alternatehistory.com

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?
Top