On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:09:10 +0000 (UTC), bill
wrote:
>> Since there is no Norway debacle to prompt a no-confidence vote,
>> Chamberlain is still in power during the Battle of France. He is unable
>> to spin the Dunkirk evacuation as a miracle
>>
>> At this point, would Chamberlain make peace, find his nerve or would he
>> be ousted in favor of Churchill now?
>
>Chamberlain is a sick man with less than a year to live.
>
>The big question is 'who replaces him'.
>
>Churchill hasn't a hope unless the government falls.
>
>Neither, let's be honest, has Lord Halifax.
>
>Hore Belisha, the War Minister,uming he avoids Gort's anti-Semitic
>machinations, is still unacceptable as Prime Minister, because he's
>Jewish...
Barring a military disaster Hore Belisha has a more than legitimate
shot. To me if you eliminate Churchill and Halifax from
consideration, Hore Belisha seems more probable than Hoare or Simon. I
don't see either of them as being particularly suited as a war leader.
Eden is too junior at this point and I simply do not see a war Prime
Minister coming from the Lords.
>Who gets it?
>
>Chamberlain was about as dynamic and distinguished as the Tories got pre
>war and he is best described as mediocre.
>
>Churchill once described him thus:
>words> 'He would make a fine Lord Mayor of Birmingham, in a good year"...
That's really an unfair comment given Chamberlain's father was
generally considered one of the best Lord Mayors Birmingham ever had.
I'm an admirer of Churchill but that particular comment is a low blow.
>> If he makes peace, could this remove the distractions of North Africa/
>> Norway/Greece when Hitler decides to go wake the Russian bear in a one-
>> front war? Would Britain & France step in when Germany was about to be
>> overrun?
That depends on how and on what terms peace is made. After Poland?
Norway? Dunkirk? At each of these steps the terms are likely to be
completely different.
>The alternative would be more or less open revolt in Palestine and much
>tougher demands for independence in India.
Interesting - one aspect of a 1940 peace might well be a unified India
since Jinnah in 1940 did not have nearly the influence he had in
1946-7. Another interesting butterfly is that depending on when peace
was made Chandra Bose might still be in India (i.e. before January
1941 when he fled India) and a key player in the independence
movement. Since Bose split with Gandhi over non-violence, it could
have made independence even bloodier.
>At a time of complex European entanglements the government would probably
>fall, and Labour certainly wouldn't do a deal with the Nazis, they knew
>full well what happened to Socialists and Trade Unionists in Nazi
>controlled countries.
Attlee wouldn't become PM without a General Election and that wouldn't
happen in wartime.
Realistically in a wartime situation the Anglo-American relationship
is going to be absolutely critical to Britain and Churchill's
relationship with FDR was at least as important as his oratorical
skill to the war effort. Of all the candidates Halifax is the only one
who strikes me as likely getting on with FDR as well as Churchill. |
