AHC WI Attlee and Labour in office at the start of WW2

I think the most likely outcome of an election in 1939 is actually a tory victory. But maybe it happens just at the time when the occupaiton of Prage exposes the disaster of appeasment.

I presume Attlee would have declaared war at the same time.

Queary after Dunkirk are tories and liberals offered cabinet seats?

How big of a difference does it make to India?

What is the result of the 1945 election?

How much, if any, role does Churchill play
 

kernals12

Banned
I think the most likely outcome of an election in 1939 is actually a tory victory. But maybe it happens just at the time when the occupaiton of Prage exposes the disaster of appeasment.

I presume Attlee would have declaared war at the same time.

Queary after Dunkirk are tories and liberals offered cabinet seats?

How big of a difference does it make to India?

What is the result of the 1945 election?

How much, if any, role does Churchill play
If the Tories won in 1929, they'd be crushed by the Great Depression and there'd probably be a Labour landslide in the next election. It'd be a mirror image of what happened in America.
 
The problem with appeasement is that in the late 30's it was seen to go hand in hand with rearmament by abroad spectrum of all parties in the House of Commons. So another Labour or the Liberals would campaign on this issue.

Possible differences in WW2 is a Labour government might coerce armaments and heavy industries into nationalisation. I can see this going very badly (just look at the effect on French armaments from 1935 onwards) or if their a war on it could allow a singleminded steamroller of a politician to actually make a better hash of the war economy.

Churchill will play a part. Post Dunkirk the calls for a national government become to irritable (its the British default when the brown stuff really hits the fan). Churchill benefits from not being in a cabinet role pre war when the blame is already being solidly put in 1940 (and even to this day is widely taken as historical fact). Being older is also in his favour as he would be considered less of a potential threat than younger stories like Eden. He is also considered rather left wing (for a Tory) in his social policy preferences (he was a vocal Liberal when the foundations of the welfare state where being laid in the 1900's. This makes him an acceptable choice for Labour back benchers. He also has valuable experience of high office during WW1. In which role largely depends on who takes over after Chamberlain (its unlikely he carries on as Tory leader after loosing a general election. A good bet would be either war production/MAP or the Admiralty.

India is going to go one way long before WW2. Everyone knows it apart from the most rabid imperialist. WW2 just accelerated the process. Arguably doing more about the Bengal famine has a greater effect in post war Anglo-Indian relations.

Attlee was an army officer in WW1 so will have an informed opinion on grand strategy. I don't know enough about his opinions on this to comment on how this effects WW2 overall.
 
I can see this going very badly (just look at the effect on French armaments from 1935 onwards)

Part of France's problem is they didn't have time for their nationalization to pay off before they got into a war. In the long run, the reform and nationalization (which could have been done better, it's true) paid off for France. Britain, with its more advantageous geography, would have the time for nationalizations in the armaments sector to pay off, even if the nationalization got as messy as they did in France.

As I recall, French industry was just getting its act together just as the Germans invaded. If the British got their act together at the same point, then from 1940 on we could see a markedly more efficient British arms industry. And I know that at least in the case of aircraft, that is likely to be a good thing.

How big of a difference does it make to India?

Without Churchill being an a-hole imperialist and trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle? Indian relations are handled better (though Britain being distracted by war will still result in British missing important opportunities to shape things to their advantage). I doubt Indian independence could come much earlier, unless it was rushed during the war as a positive gesture to India, but I can see it being far better organized.

fasquardon
 
Top