WWII with Edward VIII (WW2, war, influence, Britain)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How might World War Two have unfolded differently, if Edward VIII had not abdicated?
According to Wiki, . . . Edward favoured German fascism as a bulwark against communism, and even that he initially favoured an alliance with Germany. Edward's experience of "the unending scenes of horror" during World War I led him to support appeasement. Hitler considered Edward to be friendly towards Nazi Germany and thought that Anglo-German relations could have been improved through Edward if it were not for the abdication.
Would the US still have gotten involved, if Britain were not our ally, or at least not aggressively resisting Germany?
How much power did the monarch actually have? I don't believe that the English monarchy had any more power during WW2, than it has today. In that sense, I think it makes it a mute point as Edward VIII would have had very little influence on charting the course Britain took that led to war.
As to the hypothetical, if Britain had remained neutral I don't think we would have seen American entry into the European theater. However, the prospect of Britain remaining neutral was non-existent as Germany set about it's course to war. Edward VIII and Hitler could have been old drinking buddies and it wouldn't have had any influence on Britain's actions.
I had thought of that possibility. But the kings and queens of Norway, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands all fled their countries when Hitler came, and after the war, they returned and resumed their thrones.
How much power did the monarch actually have? I don't believe that the English monarchy had any more power during WW2, than it has today. In that sense, I think it makes it a mute point as Edward VIII would have had very little influence on charting the course Britain took that led to war.
As to the hypothetical, if Britain had remained neutral I don't think we would have seen American entry into the European theater. However, the prospect of Britain remaining neutral was non-existent as Germany set about it's course to war. Edward VIII and Hitler could have been old drinking buddies and it wouldn't have had any influence on Britain's actions.
Yeah, I think this hits it on the head. Edward was more pro-German than he was pro-Nazi. Lots of people were thinking that the Germans were a good choice to be a counter to the communists. And as you correctly point out, Edward had only slightly more influence on British politics than I did, and I wasn't even born yet.
I had thought of that possibility. But the kings and queens of Norway, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands all fled their countries when Hitler came, and after the war, they returned and resumed their thrones.
Yeah but I don't believe they were considered Nazi sympathizers before the war. However, Edward may have changed his position after the outbreak of hostilities just as some Americans such as Charles Lindbergh did.
I had thought of that possibility. But the kings and queens of Norway, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands all fled their countries when Hitler came, and after the war, they returned and resumed their thrones.
There's a bit of a difference between fleeing your country and setting up a government in exile to resist the Nazi's and what was being implied as the implication of Edward VIII being sympathetic to the Nazi/German cause.
Something tells me if the kings and queens of Norway, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands had welcomed Hitler's arrival and assisted the Nazi's, they would have deposed, not asked to resume their thrones following the war.
It's not a question of Edward actually being in an alliance with nazi Germany, which is taking the case too literally. George VI was a vigorous figurehead in the British resolve and determination to resist the Germans, which Edward might not have been, or taken a while to come around to. Edward and Churchill, et.al., given Edward's leanings, might not have been able to form such a formidable and single-minded resistance to German expansionism from the outset. Indeed, different people than Churchill might well have been in positions of non-royal influence in Britain at the crucial time, had Edward been on the throne.
It's not a question of Edward actually being in an alliance with nazi Germany, which is taking the case too literally. George VI was a vigorous figurehead in the British resolve and determination to resist the Germans, which Edward might not have been, or taken a while to come around to. Edward and Churchill, et.al., given Edward's leanings, might not have been able to form such a formidable and single-minded resistance to German expansionism from the outset. Indeed, different people than Churchill might well have been in positions of non-royal influence in Britain at the crucial time, had Edward been on the throne.
Framed that way, it is certainly an interesting case. Britain did begin on the path to appeasement, only switching to a war stance when Poland was invaded, Britain having joined the Franco-Polish Alliance about a week before the invasion commenced.
If Edward VIII was on the throne, it is merely a question of how long would the British have stayed out of the war under his pressure before they acquiesced to public pressure and reality. Even if Britain gave Poland to Germany without declaring war, it still meant that France and Germany were at war. Is it reasonable to believe that Edward VIII alone could have kept Britain from opposing Germany when France was invaded/fell?
It also begs the question, would Britain have had/exercised enough influence on France to make them stay on the sidelines and let the Nazi's go after the Soviets with no western interference?
While it was certainly possible for Edward VIII to strongly pressure and force his government into such a stance, I don't think he would have as evidenced by one single act, his abdication. When Edward informed the Prime Minister Stanley Bladwin of his intent to marry Wallis Simpson he was meant with strong critique. He even went so far as offering to not make her queen, just some other lesser title and removing any of their children from the succession. This was still not deemed acceptable and offered three choices:
1. Give up the idea of marrying Simpson.
2. Marry her against the wishes of his government.
3. Abdicate.
He knew that if he pushed ahead with the marriage his governments would resign in protest forcing a consitutional crisis. He decided that the best course of action for himself and the country was to abdicate.
Now, if the King of England decided that abdication was the best course of action since his ministers were opposed to the person he wanted to marry, how strong of a stance do you think he would have really taken if his government was pushing for war and he opposed it?
The British Parliament had twice in its history de-throned a sitting king, those being Charles I via the English Civil War in 1649 and James II via the Glorious Revolution in 1688.
That latter event legally established the constitutional precident that the British Monarch can only hold the throne with Parliament's consent.
Had Edward VI chosen option 2 and married Wallace Simpson, would Parliament remove him from the throne and how soon would that have happened? I'm guessing that Edward VIII would have gotten the boot within a fortnight and his brother Bertie would be placed upon the throne - which what actually happened after Edward's abdication.
Would George VI been so generous to the future Duke of Windsor if Edward hadn't abdicated?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
