Son of Cathal

What do you think would have happened had Lord Halifax not turned down the position of British Prime Minister in 1939?

Heidi XX

I think this- Why did Lord Halifax turned down the position of British P/M Minister in 1939 in the first place?

Back too you're question-
England would have been more prepared for ww2,and not wasting time on the peace talk with Chamblain and Hitler done in the past, which clearly Hitler was not going to stick too.
By saying this England would have spent those extra months preparing there armour,Army,R/N and R/A/F meaning that England could have done much better when the fall of poland and france cause by the Germans.

PADDYBOY

For a comprehensive answer here, I think we need avon.

Toltec

It was Halifax who advocated that Hitler should be allowed to take the Rhinelands, he told Hitler he could have Austria but only peacefully, he wanted to aid Czechoslovakia against Hitler and finally he started the war telling Hitler Britain would defend Poland.

Halifax was a pragmatist, he supported appeasement when it was likely to work and abandoned it long before Chaimberlain backing strong rearmourment when it was clear it wouldn't.The real question is having a pragmatist not idealist running the country when the Germans made the peace offer after Dunkirk, what would he have done?

Lucius

He didn't want to play Asquith to Churchill's Lloyd George.

Perhaps I don't understand cabinet government very well, but a PM can't just do whatever he wants, right? There has to be a consensus, right?

Toltec

Yes, but the PM appoints the cabinet, so appoints yes men as much as possible. He can also sack people and disolve the cabinet a whim, the thing that restrains him from this is his own party and the press.

avon

Good question, but not an easy one. In the world of speculative possibilities it might be worth remembering that one man's hero is another man's pussy. Where Ed Wood lies on this spectrum you have to decide for yourself.

Halifax was a far more intelligent politician than Churchill. He was at least willing to listen to what the German's had to say throughout 1939 and 1940 without being drawn to surrender. In December 1939, he told the Lords that

"I am quite certain that Hitler is very anxious for peace—on his own terms. I am not sure he is anxious for peace on terms which would make for the peace of Europe. . . . The argument tonight rests on the premise that there exists today a reasonably possible ground for successful negotiation. It was precisely that premise that I tried to show last week—with great regret and not without knowledge—that I doubted. . . . I do not believe that at present there is evidence enough to justify the course recommended by Lord Darnley [that Great Britain should try to make with Germany an immediate peace without victory] . . . I am always prepared to negotiate. . . . It does not need much imagination to see the damage which some of the speeches made tonight are capable of inflicting on the nation's cause."

Cause?? Wow, imagine that, Halifax, the blind 'appeaser' talking about 'cause'.

Similarly, in response to a radio-broadcast speech made by Hitler in July 1940, Halifax responded with his own broadcast stating:

"Hitler has now made it plain that he is preparing to direct the whole weight of German might against this country. This is why in every part of Britain, in great towns and villages alike, there is only one spirit of indomitable resolution. Nor has anyone any doubt that if Hitler were to succeed it would be the end, for many besides ourselves, of all those things which, as we say, make life worth living. We realize that the struggle may cost us everything, but just because the things we are defending are worth any sacrifice it is a noble privilege to be the defenders of things so precious. . . .

"We shall not stop fighting until freedom, for ourselves and others, is secure.. ..

"Where will God lead us? Not, we may be sure, through easy or pleasant paths. That is not His way. He will not help us to avoid our difficulties. What He will do is to give to those, who humbly ask, the spirit that no dangers can disturb. . . ."

So, I think perhaps we can put to sleep any thoughts that Halifax would've rolled over and sued for peace at all costs had he taken up the premiership in 1940. He would've (in the most restrictive interpretation of the question) fought on and the results (1945) would've been pretty much the same with only variation in the means rather than the end result. For instance, Halifax (IMO), whilst looking in that direction, would not have courted the US as eagerly as Churchill whose correspondence with Roosevelt makes for interesting reading:

15 May 1940: 'If necessary, we shall continue the war alone and we are not afraid of that. But I trust you realise, Mr President, that the voice and force of the United States may count for nothing if they are withheld too long.'

Sounds like a 'pleease help!!'

Anyhow, all that aside, the notion that Halifax very nearly became PM in Churchill's stead needs to be questioned as being just another component in the whole Churchill-myth. Halifax might very well have been Chamberlain and the King's preferred choice (indeed the King is reported to have been quite reluctant to call for Churchill), but he was most certainly not acceptable to the Labourites and Liberals. On 9 May, at the very moment that Chamberlain's resignation became almost certain, Churchill's coterie were sure to remind Attlee, Greenwood and Dalton of Halifax's pro-appeasement stance - that Halifax and Chamberlain were 'two peas in a pod' if you like. Only when it became obvious that Halifax wouldn't be able to form an effective government was Churchill the only real candidate for the job.

avon

Yeah, but, those yes men more often than not carry their own political base and thus the PM relies on their co-operation to stay in power. That's why Cabinet reshuffles are difficult times for any PM. In fact, it might even be said that these affairs take care of themselves insofar as Cabinet position should be a signifier of political power structure with the larger-supported MPs receiving the higher jobs. Therefore, the PMs hold on power largely depends on his ability to balance rival powers.