the Tories had a big majority the leader had to be one of them - but all agreed a national government was needed. Halifax has no chance with labour and the only alternative I can think of was - God help us -
Lloyd George.

Why couldn't Chamberlain stay, at least until October when he has to step down due to his degrading health? He was ousted due to the clusterfuck of the Norwegian Campaign, just a little better luck for the Allies, a little less for the Germans, could go a long way for Norway to beat of the inital attacks and mobilise properly to hold of the Germans with help from the RAF and RN. That's a big win right there, possibly enough for faith in Chamberlain to stay put.

Of course, unless his doctor tells him about his cancer before it is too late, it's only delaying the problem.

 

[Look More Closely Later]

WW1?

Churchill to date had betrayed his party. Killed thousands of Australians (and many others) for no gain and wrecked the British economy.... I think there was a pretty high willingness for second chances (third, fourth, fifth?)

If you're referring to Gallipoli in WW1, Churchill was at the Admiralty at the time, and responsible only for naval matters. Lord Kitchener and General Hamilton were responsible (?) for the army.
Edit:
I grant Churchill's time at the treasury went... badly.

 

[pdf27]

Churchill to date had betrayed his party. Killed thousands of Australians (and many others) for no gain and wrecked the British economy.... I think there was a pretty high willingness for second chances (third, fourth, fifth?)

He hadn't just ratted on his party, he'd re-ratted. As for killing a lot of Australians to no gain, take a look at the rest of the Western Front. The Australians lost 8,709 dead in the entire campaign, out of a total of 44,150 total Allied deaths - in a campaign that had it worked as originally conceived could have had huge strategic implications, knocking Turkey out of the war and keeping Russia in it. In comparison the British army alone lost around 20,000 dead on the first day of the Somme, and 594,715 dead on the Western Front. Gallipoli may have been a failure, but compared to the other failures in the war it was a cheap one - it only gets the attention because it's where Australia and New Zealand became nations rather than colonies (rather like Vimy Ridge for the Canadians). Wrecking the British Economy is also arguable - plenty of blame to go around there.
It's all irrelevant anyway - Churchill could command a majority in the House of Commons in a way that nobody else could at the time.

Its not really explored unless Halifax is used to surrender to the Nazis.

Halifax was willing to explore what terms would be offered, but IIRC when he got the answer back his recommendation was to tell the Germans to go and do one. The reality is that everyone in Government knew that the UK itself was safe from invasion, Churchill just had the gift of oratory that enabled him to convince those outside government of it.

Why couldn't Chamberlain stay, at least until October when he has to step down due to his degrading health? He was ousted due to the clusterfuck of the Norwegian Campaign, just a little better luck for the Allies, a little less for the Germans, could go a long way for Norway to beat of the inital attacks and mobilise properly to hold of the Germans with help from the RAF and RN. That's a big win right there, possibly enough for faith in Chamberlain to stay put.

Of course, unless his doctor tells him about his cancer before it is too late, it's only delaying the problem.

Because he'd lost the confidence of the House of Commons in a big way. The Labour and Liberal parties voted against him in what was essentially a vote of confidence, and a quarter of his own MPs voted against him or abstained despite a three-line whip. A quote from one of his own MPs (and former cabinet minister) is probably the best way to sum up the mood of the House:

Somehow or other we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory. Some 300 years ago, when this House found that its troops were being beaten again and again by the dash and daring of the Cavaliers, by Prince Rupert's Cavalry, Oliver Cromwell spoke to John Hampden. In one of his speeches he recounted what he said. It was this: I said to him, "Your troops are most of them old, decayed serving men and tapsters and such kind of fellows. ... You must get men of a spirit that are likely to go as far as they[e] will go, or you will be beaten still." It may not be easy to find these men. They can be found only by trial and by ruthlessly discarding all who fail and have their failings discovered. We are fighting to-day for our life, for our liberty, for our all; we cannot go on being led as we are. I have quoted certain words of Oliver Cromwell. I will quote certain other words. I do it with great reluctance, because I am speaking of those who are old friends and associates of mine, but they are words which, I think, are applicable to the present situation. This is what Cromwell said to the Long Parliament when he thought it was no longer fit to conduct the affairs of the nation: "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."​

