WI Lord Halifax is appointed PM in 1940?

[Churchill]

No, really no, not in 1939, the need to stop Hitler was accepted, a year earlier was a different matter. Certainly there was not war enthusiasm.

Yes even in 1939.
Do some reading in the summer of 39 250,000 people had a huge anti-war rally the press where still much against the war to.

 

[Wozza]

Yes even in 1939.
Do some reading in the summer of 39 250,000 people had a huge anti-war rally the press where still much against the war to.

I think you are confusing resistance to war with what can probably be called unwilling acceptance. Real antiwar feeling was minor by this stage. Indeed it can, just about, be argued that press and public opinion pushed Chamberlain into war.

 

[Michele]

Nothing to do with hindsight.

Everything to do with hindsight, if the decision taken in 1939 is judged upon what Britain achieved in 1945. which was what you asked.

 

[Churchill]

I think you are confusing resistance to war with what can probably be called unwilling acceptance. Real antiwar feeling was minor by this stage. Indeed it can, just about, be argued that press and public opinion pushed Chamberlain into war.

Which newspapers would they be then?
Only two newspapers I know of opposed appeasment.

 

[Churchill]

Everything to do with hindsight, if the decision taken in 1939 is judged upon what Britain achieved in 1945. which was what you asked.

It is judged in 1939 about what we are likely to get out of a war over an Eastern European border dispute.

 

[Michele]

It is judged in 1939 about what we are likely to get out of a war over an Eastern European border dispute.

Then sorry, but the parameter of judgement cannot be phrased as "what did Britain actually achieve by the end of the war". The question should be: "what could the British decision makers reasonably expect to achieve on the basis of what they knew in 1939". What it actually turned out to happen can tell us whether the British decision makers were right or wrong - judging them in _hindsight_.
Even if you phrase your question that way, it would be out of place here, of course, given that the thread very evidently deals with decisions taken one year later by other decision makers than those who were in power in 1939!

You might do well to read more about the "Eastern border dispute". Hitler is on record stating to his generals that "Danzig is not the issue at all, our Lebensraum in the East is". And he should be the one to know what the issue was.

 

[Churchill]

Everything to do with hindsight, if the decision taken in 1939 is judged upon what Britain achieved in 1945. which was what you asked.

Neville Chamberlain said in a BBC broadcast about Czechoslovakia: "How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of aquarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing!"

should the same not apply to Poland?

 

[Churchill]

Then sorry, but the parameter of judgement cannot be phrased as "what did Britain actually achieve by the end of the war". The question should be: "what could the British decision makers reasonably expect to achieve on the basis of what they knew in 1939". What it actually turned out to happen can tell us whether the British decision makers were right or wrong - judging them in _hindsight_.
Even if you phrase your question that way, it would be out of place here, of course, given that the thread very evidently deals with decisions taken one year later by other decision makers than those who were in power in 1939!

You might do well to read more about the "Eastern border dispute". Hitler is on record stating to his generals that "Danzig is not the issue at all, our Lebensraum in the East is". And he should be the one to know what the issue was.

It's not hindsight when so many people who opposed it in 39 saw quite well how such a war may break the Empire.
As for Lebensraum how does that effect Britain?

 

[Churchill]

In Churchill's single-minded decades-long obsession with preventing a single hegemonic power from arising on the European continent that would pose a threat to the British Empire, he failed to see that his alliance with Stalin produced exactly that. "As the blinkers of war were removed," John Charmley writes, "Churchill began to perceive the magnitude of the mistake which had been made." Churchill is alleged to have blurted out after finally realizing the scale of his blunder: "We have slaughtered the wrong pig!"

 

[Michele]

Neville Chamberlain said in a BBC broadcast about Czechoslovakia: "How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of aquarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing!"

should the same not apply to Poland?

No, it should not apply to Poland. And it should not apply to Czechoslovakia either.

What's nice – and mildly amusing – about your choice to quote Chamberlain, is that Chamberlain himself later changed his mind, something that you should have noticed. At the time of the Munich crisis, Chamberlain sincerely believed that the Sudetenland was an obscure border region and that Britain had no interests in that squabble – or, better, that the British interest was preventing it from becoming the casus belli of another European war.

But then, when a few months after having received everything he had requested, and after having stated that that was the last of his claims, Hitler dismembered the remains of Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain saw that before he had been wrong. That wasn't an irrelevant border squabble. That was yet another step for Hitler in a long march of aggression and conquest, which would for sure destabilize an already shaky continent, cause further destruction and deaths, and, if successful, give rise to a single continental superpower – anathema to a long series of British PMs before him.

Chamberlain did not see the statesmen's game as a zero-sum game. Hitler, on the contrary, saw it as a game of Go, where to the successful player no area is irrelevant and each one is part of the general strategy of conquest. Chamberlain saw, with the disappearance of Czechoslovakia, that Hitler was a loose cannon that had to be stopped – somewhere, preferably at the next aggression because each aggression made him stronger.

That is why Danzig was not an unimportant border squabble.

