AH Seed: Churchill killed 1/16/1942

This is something I just learned of; it has a lot of potential.

In the wake of Pearl Harbor and U.S. entry into WW II, Churchill travelled to the U.S. in December 1941 with an entourage of high-level British officials and commanders to confer with Roosevelt and U.S. military and naval leaders. The group made the crossing on the new battleship HMS Duke of York. He departed on 14 January 1942, flying to Bermuda on a British flying boat to meet Duke of York for a return voyage. The recent disasters to British arms in Malaya, and other urgent matters which had accumulated in his absence, prompted him to accept the offer of the flying boat's commander to return to Britain by air instead, saving several days.

Because of fuel required by the length of the flight, only Churchill and his most important associates embarked (Lord Beaverbrook, Minister of Supply; Air Marshal Portal, head of the RAF; Fleet Admiral Pound, First Sea Lord).

They took off at about 2 PM 15 January. Twenty hours later, the flying boat approached Europe amid heavy clouds. Portal reviewed the plane's navigation, and ordered an immediate turn to due north (in fact, west of north, according to Churchill in The Grand Alliance). The flying boat landed safely at Plymouth.

Churchill wrote that the flying boat had drifted a bit east and south of the intended course, and that when the flying boat turned, it was headed toward German-occupied port of Brest in France, and only about five minutes' flying time away. In fact when its subsequent course was noted by British radar, the flying boat was taken for a German bomber flying from Brest, and some RAF Hurricanes were sent up to intercept it and shoot it down.

Thus it seems clear there was significant danger to the flying boat and its passengers.

Now, it seems highly unlikely that the Hurricanes would mistake a British flying boat for a German bomber in daylight. But Brest was a very important naval base for the Germans, who deployed a lot of flak there. Had Portal not corrected the course, the flying boat might easily have continued over Brest and been shot down. If so, all the passengers would be killed.

Or for maximum weirdness, the plane has to make a forced landing in France due to damage. Churchill et al become Axis prisoners.

So what happens next - or could happen?
 
Last edited:
Would it be admitted as 'friendly fire'?

I assume Eden becomes Prime Minister had Churchill died. How big a figure would he be?

How much difference does it make. Might the costly Italian campaign have been avoided?

How much, if at all, would the Post War tory party have been weakened?
 
Churchill's main contribution to the war was to rally public support in the dark days of 1940. Britain would probably have been better off (or at least no worse off) if he had gone in late 41 or early 42. Once the U.S. had entered the war an Allied victory was almost assured. And, although no-one realised it at the time, Pound was a dying man and would die in 1943. So, in practical terms, the big impacts would have been the loss/capture of Portal (significant butterflies 1942-48) and Beaverbrook ( not hugely significant 1942-45 but of moderate significance 1945-64). Churchill's own recommendation to the King about appointing a successor who could continue to maintain a (virtually) all-party coalition was Sir John Anderson (apolitical technocrat).
 
I wonder who would have taken Portal's place if he (for some reason) did not take the flight?
Presumably, no-one would have reviewed & corrected the navigation in this case...
 
I assume Eden becomes Prime Minister had Churchill died.

In the very short term, Clement Attlee, Leader of the Labour Party, and member of Churchill's coalition government (I think he was Lord Privy Seal), being acting Prime Minister at home, a role he assumed whenever Winston left the country, will succeed to the premiership in a caretaker role. Of course, since the Conservatives have a majority in the coalition (and the House of Commons as well), Attlee's stint as Acting Prime Minister in the aftermath of Churchill's death is going to be a short one indeed. I imagine Eden would be invited to form a government, with Labour support in the mix, and Attlee staying on as Deputy Prime Minister.
 
In the circumstances, the most likely successors are Lord Woolton, Stafford Cripps, Eden or Attlee. Beaverbrook would have been ahead in that list, but his death obviously puts paid to that.
 

Deleted member 94680

In the circumstances, the most likely successors are Lord Woolton, Stafford Cripps, Eden or Attlee. Beaverbrook would have been ahead in that list, but his death obviously puts paid to that.

Lord Woolton was an independent and a peer so it's unlikely he'd become PM. Stafford Cripps is still ambassador to the USSR at this point so is fairly unlikely to be considered (and labour, so if Attlee is out of the running, then so is he). Attlee, as already stated, was a Labour MP so with a Tory majority is unlikely to be PM in a coalition government.

