What if Edward VIII never abdicated?

Following on from the: What if FDR had lived?
How much do you know about the abdication? Had Edward not abdicated, would it have changed the course of WW2? Supposing that instead of marrying Wallis Simpson he married his old love Thelma Furness, Viscountess Furness? Would he have become Hitler's puppet in England? Would he have joined the Axis? I would like to think not, but it's a disturbing thought none the less. Anyone want to speculate? Here's Lizzie's take on it, lifted from the FDR thread: It makes me shudder.

LizzieMaine said:

On June 22, 1941, Germany shocks the world by launching Operation Sea Lion -- invading the South Coast of England from Axis bases on the Normandy coast. London is sacked within a week of the invasion, and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and King George VI are publicly executed as "traitors to the British people." Edward VIII is restored to the throne as an Axis puppet. Oswald Mosely becomes Prime Minister, with Rudolf Hess as Berlin's official representative in London. Standing in Westminster Abbey, Adolf Hitler proclaims the next phase of his Thousand Year Reich -- the cleansing of the continent of "inferior elements." In America, President Lindbergh praises the triumph of the Aryan people and pledges American support for the New Order in Europe. Hitler looks across the Atlantic and smiles enigmatically.

Click to expand...

I think there's two scenarios in which EVIII doesn't abdicate: Wallis Simpson dies, or he's convinced to accept a "Morganic" marriage where Wally doesn't become queen.

In the first such case, I don't see a whole lot of difference in the way things unfold -- Munich still happens, the idea of an alliance with the USSR is still rejected in the wake of Munich, and the Polish crisis still happens. EVIII is sympathetic to the German point of view on all of these situations, but in keeping with tradition he keeps his political views to himself except in perhaps subtle comments in speeches in support of keeping the peace. Possibly there's enough influence from the Crown to delay Britian's involvement in the war until after the fall of France, in which case the threat of an invasion becomes even more pressing. Whether one actually happens or not is up to Hitler -- but it may be he figures he doesn't need to invade if he can swing a diplomatic solution. He'd rather focus on Russia, anyway, and does so, but he still finds the Red Army a bit more to chew on than he anticipated.

In the second such case, the most likely result would be a bitter, angry King and the constitutional crisis everyone was predicting. The government is dissolved, and a general election is called. Humiliated, Stanley Baldwin retires from public life. Churchill, who supported EVIII during the crisis, and who had strong support in the press to succeed Baldwin, becomes Prime Minister four years ahead of schedule, and is Britian's representative at Munich. He knows the country isn't up for a war yet, and the conference unfolds much as it did in real life, but after the conference, Churchill reluctantly supports the idea of an alliance with the USSR to keep Hitler in check. The crown opposes this, and public opinion is likewise fanned up in opposition to such an agreement. Churchill's popularity drops sharply, the press is screaming for his head, and in mid-1939, EVIII shocks the world by dissolving the government *again*, and in the election that follows Churchill loses his seat in the Commons. The Tories retain their majority, with Neville Chamberlain taking over as Prime Minister, just in time for the Polish crisis. The USSR, fed up with Britian's indecisiveness, and looking to its own interests, concludes its non-aggression pact with Germany. Britian, in a hopeless muddle from the events of the previous three years, declares its neutrality as Hitler marches into Poland. France, with no ally to count on, experiences a crisis of its own. Deladier steps down as Prime Minister and is replaced by Petain, who concludes a non-aggression pact with Germany.

And Britian Stands Alone. With no other recourse, Chamberlain concludes a treaty with Germany, and Hitler turns his full attention eastward. With no need to split its focus, the Wehrmact plows into the Soviet Union, and after a merciless battle, Nazi troops enter Moscow in the fall of 1941.

America, paralyzed by the unfolding of events, is left helpless. President Wendell Willkie -- an interventionist at heart -- finds himself dealing with a Congress dominated by isolationists satisified to let "Hitler and Stalin annihilate each other", and in frustration he commits suicide in mid-1942 rather than watch half the world ground under Hitler's heel.

The new president, Charles McNary, has issues of his own -- his mind suffers from the fatal brain tumor that will take his life in early 1944, and with isolationists still firmly in control of Congress, the US finally concludes a non-aggression pact with Htiler in 1943, guaranteeing the Greater German Reich a Sphere of Influence covering the entire Eastern Hemisphere, where the racial policies laid out in Mein Kampf are fully implemented. The Jewish population of the Reich Sphere of Influence is exterminated. Tens of millions of Slavs are slaughtered, with the rest put to work on Reich farms. They are kept illiterate and most are sterilized, other than those kept for breeding like the livestock they are considered to be.

A long, dismal Cold War finds the two sides of the world glaring at each other into the 21st Century.

