He resigned because he wanted, already before the debate, a coalition with Labour ,and because Labour accepted such a coalition, only on the condition that he should resign .
Groundhog Thread v. 2.0 - The most important battle of WW2
- Thread starter NightHawk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Churchill became PM faute de mieux . See the review by Overy of Six Minutes in May .
And, the position of Chamberlain was still that strong that Churchill was obliged to include him in the War Cabinet and Chamberlain remained party leader and the favorite of the party : when he entered the Commons on May 13, he was cheered and applauded by the Tories,whose reactions on the speeches of Churchill were very cold .
And, the position of Chamberlain was still that strong that Churchill was obliged to include him in the War Cabinet and Chamberlain remained party leader and the favorite of the party : when he entered the Commons on May 13, he was cheered and applauded by the Tories,whose reactions on the speeches of Churchill were very cold .
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Oui faute de mieux, for want of someone better, obviously Churchill was seen as better than Chamberlain, it is not in the role of Westminster to decide a party leader. As already stated Churchill wanted him to look after the home front.
Churchill was seen as better than Halifax .Chamberlain could have remained PM of a conservative government, but sacrificed himself for the interest of the country .
And why did Churchill want Chamberlain to look after the home front ?
All you are demonstrating is that day by day you learn a little more about how the UK parliament works. The "conduct of the war" debate has to be proposed and scheduled. As soon as it is scheduled people not only think about what they will say but also what they will do, and what it all means. From that you get all sorts of horse trading. I dont have to read up on the ins and outs of this particular debate, it happens all the time in Westminster, thats how Westminster works. No one will ever know all about it because it relies on memoirs, not everyone writes them, not everything is put in them and recollections vary. The vote had a three line whip, yet a quarter of Tory MPs voted with the opposition or abstained, that is very significant regardless of the vote outcome, maybe that could be todays topic for you to read into, to come up with your next version of events.
To help you, this is what wiki says about a three line whip
- A three-line whip is a strict instruction to attend and vote according to the party's position, breach of which would normally have serious consequences. Permission to not attend may be given by the whip, but a serious reason is needed. Breach of a three-line whip can lead to expulsion from the parliamentary political group in extreme circumstances, and even to expulsion from the party. Consequently, three-line whips are generally only issued on key issues, such as votes of confidence and supply.[citation needed] The nature of three-line whips and the potential punishments for revolt vary among parties and legislatures.
Last edited:
Churchill and Orwell ,The fight for Freedom ( By Thomas E.Ricks )
''When he entered the House of Commons for the first time as PM on 13 May 1940 , Churchill received less applause than did Chamberlain . ''
Churchill would recall : ''In the early weeks,it was from the Labour benches that I was mainly greeted .''
James M. Lindsay : the Water's Edge remembers :Churchill.s Blood, Toil,Tears and Sweat :
'' Few MPs clapped. Many grumbled . They still preferred Chamberlain . ''
It is actually seen as very bad behaviour to clap in the commons so I cant see how few doing it is given a comment, maybe the writer is just clueless, whatever it is he certainly fooled you. In the weeks months and years after Churchill took over, can you tell me why anyone would be in a mood to cheer or clap about anything?
Why are MPs banned from clapping?
The SNP's MPs were told to stop clapping in the Commons - when did this rule come in and what's the point of it?
www.bbc.co.uk
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Major
In your hypothetical German victory, how would the Marines be able to cross any stretch of the Atlantic now that Britain is subdued and well over half of all Allied naval assets are neutralized by your hypothetical armistice?
You can't eat your cake and have it, too.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,991
- Jun 25, 2013
Basing one's opinion of Churchill just on his WW2 work as PM gives a very different view of him than that seen by his pre-WW2 contemporaries. He changed parties at least twice (from Liberals to Conservatives, then back to Liberal, then to Conservative), then further damaged his credibility with the Tories by breaking with their policy to grant some level of home rule to India. He also was one of the persons most strongly pushing for the Dardanelles Campaign. In a couple of places I've seen (I'll try to find sources), the RN's response to "Winnie's back!" wasn't so much joy and cheer but "O, crap."
Churchill may have been the best possible PM for Britain during WW2, but his pre-war record wouldn't necessarily show that.
Last edited:
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Churchill was consistently tenacious - a Bulldog.
Not the brightest breed dog, trainable - with experience - but consistently tenacious.
Churchill had deep pedigree. John Churchill of Blenheim, arguably Britain's greatest military commander ever.
When it came to India, the man was as cold-hearted over famine there, as Stalin, in the Ukraine had been.
Not the brightest breed dog, trainable - with experience - but consistently tenacious.
Churchill had deep pedigree. John Churchill of Blenheim, arguably Britain's greatest military commander ever.
When it came to India, the man was as cold-hearted over famine there, as Stalin, in the Ukraine had been.
Last edited:
The famine there was in Bengal which is now Bangladesh, there is a reason why they separated, just as there is a reason why India and Pakistan have been fighting a low level war over Kashmir and have nukes pointed at each other.
The only way to prevent the US Marines to liberate Britain, would be to occupy Britain, and the occupation of Britain would make Barbarossa impossible .
