WI Halifax becomes UK Prime Minister in 1940

Galba Otho Vitelius · Jan 12, 2018

This had to have been done on this site, but I did a search and couldn't find anything.

What if the British establishment had gone with their earlier inclination and made Halifax Prime Minister in May 1940. He seems to have been reluctant to to take the job, but that is overcome.

Livius wannabe · Jan 13, 2018

Perhaps a later entry in the war for both Britain and USA?
I'm not sure how that would change things on the eastern front, though.

baldipaul · Jan 13, 2018

Livius wannabe said:
Perhaps a later entry in the war for both Britain and USA?
I'm not sure how that would change things on the eastern front, though.

Britain was already at war in 1940

ShortsBelfast · Jan 13, 2018

There are a lot of timelines that discuss this but mainly under the heading of "what if Britain made peace in 1940?" The simplistic view of Halifax is that he was a determined appeaser in almost any circumstances and a Nazi fellow traveller. As I have pointed out several times, it is much more complicated than that. He had little sympathy for the Nazis but even less for the Communists and was keenly aware that another world war would end Britain's position as a world power and lose her her Empire. And that smashing Germany would lead to a Europe dominated by Russia. He wasn't wrong on either count.

Livius wannabe · Jan 13, 2018

baldipaul said:
Britain was already at war in 1940

Sorry, foot in mouth moment. I meant settle at that point only to resume full-on war later, which I consider inevitable in a form or another.

DaveB · Jan 13, 2018

Livius wannabe said:
Sorry, foot in mouth moment. I meant settle at that point only to resume full-on war later, which I consider inevitable in a form or another.

Oh, definitely.

On here, the TL Halifax by @Fletch looks into a Halifax premiership in 1940-45 in some detail.

I've increasingly come to the view that Britain negotiating in 1940 is not such a bad idea. An armistice allows the troops evacuated from Dunkirk to be reorganised and re-equipped. More fighters can be built in preparation for a possible Battle of Britain. Any cessation of U-boat attacks allows food and raw materials to be imported and stockpiled more efficiently, while it probably takes longer for the effects of the RN blockade on Germany to wear off. Militarily, Britain ends up stronger if when hostilities recommence. The possible downsides are negative effects on morale and US opinion.

Edit: ...oh, and obviously Britain must negotiate perfidiously (doesn't that go without saying?), with no intention of making any militarily significant concessions

Livius wannabe · Jan 13, 2018

DaveB said:
oh, and obviously Britain must negotiate perfidiously

Well, after Ribbentrop & Molotov, nobody couldn't really complain.

How does it go with the Soviets? Do they still get Lend and Lease?
Will they keep goading Britain to join the war (possibly using their well-placed spies)? If things get bad enough, I wouldn't put any dirty trick past them.

EDIT:

DaveB said:
I've increasingly come to the view that Britain negotiating in 1940 is not such a bad idea. An armistice allows the troops evacuated from Dunkirk to be reorganised and re-equipped

Does Mers-el-Kébir still happen?

General Ripper · Jan 13, 2018

Here, not AH.com, but great TL none the less:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-kings-first-minister-a-uk-aar.381581/

Derek Jackson · Jan 13, 2018

Does it follow that Britain would have done a deal with the Nazis. Especially if Dunkirk happens as otl?

Fulton 44 · Jan 16, 2018

Italy tries to broker a deal a la Munich. But it is not clear what would happen to France - do the Germans grab Alsace Lorraine and then move out or do they continue to occupy? Germany apparently had no problems letting the UK keep its Empire. A deal would also have soured UK relations with the US. I think it is possible that a deal would have been struck but there certainly are potholes in the road.

History Learner · Jan 16, 2018

Halifax was not a Nazi, contrary to common speculation, but he was indeed in favor of an armistice. Best way to get him into power is to have no or a delayed Halt Order, which would've seen the BEF destroyed at Dunkirk.

hipper · Jan 16, 2018

History Learner said:
Halifax was not a Nazi, contrary to common speculation, but he was indeed in favor of an armistice. Best way to get him into power is to have no or a delayed Halt Order, which would've seen the BEF destroyed at Dunkirk.

