Talk:1940 British war cabinet crisis/Archive 1

Essay
This reads like an essay, not an article. --Agamemnon2 13:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The importance of the war cabinet crisis
For all its faults, this article is correct in its conclusion that these events determined the outcome of WWII and thus the course of world history. With Britain's decision to fight on, come what may, a Nazi victory became impossible (with the possible exception that a Nazi nuclear weapon could subsequently have forced a British surrender). So long as Britain continued to fight, conflict between Nazi Germany and the USSR / USA was inevitable at some point, and Germany could not prevail against this combination. The debt owed by the world to Winston Churchill for his conviction, courage and leadership at this time is incalculable. WWII was won not on the beaches of Dunkirk, nor in the skies over southern England, nor at Stalingrad nor Pearl Harbour, but in these smoke-filled rooms during late May 1940. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.139.11 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 2 August 2006

Yes, it reads like an essay, and needs references and citations. The statement that "at that moment he had won the war" is over dramatic and denigrating in my opinion to servicemen from Russia, USA, Great Britain and elsewhere who made contributions to the defeat of Nazism. Churchill himself later described himself as the agent of a natural force of resistance that ran throughout the land, which to me is a more accurate description. Also we should not forget that World War 2 was not only about the defeat of Nazi Germany, it was also about the defeat of Imperialist Japan, something that the events of this article contributed little to. 121.44.255.103 (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hitler would have invaded the Soviet Union regardless. In 1940-41 the Soviets were supplying all the fuel used by the German forces to invade France and the Low Countries. (81.153.219.72 (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC))

No. With a peace agreement in 1940 there would have been no occupation of France, BeNeLux, Denmark and Norway. Germanys resources wouldn't have been as stretched as they were in 1941, and a war against the Soviet Union would most likely have been postponed. That also means no holocaust, since the decision to initiate it wasn't taken until 1941, and partly as a result of the war in Russia.

Stalin may even have attacked first, since we know he had plans for a war against Germany. The U.K. May even have joined on the German side. It would have been a great temptation for an ardent anti-Bolshevik like Churchill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.72.43 (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not the pace for such speculation. DuncanHill (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Needs a major overhaul
This article may be accurate and well written, but it seems like an extract from a book. It may not be, but it strays completely off-topic at times, it's too long, and it's not precise enough.

And, while we're on the subject, I would argue that Russia won World War II, with Operation Barbarossa. The invasion of Russia was enough to stretch out and weaken Hitler enough to turn the tide. When it failed, that's when Nazi expansion ended and the joint forces from Moscow and Dunkirk could start to force Germany back in on itself. Just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvertouch (talk • contribs) 09:37, 17 June 2007


 * I put the World War II Wikiproject tag here. I hope somebody will come and save this article because it needs much work. -- SECisek (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What a mess! 188.220.58.76 (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Soviet Union could never have survived without Lend-Lease from the West. Stalin and Khrushchev both admitted that after the war. (81.153.219.72 (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC))

This is just ahistorical nonsense. Aside from what Soviet leaders might have said to flatter a naive and impressionable American audience, you'll find no reputable historian who'll agree that "The Soviet Union wouldn't have survived without Lend n lease. The major contribution of land and lease were trucks for crying out loud. Trucks that weren't really necessary since the Red army mostly relied on horses for logistics. 90.184.72.43 (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Moving On
I have done a fair bit of work on and rewriting of the article since the above comments were written. I'm sure there is always room for further improvement. It is, I think, pretty much common ground that Churchill seriously overestimated the likelihood of the USA entering the war any time soon and the likelihood of France fighting on (in fairness, the French had fought for six months in 1870-1, and had survived the Battle of the Marne in 1914; the Cabinet Crisis of late May was before Fall Rot, the German second offensive in early June which ruptured Weygand's line which ran roughly between Abbeville and Sedan). Obviously there are differences of interpretation out there: Andrew Roberts believes that Churchill was genuinely open to the possibility of a compromise peace later on after we had put up more of a fight, whereas I think most historians tend to take the view that he was just playing for time and humouring Halifax and/or just hadn't thought the matter that far ahead.Paulturtle (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC) Fine job! Profhum (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Without the supply of weapons and other materials from the United States it would have been impossible for the British Empire to continue the war. (81.153.219.72 (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC))

Again, stop with the Land n lease nonsense. A falsehood doesn't get anymore true by repeating it. Yes L&L helped the U.K., but they would have prevailed without it. All of the UKs weapons were produced domestically. (The U.K. later used the Sherman tank, despite its inferiority because it was dirt cheap. Not because they didn't have a domestic tank production.)

You also completely miss what the U.K. had to pay for L&L. Roosevelt took advantage of the situation, and extorted the UK out of their military bases around the world. Land and lease was neither decisive nor an act of charity. 90.184.72.43 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic chat
Teachers who wish to use Darkest Hour in class, will turn here, and so will their students

Gary Oldman finally reaches his apotheosis. The script wisely culled Churchill's many aphorisms and gave them to Oldman to deliver with relish. The script invents a great deal but is true to the most important fact. For several days before the miracle rescue at Dunkirk, one man alone stopped Halifax's appeasement party from letting Mussolini broker a peace deal with Hitler. We know now that if Hitler had been able to put England's conquest on hold, and turn his full power on Russia, he would have defeated Russia. He nearly did, even when he was fighting on two fronts. He could have then come back to England after a rest, acquired it, and used its enormous fleet to sail against America. In the first war the Germans had asked the Mexicans to let them land there, in return for regaining the Southwest. (See the Zimmerman Telegram.) Oldman plays Churchill during that crisis like Olivier playing Henry V before what looked like certain defeat at Agincourt, holding his outnumbered, outclassed forces together through sheer eloquence-and in private moments, succumbing, almost, to despair. There are speeches and tirades of Shakespearean grandeur. Screenplay, director, actor all perfect. Towards that Shakespearean goal, the screenwriter does not hesitate to invent scenes and confrontations which will bring out some central truth, often by transplanting genuine Churchill remarks there. So the teacher will undoubtedly face questions about, "did that really happen? Was Churchill really like that?" The answer is, "Yes, it really happened, though not always like that. Yes, Churchill was really like that, at that moment, during that matter; but not always, on all matters." This article should try to help the teacher caught in that situation who has turned here for help.Profhum (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Consequences
How about a brief section on the consequences and possible consequences of what happened in those days in May.

We know very well what followed since Britain stayed in the war. But what if an armistice or peace agreement had been signed?


 * No occupation of France, BeNeLux, Norway and Denmark.
 * This would mean a significant lesser draw on Germany's resources, which meant that Operation Barbarossa would probably not have happened. A possible invasion of the Soviet Union would take place later, if at all.
 * No holocaust. The holocaust wasn't planned before the middle of 1941, and a main reason for it to be implemented was the war with the Soviet Union. Jewish emigration out of Europe would have increased.
 * German return of their old colonies?
 * We know Stalin had designs for attacking Germany at some unspecified future date. If Barbarossa never had happened, Stalin might have attacked first. We also know Churchill was a fierce anti Bolshevik. Would the U.K. have joined on Germanys side against the Soviet Union? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.72.43 (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't do "what ifs". You would be better off finding some speculative fiction forum. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)