The King appoints Lord Halifax as PM in 1940.

Lord Halifax signs a peace treaty and neutrality pact with Hitler in June.
Lord Halifax goes to the country with the peace deal winning the election for the Conservative party by a small margin.

What now for the Axis?
 
Can we try and stop posting all these these Halifax/Peace with Britain threads? I think there's been about four variant threads on the same issue in the last two days.
 
A lot of the Americans and other nationalities here seem reluctant to pontificate on a Neutral Great Britain theory I wonder why that is.
 
A lot of the Americans and other nationalities here seem reluctant to pontificate on a Neutral Great Britain theory I wonder why that is.
The same reason a lot of people get annoyed with "what if the Confederacy won the ACW," or "successful Barbarossa" topics. It's obvious (and therefore it's been done to death), and it's not, really, all that likely. Ultimately, you need to game the conditions so badly that it's not a particularly interesting exercise in alternate history.
 
The same reason a lot of people get annoyed with "what if the Confederacy won the ACW," or "successful Barbarossa" topics. It's obvious (and therefore it's been done to death), and it's not, really, all that likely. Ultimately, you need to game the conditions so badly that it's not a particularly interesting exercise in alternate history.

A neutral Britain could of quite easily of happened it requires only the slightest and more very easy changes you can imagine its nothing like a Confederate victory.

The reasons the Americans hate the topics seems to be they cant handle the thought of America not being what it is today and Britain and others still have large Empires.
 
A neutral Britain could of quite easily of happened it requires only the slightest and more very easy changes you can imagine its nothing like a Confederate victory.
Not really, no. As a policy, appeasement was based on two flawed premises: first, that it was Nazi Germany's self-interest to avoid war, and second, that the Nazis recognized this fact. Ultimately, neither was true: the Nazi economy was based upon constant expansion and would have collapsed under its own weight without it. Even if this wasn't true, Hitler and those who surrounded him were largely zealots, and we're not above picking fights even when the odds were stacked against them.

The problem is, the writing was already on the wall by 1940. After Czechoslovakia, one could realistically back appeasement as a policy, since there was nothing concrete to prove that it wasn't going to work. Poland made this considerably harder.
Britain's foreign policy could not coexist with Nazi Germany's as anything other than a interim solution, and Halifax knew it. From some accounts, Halifax was so disillusioned by the invasion of Poland he stopped entertaining the notion of a peace treaty then and there.

The reasons the Americans hate the topics seems to be they cant handle the thought of America not being what it is today and Britain and others still have large Empires.
Not likely to happen, regardless. The U.S. is still going to get into a war with Japan. This is going to thrust them on the world stage in a significant way, even if not quite on the level as OTL. And Britain is still going to be facing most of the same problems it faced in OTL concerning its colonial holdings: increased anticolonial sentiment coinciding with a weakening economic outlook. The key difference here is that the weakened economy has more to do with prolonged cold war with Nazi Germany than the fallout of a very, very hot war with the same.

Which, again, is assuming that Germany's imperial aspirations don't ultimately conflict with Britain's, sparking the same level of destructive warfare that Halifax ineffectively sidestepped in 1940.
 
Not really, no. As a policy, appeasement was based on two flawed premises: first, that it was Nazi Germany's self-interest to avoid war, and second, that the Nazis recognized this fact. Ultimately, neither was true: the Nazi economy was based upon constant expansion and would have collapsed under its own weight without it. Even if this wasn't true, Hitler and those who surrounded him were largely zealots, and we're not above picking fights even when the odds were stacked against them.

The problem is, the writing was already on the wall by 1940. After Czechoslovakia, one could realistically back appeasement as a policy, since there was nothing concrete to prove that it wasn't going to work. Poland made this considerably harder. Britain's foreign policy could not coexist with Nazi Germany's as anything other than a interim solution, and Halifax knew it. From some accounts, Halifax was so disillusioned by the invasion of Poland he stopped entertaining the notion of a peace treaty then and there.

Not likely to happen, regardless. The U.S. is still going to get into a war with Japan. This is going to thrust them on the world stage in a significant way, even if not quite on the level as OTL. And Britain is still going to be facing most of the same problems it faced in OTL concerning its colonial holdings: increased anticolonial sentiment coinciding with a weakening economic outlook. The key difference here is that the weakened economy has more to do with prolonged cold war with Nazi Germany than the fallout of a very, very hot war with the same.

Which, again, is assuming that Germany's imperial aspirations don't ultimately conflict with Britain's, sparking the same level of destructive warfare that Halifax ineffectively sidestepped in 1940.

"As a policy, appeasement was based on two flawed premises: first, that it was Nazi Germany's self-interest to avoid war, and second, that the Nazis recognized this fact."

War with who?
It was based on avoiding war with Britain.
Which in that case it was correct.

As Baldwin said "if there is to be any fighting done it should be between the Nazis and the Communists"
 
"As a policy, appeasement was based on two flawed premises: first, that it was Nazi Germany's self-interest to avoid war, and second, that the Nazis recognized this fact."

War with who?
It was based on avoiding war with Britain.
Which in that case it was correct.

As Baldwin said "if there is to be any fighting done it should be between the Nazis and the Communists"

How nice to see you interesting towards conspiracy theories.
Sadly Baldwin was not responsible for the policy of appeasement.
If Britain had wanted to avoid war with Germany that badly then there would not have been a policy of appeasement at all - Britain could have ignored Germany like other nations did.