 

[Drunkrobot]

Because he'd lost the confidence of the House of Commons in a big way. The Labour and Liberal parties voted against him in what was essentially a vote of confidence, and a quarter of his own MPs voted against him or abstained despite a three-line whip. A quote from one of his own MPs (and former cabinet minister) is probably the best way to sum up the mood of the House:

Somehow or other we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory. Some 300 years ago, when this House found that its troops were being beaten again and again by the dash and daring of the Cavaliers, by Prince Rupert's Cavalry, Oliver Cromwell spoke to John Hampden. In one of his speeches he recounted what he said. It was this: I said to him, "Your troops are most of them old, decayed serving men and tapsters and such kind of fellows. ... You must get men of a spirit that are likely to go as far as they[e] will go, or you will be beaten still." It may not be easy to find these men. They can be found only by trial and by ruthlessly discarding all who fail and have their failings discovered. We are fighting to-day for our life, for our liberty, for our all; we cannot go on being led as we are. I have quoted certain words of Oliver Cromwell. I will quote certain other words. I do it with great reluctance, because I am speaking of those who are old friends and associates of mine, but they are words which, I think, are applicable to the present situation. This is what Cromwell said to the Long Parliament when he thought it was no longer fit to conduct the affairs of the nation: "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."​

I know that, but was there anything that could have happened that would have avoided Parliament loosing confidence in the first place, as I had just asked? The events in Parliament that led to his ousting is sometimes called the 'Norway Debate', because of the scandalous performance of the British during that campaign. If the British did well enough to keep Germany out of Norway, Chamberlain's support might harden instead of fade away.

 

[robcraufurd]

I grant Churchill's time at the treasury went... badly.

Wrecking the British Economy is also arguable - plenty of blame to go around there.

Considering that Churchill fought tooth and nail against going back to the Gold Standard, at one stage hosting a joint dinner between his pro-Gold advisors and the leading sceptics Keynes and McKenna in the hope of reaching an anti-Gold consensus, is it really fair to lay this one at his door?

 

[merlin]

To get back to the original post:

RN
I saw a great 'what if' on the NavWeaps Discussion Forum - called the Sucker-Punch - it was done way back in 2009 - but still very well written.
It had the FAA doing a full carrier night-time strike in late September 1939 at KM ships in port, e.g. Wilhelmshaven - gutting the KM - S& G, Scheer, several destroyers, even the Tirpitz was heavily damaged.
Result: Norway attack failed, Taranto attack more successful, more resources given to successful FAA.

RAF:
Hercules engine problem solved earlier - Beaufighter earlier success, and scope for bigger replacement of Blenheim, Hampden and Whitley.
Cannon jamming problems solved earlier, Leigh-Mallory with the RAF in France 1940 = equals a bigger defeat for the Luftwaffe.

Army:
While sticking to the concept of Infantry and Cruiser, to save money - it's the turret that went, and the Infantry tank became more of a SPG. Hence the attack at Arras for example was able to deal with 88s and the 7th Pzr was several delayed with it's west drive!

 

[usertron2020]

Well, remember they were basically hoping for basically a Russo-Japanese War again. A short war where the enemy surrenders based on naval defeats and loss of important ports before the supply issues come home to bite Japan.

Japan also had a history of political collapses happening to their enemies, thereby saving their bacon just as said enemy was getting ready to drive them back. The Japanese were at their breaking point in the Ruso-Japanese War when the Russians started having troubles at home.

While the West has often been criticized for its ignorance of non-Western cultures, the Pacific War was more a case of vice-versa.

 

[usertron2020]

Killing off Churchill probably goes a long way towards improving things.

For Hitler.

That man was not qualified to run a war effort and Britain's military fortunes were directly proportional to how far its generals were willing to ignore and disobey him.

He was forced as his own MoD to be essentially a more restricted version of FDR's role as Commander-in-Chief. Churchill tho could have interfered less, which he did once he had Alanbrooke by his side. FDR could have done more to act in replacing his aging SecNav, SecWar, and SecState rather than going past them to his service chiefs. Both could see the political impetus behind certain operations that to a military man might make no sense.