Balderdash! If Britain agrees to a negotiated peace, neutral status, and a mutual non-aggression pact with Germany in 1940, the US is in no position to "liberate" (ie, invade) the island. We weren't at war then, and at least half, and possibly a majority of Americans wanted nothing to do with another European war!!
Come Dec 10, 1941 and Germany declares war on the US, the battle of the Atlantic will be moot. Britain and her navy are out of the picture, Afrika Korps is unopposed, Suez and the Med are Axis waterways, and Lend Lease to Russia is restricted to the Alaska/Siberia route.
Hitler has all his divisions available for Barbarossa, and Japan is free to send its massive Kwantung Army into Siberia, tying up Stalin in a two front war, and complicating US Lend Lease efforts.
With no effective British resistance in the middle east, the Axis gain access to Iranian oil, and with no Royal Navy to interfere, there's no blockade of Axis merchant shipping, and Germany can acquire all the raw materials needed for technologically advanced weapons. Meanwhile, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of the Japanese is looking pretty attractive to oppressed people in European colonies throughout east and south Asia, who welcome the Japanese with open arms. British colonial government in Malaya, Burma, and India is ousted and replaced with Japanese-supported native leadership, and the long anticipated link between the Asian and European Axis is established. Similar scenarios transpire in Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. A beleaguered US and USSR (and ANZ) stand alone against the rest of the world.
PS: The one prerequisite for all of this Japanese success to happen is that somebody has to assassinate Col Masanobu Tsuji, a racist, ultranationalist, brilliant, planning officer in IJA HQ, (god of operations), who went to extreme lengths (including insubordination) to enforce a policy of harsh treatment of (inferior) conquered peoples. His actions made enemies of native peoples who the Co-Prosperity Sphere was grooming to become allies.
Last edited:
This is not correct at all .
1 Germany would not propose a negotiated peace or a neutral status : a neutral Britain could/would become a hostile Britain .
2 Isolationism in the US was dead in September 1940 and war with Germany was unavoidable and imminent : the November elections were between two interventionist candidates who were hostile to Germany :FDR and the Republican FDR (Willkie ).Conscription in peacetime, Lend Lease, the Atlantic Fleet : all measures directed against Germany .The WASPs who dominated the US would never accept a German domination of Europe .
3 WHY would there be an Afrika Korps if Britain was out of the picture ??
4 If Britain was out of the picture, there would be no need for Barbarossa .
5 The occupation of Britain would tie at least 500000 men resulting in a Ostheer of 2,5 million thus no Barbarossa .
5 There was no reason for Japan in the HTL to attack the USSR, thus why would there be a reason to do it in the ATL? Japan would attack the USSR only if the USSR was defeated ,and then,its attack would be senseless and stupid .There was nothing to gain in Siberia .
6 There was no need for Germany to have he Iranian oil,besides how would this oil be transported to Germany ?
7 The Greater East-Asia co-Prosperity Sphere was a myth .
8 Germany did declare war on the US only because of the Japanese DOW .
9 If Britain was out and Japan occupied its Asian colonies, why would Japan attack the US ?
10 Japan was already saddled up with a war in China which it could not win, not lose, not continue . Attacking the USSR would only worse the situation of Japan .
11 The Eastern Soviet forces ( wrongly called the Siberian forces ) were strong enough to defeat the Kwantung Army ,while he Western Soviet forces had already in the Summer of 1941 checkmated the Wehrmacht .
12 The reasons for Barbarossa and PH were the same : Germany and Japan were desperate : they were involved in wars against Britain and China which they could not win,not lose,not continue . Germany attacked the USSR hoping that the fall of the USSR would force Britain to give up . Japan attacked the US hoping that a defeat of the US would force China to give up .Both knew that the catastrophe was looming,without PH and Barbarossa they were lost . PH and Barbarossa only fastened their collapse ,which was inevitable even if they won against US and the USSR .
Why do you always consider your thought of the day to be an absolute truth. You cannot know what Germany would do because it largely depended on the daft corporal. He already had a hostile Britain, anything negotiated would be better than that, if only to avoid using Berlins air raid shelters when Molotov visited Berlin.
Glider
Captain
1 Germany was more than happy to accept a negotiated settlement with the UK. We had the one thing the German forces didn't have, a Navy
2 No it wasn't and besides why would the USA declare war on Germany if the UK have reached a settlement with them. Pro German feeling was strong in the USA
3 To take control of the oil
4 If the UK was out of the picture and no longer a threat, then Germany could concentrate all its efforts on Russia.
5 There would be no need for an invasion force. Having lost control of the Battle in the Atlantic Germany could easily starve the UK into obedience
6 I would suggest the same way everyone else transported oil around, by sea. The Russian Navy was no threat to anyone.
7 No it wasn't
8 It would be very unlikely that Germany would declare war on the USA as there would be no need. Even if it did then there is no way the USA could make a meaningful attack on Germany without the UK who are out of the picture
9 This is the one point where you do have some logic. With a surplus of oil Germany could supply Japan..
10 Why would Japan attack Russia when thee was a risk. Wait for Russia to be on the point of failure then attack
11 Possibly at the start but once they have been weakened by the German offensive, anything could happen
12 Wrong. Barbarossa was done with ambition and a lust to take over the vast fields of grain and oil. PH was done out of esperation
Thumpalumpacus
Major
So you don't think the Germans could get forty thousand troops together without threatening Barbarossa?
