Should Edward VIII been ostricized the way he was following the abdication?.

[sandy]

If Edward had a "conventional" marriage there still could have been big problems. There was talk he would marry Kaiser Wilhelm's daughter, then later one of his granddaughters. That would have created an explosive situation as far as ties to Germany.

Edward cried when he found out he was King. I think he liked the life as Prince of Wales but horrified at the idea of being King.

Wallis also tried to talk him out of abdicating.

[TLLK]

       

There was no mainstreaming for John by his family

@sandy-Mainstreaming is a late 20th century concept. Even into the  early 1980's it was still a relatively new practice in most public schools in the Western world.  IMO as an educator, to expect those living in the late 19th and early 20th century to be familiar with and to be adhering to 21st century special education standards is a bit far fetched.  :blank:

John lived with the family until his seizures became too severe and his behavior was affected by the stress of palace life. His parents chose to have him leave at Wood Farm.  The options that would have been available to disabled children in the late 19th would have included:neglect, being sold to a freak show,  being homeless, the workhouse, an orphanage, and likely an "accidental death."

John's life at Wood Farm seems to us in 2017 to be a cruel one when compared to today. However it was one of the few humane options truly available at that time.

[Curryong]

Many children in the 19th century who exhibited abnormalities and whose parents were unable to look after them, were shut away in the baldly named public lunatic asylums for the rest of their lives. These included Downes Syndrome children, severe epileptics and the developmentally delayed.

At least John escaped that fate. He was with a much loved nurse in the peace and quiet of the Norfolk countryside, with toys and animals around. Apparently he was a bit lonely but a little girl who lived nearby would visit sometimes to play. John just wouldn't have been able to stand the stresses of being on show as a Prince and living at BP as he became older. And we don't know whether his brother George witnessed an epileptic fit or two. That could have influenced the Wood Farm decision as well.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Wow lots of interesting posts in the last couple of pages, and with a WW2 and politics angle, right up my alley. First off, we can see where the Queen gets her careless attitude with her kids, man George V and Mary, where can I sign up for the parenting class theyre putting on LOL.

Its a shame more of the succession couldnt have been settled while George V was still alive, and while it was discussed about Edward being able to sign a document as PoW to avoid taking the throne (as an aside, can we slip one of those into Charles's daily paperwork  :lol: ) it points out there should have been/should be some act or process for a king/queen to disinherit children deemed unworthy, just like a family business(yes, I know there is a potential for misuse).

Considering whats at stake having a poor monarch, it boggles my mind how careless past generations were with both raising future kings/queens as well as overseeing their unions with others to provide a smooth continuation of things.

David's problem, like Charles, was that he was allowed to dally around as a single man too long. It appears that the single life rots the shaky moral core of the windsor boys.

As for WW2, while im on board with the current paradigm of allied good, nazis bad, I do ask that you remove your hindsight goggles and put on some grey spectacles to see what people were considering as the war was unfolding and it was the future, not history.

Prior to WW2, the bolshevik revolution was brought about by the germans (and funded by some of the wealthy american families) sending Lenin to take Russia out of WW1 as like what would happen in WW2, the germans were fighting a two front war.

As you all know this was a disaster for the Russian czars, and as they were relatives of most of european royalty, they feared, and with good reason, similar uprisings across europe (and america feared the rise of communism with general strikes, etc of large companies). So one has to look at the royals fear of that causing them to look at the old idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as far as Germany was considered, as much as i like to take the piss out of them for siding with them. Also I think the amount they pillory Edward, is to hide their own thoughts pre war (HM saluting, PP at nazi members funerals, etc) PP had said they were terrified of the communists killing more of their extended family in europe.

With the entry of the US into WW1, the previously stalemated sides, now had an overwhelming advantage for the allies, which allowed them to exact fines and payments from Germany which seeded the start of WW2, without that, things would have likely had a detente style conclusion with roughly all sides going back to their default position, and Germany wouldnt have had the crushing poverty that  had sowed the seeds for the Nazis to rise to power.

By the early to late 30s, more western nations had more to fear from communism/Bolshevism than fascism. While both ideologies are flawed, and essentially two sides of the same coin, just different uniforms in power, with most of europe and america having a corporate system already in place, it was the ideology that would have created less turmoil for the average day to day person. The US had a potential coup stopped by Gen Smedley Butler which was funded by large business interests.

The sad thing that people wont admit after WW2, is more people leaned that way than they would admit after the war. Henry Ford had fascist and anti Semitic leanings and sold trucks and other items to the germans before the war, Boeing sold planes to germany, the Luftwaffe could not fly their planes without a fuel additive they got from Standard Oil(esso) all war long, Coca Cola got around the banning of sales to germany by creating Fanta, IBM monthly maintained computers used at concentration camps (the numbers tattooed on inmates were what was fed into the computers), Prescott Bush (HW's dad, and W's grand-dad was found guilty of trading with the enemy while at the Union Banking Corp laundering money for IG Farben). Until the horror of the camps was made public, the war was viewed by a lot of companies as a dispute for politicians, and money could be made on both sides, not the struggle for moral decency it ended up becoming.

