• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Time to read between the lines. :D

There is peace in Europe. By able negotiation Viscount Halifax and Mr Butler have secured for Britain and her Empire a just and fair settlement which has brought home our proud forces.

...Because who wants to fight Germans?

By showing our determination to defend ourselves the Conservative Party has shown that it is the only party that can be trusted to maintain Britain’s crucial role internationally.

...We did shoot some Germans, so we did technically defend ourselves.

Our cities are intact and our independence guaranteed. This is the Conservative Party’s achievement. We will protect this achievement, making your safety our main concern.

...Who says selling out is a bad thing?

We will maintain strong and modernised forces on land, sea and in the air. We will work with the Commonwealth and other nations to make the world a safer place.

...By working, we mean telling them what to do.

We have been prudent with the nation’s finances. We will not pledge to remove every problem – only socialist fantasy allows such unrealistic dreaming. Under the Conservatives farmers will not live in fear of socialist land seizures. Under the Conservatives our soldiers, sailors and airmen will not be tossed aside upon the heap of demobilisation. Under the Conservatives industry will not be burdened by bureaucratic state control.

...We hate socialism. You should hate socialism. Socialism should hate socialism.

The Conservatives offer progress. Working with our bankers, farmers, workers rather than against them we offer the hand of friendship to move forward together. Food production will be encouraged, not forced, to ensure that prices remain affordable for all yet profitable for the farmer and his workers that grow them. By encouraging coal and factory production rather than over-burdening it with a faceless socialist monolith we ensure that employment opportunities abound for all. Workers will be protected by cooperation with employers, supported by the State, rather than a Trade Union movement detached from the true aspirations of the people it represents. By assisting the building industry employment and welfare possibilities become reality.

...Not only that, we can give everyone in Britain rose-colored glasses.

By using our strong world position to negotiate the removal of protectionist measures we will stimulate international trade, boosting our economy. By working to educate and nurture our nation we will provide a strong foundation for the future of our nation.

...That way, the future of our nation won't hate us.
 
It's only a split if Winston loses - if he wins it's a party coup d'etat.
I hadn't thought of that, puts a very different perspective on things. A death or glory long shot like that is very much Churchill's style (and Keyes too come to that)

I think the new start idea could, worryingly, work quiet well. There's none so convenient as dead men to take the blame for past mistakes and I suspect Halifax and Butler would have no moral problem piling everything onto old Nev.

And I fully support Sir H's plan to send Eden down the pit. :D
 
so then what is the main essence of Blitzkrieg?
It seems that even the victorious powers portrayed it as is.

Utilizing your mobile formations (vehicles and airpower) to destroy your opponents concentrations of firepower, thus rendering his capability to respond to your attacks as minimal as possible, allowing you to occupy key points with the minimum amount of resistance. This operational strategy coupled with a political strategy of 'continuous victory' whereby you convince your opponent that he is losing everywhere (or catastrophically) and the only option is retreat and surrender.

The point is not 'deep armoured thrusts behind enemy lines' (at least not in the 1930s to 1940s timeframe) as you can't possibly supply your thrust adequately. The point is to use your own forces superior mobility to concentrate at and destroy your opponents strong forces or to seize key points. It has at its base a recognition that opposing armies are not simply 'lined evenly along the frontier,' but are composed of various formations, some dangerous some less so. The objective is to use your superior mobility to concentrate on and crush your opponents dangerous formations (or key points) while everyone else is still marching into battle.

Once his key formations are destroyed (or beaten) or key points are taken, the rest of your armies advance is almost effortless as your opponent struggles to adapt to the new strategic reality. THAT is blitzkrieg.

TheExecuter
 
THAT is blitzkrieg.

TheExecuter

En taro Adun sir thanx for making it crystal clear. However a large of the successes of Bliztkrieg was still he Germans' ability to effectively surround and cut off troops. Only when they encountered a layered defensive system like the one deployed by the SU did they start to lose.

cheers
 
If Labor was a least a bit anti-Milan, and anti-axis, why don't they go for public works projects + defense projects? It seems like that would be the logical way to go if they wanted to increase employment while fighting (or working against) the axis at the same time.
 
