Churchill dies after being hit by the cab

Huh? You mean the labour party that went for armament and confrontation when the tories were still swallowing Hitler's promises that this time it was the last for real? They were very much against appeasement, tyvm.

archaeogeek

Depends on what period you're talking about. 1931-35 they were actually led by a die in the wool pacifist. After that they changed and by 37 they were opposing appeasement.

Steve
 
Guys

I will stick my neck out and agree with my namesake on one thing. It would be better for Britain and probably the world if it made peace in 1940 provided:
a) The government and enough of the people accepted it was a Peace of Arras and would be a breather before resuming the war.

b) That Britain took the organisational and economic changes, at least as much as the military ones needed so that they would be up to the challenge when the war was resumed.

I know in saying this that I have the huge advantage of hindsight in terms of being able to see what happened and what might have happened.

If Britain didn't recognise both the above points then it [peace in 1940] would very probably be a disaster for both Britain and the world.

In terms of who became leader in Churchill's absence it's difficult to see for sure with a later POD. Really needs to be a Tory as they have the majority of MPs but a pretty pretty bare cupboard there. FletcherofSaltoun had in interesting scenario with Haifax in charge which was promising although I think a little wankish for the allies. It however shows some of the opportunities. See https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=135299

Atlee is a definite possibility but would have the same sort of problem as Lloyd-George did in WWI, expect more so. Furthermore, presuming no peace made, you will have people asking why are we continuing with the conflict and a relatively weak coalition government could buckle under the strain.

Steve
 
There isn't any particular reason why Halifax couldn't become PM in 1940 in a situation where Churchill is not available. Most of the Tory Party wanted him, the King wanted him, Chamberlain wanted him and the Labour Party were not opposed. In fact as I remember it was Halifax's own reluctance to take the position that gave it to Churchill. His absence from the Commons isn't a problem - Parliament was almost irrelevant during the war years due to the massive powers handed to HMG in 1939 and 1940 - and in any case there was talk at the time of putting through emergency legislation to allow Halifax to speak, if not to vote, in the House.

Of course Churchill's absence from the political scene for 9 years at this time will have major butterflies and there will be an alternative leader of the anti-appeasers on the Tory benches who may well have a greater claim to prominence than IOTL. Anthony Eden may be seen as too young at this time, along with Duff Cooper, but there were more senior figures such as Leo Amery who were against appeasement - there were other names but I do not have the relevant sources with me atm. The notion of Amery as PM does seem unlikely but I'm sure the idea of Churchill heading a government in 1938 seemed equally implausible.
 
stevep, I would say that even with those conditions the result would disastrous for the UK and the world.

I can not see Halifax or any other peace government suing for peace on the basis of rearming to hit Germany when Hitler is distracted, perhaps by a war with the USSR, and the only other result is the USSR defeated and the British alone against Nazi Europe. In that situation, with the example of coming to terms with Hitler already set...
 
this seems to be the gaming world's idea of what would happen

they even use the same POD lol

turningpoint_2.jpg
Oh my god that crap game finds itself here. But yeah it uses that POD
 
Grimm

That would really depend on whether Germany could knock over Russia in a single campaign. If they don't and I doubt Stalin would be that reckless with Germany not at war with Britain then there's a long multi-year slog that may end up with a winner or not but both powers will be tied up for years and the winner will be a lot weaker. [This presumes Britain doesn't re-enter the war at a suitable time].

In this case I would put my money on Germany, despite Hitler as without the blockade and other problems Britain caused, it will be a lot more powerful but it could go either way depending on how the various players react.

The other question is what happens with France if there is a general peace in the west. The Germans are going to want it markedly weakened but they can't keep it totally disarmed and also are going to be unlikely to occupy the bulk of it, especially once they want every man they can get for the east.

Remember I said that Britain plans on it as an armistice and makes logical moves to develop both the military and the economic base. [The latter would be a greater danger I fear].

