The King's First Minister - a UK AAR

[Nathan Madien]

Well then. The Royal Marines and part of the Home Fleet stand ready to steam up the Tames. A couple of 15"ers pointed at Parliament should convince Halifax to vacate his post.

Here's another idea for you to consider, trekaddict:

Place Halifax in an open car, have the car move slowly through London, and drive him past a sniper. Then the government can claim it was a lone gunman. However, before the sniper can be put on trial, he gets conviently killed by some random person.

I call this idea "JFK in London".

 

[Eams]

I call this idea "JFK in London".

I'm in favour of this if it leads to LBJ becoming the new Prime Minister.

 

[Enewald]

I want someone to assasinate Churchill. So that trekaddict could calm down and appect the Tausdenjährige Reich.

 

[unmerged(61296)]

Well then. The Royal Marines and part of the Home Fleet stand ready to steam up the Tames. A couple of 15"ers pointed at Parliament should convince Halifax to vacate his post.

A most dangerous proposition for British democracy, though. The British people might like it this time (but will they, as Germany appears unbeatable and Allies armies have been defeated or are about to, and a bad peace seems better than a lost war ?), but it opens the Pandora box that a legally formed government, composed after the King confirmed the legally elected Prime Minister, can be deposed forcefully by whoever controls the Fleet, or the Army, or the Air Force.

 

[trekaddict]

A most dangerous proposition for British democracy, though. The British people might like it this time (but will they, as Germany appears unbeatable and Allies armies have been defeated or are about to, and a bad peace seems better than a lost war ?), but it opens the Pandora box that a legally formed government, composed after the King confirmed the legally elected Prime Minister, can be deposed forcefully by whoever controls the Fleet, or the Army, or the Air Force.

Drat. I forgot that one. But what else is there to do?

 

[unmerged(61296)]

Drat. I forgot that one. But what else is there to do?

Me, I'd say it's probably either to let the democratic process go on, the ol' "trusting the people to make the right choice even if it takes longer", or clandestine subversion of said process, AKA "we educated gentlemen know best what's good for the people".

What Le Jones has in store for us is another matter entirely.

Wouldn't it be a riot should England put down its weapons while France staves off the German onslaught and fights on (though probably from its colonial Empire) ?

 

[unmerged(85800)]

i think that if this is what democracy produces, then a Navy-led military dictatorship is highly desirable.

 

[Eams]

Nah, the Navy would try to counter the Germans through a build-out of (surprise, surprise) the Royal Navy, which would probably not work out so well in WWIII, resulting in a new defeat and a new coup, this time led by the RAF, who will focus on the (again; surprise, surprise) air force, resulting in a defeat in WWIV and a new coup led by the Army, who will focus on (say it with me) the army, which might have resulted in a win in WWV if not for the fact that the string of defeats through World Wars II-IV means that the Empire has gone and Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Norfolk and Rutland are all Nazi puppet states.
Seriously, military dictatorships are a bad idea.

 

[El Pip]

Drat. I forgot that one. But what else is there to do?

Take the Swedish approach and collaborate without actually being invaded or having to do any fighting at any point?

Sure it's spineless and cowardly, but that does mean it would suit Halifax down to the ground!

 

[trekaddict]

Take the Swedish approach and collaborate without actually being invaded or having to do any fighting at any point?

Sure it's spineless and cowardly, but that does mean it would suit Halifax down to the ground!

There has to be a democratic and sufficiently British way to get rid of him without killing him.

 

[El Pip]

There has to be a democratic and sufficiently British way to get rid of him without killing him.

If the King is behind him and he can command a majority in Parliament then I'm afraid there probably isn't.

Now if someone can convince the King to go against Halifax then almost everything is possible, the reserve powers of the monarchy are exceptionally wide ranging, if subject to several equally strong limits.

 

[unmerged(85800)]

if we're being strictly democratic about it then i'd say a rousing speech on his stunning incompetence from Churchill, full of promises about waking up with a nazi jackboot on your head if you follow halifax, followed by a vote of no confidence which has him thrown out of office. the king need not get involved, as his position is mostly ceremonial and should do what parliament tell him pretty much.

 

[trekaddict]

If the King is behind him and he can command a majority in Parliament then I'm afraid there probably isn't.

