It's true that Paul was an important member of the Beatles and his stepping out would have had a great impact. But I think the world would have accepted a new line-up after some time. As long as John was there, certainly.

Quoted from Bobber

He already had enough of the band by late 1969. John felt he had to choose between a marriage with The Beatles and a marriage with Miss Ono. He often mentioned that the other three dispised and insulted her, in which they were right of course, but John chose Yoko's side. If he had to leave the band for it, so be it. Moreover, in later interviews he stated more than once that since the mid-sixties he was always looking for an opportunity to leave the Beatles. Another thing is that The Beatles might have existed without Paul. The Rolling Stones had some personnel changes as well. If John, George and Ringo really wanted the band to keep existing, they would have found a way, with or without Paul.

     But if "He already had enough of the band by late 1969" why did he involve Spector in a dead project of a dead band?

    But if "John felt he had to choose between a marriage with The Beatles and a marriage with Miss Ono.He often mentioned that the other three dispised and insulted her, in which they were right of course, but John chose Yoko's side. If he had to leave the band for it, so be it. " why didn't he do something during White Album sessions (there were reactions against her), Get Back project (obvious) or rejected any participation in Abbey Road LP.

   "Moreover, in later interviews he stated more than once that since the mid-sixties he was always looking for an opportunity to leave the Beatles." For me it's very important that such things were said after the breakup, justifying himself. He could have left them whenever he wanted but he was on their projects for sure: even composing great songs for albums he didn't agree with (Sgt. Pepper's, Magical Mystery Tour, Let It Be,...) or being in projects with his whole energy (Our World TV programme, Apple, ...).

   "Another thing is that The Beatles might have existed without Paul. The Rolling Stones had some personnel changes as well. If John, George and Ringo really wanted the band to keep existing, they would have found a way, with or without Paul." Well, I think they never wanted to be any others but them (George didn't agree touring with Jimmy in Australia'64, when George left them during the Get Back project John joked? about if Eric should have joined them, ... and there are some interviews of all them speaking/discussing about this point). I'm not saying that John, George and Ringo really wanted the band to keep existing, but they didn't really wanted the band's split  (for example they fought for the day Let It Be, McCartney and Sentimental Journey should be released as if those kind of things were important for them) but to take a rest.

Quoted from raxo

     But if "He already had enough of the band by late 1969" why did he involve Spector in a dead project of a dead band?

    But if "John felt he had to choose between a marriage with The Beatles and a marriage with Miss Ono.He often mentioned that the other three dispised and insulted her, in which they were right of course, but John chose Yoko's side. If he had to leave the band for it, so be it. " why didn't he do something during White Album sessions (there were reactions against her), Get Back project (obvious) or rejected any participation in Abbey Road LP.

 

Because John usually walked away from trouble. In a way he was a coward.

Quoted from Bobber

Because John usually walked away from trouble. In a way he was a coward.

And a double-minded man who didn't always know what he thought or believed, is the impression I get of Lennon.

Quoted from Bobber

Because John usually walked away from trouble. In a way he was a coward.

Don't you think that by leaving the band he could have answered to that? Why he continued with them? Are you saying he was hypocritical too? If he was... what do you think about his late interviews about his wishes of leaving them in mid 60s?

Quoted from GreenApple

And a double-minded man who didn't always know what he thought or believed, is the impression I get of Lennon.

Must we believe in everything he said about what he really wanted in mid 60s or late 69? I'm talking about the breakup and all that, of course.

Quoted from raxo

Must we believe everything he said about what he really wanted in mid 60s or late 69? I'm talking about the breakup and all that, of course.

I don't know too much about what he said, unfortunately. But I do think he was erratic in his mind. Maybe that was part of his insecurity complex, and about looking to Ono as a figure to look up to. Needing someone to look up to in his life and that was Yoko. Yoko pulling him away from the Beatles.

The thing is that he was afraid of the answer and its consequences. Yes, he was hypocritical. The day before Pete Best was fired, he just said 'See you tomorrow' to the guy, knowing that Brian Epstein should fire him the next day. None of the Beatles had the guts to tell Pete that he was out of the band.
In interviews from the 70's, John had a big mouth saying he was always looking for an opportunity to leave the band. Obviously, he didn't have the guts to really do it and accept the consequences of that. I think it's not the signs of a strong character to say such things seven or eight years later. He should have done it or never talked about it anymore. At least Paul McCartney did it, not in a very elegant way, but he said it out loud. John's later remark that he already had left the band but decided to keep it a secret within the band: crap. But it's clear that John had enough of Paul's dominant behaviour. After all, it was John's band. That how he looked at it. That's why I think he didn't mind to split up the band. And the insults on Yoko's address.

Quoted from Bobber

It's true that Paul was an important member of the Beatles and his stepping out would have had a great impact. But I think the world would have accepted a new line-up after some time. As long as John was there, certainly.

It could have happened, but a lot of people might have been unhappy about a 'new' Beatle at such a late stage. Could be a seperate thread, though, for fun! WHO WOULD YOU REPLACE PAUL WITH IF PAUL HAD LEFT AND THEY NEEDED A NEW GUY???

Paul did it the other way round. He formed his own 'New Beatles'.

Quoted from GreenApple

It could have happened, but a lot of people might have been unhappy about a 'new' Beatle at such a late stage. Could be a seperate thread, though, for fun! WHO WOULD YOU REPLACE PAUL WITH IF PAUL HAD LEFT AND THEY NEEDED A NEW GUY???

Klaus Voorman. With Preston on keyboards

Quoted from Bobber

... But it's clear that John had enough of Paul's dominant behaviour. After all, it was John's band. That how he looked at it. That's why I think he didn't mind to split up the band. And the insults on Yoko's address.

Yep, Ringo and George had enough of "Paul's dominant behaviour" too. All of them (even John) felt that it was Paul's band (and it was, really, 66 onwards: he planned all their activities except Rishikesh).
I think John wouldn't have gone so far. It was not his plan. It really changed all his future plans (and Ringo's and George's too).

Quoted from Bobber

Paul did it the other way round. He formed his own 'New Beatles'.

I wondered several times - beetles, have wings, so ...Wings????

Aslo thought he needed a band around him for the missing Beatles 'chemistry'. But, Denny Lane was no match for Lennon!

Quoted from kevin_b

Klaus Voorman. With Preston on keyboards

Or, Paul Simon!!! John, Paul, George, and Ringo!

'Beatles II' (Or III!)

But Denny did what Paul wanted him to do. There's your clue.