That Chamberlain was right in the second assessment and wrong in the first is confirmed by the Hitler quote above. If the soon-to-be aggressor says in private, to his accomplices, that the small border region is only an excuse, I'd say we should believe him. Alternatively, we can give credence to what he said to the microphone, that the issue was just that, Danzig, a small German city over which Germany had (yet another!) reasonably founded claim. But that was not the truth, it was the Nazi propaganda, which most people today can recognize.

 

[Michele]

It's not hindsight when so many people who opposed it in 39 saw quite well how such a war may break the Empire.
As for Lebensraum how does that effect Britain?

It is a long-dead myth that the Empire was killed by the war, you know.

Lebensraum did not affect Britain - directly. A single superpower in Europe would, though. And there is no telling in 1939 where Hitler will stop. Sure he says he's not interested in attacking Britain, but should he say the sun rises in the East, nobody would believe him.

 

[Michele]

In Churchill's single-minded decades-long obsession with preventing a single hegemonic power from arising on the European continent that would pose a threat to the British Empire, he failed to see that his alliance with Stalin produced exactly that.

Of course not. You should have noticed that at the end of the war, the USSR did not dominate virtually all of Europe, which is what a victorious Nazi Germany would have probably achieved.
Besides, you are still using hindsight, of course, as you have always done in each and every post.

 

[Fletch]

Neville Chamberlain said in a BBC broadcast about Czechoslovakia: "How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of aquarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing!"

should the same not apply to Poland?

Hitler went against the Munich agreement when he took the rest of Czechoslovakia. At that point it was realised there was a mad dog in the room who needed shot. It became clear that Hitler was untrustworthy, a threat to all of Europe, and needed brought down.

It's not hindsight when so many people who opposed it in 39 saw quite well how such a war may break the Empire.
As for Lebensraum how does that effect Britain?

It may well have broken the Empire, but at least the Empire fell for a noble cause.

As it goes the rally you mentioned earlier, were you reffering to the Fascist peace rally at which Mosley was the principal speaker at Victoria Park by which their figures, 250,000 attended? Remember, even if half of that figure attended, then they would have been BUF members shipped in from atround the country. It's like having every member of the BNP go to London for a rally and claiming this was how the British people felt. I would like a link if this was not the rally.

Also, your question as to how does lebensraum affect Britain was morally repugnant.

In Churchill's single-minded decades-long obsession with preventing a single hegemonic power from arising on the European continent that would pose a threat to the British Empire, he failed to see that his alliance with Stalin produced exactly that. "As the blinkers of war were removed," John Charmley writes, "Churchill began to perceive the magnitude of the mistake which had been made." Churchill is alleged to have blurted out after finally realizing the scale of his blunder: "We have slaughtered the wrong pig!"

Twaddle.

So Europe was not divided into two camps during the Cold War, it was under Stalin? Do you view a Nazi camp opposing the west in the cold war as somehow better than a Soviet Camp?

As for the quote, I see you took it verbetum from this website, which speculates on whether Churchill arranged for the Lusitania to be sunk, which claims the blockade of Germany during the Great War was illegal and that he was somehow in a way responsible for the '29 crash.

Why? Because Dubya compared himself to Churchill.

 

[Anaxagoras]

If I can ask a question on another point. . . if a Halifax government seeks an armistice with Hitler after the defeat of France, what impact might this have on the American political scene? Would it strengthen isolationist Republicans? Could we possibly see Robert Taft win the Republican nomination, and could the different international scene result in a Roosevelt defeat in November of 1940?

 

[Churchill]

No, it should not apply to Poland. And it should not apply to Czechoslovakia either.

What's nice – and mildly amusing – about your choice to quote Chamberlain, is that Chamberlain himself later changed his mind, something that you should have noticed. At the time of the Munich crisis, Chamberlain sincerely believed that the Sudetenland was an obscure border region and that Britain had no interests in that squabble – or, better, that the British interest was preventing it from becoming the casus belli of another European war.

But then, when a few months after having received everything he had requested, and after having stated that that was the last of his claims, Hitler dismembered the remains of Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain saw that before he had been wrong. That wasn't an irrelevant border squabble. That was yet another step for Hitler in a long march of aggression and conquest, which would for sure destabilize an already shaky continent, cause further destruction and deaths, and, if successful, give rise to a single continental superpower – anathema to a long series of British PMs before him.

Chamberlain did not see the statesmen's game as a zero-sum game. Hitler, on the contrary, saw it as a game of Go, where to the successful player no area is irrelevant and each one is part of the general strategy of conquest. Chamberlain saw, with the disappearance of Czechoslovakia, that Hitler was a loose cannon that had to be stopped – somewhere, preferably at the next aggression because each aggression made him stronger.

That is why Danzig was not an unimportant border squabble.

That Chamberlain was right in the second assessment and wrong in the first is confirmed by the Hitler quote above. If the soon-to-be aggressor says in private, to his accomplices, that the small border region is only an excuse, I'd say we should believe him. Alternatively, we can give credence to what he said to the microphone, that the issue was just that, Danzig, a small German city over which Germany had (yet another!) reasonably founded claim. But that was not the truth, it was the Nazi propaganda, which most people today can recognize.

