AHC: Churchill dies on the Western Front:

After Gallipoli Churchill was sent off to the Western Front for a bit IOTL to vegetate and to be kept well away from the center of power. Suppose that a shell aimed at the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time happens to bump off the descendant of Lord Malborough before he's anything but That GuyTM who made Gallipoli happen. What happens to the UK in the long term in a world without a Churchill?
 

Ak-84

Banned
He came quite near death at least once, when a shell destroyed a Cheateu he was based at and detonated in the part of the house he had been working miniutes before.
 
This is a WI, not an AHC. Useless you want specifics as too exactly how Churchill is killed.

The WI is that he is killed. The *Challenge* is to see what happens if Churchill's only legacy of note is the Gallipoli landings. I happen to think Churchill wasn't indispensable and a number of his rivals would have gained the same results with fewer disasters assuming a WWII even happens in this scenario.
 
would there be a voice in the wilderness speaking out against Hitler in the 30's?

Would there be an effective First Lord of the Admiralty?

obviously, what after Chamberlain? Halifax?

ivan
 
I'm still going with No Churchill would mean no Balfour Declaration. Let's keep this focused on the 1910s and then go from there.
 
I happen to think Churchill wasn't indispensable and a number of his rivals would have gained the same results with fewer disasters assuming a WWII even happens in this scenario.
Possibly, but I don't think anyone else could have been such an inspiration leader to the civilian population.
 
Does this prevent the return to the Gold Standard i n1925. It probably prevents the general strike and may have other consequences for Political and economic events from 1929 on
 
Butterflies may limit the extent of the inflationary boom of 1918-1920, but if it is still strong then the Treasury will still press for a return to the gold standard, with or without Churchill. With butterflies the economic situation may be worse or better, who knows.
 
Possibly, but I don't think anyone else could have been such an inspiration leader to the civilian population.

He wasn't the only good orator of his generation. In fact, he wasn't even that good (we have evidence of people who considered his pre-war speeches dull beyond imagining) since a lot of it was the gravity of the situation that made people listen (as well as the conspiracy theory about them been given by an actor). He's also become more popular in retrospect as well, as things that are consider iconic now were considered gaffes then. For example, his habit of smoking expensive cigars in front of troops who hadn't had a decent smoke in months.

would there be a voice in the wilderness speaking out against Hitler in the 30's?

Absolutely yes. There were far-more genuine anti-Facists in parliament than Churchill!

For that matter, would there necessarily *be* a Hitler?

I see no reason not. One less British politician doesn't really change Germany in any meaningful way.
 
Churchill was the chancellor of the exchecker who reduced funds post war to the armed forces in particular to Singapore which delayed and modified the building of the military base there
 

Cook

Banned
After Gallipoli Churchill was sent off to the Western Front...
Churchill was not sent off to the Western Front, he chose to go.
Didn't Churchill end up drawing a lot of those troublesome borders in the middle east?
No. Those troublesome borders were drawn up for the most part by Sir Mark Sykes and Francois Georges-Picot and a small team of minor diplomats and cartographers.
Absolutely yes. There were far-more genuine anti-Facists in parliament than Churchill!
Really? Eden was reluctant to challenge the government line until he quit at the start of ’38 and Duff Cooper had nowhere near as much standing as Churchill. There simply was no-one senior in parliament who was opposed to the rise of the tyrants for as long as, as loud as, or as consistent as Churchill was.
Churchill was the chancellor of the exchecker who reduced funds post war to the armed forces in particular to Singapore which delayed and modified the building of the military base there.
Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1924 to 1929. Not only did he have to restrict the overstretched expenditure of a British government that found itself balancing precariously close to bankruptcy, but for him to have prioritised defence expenditure in the Far East, he’d have not only been wasting money when Britain had demands closer to home but, given the low level of threat posed by Japan in 1929, he’d have had to be fucking psychic as well. Since the naval base at Singapore was complete well before the outbreak of war and fully equipped to service a Royal Navy fleet that wasn’t available to be sent when the threat eventuated, it is hardly something to criticise Churchill over.
 


Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1924 to 1929. Not only did he have to restrict the overstretched expenditure of a British government that found itself balancing precariously close to bankruptcy, but for him to have prioritised defence expenditure in the Far East, he’d have not only been wasting money when Britain had demands closer to home but, given the low level of threat posed by Japan in 1929, he’d have had to be fucking psychic as well. Since the naval base at Singapore was complete well before the outbreak of war and fully equipped to service a Royal Navy fleet that wasn’t available to be sent when the threat eventuated, it is hardly something to criticise Churchill over. [/QUOTE]
Oh I wasn't criticising him merely pointing out that another chancellor may have made another decision .In the twenties this may have seemed a rationial thing to do
 
Top