Chamberlain died of bowel cancer on 9 Nov 1940 which limits his chances of destroying Churchill more than just a little.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Chamberlain died of bowel cancer on 9 Nov 1940 which limits his chances of destroying Churchill more than just a little.Parliament is not the people, besides Chamberlain remained in the Cabinet and could destroy Winston at any moment .The Tories remained faithful to Chamberlain and disliked Winston .
Everyone was forbidden from picking up survivors when a convoy was attacked, it is as suicidal as using a match to find a sniper.There have been several cases where escorts were forbidden to leave their role ,which was to protect the convoy, to rescue the crew of a sinking merchant vessel .
And that U Boat commanders were usually rated on tonnage sunk was a very big mistake of Doenitz .
Constitutionally parliament is appointed by the crown to give the best advice to the crown, over time this has gone from certain lords to all lords to to various people elected from a limited electorate to what we have now (actually pretty much in line with the level of people with a basic education). Churchill is a strange case, my mother loved him no matter what, but she was a schoolgirl during the war, my father hated him but wouldnt have had any other leader during the war. I cant think of Churchill losing an election during WW2 but it was no surprise that he lost after VE day, he was a war time leader, when you dont have a war, you dont need a war time leader.I have a donkey that still has both its hind legs...perhaps you'd like to argue one of them off?
Parliament REPRESENTS the people. They serve at the will of the people. Despite their dislike of Churchill, he held onto power because, overall, he got the big decisions right. A seriously bad decision, like pulling FC back north of London, would have had political consequences.
I believe Sir Winston Churchill persuaded Neville Chamberlain to stay on in Churchill's government. Who had made Sir Winston First Lord of the Admiralty? Was it Chamberlain?
Doesn't seem like they were trying to kill each other.
You're right. I never have before.C'mon now...let's not allow reality to impose on the fantasies and certainties being expounded in this thread.
The second time yes, the first time was 1911-1915. It makes good sense to have Chamberlain involved, he had been involved for so long. Much is made about his "peace in our time" agreement, but he was doing his job buying time, the aircraft of fighter command, bomber command and things like Chain Home and the Dowding system were all created on his watch. In my opinion history gives him a bad rap, he was a seriously ill man doing the best he could in an impossible situation. everything in UK military development after 1935 he had a hand in 1935-37 as Chancellor (finance minister) and 1937 onwards as Prime Minister.I believe Sir Winston Churchill persuaded Neville Chamberlain to stay on in Churchill's government. Who had made Sir Winston First Lord of the Admiralty? Was it Chamberlain?
Doesn't seem like they were trying to kill each other.
The second time yes, the first time was 1911-1915. It makes good sense to have Chamberlain involved, he had been involved for so long. Much is made about his "peace in our time" agreement, but he was doing his job buying time, the aircraft of fighter command, bomber command and things like Chain Home and the Dowding system were all created on his watch. In my opinion history gives him a bad rap, he was a seriously ill man doing the best he could in an impossible situation. everything in UK military development after 1935 he had a hand in 1935-37 as Chancellor (finance minister) and 1937 onwards as Prime Minister.
from wiki
Defence spending
Defence spending had been heavily cut in Chamberlain's early budgets.[62] By 1935, faced with a resurgent Germany under Hitler's leadership (see German re-armament), he was convinced of the need for rearmament.[63] Chamberlain especially urged the strengthening of the Royal Air Force, realising that Britain's historical bulwark, the English Channel, was no defence against air power.[64]
In 1935, MacDonald stood down as Prime Minister, and Baldwin became Prime Minister for the third time.[65] In the 1935 general election, the Conservative-dominated National Government lost 90 seats from its massive 1931 majority, but still retained an overwhelming majority of 255 in the House of Commons. During the campaign, deputy Labour leader Arthur Greenwood had attacked Chamberlain for spending money on rearmament, saying that the rearmament policy was "the merest scaremongering; disgraceful in a statesman of Mr Chamberlain's responsible position, to suggest that more millions of money needed to be spent on armaments."[66]
Germany was the aggressor and so stole a march on everyone, the UK caught and passed Germany in most areas, apart from just numbers of people, in or around 1940 that is down to Chamberlain more than Churchill. Churchills time as First Sea Lord is significant, it was before he adversary even thought of his main role as WW1 corporal, the difference in background to be a war leader couldnt be more stark.Entirely agree. As I stated earlier in the thread, appeasement has become a dirty word but it was absolutely critical to give Britain time to catch up militarily with Germany. Your observations about re-equipment of the RAF, including the new generation of fighters plus Chain Home are bang-on. Also, let's not forget the massive increase in airfield construction that was necessary. The late-30s pattern RAF stations were a testament to the efficient and effective build-up of capability.
Parliament is not the people, besides Chamberlain remained in the Cabinet and could destroy Winston at any moment .The Tories remained faithful to Chamberlain and disliked Winston .
Germany did have weather stations and they were fairly good at working with it.Just a jest based on assumptions of Channel weather, since Germany didnt have the same weather forecasting capability, mounting an invasion at the perfect time of year could lead to the whole force being wiped out.
One : NOParliament is the representatives of the people. No government -- even the most autocratic -- doesn't long survive without at least the tacit support of most of the people.
Winston was PM by the grace of Chamberlain .Chamberlain died of bowel cancer on 9 Nov 1940 which limits his chances of destroying Churchill more than just a little.
Without war, elections could no longer be delayed : elections were scheduled for November 1939, but war prevented this .Why would there be elections?
The Netherlands and also Belgium were totally occupied by the Germans .Why would Germany believe they had to occupy a whole country to win? They hadnt with France Poland or the Netherlands? The daft lad in charge considered the Channel to just be a wide river crossing.
Without German military help, a Quisling regime would not long survive .You're very big on making direct correlations where they don't exist. Negotiation does NOT equal capitulation. Also, just because the UK secured a negotiated peace does not mean that Germany had to invade in the summer of 1940.
Now, it's entirely plausible that Nazi influence over the UK would increase over time. In the short term, and assuming a more pliable British Government than Churchill's cabinet, some combination of trade, Anglo-German military coordination committees, and perhaps a force of German observers in the UK, could suffice to assuage German fears that the UK may change its mind in the future. The more ties established between the 2 countries, the less chance there was of the UK reneging.
Switzerland was not at war , Britain was . Thus the comparison is weak .Russia accepted the peace of Brest-Litowsk in 1918,because there was a German ultimatum to continue the war .What is a weaker position? Switzerland is always in a weak position, it just lets it be known that the cost of an attack would be huge.