Joe Kennedy wanted to stay out of the war, like a lot did prior to pearl harbor, but Joe was a class A dirtbag, making money off running alcohol during prohibition, paid off the mob to steal the Illinois election for JFK (which was allowed to happen to get the US into the war) check out some of the communications between Roosevelt(the other side of his family the Delanos, made tons of money off opium sales to china back in the day) and Edward Mandel House.

My point is, that Europe and America were seeking to hedge their bets until the treaty obligations forced them into war with Germany in 39 (minus the US). The same pre war ignorance over the Germans ultimate plans also was in play with some in the UK wanting to side with Germany against the Russians. Part of them keeping Rudolph Hess was that he was supposedly to broker a peace agreement between the UK and Germany for that purpose.

Many of the royals were of german decent, and most allied countries were not overly accepting of jewish refugees, so until it became shameful to side with Germany, likely more sided with them in secret than we'll ever know.

Back to Edward, a great thumbs up to @TLLK for the great articles on the whole affair. Having him in the bahamas was a wise move, I recall seeing docs on the germans plans to get him to stay in europe, I hadnt seen before the thing over Wallace getting her swimming costume retrieved by diplomats, unbelievable.

These two were too busy living a life of luxury to put serious effort into taking back the throne. (Although im sure during the war hed have taken it if he was given it by the germans had things gone differently, but like everyone else is saying, im sure the germans would have dispatched him soon after) this is sort of alternative fictional history, but had the UK fallen, im sure the US and USSR would have lost the interest to fight in europe and brokered a peace deal as using Iceland for a base to strike at europe would have been impractical. But thats my 2 cents im sure thered be a lot of disagreement, consider USSR left the allies out in the cold having a non aggression pact with Germany till they were double crossed and had one with Japan as well till the final days of WW2 (and set up to be the enemy of the next war, a tremendous amount of money and material sent their way, and Churchill wanted to keep going after Germany was defeated and attack them, but the US refused, its awful to say, but the "smart" thing would have been to let Germany and the USSR knock each other sensless and deal with the remaining party, as they would be in a less strong position, and wed have basically had the 90's "peace dividend in the mid to late 40s...but that was bad for business, check out Ike's "Military industrial comples" speech).

The articles on potentially using a regent to deal with PP is very interesting, I think they were right to fear PP and Mountbatten (like the Windsors who were Saxe Coburg Gothe's, the Mountbattens were Battenburgs before WW1). While not necessarily his nationality of decent being the issue, I do feel Mountbatten had designs on the crown and was morally a corrupt man.

I know it was more flexible in those days with ages, but the whole PP/HM romance was a very seedy affair IMO and shows terrible parental management and an unwillingness to use the royal marriages act to stop this broke Greek/German bedhopper to slide his way into the monarchy. Then we had Mountbatten ply his poor teachings on Charles, who already has more of David in him than im sure he likes, then sows the seeds of the headaches of the last 30 years or so.

But as far as a regent, I dont know if Mary would have been around long enough to chase PP away, as the bench was pretty thin, with Edward gone, Bertie, well, shaky Bertie, and the Duke of Kent a drug user its hard to figure who to put in.

Its interesting to consider if Edward or someone else was put in, if the family life for Charles and co would have fared better with the Queen not having to rule until she was older. While on the one hand one can make an argument for it given how the kids turned out and our current succession situation, but when you look at the last few kings, they havent done much better in managing their children or marriages, so why not keep on the tradition of rudderlessness.

Gawd its a book and a half, left tons out, hope this sparks some lively debate.

Hopefully William will break the cycle and do a good job of raising and marrying them off well.

[Curryong]

I agree with you that prior to WW2 Bolshevism was feared and Russia was a pariah state. Also that several aristo families and British and European royals were very right wing and would rather have been dead than Red, lol. The rose coloured glasses as far as the Nazis were concerned fell for many after the Munich Agreement, however, and the trouble with Edward was not so much that he was an out and out Nazi, which IMO he wasn't but that he never retracted anything or changed his mind about Hiltler or the Second World War. Even as an old man he was still banging on about how Britain shouldn't have got involved and Hitler could have been reasonable if treated nicely (Rubbish!) David was also anti Semitic to the end.

Britain had to get involved in WW2 because it had treaty obligations to both France and Poland. It couldn't have withdrawn and allowed the Soviet Union and Germany to battle it out after 1941. That is because the Soviet Union, with its huge advantages in manpower, would undoubtedly have won. The Russians could well have been toasting their feet in Paris by 1946 without Allied restraints and that would have done Europe no good whatsoever. The Iron Curtain would have been at the Channel coast!