En taro Adun sir thanx for making it crystal clear. However a large of the successes of Bliztkrieg was still he Germans' ability to effectively surround and cut off troops. Only when they encountered a layered defensive system like the one deployed by the SU did they start to lose.
If by 'layered defensive system' you mean 'faced a bigger country with a leadership that could survive losing more troops in one pocket than the French had in their entire army' I would agree.

However I've been off the impression that it was the depth of country, specifically the distance to Moscow, that defeated the Germans not any defence 'layered' or otherwise. If the Panzers had reached Moscow, and it was damned close, then it would likely be game over in the East.
 
If by 'layered defensive system' you mean 'faced a bigger country with a leadership that could survive losing more troops in one pocket than the French had in their entire army' I would agree.

However I've been off the impression that it was the depth of country, specifically the distance to Moscow, that defeated the Germans not any defence 'layered' or otherwise. If the Panzers had reached Moscow, and it was damned close, then it would likely be game over in the East.

That's... Debatable. Certainly things would have been *harder* but taking Moscow wouldn't neccessarily end the war immediately (or even in the short-medium term) It would have been disastrous, and might have prevented the russians from throwing the germans out on their own... But they could still prolong the game for quite a while.
 
That's... Debatable. Certainly things would have been *harder* but taking Moscow wouldn't neccessarily end the war immediately (or even in the short-medium term) It would have been disastrous, and might have prevented the russians from throwing the germans out on their own... But they could still prolong the game for quite a while.

Well, I've read more than once that Stalin was perpared to sue for peace had Moscow fallen, and I seem to remember a BBC documentary about the War in the East a while back where they talked about Documents that supposedly proved this.
 
If Labor was a least a bit anti-Milan, and anti-axis, why don't they go for public works projects + defense projects? It seems like that would be the logical way to go if they wanted to increase employment while fighting (or working against) the axis at the same time.

Wasn't Labour in the '30s OTL both anti-appeasement AND pro-disarmament? Can't let logic stand in the way of platform dontchknow. :wacko:
 
Well, I've read more than once that Stalin was perpared to sue for peace had Moscow fallen, and I seem to remember a BBC documentary about the War in the East a while back where they talked about Documents that supposedly proved this.

Being prepared to sue for peace doesen't mean he would have gotten it. He did made peace offers earlier that were rebuffed after all.
 
Being prepared to sue for peace doesen't mean he would have gotten it. He did made peace offers earlier that were rebuffed after all.

Yes, but do we know the terms? It could have been something like the bitter peace, and anyhow, odds are taht he would have been killed/captured during the siege, so we don't know what terms whoever succeeded him would have offered. The Germans accepting them or not depends on that IMHO.
 
anti-appeasement AND pro-disarmament?
It depends who you asked in the Labour Party and at what time. There were a quixotic mixture of views. One that enjoyed support amongst the pacifist wing of the party, such as Arthur Henderson, were generally the older members of the party, whilst the younger generation was a broader mixture, including calls for a 'national front' style agreement similar to those abroad and indeed all out calls to combat the rise of the right on the continent. This internal conflict between pacifism and more 'internationalist' wings of the party helped keep Atlee in the 1930s divided in attention. As for re-arming, it was a question of money. Labour at that time was divided because of the economic pressures (what use to the working men on the terrace's is a tank or aircraft carrier?) I could be wrong mind you...
 
