What if Winston Churchill died early and Halifax became Prime Minister?

Ian_W

Banned
That was definitely the mood. If they were so self assured and had the realistic view of the impossibility of an invasion that's been shown over and over again here at this forum, why did Britain then still prepare for one? Looks to me a case of hindsight. F.i. Orwell expected an invasion in 1940. In 1943 he writes he was wrong in many of his judgements of 1940, but he excuses himself to say that was the general mood.

Oh, a German invasion of England could have happened in 1940. It was certainly possible.

A successful invasion ? That's another question - and a major part of it was the preparation work that made sure neither Dover nor Southampton nor Portsmouth could be taken in a coup de main, and that enough beach defenses existed, and that enough of the RN's light units were there to contest the Channel and so on.
 
Still, parlement did not follow 'logic' and vote in a moderate cabinet. they went for the warhawk.

Technically Parliament has no (direct) say in the appointment of our PM or cabinet. However ,thankfully they did want Winston when the moment came!

However in a world without Winston Churchill who is the war hawk in Parliament? Who is sitting at the cabinet table to offer a counterpoint? Who in cabinet could foster links with the Americans who would ultimately ride to the rescue? Could Halifax persuade the USA to chose our side over neutrality?


Even if all that does fly, and I have serious doubts, the other overriding vote is Hitlers & as I wrote earlier he has a increasingly bad track record on treaties and terms. Odds are terms unacceptable to Parliament, the cabinet, and Halifax himself will be 'dictated'. Its clear the German leaders, & not just the Nazis, were well into the fever of victory disease, & if the 'reconciliation' offered to bystanders like Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, & Belgium, are any indication then Peace Terms are going to look more like a conquers diktat.

Is the point that it looked like there might be no choice. It could be argued ( and it was by some!) that it was absurd for Churchill to suggest fighting on.

We were alone but for the empire over the sea. We had just be evicted from mainland europe by the nazi war machine that had rolled over everyone in their way in record time. They were only 26 miles away and massing to invade. Our army was rescued but in a bad state, our airforce was barely enough to defend one corner of the country form the air armadas of the Nazi. Our navy was strong but stretched. We are next. Tanks will be rolling up Whitehall and the Mall in no time. Take the terms offered and save the nation!


Churchill said no. Stuff them. If we go down we go down fighting and we will take as many of the bastards with us as we can with us. I think Halifax would have said yes. I think reluctantly but yes. He was no fool or quisling but he wanted peace. The choice was destruction of everything he held dear and the deaths of many of his countrymen in a futile effort to stem the tide or an honorable way out that preserved our way of life. I think eventually we would have been drawn closer and closer to the Nazi axis but a deal would, in the short to medium term, secure our status.

Why would Halifax accept terms from Germany? Britain had the world's largest navy, the greatest aircraft production of any country and a small but uniquely mechanised army

because at the time Halifax would become PM our small and mechanized army was fighting for its life in France and Belgium. Ultimately it would be rescued but without its equipment. The aircraft production industry was not, yet, spun up to full speed nor was it producing enough aircraft of a high enough quality. Our economy was not, yet, on a full war footing and that would take time. Time it looked like we might not have...............
 
An attempt at invasion may have been expected....but there was confidence it would be repelled. There was equal confidence that Britain and its Empire would defeat Germany which was believed to be weak economically. The Chiefs of Staff thought Britain would win in 1942.
At that time Britain was producing more aeroplanes than Germany. It was able to buy materiel from the USA with cash. With regard to Britain looking as if it did not have time, it believed entirely the contrary. Time was thought to be against Germany because of its perceived weak economy.
No matter who was PM there was no good reason to seek terms from Germany.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Without Churchill at the helm there could well be a landing in France in 1943. Churchill was an "eastener", he embodied the Olde Englyshe school of death by a thousand cuts. Halifax might not squander the opportunity to end the North African campaign in 1st half of 1941 by chasing some soft underbelly visions.
 
Without Churchill at the helm there could well be a landing in France in 1943. Churchill was an "eastener", he embodied the Olde Englyshe school of death by a thousand cuts. Halifax might not squander the opportunity to end the North African campaign in 1st half of 1941 by chasing some soft underbelly visions.

Might even have been a 1943 invasion with Churchill. Dill was not opposed, there was planning and investigation.
 
Technically Parliament has no (direct) say in the appointment of our PM or cabinet. However ,thankfully they did want Winston when the moment came!

....

All this assumes Hitler offers reasonable terms, which is very unlikely. His MO at the time was to dictate harsh open-ended requirements. Earlier his track record was of violating agreements he had declared permanent and irrevocable. Whats going to happen here? Halifax agrees to something that at best looks like the Munich agreement and he repeats the line about peace in our time?
 