By the way, Hess was kept prisoner in England not because the British wanted to negotiate with him but because he was an enemy combatant and a chief Nazi and because it became quite clear very quickly after he landed and was questioned that he was insane. He certainly wished to stop the war but Hitler did not intend that Hess be his envoy. And after Dunkirk and the first bombings Churchill had determined that there would be no peace negotiations, that Britain would go down fighting come what may, and he took the Cabinet with him, after arguments.

The Queen was in love with Philip from her early teens. She never wanted or considered anyone else. I don't quite know what her parents could have done. He couldn't help being poor, he was of royal blood and he wasn't German. He'd fought for Britain during the war. I think you're attributing a lot more power and persuasional abilities to Mountbatten than he actually had. There is no doubt that he was a very vain man, a legend in his own lunchtime sort of person, but Philip wasn't in his pocket or taking orders from him during his courtship of Elizabeth. There's some evidence that Philip regarded him with a sort of amused tolerance. He had been much closer to the Marquess of Milford Haven, his other uncle, who died young.

Just because certain people, including the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, became paranoid about Mountbatten becoming the power behind the throne of the young Elizabeth didn't mean that it was going to be that way, and in fact it wasn't. That stup little so-called plot has been built up by the DM in various articles into ridiculous proportions. There is no way that Parliament would have allowed an heir to the Throne to be pushed aside for an abdicated King to come back. Elizabeth, after the age of 18, would have been Queen. Full stop.  And whatever can be said about Philip, he has been an enormous support to the Queen for almost 70 years. (By the way the Duke of Kent, who wasn't an addict, was dead by August 1942, while on active service. He was killed in a plane crash, so he wouldn't have been on the throne after the war in any case.)

[amabel]

Well I'd agree about Philip.. He has been an admirable consort for the queen and worth 10 of any of his children and about 100 of any of the grandchildren.  Here he is at 95 only barely stepping down from his work.
But I'd disagree about his not being German.. he certainly Was of German ethnicity.. His "Greek" side was from George I of Greece who was Danish German.. and his mOther Alice of Battenberg was also essentially German in ethnicity.  However he was certainly not a Nazi and fought for Britain, made the British Navy his career and was loyal to his adopted country.
Edw  VIII wasn't a Nazi, but he was right wing.  He was IMO too stupid even to be a committed Nazi, he just supported "Hitler because he was fighting Communism" and also was willig to be friendly with Hitler because he treated him a bit as a King again and Wallis as his consort.  Had he had a chance to become a puppet King during the war, he MIGHT have taken it, but I hope that he woud have realised it was dangerous and disloyal to his family even if he didn't like them.  But then again he might have flet that it was his duty to "become a king" again for his people, to be a representative for them, if Brirtian was conquered.  After the war, I think he had given upany hopes of ever retaining his throne.. and had settled down to lead the useless and trivial life that Wallis enjoyed and he basically was miserable in..

[Curryong]

George I's wife, Philip's grandmother, was a Romanov, so he had a large dollop of Russian blood. And whatever his ethnicity anyway, he had spent years and years in England by the time he married, under the wing of his 'English' relatives.

[amabel]

True but I'd have said that ethnically he was mainly German.  And his sisters had all married German princelings who ended up fighting for Nazi Germany.  but he had adopted Britain as his country and been loyal to it...

[sandy]

I agree with you that prior to WW2 Bolshevism was feared and Russia was a pariah state. Also that several aristo families and British and European royals were very right wing and would rather have been dead than Red, lol. The rose coloured glasses as far as the Nazis were concerned fell for many after the Munich Agreement, however, and the trouble with Edward was not so much that he was an out and out Nazi, which IMO he wasn't but that he never retracted anything or changed his mind about Hiltler or the Second World War. Even as an old man he was still banging on about how Britain shouldn't have got involved and Hitler could have been reasonable if treated nicely (Rubbish!) David was also anti Semitic to the end.

Britain had to get involved in WW2 because it had treaty obligations to both France and Poland. It couldn't have withdrawn and allowed the Soviet Union and Germany to battle it out after 1941. That is because the Soviet Union, with its huge advantages in manpower, would undoubtedly have won. The Russians could well have been toasting their feet in Paris by 1946 without Allied restraints and that would have done Europe no good whatsoever. The Iron Curtain would have been at the Channel coast!

By the way, Hess was kept prisoner in England not because the British wanted to negotiate with him but because he was an enemy combatant and a chief Nazi and because it became quite clear very quickly after he landed and was questioned that he was insane. He certainly wished to stop the war but Hitler did not intend that Hess be his envoy. And after Dunkirk and the first bombings Churchill had determined that there would be no peace negotiations, that Britain would go down fighting come what may, and he took the Cabinet with him, after arguments.

The Queen was in love with Philip from her early teens. She never wanted or considered anyone else. I don't quite know what her parents could have done. He couldn't help being poor, he was of royal blood and he wasn't German. He'd fought for Britain during the war. I think you're attributing a lot more power and persuasional abilities to Mountbatten than he actually had. There is no doubt that he was a very vain man, a legend in his own lunchtime sort of person, but Philip wasn't in his pocket or taking orders from him during his courtship of Elizabeth. There's some evidence that Philip regarded him with a sort of amused tolerance. He had been much closer to the Marquess of Milford Haven, his other uncle, who died young.