Norway

As much the fault of Norwegians too politically divided and unable to make up their minds to mobilize and fight in time.

loss of the second BEF

An inherited disaster in which he tried to prevent the loss of his only major ally, and they were mostly saved.

Greece (rendering Britain's only early war success useless)

Abandon Greece without a fight and Britain is abandoning its only non-Commonwealth ally, and if you are referring to North Africa, the British lacked the means to conquer Tripolitania in time to seize Tripoli, and much of their conquest of Cyrenaica was by the virtue of captured Italian supplies of which no more were to be had.

and in part the far east catastrofuckstorm can all be laid partly at his feet.

Um, I would blame the Japanese, personally. No one on 12/7/41 knew about the size and capabilities of the IJN, IJA, and their air forces in particular. Just read about what Percival had to say about the fighting capabilities of the Japanese soldier. The Myth of the Invincible White Man is hardly something to be lain at his feet to any more degree than it could be to any other born in 1875.

There were many talented individuals in his cabinet and government who would on a technical level been an order of magnitude better.

And what does technical ability have to do with political leadership in wartime? Anyway, the others were too young, too old, or tainted by Appeasement.

I don't hold that Britain would have fought to the death no matter what like many people seem to but it takes some doing and even the defeatists all wanted to fight on until there was something in the way of victories to use as bargaining chips.

Broken promises Ad infinitum Ad nauseam Ad absurdum = No More Negotiations.

Britain could expect no better terms than if they had fought it out. Any future British victories means either whetting appetites for MORE victories, thereby improving you're own position, or else more bloodlust by Hitler demanding vengeance for humiliations.

I think that Churchill being the one man to stop Britain surrounding and this great inspirational figure who was instantly adored and supported was a post war myth.

You don't seem to have been spending much time reading WWII newsmagazines & newspaper morgues.

He took time to build his legend and support during the war and most of the moral boost his premiership brought was the sense of energy and purpose which was brought about by his government composed of many talented men who actually ran the country and brought energy of their own to the process that got associated with him.

That's what national political leaders, especially in wartime, do. Churchill was the best, so it follows that he was the best at this as well. In his case, when you peeked behind the public image, you saw that the man matched the myth.

Its possible that him not being in power during the darkest days may be a net negative but I think its an open question.

I suppose its possible that Zombie Wellington could have done a better job. Whoops! Wrong forum

Who can you replace him with? IIRC there were no other Tories that Labour could accept, and since the Tories had a big majority the leader had to be one of them - but all agreed a national government was needed. Halifax has no chance with labour and the only alternative I can think of was - God help us -
Lloyd George.

EVERYONE except Churchill and his own immediate circle was tainted by Appeasement to one degree or another, and thereby too radioactive to be considered serious wartime leaders following the start of Case: Yellow.

The problems in France showed the dangers of using hoary old survivors from the last war.

Greece in 1941 and North Africa in 1941 happened at the same time as a pro-German revolution in Iraq, and Vichy Syria needing to be rolled up in order to stop the Axis from use Vichy Syria to funnel further agents and troops into the Middle East.

But whilst British & Allied reverses in Greece and North Africa in 1941 are frequently berated, it seems to me that British & Allied successes (thereby securing their rear and preventing further such distractions) in 1941 in Iraq and Syria are frequently forgotten.

Because those victories are taken for granted. Its funny how those who berate the reverses in Greece and North Africa ignore the gains made that you list, plus the big questions of what would have happened HAD the British gone all out in NA first. Even assuming some kind of superman logistically impossible rush for Tripoli, as well as Britain settling affairs in the Near East eventually, it still leaves Britain stuck in NA with nothing to do while the Axis hold air superiority in the Med.

Unlikely - he was a failure as Foreign Secretary 1935-38, and was Lord Privy Seal for a year or so before that (Dominion Secretary not being on of the Great Offices of State). He's also only 42 when Chamberlain resigns - which would make him the youngest Prime Minister since Lord Liverpool in 1812. Finally, he was not highly regarded in his initial period as Deputy Leader of the Opposition after the 1945 election (Churchill being the formal leader but spending a lot of his time writing).

