What if history scenarios

[pugsville]

The Brit’s only started producing more aircraft than they were losing when the Germans focused on the blitz. In retaliation for the Brit’s bombing Berlin.

No Not true.In 1940 the UK produced 15,000 aircraft the Germans 10,000. This didn't all happem after the late in the Battle of Britain.
Single ENginee fights of Hurricane and Spitfares maybe aircrat losses exceeded profuction briefly but no more so than the Germans.

During the critical period it's pilots more than aircraft production (as the RAF started with more spares) and the Luftwaffe was always been grond down more as it lost more of it's pilots per down aircraft (as a BF109 shot down over England means loss of pilot when not necessarily so for the RAF) In reltaive strnegth terms the luftwaffe was always losing ground, t(though the internal thinking of booth sides was on available figures rather than the actual true numbers, it felt very desperate for the British)

Obviously the navy was the key factor. They needed to knock out the airforce to have any chance of getting a corridor across the channel. That never happened, but it could have if things broke different. It’s certainly not an alien space bats proposition.

Knocking out an air force 100% was always a pretty difficult near impossible task. At the very least the RAF could control how much of their air force was commuted. A core element could always have been prosevred by removing it northwards. The Rate of attrition simply was good enough to remove RAF as effective force in the time period even if the Lufwaffe was winning (which it was not)

Crossing the channel and landing an effective force even with clear air superiority with the means available to the Germans in september 1940 is pretty close to alien space bats, barely escorted canal barges.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

What-if: Hitler dies between March and September, 1939 - after Memel but before Poland?

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

I kind of wonder what the 1930s would have been like if some virus or bacteria had killed George V, Edward, The Prince of Wales and Prince George of York in early 1931, leaving four-year-old Elizabeth as Queen. With the Dowager Duchess of York now the Queen Mother and Regent at only age 30.

 

[Gough]

With the Queen mum calling the shots Britain probably would have sided with Hitler.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

What if the true King was actually living here in Australia.

Instead of Charles, we'd have a guy called Simon Abney-Hastings.

 

[Roylion]

With the Queen mum calling the shots Britain probably would have sided with Hitler.

That’s not necessarily correct.

 

[Roylion]

What if the true King was actually living here in Australia.

Instead of Charles, we'd have a guy called Simon Abney-Hastings.

Only problem is he’s not the ‘true’ king. For a whole host of reasons.

 

[Cuzz09]

What if we had no leaders and everyone could just do whatever.

But we had law and order still

would anything really change?

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gough]

That’s not necessarily correct.

Edward VIII was a convenient fall guy for the British aristocracy's fondness for fascism.

 

[Roylion]

Edward VIII was a convenient fall guy for the British aristocracy's fondness for fascism.

I've explained this before.

What much of European aristocracy (including the adult members of the British Royal Family thought about Nazism was not that they supported the ideology of Nazism as such, but the fact that Nazism opposed Bolshevism, particularly after the fate of the Russian royal family became widely known. The British aristocracy regarded the Nazis as incorrigibly vulgar, but some thought they had some good political ideas especially in regards to communism. Their preoccupation in those days was not with what Hitler might do in the future, but with what the Bolsheviks had done in the recent past.

In 1933, the Russian Revolution had happened just 16 years earlier. The nobility had been slaughtered wholesale. In the years after, communism spread across Europe. There was widespread industrial turmoil and disaffection among the working class. Many people, both leftists and capitalists, were convinced that within a few short years, the established order would be swept away. In the early 1930s the aristocracy feared the communists and the Russians far more than they feared the Nazis.

Historian Michael Bloch notes that throughout the 1930's "curiosity about the Nazis was intense, and many respectable people accepted government invitations [to Nazi Germany]. It was fashionable to go to Germany and visit Hitler in the mid-thirties just as it was to go to China and visit Mao Tse-tung in the sixties." The former British prime minister, Lloyd George had visited Germany in 1936 the leader of the Labour Party, the pacifist George Lansbury met with Hitler in April 1937, and Lord Halifax, later foreign secretary, visited the following month in May.

Of course that was to change from 1938 and 1939 as Hitler broke promise after promise and war broke out.

Bernard Wasserstein the emeritus professor of history at the University of Chicago suggests that for the most part the British aristocracy (including the royal family) was no more inclined to fascism than any other segment of the population. Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists had members from all classes, including proletarian racists from the East End of London.

After Hitler signed the German - Soviet pact (and the reaiisation that Hitler would not act as a buffer against communism) in 1939 any lingering support for Nazism in the British aristocracy largely disappeared.

 

[Gough]

Looking at the state of the modern royal family it's not hard to conclude that the Bolsheviks might have been on to something.

 

[Roylion]

Looking at the state of the modern royal family it's not hard to conclude that the Bolsheviks might have been on to something.

Nah. I don't think so. The Bolsheviks were no improvement, even upon the absolute monarchy of the Czars.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

The royals were also partial to a fair bit of anti semitism. That certainly didn’t hurt the appeal of the nazis to them.

 

[Roylion]

The royals were also partial to a fair bit of anti semitism. That certainly didn’t hurt the appeal of the nazis to them.

Not all royals.

Queen Victoria, Britain’s second-longest reigning monarch (after Queen Elizabeth II) was the first British monarch to break with tradition and bestow an aristocratic title on a Jew, knighting the great Jewish philanthropist Moses Montefiore in 1837. When some of her advisors objected to giving such an honor to a Jew, Queen Victoria stated "I was very glad I was the first to do what I think quite right, and as it should be."

