The other way around...

[Harvin87]

Lets imagine just for one minute... even though its even scary to think about it...

The other way around... Imagine operation SeaLion would had succed... and die Wehrmacht is at the gates of Buckingham Palace... of course the Queen and the royal family would had already already escaped into Canada or America ... but Churchill definetly would had been there... still in England... do u think he would also try to escape from the moment he saw that the situation was catastrophic? .. or would had stayed? ... would he also commit suicide .. ?

Just got this thought on my head... what do think? ... what would had happened?

 

[Tee Kay]

It will be similar to when the Germans were at the gates of Moscow in 1941.

 

[Winner]

Lets imagine just for one minute... even though its even scary to think about it...

The other way around... Imagine operation SeaLion would had succed... and die Wehrmacht is at the gates of Buckingham Palace... of course the Queen and the royal family would had already already escaped into Canada or America ... but Churchill definetly would had been there... still in England... do u think he would also try to escape from the moment he saw that the situation was catastrophic? .. or would had stayed? ... would he also commit suicide .. ?

Just got this thought on my head... what do think? ... what would had happened?

I remember that Churchill commited suicide when I conquered Britain as Germany... in HOI2

 

[Verbose]

Lets imagine just for one minute... even though its even scary to think about it...

The other way around... Imagine operation SeaLion would had succed... and die Wehrmacht is at the gates of Buckingham Palace... of course the Queen and the royal family would had already already escaped into Canada or America ... but Churchill definetly would had been there... still in England... do u think he would also try to escape from the moment he saw that the situation was catastrophic? .. or would had stayed? ... would he also commit suicide .. ?

Just got this thought on my head... what do think? ... what would had happened?

I think he would have been fighting Germans with a broken champagne bottle and a piece of two-by-four.

He sort of implied that was what he would be doing - after delivering his "we will fight on the beaches... We will never surrender!" speech to the House he is to have quietly added to an aide that "We'll be fighting them with broken beer bottles, because that's bugger all we've got" — and telling his family that in the case of a German invasion, he expected them all to take at least one German with them — and telling his general staff that if this was how Britain was to end, he expected it at least not to happen until all assembled, to a man, lay choking in their own blood.

So he'd probably fight. Or at least he'd try to, despite being old, fat and with a dicky heart. Probably be drunk doing it.

 

[Harvin87]

haha, definetly he was the best war-time prime minister...

 

[Loki130]

I think the British ran a big war game a while ago base don sealion which predicted a German failure.

 

[Naskra]

"there was every possibility - even probability - that even after the fall of the island the Churchill Government would have tried to continue the fight from Canada"

- Erich von Manstein, Lost Victories

 

[red_elk]

Of course he would try to escape at the reasonable moment. Sacrificing himself is not the best strategy for national leader during war.

 

[Renner]

Setting up in Canada probably would have been the most logical thing to do. Then again, I doubt Churchill was one to back down from a fight. If there was no escape (entire island blockaded) then I'd imagine he'd go down shooting.

 

[cardgame]

Setting up in Canada probably would have been the most logical thing to do. Then again, I doubt Churchill was one to back down from a fight. If there was no escape (entire island blockaded) then I'd imagine he'd go down shooting.

Or rather, being shot.

 

[Harvin87]

Setting up in Canada probably would have been the most logical thing to do. Then again, I doubt Churchill was one to back down from a fight. If there was no escape (entire island blockaded) then I'd imagine he'd go down shooting.

Im with you

Now another question pops up... after the occupation of the british home islands... would had England been capable of waging war ? ... lets remember that at this point USA was not "technically" in the war, so it would had been something like the free France forces from DeGaulle or I dont know... Anyway I think the germans would had had much more problems fighting resistance in England than in France....

 

[innonimatu]

Im with you

Now another question pops up... after the occupation of the british home islands... would had England been capable of waging war ? ... lets remember that at this point USA was not "technically" in the war, so it would had been something like the free France forces from DeGaulle or I dont know... Anyway I think the germans would had had much more problems fighting resistance in England than in France....

The legal french government surrendered to Germany, the "free French" were a new group, initially without any territory or, indeed, troops. We were assuming here that the british government would not surrender, but move its capital beyond Germany's reach and keep on fighting.
Could they do it? The british empire was large enough, and at the time still solid enough, that thy might pull it off. But with no hope to retake Britain except through american and soviet help. Hitler was bound to attack the USSR anyway, and the japanese probably were stupid enough to attack the USA also, as it happened.

But there's little precedent of european empires actually moving their capitals and keep fighting. My guess is that the british government would surrender (not unconditionally, but negotiate an armistice) if London was lost. Too much of its wealth and government structure was invested there. And the Germans basically would demand to have their control over continental Europe confirmed, and part of the royal navy (as payback for Scapa Flow, if for no other reason...).