All this assumes Hitler offers reasonable terms, which is very unlikely. His MO at the time was to dictate harsh open-ended requirements. Earlier his track record was of violating agreements he had declared permanent and irrevocable. Whats going to happen here? Halifax agrees to something that at best looks like the Munich agreement and he repeats the line about peace in our time?

That's certainly true, but shoulden't we also consider the circumstances in which he'd been operating up until now (Specifically, the state of the states he was 'negotiating' with) vs. his situation relative to Britain? In his prior invasions, a combination of the German army and cracks in the popular and government morale resulted in him dealing with nations that had been rendered and believed themselves to be prostrate, which Hitler and his generals knew lacked the ability to meaningfully "fight on". What resistance they would be able to offer would be disorganized and minimal, and would result in far more damage to the resisters and their family/neighbors themselves than they could ever hope to inflict on a German occupation force. As such, it only made sense to dictate hard terms.

Britain, on the other hand, still has a military with morale and organization. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force are more or less intact (Even if, as the BoB goes on, the later gets tired and somewhat overstreched) and the Home Guard and elements of the British Army prepared to defend its shores. Any attempt at Sea Lion, even if successful, was universally agreed to be more damaging to German military power than British, and if a failure would be even more problematic. In this situation, therefore, there's actual benefit to presenting more lenient but more acceptable terms to London than to Paris, Copenhagen, or Warsaw: in the later cases, being lenient is a net lose for Germany by leaving in hostile hands resources/power that could have been taken/subdued at little to no cost. For Britain, getting peace via diplomacy has the potential to be a net and comparative positive to Germany vs. rendering Britain prostrate, which would require expending a great deal more resources to even have a chance at being successful.

I'd imagine Halifax, were he Prime Minister, would make something like the following his internal policy: If Hitler approaches us with actually honorably terms, we'll consider accepting a cease-fire at least (If only to get time to co-ordinate with the resistance, consolidate Imperial resources, woo The United States, ect.), especially if it would give vital breathing space to mitigate the threat of a "stab in the side" from the shadow looming over Asia. If you can get him to publicly lay out demands that are unreasonable, on the other hand, than you have concrete evidence with which to shot down the radical doves/defeatists, can be more certain of rallying universal public opinion and thus prevent the risk of "Better Hitler than Blum"-type sentiments from undermining the war effort, and get a stronger diplomatic card to play with Roosevelt, Stalin, and the heads of the Domains.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
...
In his prior invasions, a combination of the German army and cracks in the popular and government morale resulted in him dealing with nations that had been rendered and believed themselves to be prostrate, which Hitler and his generals knew lacked the ability to meaningfully "fight on". What resistance they would be able to offer would be disorganized and minimal, and would result in far more damage to the resisters and their family/neighbors themselves than they could ever hope to inflict on a German occupation force. ...
So you render the goverments and populaces of
- Poland
- Denmark
- Norway
- the Netherlands
- Belgium
(did not add France here, as ITTL France isn't ...completly defeated at a possible post-Dunkerk-peace-offer)
"cracked" in their moral ?, so that they rendered themself unable to actually fight against the germans ? ...
That's a rather new 'view on things' for me.

... As such, it only made sense to dictate hard terms.

...

... In this situation, therefore, there's actual benefit to presenting more lenient but more acceptable terms to London than to Paris, Copenhagen, or Warsaw ...
Well IMO the terms 'forced' upon at least Denmark and Norway were rather mild.
Warsaw ... there weren't any 'terms to be dictated' as Poland as a stately entity simply ceased to exist for the Soviet-Union and Hitlergermany.
Paris aren't any 'terms' offered yet, when Halifax might ask for terms on whatever under-the-table channels.

However, I agree, that Hitler might be tempted ITTL to be 'generous' towards Britain, hoping once again for his (only ?) former wet dreams of a worlds division between Britain and Germany.



For your proposal of Halifax' actions :
would see them well within possibility.
 
All this assumes Hitler offers reasonable terms, which is very unlikely. His MO at the time was to dictate harsh open-ended requirements. Earlier his track record was of violating agreements he had declared permanent and irrevocable. Whats going to happen here? Halifax agrees to something that at best looks like the Munich agreement and he repeats the line about peace in our time?

Agreed - However Britain is still in the fight and Hitler wants to turn on Russia. There is an argument for deal to take away the British problem ( at least int he short term) and allow more resource to be devoted against Russia. I think @FillyofDelphi sets out the case.

Best case: We take the deal and rearm like billyo for the day he comes back and try like mad to get the Yanks on side ASAP. Worst case: We take the deal and believe Hitler.......................................
 
Top