Jump to content


Alternate History Discussion: The Death of Churchill


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
92 replies to this topic

Sqn Ldr B #21 Posted 05 March 2016 - 11:32 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostGingerNinjaMax, on 05 March 2016 - 11:26 PM, said:

 

      

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 Sorry  Squadron Leader but while you are correct that the house of commons (above) was bombed during the blitz the photo you have uploaded is of Churchills visit to Coventry cathedral. Coventry was flattened which was in many peoples eyes the reason for the revenge bombing of Dresden

 

So it is. The internet lied to me. Have this instead:

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


NSW Mntd Rifles #22 Posted 06 March 2016 - 05:24 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39298 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

The other issue that could come in to play in the event of a pro-German/Nazi or appeaser Prime Minister being appointed is that the Monarch has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister if the majority of Parliament will not work with them. This occurred in Australia in 1975 when the Crown (in the form of the Australian Governor General) dismissed the Whitlam Labour Government who had lost their parliamentary majority in the Australian Senate (the upper house of parliament). The opposition blocked supply, forcing a constitutional crisis that was resolved by sacking the incumbent and setting up a caretaker government prior to elections being held. 

 

I'm not sure of the mood of the British Parliament in 1940 but I imagine that most members would have been ill-disposed to accommodate Hitler in that moment. King George VI was definitely more inclined to oppose Hitler than his brother Edward VIII who achieved little more than fathering illegitimate children all over the Empire while he was Prince of Wales. One could imagine King George VI actively advising Churchill's replacement to prosecute the war against Germany.



GingerNinjaMax #23 Posted 06 March 2016 - 10:06 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6523 battles
  • 510
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostNSW Mntd Rifles, on 06 March 2016 - 05:24 AM, said:

The other issue that could come in to play in the event of a pro-German/Nazi or appeaser Prime Minister being appointed is that the Monarch has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister if the majority of Parliament will not work with them. This occurred in Australia in 1975 when the Crown (in the form of the Australian Governor General) dismissed the Whitlam Labour Government who had lost their parliamentary majority in the Australian Senate (the upper house of parliament). The opposition blocked supply, forcing a constitutional crisis that was resolved by sacking the incumbent and setting up a caretaker government prior to elections being held.

 

I'm not sure of the mood of the British Parliament in 1940 but I imagine that most members would have been ill-disposed to accommodate Hitler in that moment. King George VI was definitely more inclined to oppose Hitler than his brother Edward VIII who achieved little more than fathering illegitimate children all over the Empire while he was Prince of Wales. One could imagine King George VI actively advising Churchill's replacement to prosecute the war against Germany.

 

  think it would be a little more  than advising. I think it would be an insistence.

JStudebaker #24 Posted 07 March 2016 - 07:07 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9428 battles
  • 176
  • Member since:
    03-08-2015
There's something rather obvious I didn't think of. Germany kills the PM in a bombing raid, would an appeasement government have a leg to stand on in public opinion? I think after something like that even a whisper of peace would get them accused of plotting the whole thing themselves and being in league with the Nazis. 

Navyman8390 #25 Posted 07 March 2016 - 08:40 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14186 battles
  • 1,314
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014
Bear in mind the U.S. would still have gone to war with Germany after 12/7/41.  It was Hitler who declared war on us after we declared on Japan.  So if an appeasement government would have denied us logistical host then the U.S. would have had to go it alone through North Africa and Italy against Germany.  WWII would have been a far greater drain on U.S. resources in manpower, materials, and money.  Besides, Britain would still have fought Japan in S.E. Asia and S.W. Pacific which means Germany would still have remained at war against Britian.  I don't really think the death of Sir Winston would have changed the Meta.

NSW Mntd Rifles #26 Posted 08 March 2016 - 06:01 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39298 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

The other issue to consider here is that Italy's entry into the war in 1940 had taken it from being a European conflict to a conflict of Empires. Britain may have been able to accommodate a triumphant Nazi Germany in 1939 by relying on naval power to keep the Germans from invading the United Kingdom. Italy's entry into the war presented an additional range of strategic dilemmas that would have made peace with the Axis unthinkable. How would the Empire have reacted to a British capitulation? It probably would have fallen apart. How would India have responded to a British capitulation in Europe?