Now if someone can convince the King to go against Halifax then almost everything is possible, the reserve powers of the monarchy are exceptionally wide ranging, if subject to several equally strong limits.

Well, in RL possible evidence about things we may not discuss here could be used, and perhaps the terms of the treaty itself could be used to sway the King. OT: Your previous post, I guess that's why you don't like the swedes?

 

[El Pip]

OT: Your previous post, I guess that's why you don't like the swedes?

As a matter of fact no, strictly speaking the Swedish approach to ww2 was probably the best from a self-centred point of view. Almost no Swedes died, the economy wasn't utterly wrecked and the country wasn't ruined. Frankly it was the best possible outcome, provided that someone else did all the fighting for them and defeated the Nazis.

Indeed as Norway and Finland both over-run it's hard to argue that Sweden should of got involved, it probably wouldn't have ended well. So as long as Swedes admit they took the de-facto collaboration route you can't really criticise them for taking the safest and most logical course of action that got them the best possible outcome.

My problem with Swedes is far more complex and less serious than that.

 

[Eams]

As a matter of fact no, strictly speaking the Swedish approach to ww2 was probably the best from a self-centred point of view. Almost no Swedes died, the economy wasn't utterly wrecked and the country wasn't ruined. Frankly it was the best possible outcome, provided that someone else did all the fighting for them and defeated the Nazis.

Indeed as Norway and Finland both over-run it's hard to argue that Sweden should of got involved, it probably wouldn't have ended well. So as long as Swedes admit they took the de-facto collaboration route you can't really criticise them for taking the safest and most logical course of action that got them the best possible outcome.

My problem with Swedes is far more complex and less serious than that.

I object to the "they", partially due to the fact that the last two generations of my family wasn't born during the war and partially due to the fact that it was the Swedish government (a wartime coalition government consisting of all the established parties save the communists, it had thus not been elected on a "let's cooperate with the Nazis") who went belly-up to Germany (though the reality was a lot more complicated than that, as demonstrated by the fact that while one section of the security services were hunting Allied spies, another one was supporting them).

Then there's another problematic side to "they", namely that is suggests the supremely silly idea that we somehow have part in what our parents or grand-parents generation did during the war. I didn't sell iron to Adolf Hitler, and you didn't charge up Sword beach.

So yes, you can and you should criticise the Swedish government for their policy during the war. But you can't criticise me or any other living Swede for it. You should also however be equally critical of the Belgian, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian etc. governments on the account of them not declaring war on Germany.
Oh, and Finland wasn't overrun, that was Denmark
If you want to respond to this (though then you'd be talking to a Swede, so you might get infected ), you should probably do it via PM, since this is seriously OT.

 

[Nathan Madien]

I want someone to assasinate Churchill. So that trekaddict could calm down and appect the Tausdenjährige Reich.

Wow...someone who wants an historical figure other than Halifax killed.

I think it is somewhat assuming we want to kill people who are already dead.

 

[Faeelin]

You misunderstand, that treaty probably was Hitler's opening demand. Which Halifax duly bent over and accepted, like the spineless, cowardly, retarded imbecile he clearly is.

But seriously, after Munich, how can Halifax still think Hitler's word is worth a damn? There's self-delusion but I think he's past that and into the realms of quite genuine mental illness

Actually, Halifax is a genius. You'll now see the British develop atomic bombs, and once Germany is finished battering Russia in 1946....

And then, Operation.... Hmm. I mean, Britain will have an atomic monopoly and won't need a name for the operation, will it?

 

[El Pip]

Actually, Halifax is a genius.

I admire you maintaing your optimism despite every shred of evidence pointing the other way.

 

[unmerged(61296)]

i think that if this is what democracy produces, then a Navy-led military dictatorship is highly desirable.

Someone said something about democracy being the worst political system ever, with the notable exception of every other one...

An "Admiralocracy" wouldn't give much to Britons, and take away a lot from them IMHO.

 

[trekaddict]

Someone said something about democracy being the worst political system ever, with the notable exception of every other one...

An "Admiralocracy" wouldn't give much to Britons, and take away a lot from them IMHO.

French....

A Admiralocracy would be to culmination of everything British!