A question of Churchill's political survival during the war

After the Singapore disaster, and due to the largely poor progress of the war to date, Churchill's opposition hit him with a vote of no confidence, which he rode out fairly easily... in the context of either of these pod's is there a chance at him falling

pod 1: during operation crusader rommel doesn't dash to the wire and lead 21st panzer on a wild goose chase and instead masses them with 15th panzer to do one of two things (a. smash and capture the remnents of thirty corps spread out around sidi rhezeg airfield...b. launch a pincer attack against the 2nd new zealand infantry division advancing on tobruk, pinning them against the sea and compelling their surrender)... pick which ever one you think is the most damaging in terms of prestige... otherwise the battle ends of up largely the same at the end in terms of position (except for superior axis body count)..... this would then be stacked on top of the singapore disaster at the no confidence vote

pod 2: the opposition holds their cards for a bit after singapore, and then whips out the no confidence motion after the fall of torbruk during the gazalla battle; stacking the two disasters at once in their charges of no confidence

thoughts?
 
Point 2 sounds better, but I really don't know too much about WWII to be sure. Just remember that the minister who proposed the vote shouldn't propose that the Duke of Gloucester be made Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces
 
Churchill still holds on, after December 1941 he can always point to America and that time is on his side.
 
Churchill still holds on, after December 1941 he can always point to America and that time is on his side.

I think it can be safely said that Britain will stay in the war, but Churchill's political future isn't inextricably tied to that. One could imagine him being removed with an argument along the lines that they want to keep doing what they were doing, only to do it more competently.

Still, even if both of the two suggested possibilities occurred, I don't think there's a very high likelihood of Churchill being voted out. But I do agree that both or either would hurt his chances of holding on to power. I'm just not sure that it'd be enough.
 
I think it can be safely said that Britain will stay in the war, but Churchill's political future isn't inextricably tied to that. One could imagine him being removed with an argument along the lines that they want to keep doing what they were doing, only to do it more competently.

Still, even if both of the two suggested possibilities occurred, I don't think there's a very high likelihood of Churchill being voted out. But I do agree that both or either would hurt his chances of holding on to power. I'm just not sure that it'd be enough.

It wouldn't be enough, not even remotely. The defeats were the results of tactical decisions made by the British Army at Tobruk, the disaster at Pearl Harbor (for which Winston gets a total pass, as well as for anything happening on the Russian Front), and the introduction of long-range superior fighters (Zeroes), better than anything the Allies had, better than anything anyone had anticipated. This allowed the Japanese to power project to a degree that rendered all long standing defense plans in Singapore and Malaya useless.

Moreover, the loss of Tobruk simply set Rommel up for defeat at El Alemain. Nothing at Tobruk will change the essential strategic facts on the ground in Egypt.

Also, except for the Kriegsmarine's "Second Happy Time" off the US East Coast (again, not Winston's fault), the tide has been turned on the U-Boat War, Britain's #1 concern in WWII. Winston gets HUGE cred for that.:)

Remember that every other long standing parliamentarian of any note had spent the 1930s ignoring or even making accords with Hitler. There was no one who had the standing to replace him. Not among the Conservatives, and the Socialists and Liberals were in the minority, though the Government was a National Government. Unless people are suggesting Anthony Eden would stab Winston in the back.

Not to mention the special relationship between Winston and Franklin. Put in somebody like Lord Halifax:rolleyes:, and Fleet Admiral King might just get his "Japan First" war strategy after all.:D Uh, until the House of Commons wises up.:p Nazi Germany from Day 1 considered Winston Churchill Public 3rd Reich Enemy #1.:cool: Dump him, and Britain is sending a signal to Germany and Japan (1) that they may be willing to deal, and another signal to the USSR and the USA that they may be dropping out of the war.:eek: If FDR decides that's the case, US withdrawal from Europe, and no more Lend Lease, save for Britain's Dominions, Russia, and China. "Third Happy Time" for the U-Boats.

No. It's a total non-starter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) While I think Hitler would happily accept the UK dropping out of the war, Japan's problem was it's government really didn't have effective command and control of its military in terms of pulling them back. When they did try, assassinations and coups started happening left and right.
 
The minister who proposed the vote also proposed that the Duke of Gloucester be made Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces:eek:

WTF? Who was this guy? And why wasn't he laughed out of the House? Because unless General Alan Brooke was the Duke of Gloucester...:rolleyes:

Prince Henry, younger brother of King George the VI? Why wasn't that MP put away for his own good?
 
I think it can be safely said that Britain will stay in the war, but Churchill's political future isn't inextricably tied to that. One could imagine him being removed with an argument along the lines that they want to keep doing what they were doing, only to do it more competently.

Oh I agree, there was never any question of peace in the OTL vote of no confidence. I still think there would be need to be a major, Stalingrad style disaster for Churchill to be replaced though, D-Day failing for instance?
 
Top