Chapter 83, Crewe, 1 September 1940

NewPicture21-3.png


Clement Attlee sat down to polite applause as he flounced down to his seat wearily. The railway workers were always a safe bet for Labour support. But Morrison had sent a curt warning that the unions were causing trouble. As usual, Attlee feared, the usual collection of well-meaning intellectuals, firebrand reformers and union stalwarts that sheltered under Labour’s umbrella was ready to unravel within sight of the finish. Stafford Cripps, unhappily sent to bolster support in Scotland, had already made a comment that in the eyes of many amounted to a leadership challenge to Attlee. And so Attlee, with the ever canny Dalton, had journeyed to Crewe to reenergise his campaign. His speech, pleading with the electorate to dump the “impotent gentleman’s club that passes for a cabinet” had been well-received. But the Conservatives had bought the media and Attlee knew that for every ounce of effort and energy that the Tories committed, he had to work doubly hard. Sighing, he looked at Labour’s ‘covenant with the people’.

NewPicture23-2.png


A Fair Future:

Peace is still not assured for us and Europe. The gallant men and women in the fighting services, the Merchant Navy, Home Guard and Civil Defence, in the factories must be assured of a happier future than that they faced after the last war. The record of Labour Ministers has been one of hard tasks well done since their initiative brought about the fall of the Chamberlain Government. In 1918 "hard-faced men who had done well out of the war" were able to get the kind of land that suited themselves.

The nation wants food, work, security, houses. These are the aims. Without action they will be mere words. Labour will act to create public ownership, for the national good, of banking, transport, electricity, iron, steel, and coal, our most important natural resource which, with all its products, is vital to the future of so many families and yet is so chaotically mismanaged. Labour remains pledged to a comprehensive programme of industrial legislation, so as to secure reasonable hours and conditions of employment for all workers and adequate compensation for the accidents of working life. The Trade Unions would be supported to provide a voice for ordinary Britons, their freedom restored through the repeal of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act.

Agriculture will be reformed, so that farming actually feeds the people and provides cheap, sustainable nourishment to all. Good farms will be supported. Struggling farms will, at a fair valuation, be acquired by the State. Cheap housing in the countryside and unemployment insurance will provide hope to struggling rural communities.

Labour in power will attack the problem of the distressed areas by special steps designed to deal with the root causes of their troubles, as part of a vigorous policy of national planning. Labour will sweep away the humiliating means test imposed by the 'National' Government and will provide adequately for the unemployed, but will seek above all to reabsorb idle workers into productive employment by far-reaching schemes of national development. The Labour Party stands for a big move forward in education, including the raising of the school-leaving age with adequate maintenance allowances. It will vigorously develop the health services, and, in particular, will treat as one of its immediate concerns the terrible and neglected problem of maternal mortality. It favours an increase in the amount of old age pensions and a lowering of the qualifying age. It will go ahead with the provision of healthy homes for the people at reasonable rents, until the needs of the nation are fully met.

Labour will seek to promote self-governence in the territories and collective security in the Commonwealth. Working hard to establish close industrial and economic ties, the causes of war will be removed. The irresponsible days of starting hopeless wars will replaced with engagement and reason.
Labour asks the Nation for a Parliamentary Majority to promote Socialism at home and Peace abroad.

[Game Effect] – This is an interesting one, and I have again looked at both the 1935 and 1940 pledges. Without the Beveridge Report and the trust held in Labour by a populace used to their close role within the war government, Labour for many will remain an unknown quantity. Any attack on Milan would have invoked the inevitable question “well what would you do?” A sensible Attlee has tried to put domestic reform as the priority in his quest to win. Will he gain his mandate?

El Pip: Winston update coming up. Essentially, I think at this stage he is in a very difficult position. But I agree, I doubt that he will knowingly hand power to Attlee.

Kurt_Steiner::D

Trekaddict: :D

Morsky: This really could be a liability for Halifax. I'm not saying that the Blackshirts are a powerful force, but even their limited support could be an embarassment.

Sir Humphrey: What to do with Winston. I think this will prove an ongoing question for Halifax.

Derek Pullem: Well put, and I think that there are real possibilities for Churchill, or someone like him, to manouevre himself into a good position.

Enewald: Of course a war is coming. It's HOI2, and I do not want to play a game without a war! But Halifax doesn't know that.

Trekaddict: Agreed, but Winston has to get himself in the position of being the "I told you so" candidate. Not an easy task given that Halifax will be ready to try and block him.