Just because certain people, including the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, became paranoid about Mountbatten becoming the power behind the throne of the young Elizabeth didn't mean that it was going to be that way, and in fact it wasn't. That stup little so-called plot has been built up by the DM in various articles into ridiculous proportions. There is no way that Parliament would have allowed an heir to the Throne to be pushed aside for an abdicated King to come back. Elizabeth, after the age of 18, would have been Queen. Full stop.  And whatever can be said about Philip, he has been an enormous support to the Queen for almost 70 years. (By the way the Duke of Kent, who wasn't an addict, was dead by August 1942, while on active service. He was killed in a plane crash, so he wouldn't have been on the throne after the war in any case.)

I read that the Duke of Kent was taking drugs (when he was single, as I recall) and had to be given treatments and ultimately had it under control. But he had both male and female lovers. Marina his wife was humiliated at times when a lover of her husband taunted her (when she went out with her husband). I think Mariana and George had a reconciliation of sorts at the start of the War.

The Duke of Kent was considered to be the one to replace Edward VIII as King in 1936 because he unlike Bertie had a male heir. This was quickly dismissed. I think his life style had something to do with it also.

Elizabeth would have married nobody else but Philip. The most her parents did was decree that she and Philip wait a year before getting engaged. According to Crawfie, Elizabeth and Philip were very upset at having to wait.
Double post auto-merged: October 13, 2017, 12:19:41 PM

Many children in the 19th century who exhibited abnormalities and whose parents were unable to look after them, were shut away in the baldly named public lunatic asylums for the rest of their lives. These included Downes Syndrome children, severe epileptics and the developmentally delayed.

At least John escaped that fate. He was with a much loved nurse in the peace and quiet of the Norfolk countryside, with toys and animals around. Apparently he was a bit lonely but a little girl who lived nearby would visit sometimes to play. John just wouldn't have been able to stand the stresses of being on show as a Prince and living at BP as he became older. And we don't know whether his brother George witnessed an epileptic fit or two. That could have influenced the Wood Farm decision as well.

I read when I was looking at this topic on the Internet. That Edward visited Lalla Bill when she was in her nineties and he saw a photo of Prince John prominently displayed in her home.
Double post auto-merged: October 13, 2017, 02:29:55 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362442/Revealed-The-secret-illegitimate-brother-Queens-cousin-got-pain-knowing-real-parents.html

More about George, Duke of Kent. Barbara Cartland also had made claims that Raine was the daughter of the Duke of Kent

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

I agree with you that prior to WW2 Bolshevism was feared and Russia was a pariah state. Also that several aristo families and British and European royals were very right wing and would rather have been dead than Red, lol. The rose coloured glasses as far as the Nazis were concerned fell for many after the Munich Agreement, however, and the trouble with Edward was not so much that he was an out and out Nazi, which IMO he wasn't but that he never retracted anything or changed his mind about Hiltler or the Second World War. Even as an old man he was still banging on about how Britain shouldn't have got involved and Hitler could have been reasonable if treated nicely (Rubbish!) David was also anti Semitic to the end.

Britain had to get involved in WW2 because it had treaty obligations to both France and Poland. It couldn't have withdrawn and allowed the Soviet Union and Germany to battle it out after 1941. That is because the Soviet Union, with its huge advantages in manpower, would undoubtedly have won. The Russians could well have been toasting their feet in Paris by 1946 without Allied restraints and that would have done Europe no good whatsoever. The Iron Curtain would have been at the Channel coast!

By the way, Hess was kept prisoner in England not because the British wanted to negotiate with him but because he was an enemy combatant and a chief Nazi and because it became quite clear very quickly after he landed and was questioned that he was insane. He certainly wished to stop the war but Hitler did not intend that Hess be his envoy. And after Dunkirk and the first bombings Churchill had determined that there would be no peace negotiations, that Britain would go down fighting come what may, and he took the Cabinet with him, after arguments.

The Queen was in love with Philip from her early teens. She never wanted or considered anyone else. I don't quite know what her parents could have done. He couldn't help being poor, he was of royal blood and he wasn't German. He'd fought for Britain during the war. I think you're attributing a lot more power and persuasional abilities to Mountbatten than he actually had. There is no doubt that he was a very vain man, a legend in his own lunchtime sort of person, but Philip wasn't in his pocket or taking orders from him during his courtship of Elizabeth. There's some evidence that Philip regarded him with a sort of amused tolerance. He had been much closer to the Marquess of Milford Haven, his other uncle, who died young.