Good grief Lizzie, you scare the crap out of me. Worth remembering though that the accusations of Edward being pro-Nazi stem from his visit in 1937 to Germany where he said complimentary things about his host (Hitler) and because he was said to favour appeasement. That he favoured appeasement is hardly surprising; it was the Government policy of the day.
Edward was a self centred, irresponsible, playboy with no great intelligence who enjoyed being flattered, and the Nazis were prepared to flatter him a great deal. They were also prepared to receive Wallace Simpson in social functions while the British treated her as a leper. That Edward would say complimentary things about the Germans in return is therefore understandable. Neither of these things makes him a traitor; stupid yes, traitor no. As to what he would have done as king; he’d have done as he was told. In the Twentieth Century British Kings do what their Prime Minister’s tell them, not the other way around.
In regards to his character and the level of influence Simpson had on his behaviour; when the Germans invaded France, Edward was a liaison officer attached to the French High Command, he deserted his post and fled with Wallace to the South of France, then over the border into Spain. The difference in his behaviour then, compared to it in the First World War, when he’d tried to get to the Western Front as often as possible, is significant.

Kinda think Lizzie theory is a possible outcome.

Pretty much certain Britain would of agreed to the peace terms Hitler put forward in 1940, making the war between the Soviet Union and Germany a very close thing.

I don't think it would have made much difference in the short run. The government kept him on a short leash. Notice that when he put his foot down about marrying the woman he loved, it was he who lost his job not the prime minister or Parllament.

In the longer term we would have had no Queen Elizabeth. We would have had King Edward until 1972 and then his son. Presumably he would have had a different wife and probably children.

What power did the King have during WWII? Wasn't he basically a figure head, going around boosting moral? If that is true, I think Burtie would have done a better job then his brother. I could picture Wallis conversing with the common people on a more down to earth manner. Also, he would not have gone to the Bahama's and spouted off secrets to the NAZI's. As Stanley said, they would have "kept him on a short leash," very short indeed!

GHT said:

Good grief Lizzie, you scare the crap out of me. Worth remembering though that the accusations of Edward being pro-Nazi stem from his visit in 1937 to Germany where he said complimentary things about his host (Hitler) and because he was said to favour appeasement. That he favoured appeasement is hardly surprising; it was the Government policy of the day.

Click to expand...

Based on the few archive materials that are available, it is clear that he maintained his Nazi sympathies into the War, and as late as early 1944 only turned down the offer to become Hitler's puppet king in Britain because he realised that Nazi Germany was going to lose - and didn't want to face the inevitable music when that happened. There are plenty of accounts which suggst that he also maintained his Nazi sympathies well past the end of the war, the exposure of the death camps, and all else.

Edward was a self centred, irresponsible, playboy with no great intelligence who enjoyed being flattered, and the Nazis were prepared to flatter him a great deal. They were also prepared to receive Wallace Simpson in social functions while the British treated her as a leper.

Click to expand...

Certainly part of it... though if anything she was far more of a sympathiser than he was. Mind you, the British aristocracy of the time, far from condemning this (Nazi sympathisers were rife in that strata of society), didn't care fo Wallis Simpson because she was a colonial. The late Queen Mother, Queen alongside Bertie after the abdication (and perhaps the most airbrushed public figure of modern times, reputation wise) hated Simpson with a passion, simply for being a 'vulgar American'.

In terms of him being a playboy with no interest in ruling, it's certainly true he didn't want to be King, but he also had made himself very unpopular in government circles by interfering in politics and making public pronouncements on the same, both as Prince of Wales and as King. Had he shown no interest whatever in politics, he'd likely have been much less a target for removal, even if, ironically, stepping down suited him just fine.

That Edward would say complimentary things about the Germans in return is therefore understandable. Neither of these things makes him a traitor; stupid yes, traitor no. As to what he would have done as king; he’d have done as he was told. In the Twentieth Century British Kings do what their Prime Minister’s tell them, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

Well, it's a bit more complex than that. The crown is not the powerless, nominal figurehead of popular blief; there are a whole range of powers which still come under Crown Prerogative. For instance, the power to declare war (despite the convention, since 2003, for there to be a debate on this in the commons) remains at the behest of the Crown, not parliament. Typically these powers are now by convention wielded by the Prime Minister (with no accountability to Parliament for the same), but there is nothing in place to stop the monarch from deciding to start pushing back. Similarly, were the sitting monarch to defy Parliament and refuse to give Royal Assent to a Bill (or to refuse the advice of the Privy Council with regards to a Royal Charter), it cannot become law. By convention, these powers are not wielded, given an 'understanding' between the Crown and Parliament, but Edward VIII certainly was not powerless to refuse Parliament had he been so inclined. The simple matter was that he did not want to be King at that point, and so was only too happy to let it go in favour of his playboy lifestyle.

The whole hoohah about him giving up the throne "for love" was perhaps the biggest smokescreen of twentieth century British politics. It is now abundantly clear that it was owing to his Nazi sympathies, however, because of the popularity of the very same in many corners of the British establishment in the early thirties, the PM had to concoct this story. In reality, neither of them seem particularly keen on having been married to the other, and Wallis Simpson is known to have kept up an intimate correspondence with a previous husband, whom many historians now believe she never stopped loving (despite her affrais, of course).

