Path: ...!news.nobody.at!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: RI October 2024
Date: 7 Dec 2024 05:44:33 GMT
Organization: loft
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <lri5m1Fiv8cU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <lpt8n4F7c0eU1@mid.individual.net> <vhgg0u$1f9mv$1@dont-email.me> <7v67ljhjfkp2vgh91f4nhce6b9r6oh3iu0@4ax.com>
X-Trace: individual.net /TNz5lvFJtpDUl5Y9zephQrniExzSgCqabUisgUvwzFQDcCng7
X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LXuNJn7f79bqhEw040Vum2KcEUE= sha256:9aPwYoWbs8g6sBnQ4ZP38LJG5UHd1EOac25/9n9K9wE=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)
Bytes: 3102

In article <7v67ljhjfkp2vgh91f4nhce6b9r6oh3iu0@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat  <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 17:44:38 -0500, William Hyde
><wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Churchill said 'yes', but was eventually turfed out in favor of
>>> Eden
>>
>>Let me guess, the author looked up a list of UK cabinet members and 
>>threw a dart?  Eden was well down the list of possible PMs at this 
>>point, with only the war having restored him to the leading circle from 
>>the pariah status he was consigned to in the late 1930s.
>
>In real life Eden was the #2 in the wartime coalition maybe not
>initially but certainly from 1942 onwards. That becomes clear if
>you've read Churchill's history/memoirs of the war. Churchill had
>several strong ministers but no question Eden was his #2. 
>
>Whether that would have made him his replacement had Churchill had an
>accident (for instance in late 1944 when he insisted on joining with
>the troops when they whizzed into the Rhine) is anybody's guess.
>
>>And if peace broke out certainly an appeaser like Halifax would have 
>>been handed the job.  Might as well say they gave the PM position to 
>>Brendan Bracken.
>>
>While Halifax had his partisans in 1940, if you're writing an
>alternate history you still have to deal with Halifax's stated reason
>for not seeking the top job which was that he did not believe one
>could effectively direct the political side of a major war from the
>House of Lords.

As I have said, it *was* Halifax.  I got my antique English politicians
mixed up.

The Lords issue did not come up in any conversation.  Presumably it
was dealt with.  WP, quoting Robert Blake apparently, says:

	Churchill's political position was weak, although he was
	popular with the Labour and Liberal parties for his stance
	against appeasement in the 1930s. He was unpopular in the
	Conservative Party, however, and he might not have been the
	choice of the King. Halifax had the support of most of the
	Conservative Party and of the King and was acceptable to
	the Labour Party. His position as a peer was a merely
	technical barrier given the scale of the crisis, and Churchill
	reportedly was willing to serve under Halifax

so people have waved it away at times.
-- 
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..