 

The other question is: "How would the Dominions have reacted?" Canada had its own strategic issues to consider, as did Australia and New Zealand. Australia had been wary of Japan since at least 1900 but had an escalating military commitment in the Middle East by late 1940. New Zealand, the other Pacific Dominion, had also invested most of its military strength in the Middle East. South Africa was invested in the containment of the African continent. It was in the interest of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa to keep fighting the Axis in the Middle East. 

 

Step forward to 1941-1942. The USA could not have prosecuted an effective military campaign in the Pacific without Australia and New Zealand, and without Britain how could it have even considered mounting any military operations in Europe or North Africa? The USA would in all likelihood created a North American fortress until it could think its way out of isolation. 



Navyman8390 #27 Posted 08 March 2016 - 04:50 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14186 battles
  • 1,314
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View PostNSW Mntd Rifles, on 08 March 2016 - 01:01 AM, said:

The other issue to consider here is that Italy's entry into the war in 1940 had taken it from being a European conflict to a conflict of Empires. Britain may have been able to accommodate a triumphant Nazi Germany in 1939 by relying on naval power to keep the Germans from invading the United Kingdom. Italy's entry into the war presented an additional range of strategic dilemmas that would have made peace with the Axis unthinkable. How would the Empire have reacted to a British capitulation? It probably would have fallen apart. How would India have responded to a British capitulation in Europe?

 

The other question is: "How would the Dominions have reacted?" Canada had its own strategic issues to consider, as did Australia and New Zealand. Australia had been wary of Japan since at least 1900 but had an escalating military commitment in the Middle East by late 1940. New Zealand, the other Pacific Dominion, had also invested most of its military strength in the Middle East. South Africa was invested in the containment of the African continent. It was in the interest of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa to keep fighting the Axis in the Middle East. 

 

Step forward to 1941-1942. The USA could not have prosecuted an effective military campaign in the Pacific without Australia and New Zealand, and without Britain how could it have even considered mounting any military operations in Europe or North Africa? The USA would in all likelihood created a North American fortress until it could think its way out of isolation. 

 

As I said before. Irregardless of events in Europe I don't believe Britian would have ignored Japanese aggression against her S.E. Asian interests.  Since Germany honored her Axis agreement to declare war on the U.S. after the we declared on Japan it is logical that Germany would have pursued war with Britain despite any efforts for peace in Europe following the death of Churchill.

America indeed would have had to fortress up for a time.  But give a few years of build up I fully believe America could have marshalled the manpower and material to fight.and win although it may have taken until 1950.

Consider this.  Churchill gets killed. Britain sues for peace with the Reich and gets it.  The Russians fight alone against Germany.  The weight of resources, manpower, and leadership is totally on Russia's side.  She would have beaten Germany albeit perhaps a year or two later.  She wouldn't have stopped at the Elbe either.  The Cold War map would have been completely redrawn and all of Europe would have been Soviet Block.



Matthew J35U5 #28 Posted 08 March 2016 - 09:37 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

I don't understand why Germany would declare war on America if Britain had made peace in ~1940. They have no ability to aid Japan, nor harm the US, and are busy with the Soviet Union. In OTL, they may have felt that they were at war with America already, since America was supplying their enemies. 

 

Spoiler

 

View PostNavyman8390, on 08 March 2016 - 11:50 AM, said:

 

  The Cold War map would have been completely redrawn and all of Europe would have been Soviet Block.

I always find it interesting that many alternate WWII scenarios end with the world of 1984 existing; The British Commonwealth and America (Oceania), Soviet-dominated Europe (Eurasia), and either a Japanese or Chinese dominated east (Eastasia). 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Navyman8390 #29 Posted 09 March 2016 - 08:47 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14186 battles
  • 1,314
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 08 March 2016 - 04:37 PM, said:

I don't understand why Germany would declare war on America if Britain had made peace in ~1940. They have no ability to aid Japan, nor harm the US, and are busy with the Soviet Union. In OTL, they may have felt that they were at war with America already, since America was supplying their enemies.