Just because certain people, including the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, became paranoid about Mountbatten becoming the power behind the throne of the young Elizabeth didn't mean that it was going to be that way, and in fact it wasn't. That stup little so-called plot has been built up by the DM in various articles into ridiculous proportions. There is no way that Parliament would have allowed an heir to the Throne to be pushed aside for an abdicated King to come back. Elizabeth, after the age of 18, would have been Queen. Full stop.  And whatever can be said about Philip, he has been an enormous support to the Queen for almost 70 years. (By the way the Duke of Kent, who wasn't an addict, was dead by August 1942, while on active service. He was killed in a plane crash, so he wouldn't have been on the throne after the war in any case.)

I agree about Edward being more blunderer than ideologue, almost like a nouveau-riche but with a pedigree. He was more concerned with a life of idle sensory gratification, than a burning desire to change the world. Also, the west tends to give itself a sore elbow patting itself on the back for being on the "right side of history" when they held a lot of the same views as the Nazis just wernt prepared to go that far.

Forced sterilizations continued in the west till the 1970s in some countries (i know here in Canada it continued till the 70s for some groups), jewish refugees were routinely denied entry to various allied countries, things like the Tuskegee experiments on african americans, etc. under the cover of "eugenics" by ppl like Margaret Sanger, Hitler took his "inspiration" for the final solution from the way the US waged war on Native american populations in the 1800's.

So there was a real case of ppl recoiling I think as much as them seeing how close we came to "the dark side" as much as by the horrors themselves.

Yes, the UK entered the war over the treaty with Poland, but the military alliance Czechoslovakia had with France proved useless against German aggression. Its a case of "what if" but the UK could have not leapt to Poland's aid, what was going to happen, a subjugated Poland attack the UK?? Im sure they had guilt over previous attempts to appease Hitler, but had they held back, it would have given them time to build up armaments to deal with the eventual victor.

Had Germany had access to the units used to hold western europe, it would have easily broken through to Moscow. Now Stalin had plans to move manufacturing to the middle of the country had that happened. But if the allies, citing the non aggression pact the USSR signed with Germany, they could have sent over no money or material, using it for their own countries, and without the material advantage the west gave the USSR, their numerical advantage wouldnt have been enough to defeat germany, at least not for several years. I have to disagree with the USSR being able to make it to the french coast.

If the allies wanted to go full on Machiavelli, they could have had a "false flag" attack staged to get Japan into the war against the USSR, as it was the deployment of the far east and eurasian troops to stalingrad that was possible due to that non aggression pact.

Between germany trying to hold their "breathing room" in western Russia to the Urals and keeping Japan at bay, both germany and the USSR would have destroyed each other, IMO.

As for Rudolph Hess, heres an interesting article on Hitler knowing about the "peace plan" to try and have the UK aid him against the USSR. Most of the "acknowledged" info on Hess, acted alone, a nut, etc. is propaganda im afraid.

Hitler 'gave go-ahead to Rudolf Hess peace mission' | Daily Mail Online

How the Nazis offered a peace treaty in World War II (but it would have meant selling out the Russians) | Daily Mail Online

Nazis ‘offered to leave western Europe in exchange for free hand to attack USSR’ - Telegraph

As nutters as Hitler was, he did hold the UK in high esteem, there was even the odd case of the British Free Corps of British and Dominion recruits (usually prisoners, so one wonders at how voluntary it was) that fought for Germany.

British Free Corps - Wikipedia

But churchill was of course right to doubt Hitlers promises, and he wanted the US in the war, prior to 41, (and the US wanted to as well, but like Mandell House, I believe said the other side had to be maneuvered into firing the first shot). But one could argue the US might have been better served trying to fool Japan that they were attacked by the USSR and drawing them into attacking them. (if you think thats nuts, its widely accepted that the germans used a false flag attack, claiming Polish troops attacked them, when it was germans dressed as poles, I find it doubtful that only the "bad guys" use false flags.

But its my belief that the powers that be, wanted a US-USSR post war world, so the european powers were clipped of their empires, figuratively if not literally, and the US became the new empire. When you look at how the USSR started the war, neutral if not hostile to the allies by way of the non aggression pacts allowing germany more troops to attack us, to getting massive amounts of investment, armaments and of course the technological advancements that came from having western arms.

There was the story of some B-29s that got stranded in Vladivostok on bombing runs over Japan, and the USSR seized them, and copied the designs to make the "bear" bomber, the engineers were so frightened of Stalin and his demand for an exact copy they even duplicated the "Boeing" logos on parts  :lol:

The USSR could be argued as the real "winner" of WW2 going from a backwater country to a world superpower for almost 50 years.

As for HM and PP and the throne, it would have been tricky to pull off unless had steps been taken back when George V died, by the time George VI had died she was married and had an heir born already.

[Curryong]

Elizabeth was nine years old when her grandfather George V died. I doubt very much that any thought of Prince Philip, his uncle or her future marriage was in her mind at that time or in that of anybody around her, father, courtiers, the Prince of Wales or anyone else.

The pseudo science of eugenics, involving forced sterilisation and so on, was believed in all over Europe and North America long before and long after the Nazis (though the Nazis leaped on it and used it for their own purposes) long before and long after the Second World War.