Chamberlain wasn’t even sure he was right in making a guarantee on Polish borders.
He saw any such guarantee as "representing the crossing of a stream" which he was reluctant to do.
Very close choice either way.

 

[Churchill]

It is a long-dead myth that the Empire was killed by the war, you know.

Lebensraum did not affect Britain - directly. A single superpower in Europe would, though. And there is no telling in 1939 where Hitler will stop. Sure he says he's not interested in attacking Britain, but should he say the sun rises in the East, nobody would believe him.

It would be alot easy to hold Europes Empires together without Soviet and American pressure.

 

[Churchill]

Of course not. You should have noticed that at the end of the war, the USSR did not dominate virtually all of Europe, which is what a victorious Nazi Germany would have probably achieved.
Besides, you are still using hindsight, of course, as you have always done in each and every post.

If it's hindsight why did so many opponents of the war predict what would happen?
More like stateing the bleeding obvious.

 

[Churchill]

Hitler went against the Munich agreement when he took the rest of Czechoslovakia. At that point it was realised there was a mad dog in the room who needed shot. It became clear that Hitler was untrustworthy, a threat to all of Europe, and needed brought down.

Was Stalin not a mad dog?

It may well have broken the Empire, but at least the Empire fell for a noble cause.

As it goes the rally you mentioned earlier, were you reffering to the Fascist peace rally at which Mosley was the principal speaker at Victoria Park by which their figures, 250,000 attended? Remember, even if half of that figure attended, then they would have been BUF members shipped in from atround the country. It's like having every member of the BNP go to London for a rally and claiming this was how the British people felt. I would like a link if this was not the rally.

It was a peace rally not a fascist rally.
Communists opposed the war at the time too among others.
BUF membership at the time was about 35,000.

Also, your question as to how does lebensraum affect Britain was morally repugnant.

Was not the Communist killing of 90 million people repugnant?

Twaddle.

So Europe was not divided into two camps during the Cold War, it was under Stalin? Do you view a Nazi camp opposing the west in the cold war as somehow better than a Soviet Camp?

Cold war with America will not involve Britain and France.

As for the quote, I see you took it verbetum from this website, which speculates on whether Churchill arranged for the Lusitania to be sank, which claims the blockade of Germany during the Great War was illegal and that he was somehow in a way responsible for the '29 crash.

Why? Because Dubya compared himself to Churchill.

The quote was from a book posted on Amazon actually.

 

[Fletch]

Was Stalin not a mad dog?

Did Stalin invade countless countries?

It was a peace rally not a fascist rally.
Communists opposed the war at the time too among others.
BUF membership at the time was about 35,000.

As to it being a peace rally, bullshit.

I see you do not deny that Mosley was the principal speaker. Would this happen at an apolitical rally? Would the Communists have happily listened to Mosley? Also, I see you missed my point that the BUF may have hyped the figures up somewhat. Also, one does not have to be a member of a political party to support it.

Was not the Communist killing of 90 million people repugnant?

I cannot believe that you are defending Hitler and Nazism. I never denied that there were attrocities uinder Stalin, who was an evil dictator, simply that Hitler was worse IMO.

Stalin killed someone because they disagreed with him. Hitler killed someone because they existed. There is a difference.

The quote was from a book posted on Amazon actually.

Again, bullshit.

I will now copy and paste the quote as it appears on the website.

In Churchill's single-minded decades-long obsession with preventing a single hegemonic power from arising on the European continent that would pose a threat to the British Empire, he failed to see that his alliance with Stalin produced exactly that. "As the blinkers of war were removed," John Charmley writes, "Churchill began to perceive the magnitude of the mistake which had been made." Churchill is alleged to have blurted out after finally realizing the scale of his blunder: "We have slaughtered the wrong pig!"

now as you posted.

In Churchill's single-minded decades-long obsession with preventing a single hegemonic power from arising on the European continent that would pose a threat to the British Empire, he failed to see that his alliance with Stalin produced exactly that. "As the blinkers of war were removed," John Charmley writes, "Churchill began to perceive the magnitude of the mistake which had been made." Churchill is alleged to have blurted out after finally realizing the scale of his blunder: "We have slaughtered the wrong pig!"

Spot the difference.

 

[Churchill]

Did Stalin invade countless countries?

Yes

As to it being a peace rally, bullshit.

I see you do not deny that Mosley was the principal speaker. Would this happen at an apolitical rally? Would the Communists have happily listened to Mosley? Also, I see you missed my point that the BUF may have hyped the figures up somewhat. Also, one does not have to be a member of a political party to support it.

Communists, Christians, Socialists and Liberals attended.
Figures where confirmed by the Met Police.

I cannot believe that you are defending Hitler and Nazism. I never denied that there were attrocities uinder Stalin, who was an evil dictator, simply that Hitler was worse IMO.

I never once defended Hitler.
I could say you defended Stalin.

Stalin killed someone because they disagreed with him. Hitler killed someone because they existed. There is a difference.

Who would you have been more in fear or being in their company Hitler or Stalin and who would you have rather lived under?

Again, bullshit.

I will now copy and paste the quote as it appears on the website.

now as you posted.

It also has quotes on Amazon you know.

Spot the difference.

The above.