With Beaverbrook dead it kind of leaves Eden as the only possibility.
 
Lord Woolton was an independent and a peer so it's unlikely he'd become PM. Stafford Cripps is still ambassador to the USSR at this point so is fairly unlikely to be considered (and labour, so if Attlee is out of the running, then so is he). Attlee, as already stated, was a Labour MP so with a Tory majority is unlikely to be PM in a coalition government.

With Beaverbrook dead it kind of leaves Eden as the only possibility.

Woolton was offered the leadership of the Conservative Party and the premiership by the Tory Chief Whip and with the backing of the Chair of the 1922 Committee. He was, in early 1942, one of the most influential war ministers and nearly brought down the government after the Fall of Singapore.

Cripps was one of the most popular ministers in the country, had Beaverbrook and Eden as supporters against Churchill throughout 1942, and had support from the General Staff. Also, Cripps wasn't Labour at that time - he was an Independent MP.

Attlee is last on that list for a reason, by the way.

So... yeah.
 

Deleted member 1487

Too late to really matter, Churchill already filled his role as a historical figure by keeping Britain in the war and getting the US into it, while supporting the USSR. He was easily replaceable as a politician in terms of fighting the war. What may happen is that due to losing so many important people Britain becomes a very junior partner early on as they lack the personalities to take the lead. So that may mean a 1942-43 Operation Sledgehammer instead of Operation Torch. It may also mean that the UK-US relationship isn't so solid without Churchill. It may also mean Germany is in real trouble without Churchill around to push back on the wacky, destructive stuff FDR wanted to do for the peace deal and in the conduct of the war. One bright spot could be that Bomber Harris never gets promoted without Churchill's advocacy for him, so dehousing doesn't happen and Bomber Command instead is used to win the battle of the Atlantic first, then goes after industrial targets with the USAAF (but by night).
 

Deleted member 94680

Woolton was offered the leadership of the Conservative Party and the premiership by the Tory Chief Whip and with the backing of the Chair of the 1922 Committee. He was, in early 1942, one of the most influential war ministers and nearly brought down the government after the Fall of Singapore.

He was offered leadership in 1945, so that hardly speaks to his leadership credentials in early 1942. He also didn't enter the War Cabinet until November 1943 when he became Minister of Reconstruction. I know he was popular, but his governmental history points to the 'establishment' view of his position and capability.

Cripps was one of the most popular ministers in the country, had Beaverbrook and Eden as supporters against Churchill throughout 1942, and had support from the General Staff. Also, Cripps wasn't Labour at that time - he was an Independent MP.

Cripps joined the Labour Party in 1930, though? I know he was expelled, but that would cause problems building a support base if he came to lead a government. His popularity rocketed on his return from Russia, but I can't find exactly when he came back. So early in '42, it's likely he's still Ambassador and therefore outside the War Cabinet.

Attlee is last on that list for a reason, by the way.

I know why that is, but as I said it's the brush that tars Cripps as well IMO.
 

Deleted member 94680

Too late to really matter, Churchill already filled his role as a historical figure by keeping Britain in the war and getting the US into it, while supporting the USSR. He was easily replaceable as a politician in terms of fighting the war. What may happen is that due to losing so many important people Britain becomes a very junior partner early on as they lack the personalities to take the lead. So that may mean a 1942-43 Operation Sledgehammer instead of Operation Torch. It may also mean that the UK-US relationship isn't so solid without Churchill. It may also mean Germany is in real trouble without Churchill around to push back on the wacky, destructive stuff FDR wanted to do for the peace deal and in the conduct of the war. One bright spot could be that Bomber Harris never gets promoted without Churchill's advocacy for him, so dehousing doesn't happen and Bomber Command instead is used to win the battle of the Atlantic first, then goes after industrial targets with the USAAF (but by night).

That's Churchill's main contribution after the US entry - keeping the UK at the top table. Without the Roosevelt/Churchill partnership, there's every chance the Brits are reduced to 'also rans' and the US is the dominant WAlly far earlier.
 
He was offered leadership in 1945, so that hardly speaks to his leadership credentials in early 1942. He also didn't enter the War Cabinet until November 1943 when he became Minister of Reconstruction. I know he was popular, but his governmental history points to the 'establishment' view of his position and capability.

