How would history be different if George W. Bush and Winston Churchill switched places?

Question

Would the British Expeditionary Force, (most of their army,) have been anihilated at Dunkirk because, "Withdrawal is not an option. The Germans will follow us home if we don't fight them in France?"

Would the Battle of Britain have been lost because the no-bid contract for Supermarine Spitfires was too expensive to buy Hawker Hurricanes too?

Would the war have been over before the Royal Army got the Sterling A-3 smg in any great numbers, because the cottage industries were frozen out?

And would the US Army have been home right now because Churchill would have seen the wisdom of committing greater forces to Afghanistan to finish off the Taliban and run down bin Laden instead of weakening the forces in Afghanistan to chase phantoms in Iraq?

Is it an unfair comparison? Churchill knew war, both as a correspondent in the Boer War and the sole surviving officer of his WWI regiment, while Bush had his daddy get him a slot in the Texas Air Guard and blew off going to the meetings?

I dunno Max. Bush really sucks up to the Red Chinese. It's just a question of WHEN he lets them have Taiwan. And Grandpop Prescott was openly Pro-Nazi.

For sure my German would be more fluent, DFA. Since I speak it not at all and read it only a few words having to do with military or philosophic concepts. And the best O could manage would be a goose waddle.

You're right about the contracts, rdening. Back then, everything was done on a cost plus basis. Companies won't settle for that anymore.

Why do people change their names after I comment on their answers? Rdening is now Cliff.

Not too late, 1star. There are still two days to answer. And the Speedial isn't working because God uses His answering machine to screen calls.

Answer 1

a very good question Madpol. Before I get serious, I would like to mention that one result of the swap would be Dyler Turden being installed as the viceroy of Chicago, and your German would be much more fluent that it is now. You would also goosestep to your friendly grocery store. Now, that is something I would gladly give $50 to see.
Now, Dunkirk would have indeed been a slaughter like we have not seen in recent history of warfare. Of course the casualties would have been a lot lighter since a lot of the forces would have been hobbled by diarrhea caused by substandard food delivered by grafters who obtained contracts with government's blessing (witness Iraq). Another significant number would have been unable to fight as they would have been suffering from skin disease caused by showering in lightly treated sewage (Iraq)
The Battle of Britain would have indeed been lost as the Supermarine Spitfire would have been designed and built by contractors least qualified to do the job, but who have government officials in their back pockets and whose political spine has the correct angle in relation to the political platform of people in power. The fuel for the fighter would have been delivered to the airfields by the likes of Halliburton at 5 times the going price.
Sterling would have weighted twice the design value and would jam all the time.
Churchill would have pursued and would have finished off Osama and would have immediately seen the wisdom of finishing the job in Afghanistan. We indeed control Kabul (kind of), the rest of the country is in the hands of the Taliban. Opium production the *highest* in history. The profits go to arm Taliban which is now opening a second front against us. They also give money away to the locals to gain their support. And what are we doing ? We have 25,000 troops there which do not venture outside Kabul and most of the troops are busy defending the troops already there. Kind of a self-licking ice cream cone, isn' it ? Our brave men and women in uniform deserve better. They are the true heroes made expendable by our policy, and ridiculed by the likes of sewer rats like Rush. He (Churchill) would have been the bulldog that he was and would give Osama no quarter. But then, we do need an enemy we we can trott out to control the masses. Who is better than Osama ? So, he will remain at large.
Churchill was a statesman, pragmatist, a man familiar with war, but foremost a leader who understood the enemy and knew how to get the job done. Most importantly he was not beholden, and not a slave to special interests. As GWB so eloquently stated during a $15,000/plate dinner for his *base*:
"there are haves and haves more. You are the haves more, but I call you my base"
Now, you owe me a new keyboard, I horked my coffee when I thought of the comparison of oratory skills between Churchill and GWB.
an elightened quote from GWB: "America, it's where wings take dream" Imagine Churchill saying that.
You forgot to mention Churchill would have NEVER allowed the neocons to lead him by the nose.

Answer 2

Good but also weird question.

Bush would not act the same then like not withdrawing British troops when needed as it was a different war, different situation, etc. Now, how would he act in Churchill's place? Hmmm. I like "What if?" questions.

While I don't like everything Bush does, I think he would have largely done the same as Churchill back then with some differences because he would also have Churchill's advisers, army and the US government to deal with and woo.

Answer 3

It is obscene to put King George the Moron in the same sentence as Winston Churchill. I'll repeat it: obscene. Guiliani, or whatever nitwit made that comparison, obviously mixed up his WWII leaders. The Moron is much closer to Mussolini, a stooge for Hitler, just as the Moron is a stooge for Cheney, who's really running the show. All 4 are Fascists, too.

Answer 4

George Bush would have died in the early 60's and we wouldn't have to worry about him any more and Churchill would have Captured or killed Bin Laden and brought our boys home 5 years ago, saving the U.S. AND the world half a trillion dollars and almost 4,000 American, British, et al, lives of military personel Al Qaeda's entrails would have been spread all over the Middle East to serv as a warning to any other terrorists to NOT mess with the Western World any further.

BB,
Raji the Greenwtich.

Answer 5

Madness!

This is frikken brilliantly funny, but flawed...

It's a different world. People had to sound good on radio to become powerful in the first half of the 20th Century.

The P-51 was useless until a smart bloke dropped in the Rolls Royce...did we buy them form Rolls...No...we bought the rights to build them at Packard...still...a Merlin, magic.

Germany had poor amphibious tactics in 1940. They would have been swamped in the channel if they'd tried to follow the evacuating army across.

And...even Heir Hitler was a gentleman, of sorts...there were signed declarations of war. The Arab terrorists are like Alexander's "peltists." They are the trick-fuct section of the Arab political ideal...you know them, the "Donkey Men" spoken of in Genesis...

Churchill was no saint. At one point, during a heated debate with FDR, Churchill ranted "Empires do not bargain!"

FDR answered "But republics do."

Answer 6

Just one point - Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, but not 'Royal' Army - just 'British' Army. Bur I don't think you can compare. Times were/are so different. Just on the Spitfire/Hurricane point - there weren't the bean counters around running things in 1938/9 and 'lowest bid' contracts were virtually unheard of.

Answer 7

Seems I'm a little late on this question. So, it's all been said... except for one significant detail. Therefore, lest we forget giving credit where credit is due.... I feel obligated to mention: I don't recall it ever being said that Churchill had God on speed-dial. That's got to be worth something in GW's favor..... or, is it?

Answer 8

My answer would be that Germany would probably have become the "world power" rather than the US, and thus Germany would be facing the consequences of Taliban terrorism now because I think the seeds of terrorism where planted around the time of WWI.
...still the comparison of George "dubya" Bush and Winston Churchill makes me sick with fear and grief when I think about who we have to work with now.
Great question!

Answer 9

Britain would have lost the war and Iraq would still be a German colony.

And yes it's an unfair comparison, but that's what makes it fun!

Answer 10

It would of been better if Bush switched places with Neville Chamberlain. Bush wouldn't appease anyone, and would of surrounded Germany with allied troops in 1938 when they occupied Czechoslovokia.