Churchill dead October 1940

Derek Jackson · Oct 14, 2012

WI some time in 1940 after September 15th Churchill had been out watching air raids, which I am told he liked to do despite the incredible stupidity of such an approach he had died from a bomb.

I know that in the later stages of the War he had advised the King to call Eden in the event of his death but I am not certain when that happened.

My basic assumption is that a less flashy Prime Minister who did not imagine himself to be a military genious might have been better for Britain and the Western Allies,

Any thoughts

Meadow · Oct 14, 2012

Attlee is talked about in these scenarios but Eden would still have had his and Labour's support, if only because Attlee's job as deputy PM was hugely important in a back room role for keeping Whitehall and the economy running.

And Churchill was known to defer to his generals when necessary. Dieppe was an exception, not a rule, so this idea that he behaved like Hitler over military strategy doesn't really fly.

The B · Oct 14, 2012

I once heard that a plane that Churchill was flying in was nearly shot down in British air space. That would have been a massive blow to morale.

Cook · Oct 14, 2012

Meadow said:
Attlee is talked about in these scenarios but Eden would still have had his and Labour's support, if only because Attlee's job as deputy PM was hugely important in a back room role for keeping Whitehall and the economy running.

Chamberlain had invited Attlee into cabinet and Labour into government to strengthen his oven precarious position in May 1940, when he had not enjoyed the confidence of much of the Conservative party. Atlee would not have had any real say in who would have succeeded Churchill though, it would have been decided entirely amongst the conservatives, they enjoyed a 257 seat margin in the house. Even if Attlee had objected to the choice, he would not have been able to do anything about it except withdraw Labour from the government of National Unity, and in so doing he would have lost any chance to influence events.

Meadow said:
Dieppe was an exception...

Dieppe was Mountbatten’s brainchild, not Churchill’s.

The B said:
I once heard that a plane that Churchill was flying in was nearly shot down in British air space. That would have been a massive blow to morale.

The list of occasions when Winston Churchill was nearly killed by accident, assassination or enemy action, is extensive.

von hitchofen · Oct 14, 2012

Anthony Eden would almost certainly take over.

Forgive me if I'm not overjoyed...

Attlee would not be much better, IMO

Meadow · Oct 14, 2012

Cook said:
Chamberlain had invited Attlee into cabinet and Labour into government to strengthen his oven precarious position in May 1940, when he had not enjoyed the confidence of much of the Conservative party. Atlee would not have had any real say in who would have succeeded Churchill though, it would have been decided entirely amongst the conservatives, they enjoyed a 257 seat margin in the house. Even if Attlee had objected to the choice, he would not have been able to do anything about it except withdraw Labour from the government of National Unity, and in so doing he would have lost any chance to influence events.

Dieppe was Mountbatten’s brainchild, not Churchill’s.

The list of occasions when Winston Churchill was nearly killed by accident, assassination or enemy action, is extensive.

A) Attlee and Greenwood dictated in May 1940 that they would only support Churchill as a candidate for PM and were instrumental in bringing down Chamberlain (and scuppering Halifax, depending on whose memoirs you believe) in this manner. The collapse of the National Government was an unacceptable occurrence - Attlee's approval would be needed. Nor would he be awkward - if the Tories put forward a capable man who wanted to continue the war, ie Eden (which they would) then he would support Eden and this conversation would be moot.

B) It was, and Moutbatten infamously didn't have the rank to order or oversee it. He was only allowed to go so far with it because of Churchill's patronage.

Meadow · Oct 14, 2012

von hitchofen said:
Anthony Eden would almost certainly take over.

Forgive me if I'm not overjoyed...

Attlee would not be much better, IMO

Eden in 1940 would have been fine. He wasn't taking any drugs at that stage and was already proving himself in overseeing the war effort's diplomacy and encouraging the public on the radio almost as much as Churchill. His problem in 1955 was that he was a good ten years past his prime, and in 1940 he would have been a younger but much more capable choice.

Attlee would not have been as charismatic, but as his OTL running of Whitehall shows, he could have won us the war. The man was probably the greatest administrator a government has had in modern times.

von hitchofen · Oct 14, 2012

"Not only is Eden a bore, the man could bore for England!" Malcolm Muggeridge

the contrast with WSC would be alarming

Meadow · Oct 14, 2012

von hitchofen said:
"Not only is Eden a bore, the man could bore for England!" Malcolm Muggeridge

the contrast with WSC would be alarming

Thank goodness we won because of actually fighting the war, rather than just giving speeches, then.

von hitchofen · Oct 14, 2012

There's more to winning a war than just killing the enemy

Just ask the Germans...

Eden's government was so short and disastrous, its hard to assess how effective he'd be - Roosevelt would need lots of cups of coffee, for sure...

El Pip · Oct 14, 2012

Meadow said:
His problem in 1955 was that he was a good ten years past his prime.

I thought his main problem in 1955 was the consequences of the bodged gallstone operation that crippled his health? He'd never have been prescribed the various drugs he was taking had the operation gone properly, to say nothing of the various other health problems he was suffering from.

Derek Jackson · Oct 14, 2012

My view is that the key churchill decision was not to surrender or seek terms in the Summer of 1940

Was Eden senior enough in October 1940, could eitherHalifax or the dying Chamberlain have been candidates?

von hitchofen · Oct 14, 2012

Derek Jackson said:
My view is that the key churchill decision was not to surrender or seek terms in the Summer of 1940

Was Eden senior enough in October 1940, could either Halifax or the dying Chamberlain have been candidates?

Chamberlain only has another month to live, so a big fat no that one

Halifax might fancy his chance tho'

I can just imagine Goering and Hitler's smug expression having offed WSC - I feel quite ill

Meadow · Oct 14, 2012

Derek Jackson said:
My view is that the key churchill decision was not to surrender or seek terms in the Summer of 1940

Was Eden senior enough in October 1940, could eitherHalifax or the dying Chamberlain have been candidates?

No, they were both out of the question after May 26th 1940. It would have been Eden.

V-J · Oct 14, 2012

Churchill sent a letter to the King that Eden was to take over in the event of him snuffing it, and this was known about, but I'm not sure when it was sent. In any case by late 1940 there is really no alternative as all the Chamberlainites were discredited/out of it, and Churchill's courtiers were just that.