And don't forget Suez

Realistically the candidates from Chamberlain's government are Sir John Simon, Sir John Anderson, Lord Halifax (realistically ruled out as he couldn't command a majority in the Commons from the Lords when opposed by Labour) and Churchill. Churchill in OTL seems to have been the only candidate that Labour could live with, so he got the job.

Simon was seen as an Arch-Appeaser, and it's not likely that Anderson would have the kind of national profile needed at that time in his life (though he would have it later).

There were disqualifying reasons for everyone at the time except for Winston.

Churchill to date had betrayed his party. I think there was a pretty high willingness for second chances (third, fourth, fifth?)

Political parties are not nations. What would you do if you are 41 years old, you've seen your own party make a CCF of the WWI war effort, and you've been offered a place in the party in power? IDK, maybe this is a misunderstanding between the difference in parliamentary vs. republican government.

And you seem to be ignoring all his other many good accomplishments while concentrating on the bad...

I get the feeling that the best candidate, whoever it was, would have been "the only acceptable candidate".

It just so happened to be the case here. After all, if there were anyone else remotely acceptable, it would be an AH.com meme by now. As it is, that we'd be falling back on someone so tainted as Halifax...!

Although I am now curious who that would have been.

Its not really explored unless Halifax is used to surrender to the Nazis.

Pretty much. His elevation makes that the signal to Hitler.

I might look that up some day.

I'm an axis wanker myself...

We've noticed

because I find it more interesting how to make the side

...with the interior lines and a 1-3 year head start on re-arming...

against 80% of the world's war making capacity do better than to break them by having probability actually work as its supposed to and have them get wrecked but it would be nice to see a somewhat realistic take on how the British would cope with defeat...

What level of defeat?

gearing up for round two.

Wouldn't that be round three...? With nukes...?

Why couldn't Chamberlain stay, at least until October when he has to step down due to his degrading health? He was ousted due to the clusterfuck of the Norwegian Campaign, just a little better luck for the Allies, a little less for the Germans, could go a long way for Norway to beat of the inital attacks and mobilise properly to hold of the Germans with help from the RAF and RN. That's a big win right there, possibly enough for faith in Chamberlain to stay put.

Of course, unless his doctor tells him about his cancer before it is too late, it's only delaying the problem.

If the loss of Norway doesn't finish him, the surrender of the Low Countries will. And the cries of "WHAT PRICE CHURCHILL?" will rise to a crescendo this time, only for the Prime Ministership this time.

If you're referring to Gallipoli in WW1, Churchill was at the Admiralty at the time, and responsible only for naval matters. Lord Kitchener and General Hamilton were responsible (?) for the army.
Edit:
I grant Churchill's time at the treasury went...badly.

But then Churchill's career, like that of empires, was marked by many rises and falls.

 

[Simon]

Norway, loss of the second BEF, Greece (rendering Britain's only early war success useless) and in part the far east catastrofuckstorm can all be laid partly at his feet.

Que? The whole Greek intervention and it weakening the North Africa campaign I knew about, but could you explain what his personal responsibility for Norway and the British Expeditionary Force were as those are new ones on me. Likewise the Far East, that disaster seems to have been a multi-party fuck-up.

Churchill to date had betrayed his party. Killed thousands of Australians (and many others) for no gain and wrecked the British economy.... I think there was a pretty high willingness for second chances (third, fourth, fifth?)

Okay whilst I can understand about not wanting to get caught up in the, sometimes silly, over-mythologizing of Churchill you do seem to be coming across, to me at least, of having swung quite far the other way and become overly critical. Take the economic question for example. At the time pretty much the entire financial world was advising him to go back on the gold standard apart from a apart from a small number of people one of whom was Keynes, who at the time didn't have anywhere near the stature that he would later gain. If you're not personally an expert then as Chancellor and without the benefit of hindsight which we have he in good conscience had to follow the advice he received in my opinion.