Remember, now that the Germans have defeated the British in your scenario, there is no Afrika Korps. The mainland European coast will need less in the way of defensive manning, too.
And without U-boats attacking British merchant vessels, I'm betting there'll be a lot less than 30,000 US Marines by the time they land in the UK.
Look, I've got nothing but respect for Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, but in terms of doctrine and equipment, they were neither trained nor equipped for attacking such a large island, much less conquering it, in the face of, say, three German divisions. I think you're excluding a lot of factors from your calculus.
1) If the USMC wants air-support, it'll have to come from carriers. But remember, the US Navy was staring at Japan as well. Especially given range considerations of the a/c aboard USN carriers, the Marines will likely be without air support while Fliegerkorps X could be deployed to Scotland without weakening Barbarossa.
2) U-boats can either attack the invasion fleet directly, or attack its 3,000-mile supply chain, meaning that the invasion's offensive power will either be reduced directly or indirectly.
3) American admirals were loath at the time to risk precious flat-tops in close waters as would be required to provide air-support. I'm skeptical they'd want to put Standard Battleships in sub-infested waters, as well, so goodbye gunfire support.
4) Germany could reinforce any units in the UK much faster than the Americans could -- and any amphibious invasion is a build-up battle. With the UK subdued and both Denmark and Holland complaisant, troops therein could be sent across the North Sea faster than American reinforcements and supplies would arrive after a dangerous journey that would likely see quite a few losses.
These are some of the reasons that even with greatly expanding the American presence in Iceland, I doubt my country would be able to successfully launch the invasion you envisage.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Be it known as well that the Shah of the time had German leanings and would not have been averse, I think, to selling his oil to them, if the Germans had or found the tankers to bring it to Europe.
With WC out of Downing Street and more autocratically inclined people in charge, especially if this occurs before too much civilian death and destruction from the LW, the "daft corporal" could heave a sigh of relief and, with the RN at anchor and a non aggression pact in place, turn his eyes eastward. He thought of the Anglo Saxons as "fellow Aryans" and was uncomfortable about making war on them when he should be busy liquidating Slavs.
That is a major misreading of American politics. The WASPs had the finances and the party machinery, but they had only a tenuous grasp on middle America, thousands of miles from any ocean, and where the votes are. Those millions of people, not feeling any threat, were not going to sanction any hostilities without a galvanizing event like PH.
The AK was originally sent to bail out Il Duce, who got himself in trouble in Ethiopia. With no RN on the scene, why not grab Suez along the way?
WHAT?? All those Slavs and other untermenschen just begging to be liquidated to make Aryan lebensraum? And all that grain and oil can't be allowed to go to waste, can it?
No need to occupy Britain. Neutral, neutralized, and non aggressive, remember?
Japan had a cultural and historical antagonism with Russia dating back a half century or more. Ever hear of the Russo-Japanese War? Besides, the Kwantung Army got badly spanked in the Siberian border skirmishes of 1939, and their honor demanded redress. They were convinced there were large resources of coal, iron ore, and esoteric minerals just across the border.
Certainly you jest? Maintaining a Uboat fleet, a surface navy, a merchant marine, an air force, and a mechanized army and all the training establishments to keep them at a high caliber requires oil, LOTS of it! With Suez and the Med in Axis hands, a sea route for deliveries would not be difficult, and once the Wehrmacht was deep enough into Ukraine, overland directly from Iran would be doable.
You must be suffering from AIDS (Allaround Information Deficit Syndrome)! The myth that GEAcPS was a myth is itself a myth. Far from "rank propaganda", it was a series of conferences and assemblies in which representatives of the various native peoples "liberated" by the Japanese hammered out a framework for "Asia for the Asians", independent of the white man, and protected by Japan. At first it was a thing, but as these representatives began returning home they kept discovering that IJA occupation troops inspired by Col Tsuji were continuing to treat their people as conquered slaves. The army had no concept of "honorable allies", just unruly subjugated vermin.
True enough, and probably would not have until the eventual collision of Japanese ambitions and US territorial interests occurred. This collision was inevitable and had been foreseen and trained for by IJN and USN since before WWI. Japanese military doctrine was spring-loaded to the "ATTACK" position.
See above.
Japan already held the economically lucrative portions of China. Expanding their holdings required lots of manpower, just holding them, not so much. With Malaya, Burma, and India down, Chiang Kai Shek, deprived of supplies, would wither on the vine, as would Mao tse Tung.
Hitler's stronger, better equipped, trained, and supplied forces would perform better than they historically did due to better concentration of resources, and Stalin would need to draw down his eastern forces more than he historically did.
This assertion fails to take into account all the "adjutments" to history that have just been discussed. You seem to be unable to envision any sequence of historical events other than the one you cling to. Open your eyes and your mind. Good Luck!
Last edited:
