Prime Minister Halifax?

I'm not a frequenter of the post-1900 threads, so I'm not sure how common thins question is, but how likely is it, and what would happen, if Lord Halifax became the PM in 1940, rather than Churchill. Halifax had been in favor of appeasement before the invasion of Poland, and was widely expected to become the PM before suggesting Churchill instead. But, what if he takes the position himself. Maybe Churchill gains a worse reputation in WWI or something, or Halifax just decides that he is up to the task. Would Britain seek a quicker end to the war, even if it means not fully getting rid of the Nazis?
 
I think he would only likely become PM if Churchill was completely out of the picture (so, dead, basically) And I suspect, but have no proof, that the idea that Halifax was an appeaser is probably overblown.
 
For all the talk about Halifax seeking peace with Hitler, etc. there isn't much evidence to support that the British government would turn around on the matter of peace with Germany in either 1939 or 1940. There were, of course, a number of individuals committed to peace within the British government (Or more accurately within the Commons and the House of Lords) but following Munich the official view on Germany was one of preparation for war. The biggest difference though would be the lack of Churchill's personality and involvement in the war effort itself; he was a galvanising figure and able to rally the people of the country to his cause, something that the "Holy Fox" wouldn't be able to achieve in the same manner.
 
The argument usually used by those who say a Halifax government would have led to an acceptance of Hitler's terms is:

"Not known as 'the holy fox' for nothing, Halifax couched all this in diplomatic terms, but all the diplomacy he could muster did not conceal the basic fact that he was proposing that Great Britain approach Italy (which was on the verge of entering the war, despite a last-minute personal appeal from Churchill to Il Duce) to seek terms from Germany. It was Halifax's professed belief that these terms could always be rejected if they were unsatisfactory, but this seems unnaturally naive for such a distinguished diplomat. As the French were shortly to discover, once you asked for terms there was no turning back...." http://www.winstonchurchill.org/pub...-island-how-winston-churchill-saved-the-world

This argument--that the French experience would prove that if you ask the enemy what his terms are, you'll have to accept them--overlooks some pretty obvious differences between the military situation of France and that of the UK, bad as the latter was. The most obvious is that there was no Channel blocking Hitler's way to Paris...

(It also overlooks that even as PM, Halifax would hardly be absolute dictator, and that the rest of the Cabinet, the Parliament, and the country would be unlikely to accept Hitler's terms...)
 
Depends what those terms are, to be honest. But even those Hitler wanted peace, it's hard to see him making an offer couldn't be refused.

The point about the UK being able to reject a deal is well made. Particularly since a ceasefire and delaying tactics suit Britain far more than it suits Germany. Halifax might negotiate and stall throughout the summer of 1940 and then, once the autumn closes in, reject a deal, thereby avoiding the threat of Fighter Command being defeated. However, this doesn't help against night bombing and it certainly doesn't help the Soviets, if they end up facing a stronger Luftwaffe next year.
 
I think he would only likely become PM if Churchill was completely out of the picture (so, dead, basically) And I suspect, but have no proof, that the idea that Halifax was an appeaser is probably overblown.

One of the Sea Lion books I read said that the notion that Halifax would have immediately made a peace offer to Hitler is grossly exaggerated. In any case Parliament would more than likely shot that down as would the King. I think that much of the population would have agreed to fight on as well...
 
He'd have had an impossible job leading the government from the Lords too, which he himself recognised.

People like the Great Man theory and so we have to act as if without Winston all was lost - not so. Hitler had spent 7 years by this stage breaking solemn vows, so the idea Halifax would just go "well I'm sure he means it this time" just isn't credible.

Also I'm sure he was a pretty sound guy irl and so having him go down in history as The Guy Who Would 100% Have Surrendered Immediately seems a bit rough on him.
 
It is possible that he would have done a deal with Hitler. On big reason for NOT doing so is that it was by then clear that deals with Hitler got broken by him.

Had other events happened roughly as OTL I am guessing that he would not be as powerful symbol as Churchill was in otl.

How much worse could to tories have done in war time by elections and in 1945?
 
It is possible that he would have done a deal with Hitler. On big reason for NOT doing so is that it was by then clear that deals with Hitler got broken by him.

Had other events happened roughly as OTL I am guessing that he would not be as powerful symbol as Churchill was in otl.

How much worse could to tories have done in war time by elections and in 1945?

Labour won a crushing landslide in 1945 as is - they might have done better under Halifax than under Churchill. For all he was a great war leader, he was not well liked by the working folk - my grandparents couldn't stand him.
 
If Halifax approaches Italy for unofficially sounding out Hitler's terms, it might delay Italian entry long enough for possible butterflies to result in (part of) the French government fighting on from Algeria. Massive butterflies with regard to French Indochina and the Pacific war.