It was developed as a theory by Francis Galton, the cousin of Darwin in the mid 19th century. No-one is denying that all countries had their dark sides in public policy, very much including Stalinist Russia (the 1920s genocide in the Ukraine and other places is but one example of their policies,) but that fact cannot negate the fact that Nazism was an evil creed and it had to be dealt with. At first only Britain, (the British Empire)  and France were willing to do so.

Britain's population felt enormous guilt after letting down Czechoslovakia at Munich. Neville Chamberlain followed a disastrous policy of appeasement long after Hitler's determination to keep on annexing countries became clear. He didn't order Britain to arm (and develop radar etc) until after the Munich negotiations. And before him, Stanley Baldwin was equally weak. Due mainly to economic reasons Britain's defences had been left in a dire state since the 1920s.

Nevertheless, Britain had to stand firm over Poland. Once Hiltler's aims became clear to Chamberlain's Cabinet, war became inevitable. The next country he tried to snaffle became the line in the sand. The invasion of Poland was it. Britain had to show that it meant business and was not going to stand by and allow any more land grabs. That could have gone on for years. The argument more time, more time, didn't cut it and doesn't now. It would have showed enormous weakness to Hitler and to the rest of the world.

I took modern European history as a minor at Uni (including the path to WW2) but I'm rusty on it now. I'll have to get my dusty old books out!

I'll leave Hess for later (though he was a self proclaimed negotiator for peace with Britain. There have always been other theories of what he was about and how much Adolf knew but Hess did leave Hitler a note before he flew to Britain, telling him what his intentions were and sending his leader into a rage.)

Hitler did have some admiration for Britain. He had after all grown up at a time when the British Empire was at its height, had fought in WW1 and he admired raw power. However that only went so far. When it became clear that Britain wasn't going to play ball, beg for a peace treaty, and allow him a completely free hand to eventually subdue the Soviets, his mood towards Britain's leaders changed. Operation Sea Lion, the Nazi plan developed in 1940 to subjugate Britain far more harshly than was to be done elsewhere after conquest, showed that.
Double post auto-merged: October 13, 2017, 09:17:39 PM

The article below more or less follows what I was taught years ago about Hess's mission. He was losing influence with Hitler by 1940.

Will We Ever Know Why Nazi Leader Rudolf Hess Flew to Scotland in the Middle of World War II? | History | Smithsonian

[LouisFerdinand]

If Edward had a "conventional" marriage there still could have been big problems. There was talk he would marry Kaiser Wilhelm's daughter, then later one of his granddaughters. That would have created an explosive situation as far as ties to Germany.

Edward cried when he found out he was King. I think he liked the life as Prince of Wales but horrified at the idea of being King.

Wallis also tried to talk him out of abdicating.

@sandy, Which of Wilhelm's granddaughters was mentioned who might marry Edward?

[sandy]

Victoria Louise, the Kaiser's daughter was the first one in mind to be Edward's wife.

Her daughter, Frederica of Hanover was considered as a bride for Edward later on.

[amabel]

Really?  Since the German RF lost its throne when Edward was a very oung man, I ca't imagine why they would have thogut it was a good idea to marry him to a German princess.  And I thought that soon after the war, George V made an announcmetnt at least in the family, that it woudld be OK and desireable for his children to marry into the British aristocracy rather than go hunting for partners abroad, just because they were royal

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Elizabeth was nine years old when her grandfather George V died. I doubt very much that any thought of Prince Philip, his uncle or her future marriage was in her mind at that time or in that of anybody around her, father, courtiers, the Prince of Wales or anyone else.

The pseudo science of eugenics, involving forced sterilisation and so on, was believed in all over Europe and North America long before and long after the Nazis (though the Nazis leaped on it and used it for their own purposes) long before and long after the Second World War.

It was developed as a theory by Francis Galton, the cousin of Darwin in the mid 19th century. No-one is denying that all countries had their dark sides in public policy, very much including Stalinist Russia (the 1920s genocide in the Ukraine and other places is but one example of their policies,) but that fact cannot negate the fact that Nazism was an evil creed and it had to be dealt with. At first only Britain, (the British Empire)  and France were willing to do so.

Britain's population felt enormous guilt after letting down Czechoslovakia at Munich. Neville Chamberlain followed a disastrous policy of appeasement long after Hitler's determination to keep on annexing countries became clear. He didn't order Britain to arm (and develop radar etc) until after the Munich negotiations. And before him, Stanley Baldwin was equally weak. Due mainly to economic reasons Britain's defences had been left in a dire state since the 1920s.

Nevertheless, Britain had to stand firm over Poland. Once Hiltler's aims became clear to Chamberlain's Cabinet, war became inevitable. The next country he tried to snaffle became the line in the sand. The invasion of Poland was it. Britain had to show that it meant business and was not going to stand by and allow any more land grabs. That could have gone on for years. The argument more time, more time, didn't cut it and doesn't now. It would have showed enormous weakness to Hitler and to the rest of the world.