 

Spoiler

 

I always find it interesting that many alternate WWII scenarios end with the world of 1984 existing; The British Commonwealth and America (Oceania), Soviet-dominated Europe (Eurasia), and either a Japanese or Chinese dominated east (Eastasia).

The point I was making was that had Russia defeated Germany on her own ALL of Europe might have been soviet block. All of Germany, Scandinavia, Greece, the Alpine Nations, the Lowland Nations, France, all the way to the Atlantic might have become communist bloc.



GingerNinjaMax #30 Posted 09 March 2016 - 09:29 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6523 battles
  • 510
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostNavyman8390, on 09 March 2016 - 08:47 PM, said:

The point I was making was that had Russia defeated Germany on her own ALL of Europe might have been soviet block. All of Germany, Scandinavia, Greece, the Alpine Nations, the Lowland Nations, France, all the way to the Atlantic might have become communist bloc.

 

careful, Mathew doesn't like any one assuming the limits of the 'Evil Empire' ......Lol

NSW Mntd Rifles #31 Posted 09 March 2016 - 11:39 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39298 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 09 March 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:

I don't understand why Germany would declare war on America if Britain had made peace in ~1940. They have no ability to aid Japan, nor harm the US, and are busy with the Soviet Union. In OTL, they may have felt that they were at war with America already, since America was supplying their enemies. 

 

Spoiler

 

I always find it interesting that many alternate WWII scenarios end with the world of 1984 existing; The British Commonwealth and America (Oceania), Soviet-dominated Europe (Eurasia), and either a Japanese or Chinese dominated east (Eastasia). 

 

I tend to agree. The vast imponderable in all of this is, if Great Britain capitulated in 1940 how would the Empire have responded? 

 

I could imagine immediate moves towards independence by Imperial possessions and mandates in Africa, South Asia and there Middle East. India could have exploded in a rebellion that completely altered the power balance in South Asia and the Middle East. British naval and military strength would have been dissipated in a series of conflicts across the Empire, leaving it powerless to even slow Japanese aggression in South-East Asia. China may have been overrun by the Japanese Army if the British possessions in Burma and India were thrown into revolution. The events of 1941 have shown that, in the absence of British power in the Middle East, Persia and Iraq would have taken on an entirely different strategic importance. The Balfour Declaration may have been swept aside in a vast Arab and Persian uprising and no Jewish homeland ever created in Palestine.

 

 



Matthew J35U5 #32 Posted 09 March 2016 - 11:44 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostNSW Mntd Rifles, on 09 March 2016 - 06:39 PM, said:

 

I tend to agree. The vast imponderable in all of this is, if Great Britain capitulated in 1940 how would the Empire have responded? 

 

I could imagine immediate moves towards independence by Imperial possessions and mandates in Africa, South Asia and there Middle East. India could have exploded in a rebellion that completely altered the power balance in South Asia and the Middle East. British naval and military strength would have been dissipated in a series of conflicts across the Empire, leaving it powerless to even slow Japanese aggression in South-East Asia. China may have been overrun by the Japanese Army if the British possessions in Burma and India were thrown into revolution. The events of 1941 have shown that, in the absence of British power in the Middle East, Persia and Iraq would have taken on an entirely different strategic importance. The Balfour Declaration may have been swept aside in a vast Arab and Persian uprising and no Jewish homeland ever created in Palestine.

Depends on the terms. If, like Hitler supposedly wanted, Britain was left mostly unharmed, so they could ally against America (which is rather implausible ofc), then probably only India would be trouble. Under harsher terms you're right that the Empire would probably splinter. 

 

Spoiler

 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Sqn Ldr B #33 Posted 10 March 2016 - 07:21 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 09 March 2016 - 11:44 PM, said:

Depends on the terms. If, like Hitler supposedly wanted, Britain was left mostly unharmed, so they could ally against America (which is rather implausible ofc), then probably only India would be trouble. Under harsher terms you're right that the Empire would probably splinter. 