Nathan Madien: Brilliant Sir, simply brilliant.

El Pip: I agree, though the timing of the election, given Chamberlain's now obvious illness, makes dumping everything upon him slightly unsightly.

TheExecuter: The question is now - can the BEF hoist this in, and will it work?

Maximus323: Again, can Gort lead this new force into battle and achieve the aim?

GeneralHannibal: Unfortunately Labour aren't in the business of being sensible.

El Pip/Arilou/Trekaddict: You'll enjoy Barbarossa I think...

DonnieBaseball/Sir Humphrey: I really think the rather disparate nature of their policies and personnel makes Labour a very unwieldy Party in 1940.
 
Its rather unfortunate to see labour go the pacifist route, or at least ignore the war and any future potential for war. It looks like the choice is between 'bad' (the conservatives) and 'potentially worse' with the labor party. Rather unfortunate...
 
Vote for me!

Key planks:

-- Immediate withdrawal from the Anglo-Zulu War. It's unwinnable, I say!

-- A giraffe in every pot and a pot in every kettle!

-- Socialised housing for manatees.

-- Guns. Lots of 'em. Possibly loaded, even.

-- Outlawing the color puce.

-- Mandatory use of the phrase "gads, old man" at least thrice a day for all Britons.

-- Introduction of a Flared Nostril Tax, and a 1 pence duty on vinegar and vinegar related products.

-- Free and universal health care coverage... No, that's too insane, scratch that.

Vote for Morsky. I mean, I can't be much worse than Halifax, right?

On a more serious note, it does seem Labour will fail in dislodging the Tories from government - imagine how humiliating it must be to lose to Halifax. HALIFAX! Poor Atlee will go down in history as a 1940's version of John Kerry. I must say that neither one of the manifestos sounds appealing. Will the four remaining members of the Liberal Party also put out an electoral manifesto? :D
 
Good old Labour, the only things they don't want to nationalise are the things they want to collectivise or subject to 'national planning'.

If I were Halifax (and somehow managed to avoid killing myself to do the world a favour) all I would do is reprint the 1935 Labour Manifesto under the slogan "Look what they wanted to do last time, don't vote for the two faced rat bastards." Maybe a bit politer, but certainly highlight how wrong they were last time and keep foreign policy up the agenda.

Actually I just noticed Labour foreign policy is "Engagement and Reason" and trying to 'remove the cause of wars'. Sounds a hell of alot like appeasement to me. :D
 
Chapter 83, Crewe, 1 September 1940Labour will act to create public ownership...of banking, transport, electricity, iron, steel, and coal... Labour remains pledged to a comprehensive programme of industrial legislation...

Agriculture will be reformed...

Labour in power will attack the problem of the distressed areas...as part of a vigorous policy of national planning.

Labour will seek to promote self-governence ...

Labour asks the Nation for a Parliamentary Majority to promote Socialism at home and Peace abroad.

:rofl:

So much for seeking to promote self-governance!

:rofl:

Self-governance for the colonies...but not for Britain!

:rofl:

God I love politicians...even when they're campaigning the truth behind the lies is sooo transparent! All you have to do is listen long enough...

TheExecuter
 
I read a very good book a few years back (title will come to me I'm sure!) which argued that Labour's "Planned Economy" was in fact not. The big sectors were nationalized, but very little changed in terms of how they were managed/run/etc. compared to when private.

On the other hand, W.Germany had the gov't directly involved in labour/management relations to great benefit, while France engaged in "indicative planning," basically the gov't targeting investment to critical/strategic sectors to help rebuild, modernize, etc.--again, considered a great boon to the post-war economy.

The point being that nationalizing is not an end in itself. The gov't running declining industries in a similar way (not enuogh investment or modernization or risk-taking) as run by the old private hands doesn't solve anything. Perhaps Labour really needs to be bolder and REALLY "plan" the economy?
 
Labour will act to create public ownership, for the national good, of banking, transport, electricity, iron, steel, and coal
How depressing.
jaby2.gif