Prince Philip had a much loved Jewish teacher Kurt Hahn, a vocal opponent of Hitler who founded Gordounstoun later helped him set up the Duke of Edinburgh award.

However after World War I. many aristocrats saw Jews as the carriers of Bolshevism which they regarded as an existential threat to their existence. In the 19th century Jews also represented liberalism, which the aristocracy definitely didn’t support. While Nazism waged an ideological war on the upper classes, it did not, unlike Bolshevism, threaten to dispossess private property from aristocrats. While Hitler called aristocrats 'degenerates', he knew how useful they were to his cause. When Hitler signed his pact with Stalin in August 1939 and marched into Poland less than a month later, aristocratic support for Nazism and appeasement rapidly disappeared.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

Even the working class didn't support Bolshevism. Bolshevism only succeeded where it did with the most ruthless repression and force. The way they terrified the middle classes of Europe helped Benny the Moose, Hitler, Horthy and their like. Lenin was as bad, if not more so, than Stalin.

 

[pugsville]

I kind of wonder what the 1930s would have been like if some virus or bacteria had killed George V, Edward, The Prince of Wales and Prince George of York in early 1931, leaving four-year-old Elizabeth as Queen. With the Dowager Duchess of York now the Queen Mother and Regent at only age 30.

The Duchess of York was not in the line of succession and would never have been appointed regent.

British Line of Succession on 21 August 1930

See the Line of Succession to the British Throne on 21 August 1930.

lineofsuccession.co.uk

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

She would have been the main informal influence in the life of the (four year old in 1931) Elizabeth, in practice if not in law. I suspect you privately know this.

 

[pugsville]

She would have been the main informal influence in the life of the (four year old in 1931) Elizabeth, in practice if not in law. I suspect you privately know this.

Guess work based on what? Public persoana are not always godo guide to relations in private. There would have been a male regent named almost certainly Speculating without evidence at all about the the personal relationship of people you do not know at all is guessing in the dark. Some appointed male regent could though close contact quickly formed a bond or may not.

 

[Roylion]

She would have been the main informal influence in the life of the (four year old in 1931) Elizabeth, in practice if not in law. I suspect you privately know this.

Parliament would have had to pass a regency act. The Regency Act of 1937 is the one currently in force. Previously Regency Acts had been passed by Parliament on a case by case basis, often appointing the husband or wife of the monarch as regent in the case of a minority of the monarchy (i.e aged under 18)

According to the Regency Act of 1937 which provided for the incapacity or minority of all future monarchs

The regent should be the next person in the line of succession who was:

• over the age of 21
• a British subject domiciled in the United Kingdom
• capable of succeeding to the Crown under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701.

Under the Regency Act Prince Henry Duke of Gloucester (later governor-general of Australia) would have become regent in the event that the Duke of York / King George VI died sometime between 1926 and 1943 while Princess Elizabeth was still a minor. In 1931 it may well have been the Queen Mother who would have become regent, but that would have been determined by Parliament. However, under the scenario proposed above, in 1931 Prince Henry would have been second in line to succeed the young Queen Elizabeth, was aged 30 and was serving as a captain in the army.

Incidentally Section 4 of the Act prohibits the regent from giving royal assent to a bill to change the line of succession to the British throne.

 

[pugsville]

She would have been the main informal influence in the life of the (four year old in 1931) Elizabeth, in practice if not in law. I suspect you privately know this.

And furthermore the 4yo to teenage Elizabeth is NOT going to be making any decisions about running the country.
The Queen Mother could not be regent as she was not in the line of succession. And the Regent would be making was very limited the decisions for the crown. And regardless of the Perosnal bond or influence, is the Qeen Mother eitehr capable or motivated to be a power behind the throne ? Is the Elizabeth even when on throne goingto take advice for runningteh ocampaignerry from her Grand mother rather than those charged with doing so?

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Queen Elizabeth dying shortly after princess Di dying would have seen Australia a republic and maybe the end of the royal family in the UK if Charles tried to press his claim. He was so toxic then. Lizzie living as long as she did enabled some serious rehab in Charles and Camilla’s reps.

 

[GreyCrow]

Queen Elizabeth dying shortly after princess Di dying would have seen Australia a republic and maybe the end of the royal family in the UK if Charles tried to press his claim. He was so toxic then. Lizzie living as long as she did enabled some serious rehab in Charles and Camilla’s reps.

And if he abdicated would the world get around the Sad King William?

 

[Roylion]

Queen Elizabeth dying shortly after princess Di dying would have seen Australia a republic

Possibly.

and maybe the end of the royal family in the UK if Charles tried to press his claim.

Absolutely not. He doesn't have to press any claim. He's King the moment his mother dies and until he dies or abdicates. There was no appetite for a republic in the UK even in the wake of Diana's death.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

And if he abdicated would the world get around the Sad King William?

100%. He might have then become king young enough that he wouldn’t turn into a complete twat himself.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Absolutely not. He doesn't have to press any claim. He's King the moment his mother dies and until he dies or abdicates. There was no appetite for a republic in the UK even in the wake of Diana's death.

no there was no appetite because the queen reigned. Yes yes, I know technically he’d have had to abdicate, but I think if he didn’t then it might have gotten very rocky. He was despised by a lot of people. Scotland would have tried to go for sure.