On 6/29/21 10:18 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> If Wiki's right then why did Chamberlain not fight harder to retain
> his job in May 1940?
The "Norway Debate" of 7-9 May was followed by a de facto vote of
confidence.

41 Conservatives voted with the opposition, and about 60 others
abstained. This was a clear rejection of the government by a
large part of its nominal supporters. It became politically
impossible for Chamberlain to continue at the head of a
Conservative government, and the Liberals and Labour refused to
enter a unity government under Chamberlain.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 5:17:27 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> On 6/29/21 9:33 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> > And as long as Hitler was successful at
>> > low cost, alles gut. However, there were those who would say (early
>> > on) that Hitler was a gambler who had been lucky so far, and one of
>> > these days, his gamble will fail, "and then where will we be, nu?"
>> My understanding is that there was no enthusiasm for war in 1939.
>> Germans all knew what happened 25 years before, and how it ended.
>> Even after the victory over Poland, there was little confidence.
>> Then came the stunning victory over France. After that, Hitler
>> was the Magic Man, and could do no wrong.
>>
>> Until after Stalingrad... And at that point, Germans were
>> committed to the war, and didn't want to think it was a mistake.
>> I recall seeing this summary of German popular thinking over
>> the course of the war:
>>
>> 1939 - We're going to win.
>> 1940 - We won!
>> 1941 - We are winning.
>> 1942 - We must win.
>> 1943 - We must not lose.
>> --
>
>1944: Wonder Weapons will save us!
>1945: We lost.

But "Der Furher has a secret plan to win the war" remained a
'trope' if you will, even after the various armies took the
village/town/city.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Had Germany kept its monarchy after 1918 but in a mostly ceremonial role
> (probably under Kaiser Bill's eldest son or eldest grandson rather than under
> Kaiser Bill himself, who might still have to go into exile or something),
> would Hitler have still been able to come to power and do what he did? On the
> one hand, a parvenu such as Hitler would not have fit in very well in
> Hohenzollern high society; on the other hand, though, Hindenburg likewise
> strongly disliked Hitler and yet still appointed him Chancellor.
>
> And would a German monarch with comparable powers to Italian King Victor
> Emmanuel III (so, not that much, but not nothing either) have been able to
> dismiss Hitler if Hitler's adventurism put Germany at risk of sparking another
> World War? If so, would he have aimed to do so immediately or waited until a
> significant setback would have actually occurred? And would he have been
> discouraged from doing this by any demand by the US for the "unconditional
> surrender" of Germany, which would presumably include putting the German
> Kaiser on trial in addition to putting Hitler and the Nazis on trial
> (especially considering that the Americans might view the Nazis as simply
> being a tool of Kaiserism and Prussian militarism--albeit perhaps a tool gone
> rogue)?

What about the German Empire being dissolved and going back
to the Confederation set-up as part of the peace settlement?
The winners blaming Prussia and removing its power over the
other German states,figuring they would be less of a threat
if less united.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 5:30:54 PM UTC+1, Louis Epstein wrote:
> WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Had Germany kept its monarchy after 1918 but in a mostly ceremonial role
> > (probably under Kaiser Bill's eldest son or eldest grandson rather than under
> > Kaiser Bill himself, who might still have to go into exile or something),
> > would Hitler have still been able to come to power and do what he did? On the
> > one hand, a parvenu such as Hitler would not have fit in very well in
> > Hohenzollern high society; on the other hand, though, Hindenburg likewise
> > strongly disliked Hitler and yet still appointed him Chancellor.
> >
> > And would a German monarch with comparable powers to Italian King Victor
> > Emmanuel III (so, not that much, but not nothing either) have been able to
> > dismiss Hitler if Hitler's adventurism put Germany at risk of sparking another
> > World War? If so, would he have aimed to do so immediately or waited until a
> > significant setback would have actually occurred? And would he have been
> > discouraged from doing this by any demand by the US for the "unconditional
> > surrender" of Germany, which would presumably include putting the German
> > Kaiser on trial in addition to putting Hitler and the Nazis on trial
> > (especially considering that the Americans might view the Nazis as simply
> > being a tool of Kaiserism and Prussian militarism--albeit perhaps a tool gone
> > rogue)?
> What about the German Empire being dissolved and going back
> to the Confederation set-up as part of the peace settlement?
> The winners blaming Prussia and removing its power over the
> other German states,figuring they would be less of a threat
> if less united.
>
Do you mean the 1815-66 German Confederation? I.e. within the boundaries shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Confederation#/media/File:Deutscher_Bund.svg but minus the areas which went to France, Italy, Czechoslovakia and others at Versailles? Hanover etc would presumably remain incorporated into Prussia, as shown at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/German_Empire_states_map.svg

On 7/4/21 5:13 PM, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 5:30:54 PM UTC+1, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> What about the German Empire being dissolved and going back
>> to the Confederation set-up as part of the peace settlement?
>> The winners blaming Prussia and removing its power over the
>> other German states,figuring they would be less of a threat
>> if less united.

Not practical. Between 1871 and 1914, there were major
administrative and legal reforms to consolidate Germany.

The old criminal and civil law in all the German states was
replaced with a new uniform code, for instance.

> Do you mean the 1815-66 German Confederation? I.e. within the > boundaries shown at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Confederation#/media/File:Deutscher_Bund.svg
> but minus the areas which went to France, Italy, Czechoslovakia and
> others at Versailles? Hanover etc would presumably remain incorporated
> into Prussia, as shown at
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/German_Empire_states_map.svg

There's one great difficulty with that: The Duchy of Prussia
was not part of the German Confederation.

Neither was the Posen region (annexed from Poland in 1793),
but that area was hived off to revived Poland anyway.

Nor Danzig and Pomerelia.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Rich Rostrom <rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 7/4/21 5:13 PM, Graham Truesdale wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 5:30:54 PM UTC+1, Louis Epstein wrote:
>>> WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> What about the German Empire being dissolved and going back
>>> to the Confederation set-up as part of the peace settlement?
>>> The winners blaming Prussia and removing its power over the
>>> other German states,figuring they would be less of a threat
>>> if less united.
>
> Not practical. Between 1871 and 1914, there were major
> administrative and legal reforms to consolidate Germany.
>
> The old criminal and civil law in all the German states was
> replaced with a new uniform code, for instance.
>
>> Do you mean the 1815-66 German Confederation? I.e. within the > boundaries shown at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Confederation#/media/File:Deutscher_Bund.svg
>> but minus the areas which went to France, Italy, Czechoslovakia and
>> others at Versailles? Hanover etc would presumably remain incorporated
>> into Prussia, as shown at
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/German_Empire_states_map.svg
>
> There's one great difficulty with that: The Duchy of Prussia
> was not part of the German Confederation.

Perhaps there would be a forced separation of Prussia from
Brandenburg...along with the 1866 incorporations perhaps
being deducted somehow.
(Remember,Berlin is the recent capital of Brandenburg,
Prussia was based in Konigsberg).

> Neither was the Posen region (annexed from Poland in 1793),
> but that area was hived off to revived Poland anyway.
>
> Nor Danzig and Pomerelia.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.