 

Spoiler

 

 

It wasn't so much the victory itself the splintered the empire as the fact that Britain had spent all of its money on the war and couldn't afford to run it any more.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Navyman8390 #34 Posted 11 March 2016 - 08:17 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14186 battles
  • 1,314
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 10 March 2016 - 02:21 AM, said:

 

It wasn't so much the victory itself the splintered the empire as the fact that Britain had spent all of its money on the war and couldn't afford to run it any more.

When WWII started Britain was still hung over from WWI.  It was a forgone expediancy she spin off her Empire.  The culmination of a 150 year long process begun in 1775 by a bunch of hillbillys who hate taxes.



Matthew J35U5 #35 Posted 11 March 2016 - 08:54 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostNavyman8390, on 11 March 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

When WWII started Britain was still hung over from WWI.  It was a forgone expediancy she spin off her Empire.  The culmination of a 150 year long process begun in 1775 by a bunch of hillbillys who hate taxes.

A 150 year process where the Empire went from being somewhat unimportant, to the largest empire in the world, and then collapsed?


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


GingerNinjaMax #36 Posted 11 March 2016 - 09:03 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6523 battles
  • 510
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostNavyman8390, on 11 March 2016 - 08:17 PM, said:

When WWII started Britain was still hung over from WWI.  It was a forgone expediancy she spin off her Empire.  The culmination of a 150 year long process begun in 1775 by a bunch of hillbillys who hate taxes.

 

er not really. the drepression was still recent and so the money spent on ww1 wasn't recouperated before the crash came. hence the lack of spending on defence . as for the hillbillys if you look back at the history of that time, Britain considered India had more potential than North America especially as Britain had just gained all those lands from the French after the 7 years war and had to administer them in the 1760s and 70s. Hence the need for more Taxes. Britains military prowess, just like the Romans before them overstretched their finances. So financially the loss of America was probably a good thing for Britain

GingerNinjaMax #37 Posted 11 March 2016 - 09:05 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6523 battles
  • 510
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 11 March 2016 - 08:54 PM, said:

A 150 year process where the Empire went from being somewhat unimportant, to the largest empire in the world, and then collapsed?

 

Lol

Sqn Ldr B #38 Posted 11 March 2016 - 09:11 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014
Yes, after WW1 the Empire was at its strongest. After WW2 Britain had to repay her war debts. Lend Lease, debts to production companies, all the equipment they had bought on credit, all the loans they had taken out to buy things for the war. Britain simply couldn't afford an Empire any more, and the British people were tired. After two world wars they simply weren't in the mood for a colonial conflict. What, really, was the point in bloodshed over a strip of desert full of people who didn't want you to rule them and that cost more than you could afford?

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Navyman8390 #39 Posted 11 March 2016 - 09:17 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14186 battles
  • 1,314
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View PostGingerNinjaMax, on 11 March 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

 

er not really. the drepression was still recent and so the money spent on ww1 wasn't recouperated before the crash came. hence the lack of spending on defence . as for the hillbillys if you look back at the history of that time, Britain considered India had more potential than North America especially as Britain had just gained all those lands from the French after the 7 years war and had to administer them in the 1760s and 70s. Hence the need for more Taxes. Britains military prowess, just like the Romans before them overstretched their finances. So financially the loss of America was probably a good thing for Britain

So Britain considered India more valuable real estate than North America?  Why then did Britain choose to waste resources in 1812 knowing the logistical hurdles were still the same?  Knowing that Napoleon next door had "little man's complex"? Was George III off his royal rocker?



GingerNinjaMax #40 Posted 11 March 2016 - 09:18 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6523 battles
  • 510
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 11 March 2016 - 09:11 PM, said:

Yes, after WW1 the Empire was at its strongest. After WW2 Britain had to repay her war debts. Lend Lease, debts to production companies, all the equipment they had bought on credit, all the loans they had taken out to buy things for the war. Britain simply couldn't afford an Empire any more, and the British people were tired. After two world wars they simply weren't in the mood for a colonial conflict. What, really, was the point in bloodshed over a strip of desert full of people who didn't want you to rule them and that cost more than you could afford?

 

bang on sir but not just strip of desert but a jungle or small / large island and all climates in between




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users