As a matter of fact post-purge the British General Staff were alarmed by the prospect of the German-Soviet war in 1938-1939 for fear of how quickly the Germand would win.
 
How nice to see you interesting towards conspiracy theories.
Sadly Baldwin was not responsible for the policy of appeasement.
If Britain had wanted to avoid war with Germany that badly then there would not have been a policy of appeasement at all - Britain could have ignored Germany like other nations did.

As a matter of fact post-purge the British General Staff were alarmed by the prospect of the German-Soviet war in 1938-1939 for fear of how quickly the Germand would win.

The British military expected a short campaign and victory in around 2 months but several politicians of the time had other ideas.
Baldwin if he hung on for another term would have defiantly kept Britain out.
 
The British military expected a short campaign and victory in around 2 months but several politicians of the time had other ideas.

Do you have a source on that? I was under the impression that the French and British expected that the war would end up being a stalemate in France for 1-2 years, followed by a push into Germany.

Baldwin if he hung on for another term would have defiantly kept Britain out.

Admittedly I'm going off a quick skim of Wikipedia's biography of him, but I'm honestly wondering why you have that impression.
 
Do you have a source on that? I was under the impression that the French and British expected that the war would end up being a stalemate in France for 1-2 years, followed by a push into Germany.

That’s what many British politicians and Strategists in the ministry of defence where thinking but the military expected a campaign of between 6-8 weeks but that was what I read for 1939-40 as far as I was aware.
The suggestion made by wozz was some what earlier which I can only take his word on.



Admittedly I'm going off a quick skim of Wikipedia's biography of him, but I'm honestly wondering why you have that impression.

Wiki has very little on such an important 20th century British PM not much online anywhere about him.
You will need to get some books on the man.
 
The decision to continue the war by Churchill wasn't done by him alone. Made a the earliest part of his premiership, Churchill was dependant upon the agreement of the senior members of his war cabinet - Neville Chamberlian and Lord Halifax.

The decision to continue the war was a rational, argued position, in cabinet, that that was the best way ahead for the British Empire - a decision made when the BEF was considered lost. It's therefore not so easy as to say that Halifax as PM = peace with Germany, although that is the considered wisdom.

Of course, if Churchill had not been PM, then the lead would be taken by Halifax - but Churchill would remain invovled in the War cabinet, with about as much gravitas as he did IOTL.

For a decent analysis of the decision making process at that time - and analysing the evidence as seen by the main players - see Ian Kershaw 'Fateful Choices' (Penguin 2007).
 
Baldwin was completely senile by the time Chamberlain and Halifax pushed him out historically. Chamberlain's dying of cancer at the same time as he does IOTL-that's not going to change no matter whom's PM.

So we're down to Halifax and Churchill. Had Halifax wound up as PM, Churchill would have been in the government-Halifax realized he wasn't terribly strong on military matters and would've deferred to Churchill's judgment on such things.

Halifax knew the policy of appeasement was doomed by Munich-there are memos that show that there was fighting in London over how Munich went down even as Chamberlain was selling the Czechs out. Halifax by this point was already pushing for remobilizing and drawing a line in the sand.

It's even money that Britain stays in the war after the fall of France even with Halifax as PM. There are two really interesting wild cards that I haven't really seen addressed here in these varied threads-one, Halifax would have been far more inclined to deal with the non-Nazi Germans in the government if they could off Hitler-Schacht, the General cabal, etc, and then go and screw the Communists.

The other screwball in the equation is de-colonization. Halifax was as dedicated to the Empire as Churchill, but he was also far more of a realist as to how likely it'd be London could hold on to India. You might see a VERY different end of the Raj in India and de-colonization down the road, either for ill or for a far better outcome.
 
A neutral Britain could of quite easily of happened it requires only the slightest and more very easy changes you can imagine its nothing like a Confederate victory.

Prime Minister Halifax scenarios as well any variant of the "British fail in summer 1940" theme are major AH memes, just as much as Confederate victory scenarios. This idea is not at all groundbreaking, and not any more unique than a Southern victory.

The reasons the Americans hate the topics seems to be they cant handle the thought of America not being what it is today and Britain and others still have large Empires.

Oh right, that's the reason why.:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Joe-Chamberlain
A lot of the Americans and other nationalities here seem reluctant to pontificate on a Neutral Great Britain theory I wonder why that is.

Well, it is a possible theory and I think with determined circumstances plaussible.

The problem is staying too much obsessed with the theory, it is like I put a lot of threads with the theory of the republican army winning the civil war without soviet assistance, in determined circumstances and chain of events is plaussible, but if I insist a lot in the theory trying to elude any argument against him, this is obsession.

BTW: I have a sensation of deja-vu with these threads. Englander1?
 
Lord Halifax signs a peace treaty and neutrality pact with Hitler in June.
Lord Halifax goes to the country with the peace deal winning the election for the Conservative party by a small margin.

What now for the Axis?
Is it just me, or have pretty much all the PoDs posted by Joe Chamberlain been intended to generate "Da BrIts surendaz and teh Nazis rulz dA WoRld" as the outcome?
 

MrP

Banned
Is it just me, or have pretty much all the PoDs posted by Joe Chamberlain been intended to generate "Da BrIts surendaz and teh Nazis rulz dA WoRld" as the outcome?

It's a whole "We gave up our empire to stop everyone else dying and nobody else helped, and I'm going to sulk until that changes! :mad: " kinda vibe. As Iñaki said above, and Wozza's suggested in the Hall, it's probably that crazy 6'1" bodybuilder former-Tory candidate fella again.
 
Top