You need to learn more history. Chamberlain resigned on The 10th of May Army group A paused between the evening of the 23rd May and the 26th of May. Churchill was already in power.

History Learner · Jan 16, 2018

hipper said:
You need to learn more history. Chamberlain resigned on The 10th of May Army group A paused between the evening of the 23rd May and the 26th of May. Churchill was already in power.

This was known, the point was that Churchill would not survive such a disaster as a complete loss of the BEF would entail.

MattII · Jan 16, 2018

Halifax is an interesting figure. He wasn't as strong as Churchill, but nor was he as weak as Chamberlain. May 1940 is too late, by this point Churchill was the best choice. Now if the decision had come in September 1939 (the invasion of Poland), that might make the situation more interesting.

King Augeas · Jan 16, 2018

Churchill and Halifax's power struggle in the cabinet had already been won and lost before the evacuation really started, when were just expecting a relative handful of troops to get away.

It's possible that the reality of their loss causes a second power struggle that Halifax wins, but his dithering and Churchill's drive and leadership doesn't make it a particularly convincing prospect.

hipper · Jan 16, 2018

History Learner said:
This was known, the point was that Churchill would not survive such a disaster as a complete loss of the BEF would entail.

Why? he could not be blamed for the disaster. the critical cabinet discussions were between the 26th and 28th May when they only expected to get 30000 soldiers off the beaches. Yet the descision to continue the war come what May had been taken in Cabinet on the 28th of May when most of the BEF was still in France.

History Learner · Jan 16, 2018

hipper said:
Why? he could not be blamed for the disaster. the critical cabinet discussions were between the 26th and 28th May when they only expected to get 30000 soldiers off the beaches. Yet the descision to continue the war come what May had been taken in Cabinet on the 28th of May when most of the BEF was still in France.

The Halt Order came several days before they held said cabinet discussions and whether or not Churchill was technically not responsible is irrelevant in the face of the fact he was in control at the time and that the British military just suffered its worst defeat ever.

hipper · Jan 16, 2018

History Learner said:
The Halt Order came several days before they held said cabinet discussions and whether or not Churchill was technically not responsible is irrelevant in the face of the fact he was in control at the time and that the British military just suffered its worst defeat ever.

The Halt order happened on the evening of 23rd the decision to fight on had happened on the 28th. Whatever happened after the lack of a halt order the BEF would still be fighting. No defeat would have occurred. However the loss of most of the BEF Defeat was expected during the cabinet discussions on the 28th. So Churchill would stay in power.

History Learner · Jan 16, 2018

hipper said:
The Halt order happened on the evening of 23rd the decision to fight on had happened on the 28th. Whatever happened after the lack of a halt order the BEF would still be fighting. No defeat would have occurred. However the loss of most of the BEF Defeat was expected during the cabinet discussions on the 28th. So Churchill would stay in power.

I'm a bit confused here, because you seem to realize the Halt Order did indeed come before the decision to fight on was made, but then seem to not understand what a complete loss of the BEF would entail to that event chain. Further, I think you fail to realize how precarious the situation of the BEF was by that point, in that forward German units had reached the Aa Canal and were thus in position to bag the BEF along with significant Allied units. Whatever the cabinet may have thought, the complete loss of the BEF would alone shake them enough, but it's not them that would be decisive; it would be the public. Far from the morale victory of successfully evacuating the BEF, ATL you'd have it's complete destruction. It's not hard to imagine the political ramifications of such.

Cryhavoc101 · Jan 16, 2018

Galba Otho Vitelius said:
This had to have been done on this site, but I did a search and couldn't find anything.

What if the British establishment had gone with their earlier inclination and made Halifax Prime Minister in May 1940. He seems to have been reluctant to to take the job, but that is overcome.

I suspect that after a few days he has to stand down as he is unable to form a coalition government - for example the Labour party would have nothing to do with him and many in the house would not like an unelected some one 'from that other place' (House of Lords) becoming prime minister.

Also many in the Conservative party would not back such a move either.

So any government Halifax did form would be increadibly fragile.

IMO all things being equal had Halifax become PM then it simply delays Winstons elevation to the post by no more than a week.