 

[say1988]

There is some question based on how and when the British are defeated (i.e. the state of the Fleet or American/Soviet involvement). At the very least, even if the parliament surrenders (I don't see Churchill doing it, but he may have been ousted when facing this reality), I expect the fleet and monarchy would have escaped for the war to continue while trying to get the US involved. Germany had no way to really strike across the Atlantic, so anything that got to Canada would be safe there, and the rest of the empire could provide many men and resources to continue fighting the Germans for quite a while so long as a possibility of US and Soviet support exists.

Churchill himself I see getting out much like MacArthur in the Philippines. The value of him as a figurehead for the Empire and occupied people of Britain would be too important to throw away. And if he still had support of parliament it would devastate any government.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

There was little question about whether the British would resort to chemical warfare en masse in the event of any German invasion of Britain.

Also, we have to define what "succeed" means. Getting soldiers across the channel? Taking and holding a beachhead? Taking London and establishing a puppet government?

 

[Godwynn]

Find the contradicting speech!

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old.

The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Churchill made the speeches fourteen days apart from one another.

 

[NewWaver]

If London fell, the British would've fought on, I'm sure.

 

[dosed150]

The legal french government surrendered to Germany, the "free French" were a new group, initially without any territory or, indeed, troops. We were assuming here that the british government would not surrender, but move its capital beyond Germany's reach and keep on fighting.
Could they do it? The british empire was large enough, and at the time still solid enough, that thy might pull it off. But with no hope to retake Britain except through american and soviet help. Hitler was bound to attack the USSR anyway, and the japanese probably were stupid enough to attack the USA also, as it happened.

But there's little precedent of european empires actually moving their capitals and keep fighting. My guess is that the british government would surrender (not unconditionally, but negotiate an armistice) if London was lost. Too much of its wealth and government structure was invested there. And the Germans basically would demand to have their control over continental Europe confirmed, and part of the royal navy (as payback for Scapa Flow, if for no other reason...).

wasn't the portugese capital briefly in brazil during the penisular wars.

the dutch colonies kept fighting after the german invasion of the netherlands, till java fell then the dutch navy ended up in australia fighting alongside the american and australia forces. so i think britain would have kept fighting even if Britain was invaded. i remember hearing there was an elite branch of the home guard with proper training and weapons caches who would mobilise if britain was occupied and fight the germans using guerrila tactics

 

[Harvin87]

wasn't the portugese capital briefly in brazil during the penisular wars.

the dutch colonies kept fighting after the german invasion of the netherlands, till java fell then the dutch navy ended up in australia fighting alongside the american and australia forces. so i think britain would have kept fighting even if Britain was invaded. i remember hearing there was an elite branch of the home guard with proper training and weapons caches who would mobilise if britain was occupied and fight the germans using guerrila tactics

Yes, in deed.

This documentary depicts thats on a nice fashion ... it concerns all the preparations that were carried out in Britain . . . when invasion was inminent...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQqt...5ACFFE1E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=33

 

[innonimatu]

wasn't the portugese capital briefly in brazil during the penisular wars.

the dutch colonies kept fighting after the german invasion of the netherlands, till java fell then the dutch navy ended up in australia fighting alongside the american and australia forces. so i think britain would have kept fighting even if Britain was invaded.

I don't think that anyone took the dutch efforts seriously. The shift of the portuguese court to Brazil is the only example of such a move that I can think of, and my belief is that it was only possible in an age when loyalty was more towards a monarch than a "nation". It was no accident that the increase in both nationalism and demands for some kind of representative democracy (initially only for the intellectual elites who could agitate, of course...) coincided with the independence of most european colonies in the Americas soon after.

I don't think that the british government could even find legitimacy outside britain to mobilize its much scarcer resources and carry on the war, it it lost Great Britain. Some colonies would break away openly (I don't see India standing by the Empire...), and others would be tempted to quietly disengage by pressuring that exiled government to accept terms for peace.

 

[say1988]

Canada and Australia would continue to side with a British government-in-exile, due to loyalty and/or wanting the protection of the Royal Navy. Most of Africa would have, as they were very effectively controlled by the British at the time. Large parts of India would side with Britain still as they were very concerned about the Japanese and figured they would get independence afterward, though I would expect more opposition than actually existed.

This is all based on reasonable prospects or US/Soviet intervention and the survival of the Royal Navy.

Keep in mind that not all British colonies were fighting half way around the world, Australia and India for example were very much threatened by the Japanese, even before Pearl Harbour, and at least for Australia they would need any ships or aircraft that could be sent their way if war commenced.
So the scenario of the fall of Britain would be important.