Steve

stevep, I would say that even with those conditions the result would disastrous for the UK and the world.

I can not see Halifax or any other peace government suing for peace on the basis of rearming to hit Germany when Hitler is distracted, perhaps by a war with the USSR, and the only other result is the USSR defeated and the British alone against Nazi Europe. In that situation, with the example of coming to terms with Hitler already set...
 
stevep, while Stalin may indeed be more alert if Hitler is not fighting the British this does not free up forces for the USSR but it does free up substantial German and Italian forces from the Balkans, plus no Afrika Korps is needed.

The coup in Yugoslavia certainly isn't coming off if the British aren't even in the war and this may even add a division or two in volunteers to Hitler's forces, plus freeing up substantial garrison forces.

Greece may well seek Hitler's aid to negotiate a settlement with Mussolini as British help will not be forthcoming.:(

On top of that Italy can now spare a few more units on the Eastern Front and Hitler can run down the western garrisons a bit more.

Overall we would be talking several dozen new divisions for Barbarossa, which did such harm to the USSR OTL. Not enough to finish the USSR in a single campaign but isolating Leningrad completely or even taking Moscow would seem within reach.

On France Hitler didn't totally disarm France OTL. Vichy was allowed 100K in the unoccupied zone and had close to half a million men in the colonies, if rather lacking in firepower and modern equipment. With the British coming to terms he may expand the unoccupied zone and permit a modest French army expanion in the unoccupied zone. 300K wouldn't be a threat to Germany and would give the French some hope for better things in the future, especially if some territory was returned also.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
stevep, while Stalin may indeed be more alert if Hitler is not fighting the British this does not free up forces for the USSR but it does free up substantial German and Italian forces from the Balkans, plus no Afrika Korps is needed.

The coup in Yugoslavia certainly isn't coming off if the British aren't even in the war and this may even add a division or two in volunteers to Hitler's forces, plus freeing up substantial garrison forces.

Greece may well seek Hitler's aid to negotiate a settlement with Mussolini as British help will not be forthcoming.:(

On top of that Italy can now spare a few more units on the Eastern Front and Hitler can run down the western garrisons a bit more.

Overall we would be talking several dozen new divisions for Barbarossa, which did such harm to the USSR OTL. Not enough to finish the USSR in a single campaign but isolating Leningrad completely or even taking Moscow would seem within reach.

On France Hitler didn't totally disarm France OTL. Vichy was allowed 100K in the unoccupied zone and had close to half a million men in the colonies, if rather lacking in firepower and modern equipment. With the British coming to terms he may expand the unoccupied zone and permit a modest French army expanion in the unoccupied zone. 300K wouldn't be a threat to Germany and would give the French some hope for better things in the future, especially if some territory was returned also.

It's a drop in the bucket. Also yugoslavia will still happen. Also more troops on the ostfront will also mean a worse supply situation in the mid to long term. Also by 41 the navy was on the verge of defecting and the maquis was controlling large swathes of "unoccupied" France, no way they're going to hand over more land for Pétain to lose to communist guerillas.
 
Churchill was the rallying point for those who supported rearmament and opposing Hitler. Remove him from the equation then who else could or would step into his shoes?
Eden, Amery, Duff-Cooper to name just a few from the Conservatives...
 
archaeogeek, what French resistance after the British sue for peace?

Also, why would the coup in Yugoslavia take place when the plotters have no one to turn to for support? OTL at least they had Greece and a few British divisions just over the border.

Lastly if Germany deploys against the USSR an additional force of half what they used against Yugoslavia, Greece and the British in Egypt OTL that makes for a substantial increase and an invasion happening in May instead of June.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
archaeogeek, what French resistance after the British sue for peace?

Also, why would the coup in Yugoslavia take place when the plotters have no one to turn to for support? OTL at least they had Greece and a few British divisions just over the border.

Lastly if Germany deploys against the USSR an additional force of half what they used against Yugoslavia, Greece and the British in Egypt OTL that makes for a substantial increase and an invasion happening in May instead of June.