EDIT: Also, another possible butterfly of a Halifax leadership would be that he wouldn't push for the deployment to Greece, again with monster-sized butterflies
 
Last edited:
The biggest difference though would be the lack of Churchill's personality and involvement in the war effort itself; he was a galvanising figure and able to rally the people of the country to his cause, something that the "Holy Fox" wouldn't be able to achieve in the same manner.

The question is whether a few good speeches and some nice PR work really did more for Britain's war effort than Churchill's meddling in military strategy? Halifax wasn't particularly charismatic but he would also know when to leave things to Brooke.
 
The point about trying to lead the government from the House of Lords is a good one.

It technically wasn't impossible, which is why Halifax was even considered in the first place. However, since the Parliament Act passed in 1911, supply (money for the government) was voted exclusively by the Commons, and governments were made and unmade in the Commons. The leader of the Commons would have had so much authority in the government that a peer as Prime Minister would have effectively been a figurehead.

Even before the Parliament Act, in 1905 Campbell-Bannerman rejected a scheme for him to take a peerage -his health was bad and he died a couple of years later- precisely because he knew it was a scheme for him to be a figurehead PM. In 1916 Asquith resigned instead of submitting to a complicated scheme that would have reduced his powers by taking away the day to day management of the war from him. Asquith's health was also bad -his son had died a few months before- so the scheme would have made some sense but Asquith had been one of the proponents of the 1905 plan and knew it would turn the PM into a figurehead. By the way, the 1916 situation is an interesting "what if" that you don't here about these.

And the leader of the Commons in 1940 would have been Churchill, whose support was needed at the time by any government, since he had been proven right over appeasement (just as this year Boris Johnson could be blocked from becoming PM but had to be included in the government due to being on the winning side with Brexit). Churchill at the least would have been Secretary of State for Defense. So the choice was really between putting Churchill plainly in charge, or putting Churchill in charge with Halifax as the public face with a sort of veto over what Churchill did. Halifax more or less put it this way in his memoirs, without spelling the whole thing out like I have.

A peer did become Prime Minister in 1963, but by that time provision had been made for peers to renounce their peerages and run for a House of Commons seat, and that is what happened in that situation. Now they could have provided for peerages to be renounced in 1940 but this apparently not considered. In another discussion on this board, someone posted that the idea of just allowing members of the House of Lords to sit and speak in the Commons had been considered in 1940. The reasons why this course wasn't adopted wasn't given.

Now Halifax as a sort of figurehead PM, with Churchill effectively running the war effort as Defense minister does have some implications. Probably Halifax steps down mid-way and Churchill becomes PM anyway. Halifax may even wind up as Ambassador to the USA as IOTL. But this means Churchill is not PM in 1940-1, when he was most effective. OTOH, the arrangement may have alleviated some of the decline in Churchill's health that occurred over the course of the war.
 
"The question is whether a few good speeches and some nice PR work really did more for Britain's war effort than Churchill's meddling in military strategy? Halifax wasn't particularly charismatic but he would also know when to leave things to Brooke."

Brooke did not become CIGS until December 1941. Of course by this point the Joint Chiefs of Staff was the principal body running war strategy for both the UK and the US. I can't think of any instance where Churchill actually overruled Brooke.
 
I don't think "the Holy Fox" would have opposed at least limited participation in a general war against the Soviets who I believe he regarded as a manifestation of the anti-Christ. Halifax wasn't keen on a war with Germany which he (correctly) thought would bankrupt Britain and (assuming we won) strengthen the Soviets in Europe without Germany to act as a counterbalance (also a correct assessment). A general war of the European nations against Soviet aggression, I suspect his analysis would be significantly different. He was a pessimist not a pacifist OTL!
See my post in another discussion
 
In another discussion on this board, someone posted that the idea of just allowing members of the House of Lords to sit and speak in the Commons had been considered in 1940. The reasons why this course wasn't adopted wasn't given.
Well put. Was the idea of allowing a peer to sit in the HoC a measure intended to allow for Halifax to become PM? The timing is interesting.
 
Well put. Was the idea of allowing a peer to sit in the HoC a measure intended to allow for Halifax to become PM? The timing is interesting.
As I recall it was proposed as the solution to a PM (namely Halifax) being from the Lords.

All in all I don't think it would have been as big an issue as some fear and would have set a nice constitutional precedent.

I can't really see Halifax accepting a peace in 1940 all things being equal, but I could see him being more inclined towards the concept of reaching a separate peace with Germany (or even a peace with honour with Mussolini) those are not necessarily bad ideas in terms of ending the war quickly, less talk of unconditional surrender could speed up concepts like the anti-Nazi coup.

Of course such things could backfire too, during the war many were concerned about the possibility of Stalin reaching a separate peace with Hitler which would not have ended well for Britain, and as was demonstrated by Vienna in the previous war, attempts to secure separate peace deals can be discovered....
 
Top