I took modern European history as a minor at Uni (including the path to WW2) but I'm rusty on it now. I'll have to get my dusty old books out!

I'll leave Hess for later (though he was a self proclaimed negotiator for peace with Britain. There have always been other theories of what he was about and how much Adolf knew but Hess did leave Hitler a note before he flew to Britain, telling him what his intentions were and sending his leader into a rage.)

Hitler did have some admiration for Britain. He had after all grown up at a time when the British Empire was at its height, had fought in WW1 and he admired raw power. However that only went so far. When it became clear that Britain wasn't going to play ball, beg for a peace treaty, and allow him a completely free hand to eventually subdue the Soviets, his mood towards Britain's leaders changed. Operation Sea Lion, the Nazi plan developed in 1940 to subjugate Britain far more harshly than was to be done elsewhere after conquest, showed that.
Double post auto-merged: October 13, 2017, 09:17:39 PM

The article below more or less follows what I was taught years ago about Hess's mission. He was losing influence with Hitler by 1940.

Will We Ever Know Why Nazi Leader Rudolf Hess Flew to Scotland in the Middle of World War II? | History | Smithsonian

Yes, eugeneics was popular all over the western world, Galton and Darwins families tried to breed together as much as possible, they thought theyd create superior children but the experiment failed with numerous birth defects.

Im not disputing the evils of the third reich, im just saying the manner and timing of its dispatch was poorly thought out if the goal was the triumph of western democratic Judaeo-christian way of life. The British were known for taking the idea of "divide and rule" with their possessions, I find it very odd that it wasnt used here (unless as I suspect, the plan all along was to have the USSR as the next enemy, lets not forget how fast Germany went from a broken hyper inflated currency nation to one of the heavily armed nations on earth...they had help, Orwells words about war being used to rob the people of their material wealth ring in my head).

Britain was not alone in not being armed well in the interwar years, most western nations had that problem, including the United States, that makes an extra year or two even more vital, not only for the wests rearmament, but if the USSR and Germany were locked in a fight for survival, it would have diverted resources from their "wonderweapons" and the final solution.

That article did give the usual version of Hess, but it also mentioned several missing and classified documents, as well as Hess's unanalysed food samples, etc. Also the nature and duration of his confinement suggests it was designed to keep him from talking.

As far as Hitler "not knowing" about the mission, I hate to use this, but how many times have we seen in the flicks "this is a secret mission if youre caught we will disavow it, etc." With the failure of the Battle of Britain for Germany, operation Sea Lion would have been very difficult to pull off, so any way to get the UK out of the war for awhile, was a worthwhile gamble for Germany. (especially with Germany declaring war on the US after pearl harbor, its fate was sealed, the US if necessary would have done what they did to Iceland and basically peacefully occupied the UK to get at Germany, by that time industry and banking wanted war and now it was given to them on a silver platter). But had they secured that arrangement with the UK and not declared war on the US, its likely the US would have kept its war theater to the pacific.

Germany's main foe in racial terms in europe(aside from the jewish people) were the Slavs and Eurasians which he viewed as subhuman, He failed to do the necessary diplomatic work to get the "buy-in" from the west, for anything beyond his supposed claims of just wanting to unite ethnic Germans, that was his mistake, and the west's mistake was rushing in, when ill prepared to do so, for an objective of limited political payoff, that ended up still being in "enemy" control with the USSR controlling Poland, and the whole eastern bloc after the war.

Two to three years could have allowed the allies to roll almost unopposed through all of europe and politically we'd be 50 years ahead of where we are now, bypassing the cold war entirely, Germany would have been subdued from future war ambition and Russia would likely be where they are now, but  in terms of borders, but weaker militarily with no western material aid or german scientific secrets. But that would have been bad for business....

[sandy]

Really?  Since the German RF lost its throne when Edward was a very oung man, I ca't imagine why they would have thogut it was a good idea to marry him to a German princess.  And I thought that soon after the war, George V made an announcmetnt at least in the family, that it woudld be OK and desireable for his children to marry into the British aristocracy rather than go hunting for partners abroad, just because they were royal

This is what I read in various biographies. One of the Grand Duchesses of Russia was even considered for a possible bride for Edward.

[LouisFerdinand]

@sandy, Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna was the Grand Duchess.

[amabel]

This is what I read in various biographies. One of the Grand Duchesses of Russia was even considered for a possible bride for Edward.

really?  That wuodl have been an even bigger disaster.  If it was Olga, Nicholas II's daughter.  It would have really tied the Windsors to the disastrous fate of Nicholas and his family

[Curryong]

Not to mention the fact that Olga might well have been a carrier for haemophilia. The Windsors were lucky that their dynasty escaped any complications of that kind.

