Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But Attlee and Labour Party opposed the rearmament till 1937. IMHO it was not very bright policy to pursuit active anti-nazi policy while in the same time made best efforts to make sure that one's own armed forces would be as weak as possible. Singing the International / Red Flag wasn't the most effective way to stop bombers or panzers.
Juha
Not so simple. E.g when in April 1936 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Neville Chamberlain, introduced a budget which increased the amount spent on the armed forces, Attlee was not only opposed it in the Parliament but also made a radio broadcast in opposition to it. And we know the reputation of NC.
Juha
He was still an opponent of appeasement, many in Britain jumped through hoops to avoid another war an Attlee was no exception. We are not talking about 1936 but 1940, Attlee and the Labour Party were solidly behind the war. The war was now de facto, not something that might be avoided. There is no way they would have become involved in negotiations with Germany. The Labour Party was founded by and funded by the Trade Union movement. Those organisations would have been well aware of the fate of their German "brethren" in the 1930s.
Singing the Internationale worked for the Red Army, along with tanks and all the rest.
I'm sorry Buffnut, but I think you are overestimating the extent of the anti-war sentiment and how big a part these people would or could play in Britain's future at that time. Churchill's decision making was made behind closed doors during private meetings with senior personnel, none of whom held anti-war sentiment. Britain was very autocratic at this time; it had to be. If there was an invasion you can guarantee that many of these individuals would quickly change their minds about any peace deals with the Nazis if their liberties were being threatened. You are right in stating that there was sympathy for the Nazis and an idea of peace being with among indivduals, but once the bombs started dropping and the dead began to be rolled out into the streets much of this dried up. No, people didn't want war, but they didn't want invasion and occupation either.
As soon as Barbarossa was launched this all became irrelevant.
What I mean is that if in 34 - 36 Attlee and Labour Party had won the day it would have been rather irrelevant what they did in 40 because if GB's rearmament would have begun a couple years later the options would have been 1) ask terms or fight and after defeat ask terms.
That was the reason for a part of the LabP to oppose rearmament, they were ready to risk the security of GB for the certainty that the armed forces of GB would not be used against SU. A part opposed rearmament because of pacifism.
Juha
I think it was a bit more than worries about the British armed forces being used against the bolsheviks again; it was that something like 1 out of 8 military-age men were killed in the war and the expectation was that the same thing would happen again.
If I remember my history correctly, hitler was not considered a threat until Anschluss; even had Churchill been in charge, he may well have been more concerned with suppressing the independence movement in India than preparing for a war in Europe.
Pattle,
The British people had no choice when Churchill became their Prime Minister. There was no election. Chamberlain went to King George and simply recommended Churchill to be his successor. Why would a replacement for Churchill be any different? Vote of no confidence in Parliament, Halifax stakes his claim as the only viable candidate. Also, bear in mind that a defenceless London would likely be evacuated. With Parliament on the run, who would be in any position to oppose an appeasing faction from taking power.
The highly trained Nazi Sea Lions would have easily got across the Channel and invaded at night. Can you imagine the chaos caused by squads of Sea Lions roaming the countryside balancing balls on there noses and attacking all the Fish shops. Luckily the Royal Seal Heavy Infantry aided by The Queens Own Otters would be ferried in and there would be bloody flipper to flipper combat in the Council Swimming pool at Walmington On Sea.
...With a negotiated peace, there's no need for an invasion force. Hitler could simply bide his time, installing pliant British politicians who would accede to his every whim. Want to station more German troops in the UK to protect against America? Certainly Herr Hitler. Like Vichy France, in the end the UK would become a Nazi satellite with zero autonomy. Undoubtedly, there would be resistance but where would they get their supplies? Resistance on the continent only survived because it had a good resupply base from the UK. Without that, there's nothing to sustain resistance other than courage. Certainly not sufficient to overcome the Nazi war machine.
There was no offer.So how does your comment square with Hitler's offer that Britain would retain it's Empire?
Why would Halifax and co to allow German troops into England? One ask the terms and either accept them or if unacceptable continue fighting. Germany had to accept terms in Nov 18 but GB was in better position being an island state with a powerful navy and great industrial capacity, also in Midlands and in Scotland and so outside the effective range of Bf 109s.
Juha
It seems to me that the Royal Navy could be destroyed from the air - just see what losses they inflicted on British ships during Battle of Crete, BUT it would take several days and the Royal Navy would have to stay in the Channel, which seems unlikely.
A variable in this scenario is when the BoB is lost. By Sept 1st? Sept 15? Sept 22?
To be fair it was only really Churchill that was pushing for rearmament before 1937 and he was in a political no mans land. The political class usually goes with the public mood and you wouldnt have found many outside the military that wanted to spend the money.