Churchill was a bit of a warmonger, but I'm inclined to agree with Lizzie that he wouldn't have rushed into it. Unless, perhaps, he could have exploited some situation to get earlier US Support (though I don't think there's anything that stands out as an obvious Lusitania type incident that could be allowed to happen or at least exploited after the fact). And certainly the right to dissolve Parliament remains a Crown Power, and so he could have done that. I suspect that in those days when speaking critically of the monarchy was much more socially frowned upon (and the Treason offences, not being subject to the limitations of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, had real teeth), times also in which the press was very significantly more deferential to the Crown than has been the case in more recent decades, he may well have gotten away with it. It is, of course, possible that in the future he may have provoked very significant constitutional change in the UK had he stayed in post and been a nightmare.

Lizzie, how do you figure the Japanese attack on the Western powers at the end of '41 in your scenario? As I understand it, Hitler didn't have a clue they were going to do this and wasn't exactly happy when he found out...

Possibly Hitler might have been even more enthusiastic about an alliance with Tokyo as a weapon against the USSR if he didn't have to worry about the British, and possibly he might even have negotiated with his conjectural British allies for bases in India which might have brought the Nazi "helping hand" closer to Tokyo and might perhaps have encouraged Tokyo to consider the benefits of a cold war against the US rather than a hot one. In such a case, there might not have been a Pearl Harbor attack, but I think the situation in the US would have been even more unstable.

They could have accepted an American but they could not accept a divorcee with two husbands living and a shady past in Shanghai.

Quote from the wife of an MP of the time: "You are a man and a politician, and you have to deal with all sorts. But I will not be introduced to that whore".

The upper strata of society cut her dead.

Contemporary joke I heard from an Englishman who was there at the time. You won't find it in print for obvious reasons.

Did you hear the King joined the Merchant Marine? He's third mate on an American tramp.

Stanley Doble said:

Contemporary joke I heard from an Englishman who was there at the time. You won't find it in print for obvious reasons.

Did you hear King Edward is joining the Merchant Marine? He's to be third mate on an American tramp.

Click to expand...

Ouch...

Stanley Doble said:

Did you hear King Edward is joining the Merchant Marine? He's to be third mate on an American tramp.

Click to expand...

I always find it funny when you read history books, they make it sound like everyone was always on the same page. You never heard much about internal strife until the post-war era is mentioned.
Just goes to show that in any era, there are those who don't like what's going on...

I was surprised to find how popular Edward was among the working class in Canada and England even into the sixties and seventies. I knew older men who would not hear a word against him. This puzzled me enough to ask why. The reasons they gave were vague, but seemed to boil down to the fact that they thought he was on the side of the working class. The only evidence I can find of this is some official visits he made to poor areas and disaster areas before he was king. Nevertheless, they were for him and felt he got a raw deal.

It was the upper class and especially the middle class who couldn't stand him. Or rather couldn't stand the idea of the Empire being governed from the Ritz bar, as one put it.

p51 said:

I always find it funny when you read history books, they make it sound like everyone was always on the same page. You never heard much about internal strife until the post-war era is mentioned.
Just goes to show that in any era, there are those who don't like what's going on...

Click to expand...

You have to go back to original sources or at least contemporary sources. If you do that you will get quite a different view than if you only read someone else's opinion or conclusions.

It can help to read books by different authors with different views of the same situation.

Stanley Doble said:

You have to go back to original sources or at least contemporary sources. If you do that you will get quite a different view than if you only read someone else's opinion or conclusions.

It can help to read books by different authors with different views of the same situation.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm well aware of this.
My re-enacting group puts on a Veterans Day event at a local high school each November. It’s going to be on the 10th this year. We all get a classroom, set up a display and get to give 20-25 minute talks on a relevant subject to veterans. I vary the program from year to year, but next week I'll likely do the lecture I’ve done in years past, talking about war correspondents in WW2.
I've always surprised the kids by telling them that the US was actually NOT 100% behind getting into WW2, even after Pearl Harbor. The unions, isolationist movement, black markets and such are mentioned, illustrating an America that was about as fragmented toward the war than they have been for any other conflict and how the history books gloss over everything when in fact the reality is never like that.
Each time, a few kids come up just shocked at the very idea. "I was always told that everyone fully supported the war," they'd all say. I'd answer with the fact that in the end, most did, but FDR, the war and everything about it had far more than it's share of detractors.

I love these things. Unfortunately, it's never so easy. The problem is--the Butterfly Effect. Here's just one of a nearly infinite number of infinitesimal things that can happen: Edward and whom ever he marries, have a baby boy--the future King. They go to Germany for a little holiday. The baby gets kidnaped. Rumor has it, Hitler is behind it, but no one's sure. The baby, somehow, dies, and is discarded in the street like so much garbage. Edward, obviously, is outraged, and believes Hitler is behind it. The British news papers claim Hitler is behind the killing and barbaric disposal of the future King of England. Meanwhile, because of this new event, Churchill gets drunk, and while running to parliament to decide what to do about it, slips on the ice and dies. Because Churchill dies . . .
Get the picture? Now, come up with, say, 2 billion more possible events connected to the death of the baby, and you still won't be able to accurately guess what would have happened if Edward had not abdicated.