I have to say it doesn't sound very likely, except in a daydreaming 'I wonder who this boy will marry one day?' sort of way. The religious question would have proved an enormous barrier. The Romanovs were devoted to their Russian orthodox religion. Alix  especially was almost obsessive about it. Edward would have course been Supreme Governor of the Church of England when King.

One of the main reasons Alix reluctantly agreed to a meeting between Olga and young Carol of Romania just before WWI, was the shared religion of their Royal Houses. The young people were indifferent to each other, though.

[sandy]

Alix herself had to convert.  I do think the royals wanted to think realistically about future dynastic matches. The only one of George V's sons  to marry a royal princess from another country was George, Duke of Kent who married Princess Marina.

Olga may or may not have been a carrier. Unfortunately the "test" back then was if one of her sons developed hemophilia. Today there would have been DNA testing of course.

Olga could have been saved if she married a foreign royal and left Russia.

[amabel]

Not to mention the fact that Olga might well have been a carrier for haemophilia. The Windsors were lucky that their dynasty escaped any complications of that kind.

I have to say it doesn't sound very likely, except in a daydreaming 'I wonder who this boy will marry one day?' sort of way. The religious question would have proved an enormous barrier. The Romanovs were devoted to their Russian orthodox religion.

so what is the evidence for this, that there wer plans or suggestions that Edw should marry either a german Princess or one of the Russians? when the War Started Edw was just 20, so surely nooone was really planning his marriage prior to the War?
ANd even fi they were, there was enough bad blood between The German Empire and Birtain all through the Edwardian era, for the Prussian dynasty to be considered a bad choice.
and while the Russians were allies, they were considered so backward in many ways, and there was hostility, among British liberals to the Tsar.. so would the RF have really wanted Edward hooked up with one of the daughters?  (I don't think the religious question would have been that important, I'm sure Olga would have just converted, even if Alicky wasn't keen. - Unless Olga was very devout?).
But I don't believe that the BRF under the "hostile to foregners" George V was really tat keen for any of the Princes to make foreign marriages unless to some fairly neutral country.

[sandy]

It is in the biographies I read of him. 

Victoria and her son Edward had married off the younger generations to others in royal houses. There was naturally talk of Edward being married off too. It's in the biographies of him.

[LouisFerdinand]

@sandy, That is correct. There was discussion about Prince Edward (David) marrying Olga Nikolaevna.

[amabel]

It is in the biographies I read of him. 

Victoria and her son Edward had married off the younger generations to others in royal houses. There was naturally talk of Edward being married off too. It's in the biographies of him.

which biographies?  Its sometime since I read any of George V or Edward VIII

[Curryong]

Victoria was dead by early 1901 (when David was five) Edward VII died in 1910 when his grandson Edward was nearly 14, so they wouldn't be matchmaking on David's behalf in his young manhood. King George V and Queen Mary were very different kettles of fish to Victoria. I wouldn't put matchmaking activities for their children high on either of their agendas and none of their children married at a very early age.

Look, I don't dispute that perhaps newspapers, magazines and different female relatives around 'the extensive Royal mob' may have raised the prospect of Edward and Olga making a match of it in the future. It's the sort of thing that newspapers mused on with a young Charles and Princess Marie-Astrid in the 1970s. (They never met.)

However, consider the facts. Edward was born in the summer of 1894. He therefore was just 20 years old when World War One broke out. Was he ready to marry at twenty with a European war on the immediate horizon, especially with non-pushy parents? Don't think so. And in wartime there was no chance of he and Olga meeting.

They had seen each other in person for the one and only time as young children when the Tsar and Tsarina and their young family paid a brief visit to England on the Imperial yacht.

The rumours about Edward and Victoria of Prussia had a few more legs (a very few)  as at least the Hoenzollens and the BRF met reasonably frequently. However, Edward was only in his late teens when Victoria fell deeply in love with the Duke of Brunswick's heir and married him shortly before WW1 broke out.

The only young Prince that it is known that Alix reluctantly consented to Olga meeting was the heir to the Romanian throne, Prince Carol. Neither of the young people liked each other, and no doubt Alix took her daughter home with a sense of relief. She liked her daughters being at home with her and Nicholas.

Olga was reputed (and only reputed) to have had a few mild flirtations with a couple of Russian princelings and her mother is known to have refused an offer by a Prince Boris on her daughter's behalf as he was very much older and apparently debauched.

If there is anything in any serious biography of King George V, Queen Mary or Edward VIII referring to Edward's parents communicating with the Tsar about their son (just 20 in 1914, remember) wishing to make an offer for Olga, or any of the sets of parents arranging a meeting for the young people or even discussing a match between them by letter, then I would like to read it, as in no bio that I have read and there have been several, has anything of that sort been mentioned.

Olga was, like her father, Russian to her bootstraps and her heart and soul. She is said to have commented several times that she never wished to live outside Russia, or marry a non-Russian. If the war had never occurred and the dynasty had survived then I have no doubt whatsoever that Olga would have ended up as the wife of a high-born Russian aristocrat, perhaps from one of the extended branches of the Romanov clan.