No, he was offered the leadership in 1942. I wouldn't have made the point otherwise, mate. The offer was on the table, but he turned it down and wrote down how much he regretted it later after the war.

Cripps joined the Labour Party in 1930, though? I know he was expelled, but that would cause problems building a support base if he came to lead a government. His popularity rocketed on his return from Russia, but I can't find exactly when he came back. So early in '42, it's likely he's still Ambassador and therefore outside the War Cabinet.

He was expelled and wasn't allowed back until 1945. Anyway - he had the backing of Eden and Beaverbrook throughout the entire year. Alan Brooke, Ismay, Montgomery - they all backed him. He was voted the most and second-most popular minister in the war by numerous newspaper polls and Mass Observation recorded his popularity across the country.

He is not tarred with the same brush as Attlee and it's important to note that his independent status allowed him to build cross-party support. The 'Vigilantes' who took down Chamberlain even supported Cripps over Churchill.

January is early, yes, but I misread that American dating in the title. So, discount Cripps on that basis. Apologies.
 

Deleted member 1487

That's Churchill's main contribution after the US entry - keeping the UK at the top table. Without the Roosevelt/Churchill partnership, there's every chance the Brits are reduced to 'also rans' and the US is the dominant WAlly far earlier.
Is that a problem? That is basically where they were headed anyway and ended up, so if it happens sooner, is that the biggest deal?
 

Deleted member 94680

No, he was offered the leadership in 1942. I wouldn't have made the point otherwise, mate. The offer was on the table, but he turned it down and wrote down how much he regretted it later after the war.



He was expelled and wasn't allowed back until 1945. Anyway - he had the backing of Eden and Beaverbrook throughout the entire year. Alan Brooke, Ismay, Montgomery - they all backed him. He was voted the most and second-most popular minister in the war by numerous newspaper polls and Mass Observation recorded his popularity across the country.

He is not tarred with the same brush as Attlee and it's important to note that his independent status allowed him to build cross-party support. The 'Vigilantes' who took down Chamberlain even supported Cripps over Churchill.

January is early, yes, but I misread that American dating in the title. So, discount Cripps on that basis. Apologies.

Don't apologise mate, you've done your research better than me. I had no idea about the mass observation thing to be honest.

I just think the Tories of the time were a hidebound bunch and I just can't see them going for someone who isn't one of their own when they have a majority. After all, it's probable in this scenario that the King would appoint a new PM without a General Election, isn't it? He'd confere with the establishment and they'd go for the candidate most likely to ensure smooth running. Hence my plumping for Eden.
 

Deleted member 94680

Is that a problem? That is basically where they were headed anyway and ended up, so if it happens sooner, is that the biggest deal?

Not a problem necessarily but would affect the course of the War as we know it. What if a "Pacific First" faction take control of the American War effort for instance?
 

Deleted member 1487

Not a problem necessarily but would affect the course of the War as we know it. What if a "Pacific First" faction take control of the American War effort for instance?
Unless FDR dies too that isn't possible
 
Don't apologise mate, you've done your research better than me. I had no idea about the mass observation thing to be honest.

Ministers At War, The People's War, Britain 1939-1945, and The Cripps Version. Also, assorted diaries, memoirs and reviews from Senate House Library and JSTOR. The books are all fine reads for the coalition's complicated machinations and public opinion during the war.

I just think the Tories of the time were a hidebound bunch and I just can't see them going for someone who isn't one of their own when they have a majority. After all, it's probable in this scenario that the King would appoint a new PM without a General Election, isn't it? He'd confere with the establishment and they'd go for the candidate most likely to ensure smooth running. Hence my plumping for Eden.

Eden was still seen as a little 'green'. That's why he backed Cripps (and, at various times, Duff Cooper and Beaverbrook - and, I think, Woolton, but I'll have to check on that) and why he was stayed back during the post-Singapore crisis and reshuffle. He is still up there, of course, but that 'hidebound bunch' tested the waters IOTL and did look around for potential alternative PMs. I'll have to have a read and see what other names crept up.

Interestingly, without Churchill and Beaverbrook, the accusations against 'the rotten men' (Attlee, Greenwood and Duff Cooper) won't hold as much sway and the coalition might end up even more Labour-dominated. At the very least, there would be more co-operation at the highest levels of the government.
 
Top