One month earlier means they get bogged down in mud.
Also the french resistance that in 41 managed to provoke Germany into considering annexing that early even with the british in the middle of the BOB.
 
Grimm

If Britain made peace then Germany is in a markedly better position. less the relatively small number of extra troops than the freeing up of air power, the fact Germany is no longer blockaded and can import raw materials [provided they can pay for them;)] and the loss of destruction to production. However there are a number of other factors.

a) As archaeogeek says if Germany tries going earlier they get bogged down in the mud.

b) It is highly unlikely Stalin would be caught by surprise if Britain has made peace so the huge losses the Russians faced in the 1st days of the OTL invasion are likely to be significantly reduced.

c) Hitler might well feel even more over-confident and hence, moblise even less, not be particularly interesting in getting more allies, especially from places like Italy, which would mean an additional burden in organising, moving and supplying such units.

d) Possibly most of all if the Germans get a bit further they could become fatally over-stretched in 41. Say if instead of last gasp efforts reaching the outskirts of Moscow the Germans are in a position, at the start of November, to launch a full scale attack? Moscow is already well fortified and has a large population that could be moblised. It's in the centre of the Russian transport grid and also politically important. As such neither side would be that willing to give up on the fight. Can you imagine an already over-stretched Army Group Centre engaged in bitter street to street fighting, with Hitler ordering them to keeping attacking, when the winter really hits and then shortly afterwards the Siberians strike what's left of their flanks.

There is the danger that seeing itself alone and with the extra forces Germany can commit, that the SU might just collapse. Especially with the mental collapse that Stalin seemed to have suffered at the time. Or that he does something really stupid like try to attack 1st. However I think either of those are pretty unlikely.

In the longer term, without the other fronts the west supplied or the supplies that helped the SU it will be markedly worse off. However this will mainly affect it's ability to counter-attack rapidly and make the deep advances it did OTL from 43 onwards. Hence there is likely to be a long and gruelling slog with both sides battering away at each other.

In terms of other areas I'm not so sure that Italy would be that closely involved. I could see Britain fairly easily driving a wedge between the two at the peace talks. Making clear that while they accept the Germans defeated them and offering acceptance of their gains in Europe and even return of lost pre-WWI colonies, that the back-stab by the Italians will not be rewarded. Basically Hitler wants a clear line for an attack on Russia. He also wants stable relations with Britain and that will be more important to him than boosting the ego of Mussolini. Hence I could see Italy getting few if any gains and Mussolini being very frustrated. He is hence unlikely to support major forces going into Russia. He may have a hack at Greece but Britain can again help the Greeks without committing major forces - seeking to avoid a clash with Germany over the Rumanian oil-fields.

Steve

stevep, while Stalin may indeed be more alert if Hitler is not fighting the British this does not free up forces for the USSR but it does free up substantial German and Italian forces from the Balkans, plus no Afrika Korps is needed.

The coup in Yugoslavia certainly isn't coming off if the British aren't even in the war and this may even add a division or two in volunteers to Hitler's forces, plus freeing up substantial garrison forces.

Greece may well seek Hitler's aid to negotiate a settlement with Mussolini as British help will not be forthcoming.:(

On top of that Italy can now spare a few more units on the Eastern Front and Hitler can run down the western garrisons a bit more.

Overall we would be talking several dozen new divisions for Barbarossa, which did such harm to the USSR OTL. Not enough to finish the USSR in a single campaign but isolating Leningrad completely or even taking Moscow would seem within reach.

On France Hitler didn't totally disarm France OTL. Vichy was allowed 100K in the unoccupied zone and had close to half a million men in the colonies, if rather lacking in firepower and modern equipment. With the British coming to terms he may expand the unoccupied zone and permit a modest French army expanion in the unoccupied zone. 300K wouldn't be a threat to Germany and would give the French some hope for better things in the future, especially if some territory was returned also.
 
Top