An election-based change in power among the Allies in WW2

[Thande]

In the Second World War, the Big Three of the Allies were the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union. Now we all know the USSR wasn't democratic. In the West, however, preserving democracy and "freedom" was part of the ideological clash with the Nazis and used in propaganda against them.

Fine, but this does seem slightly odd when one considers the political situation at the time. America was dominated by FDR, who was easily re-elected in both 1940 and 1944, while Britain had suspended elections (not having had one since 1935) and was run by a national coalition government. So the democratic element in both countries was rather weaker than usual. (You might think my USA example is tenuous, which it would be, but for the fact that FDR had already been in power for so long, breaking US tradition). You can kind of see why people like George Orwell were convinced that all countries were sliding towards dictatorship.

So, how does the dynamic of WW2 change if there was an election-based change in power at some point? It's unlikely that FDR would lose the 1944 US election, but what if he died in 1943 and Wallace failed to get elected in his own right, Dewey becoming president instead?

In a British context, what if the National Government had decided to hold an election as a morale-boosting exercise? Not very likely, I know, but maybe it could be as part of a propaganda programme to emphasise our "freedom" compared to occupied Europe? Or if the National coalition somehow fell apart and the opposition demanded an election, maybe to do with cooperation with the Soviets?

[alt_historian]

Y'know, I haven't thought about this one much... but it's an interesting one.

I suppose you have to get over the whole 'changing horses in mid-stream' thing... On the other hand, WWI saw the leaders of both nations change in 1916, even if Lloyd-George wasn't actually elected.

I like the idea of an election as a morale exercise... along the lines of "we are so confident in our rightness against the Nazis, we're going to hold an election in the middle of a war!" I doubt it would be before 1942 at the earliest though, possibly '43, which is when things were visibly turning round for the Allies.

Assuming a 1943 election, I wonder how much their positions as part of the wartime Coalition would count for the Labour leaders? As OTL, although a little less so, these positions would show that Labour can be trusted to ru government.

[stevep]

Thande

The other way of getting a change of leadership in Britain, although possibly not an actual election is if support for Churchill collapses and there is a decision to change leader. There was I believe a no confidence motion after the loss of Trobruk in 42 but it gained very little support. However if something else happened, say Churchill seemed to crack under the strain or had clear health problems perhaps. Not exactly what your after but given the need for a new leader there might be a clash between parties over whether it should be Atlee or one of the Tories leading to a new election. This would be imposed by circumstances rather than a choice but would get a change of leadership and possibly government in Britain.

Steve

[the_lyniezian]

Would Churchill necessarily have lost a mid-war general election?