Chruchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt assassinated in Tehran

There was a plot by Germany to kill the Big Three while they were in Tehran, called Operation Long Jump. It was formulated by Otto Skorzeny. However, British and Russian intelligence was able to stop anything from happening.

What would have happened if the Nazis succeeded and the three of them are all killed? How does the rest of the war progress?
 

Keenir

Banned
did the Shah or his people have any say in the security of the visiting Allied leaders?

if so, expect to see the Allies refuse to trust local security in any foreign country that their [Allied] leadership are in.

if not, Persia may get points...sort of a diplomatic fruit basket for not letting SAVAK/Persia help.
 
Depends on who succeeds Stalin and Churchill. In the US, we get a President Wallace, but the succession of the UK and USSR is a bit less automatic. my money would be Molotov or Beria replaces Stalin, depending on how the Army feels. Churchill's successor is up in the air, but my money would be John Anderson, Clement Atlee, or Anthony Eden. In addition, the attack may wind up causing collateral damage among other high-ranking allied officials and soldiers, which will shape the course of the war.

Overall, I doubt that things would change to much until the war is over and the allies begin dividing up occupation zones. However, if you want one direct effect, Operation Foxley is probably approved as a response, with all the butterflies that causes.
 
Churchill had advised the King to call Eden had he died. I thin that this would have happened here (I am British).

I think that the shock might have made the Cold War less likely.

Of course it dependes on the Soviet Union (Though worse than Stalin is hard to imagine)
 
Succession scenarios are interesting, but one critical question is 'Who Dies?'

Churchill, Stalin and FDR are named, but its quite possible that others die there as well; Molotov and Eden, both potential successors, are foreign ministers and could be among the victims, as well as Cordell Hull of the United States.

That question has to be addressed to get a better answer.

The Soviet Situation is going to be rough. Andrei Zhadnov might be the next Soviet Chairman, but given the nature of Stalin's death political rivals might act to grab their share. This is going to include Molotov, Beria, and owing to the situation, possibly Zhukov--while the Army has been purged and the commissar system remains in place, it is hard to think of a better time for the Army to make political demands and receive them. This is late enough in the war that the worst case--Soviet Fragmentation--isn't going to happen. But the government will only be a temporary compromise, and the Soviet Situation is going to be precarious...

Wallace is very politically left and might make the 1944 election really interesting. But he's going to be just as out to beat down Germany and Japan as FDR. The UK's doves were discredited in 1939...

The loss of Stalin might very well lead to increased Soviet-Allied participation and no cold war. The Soviets joining the Marshall plan and moderating their tone, as well as insisting on a disarmed Eastern Europe (instead of a shackled one.) The Allies probably agree to keep West Germany defanged as well...
 
Churchill had advised the King to call Eden had he died. I thin that this would have happened here (I am British).

I think that the shock might have made the Cold War less likely.

Of course it dependes on the Soviet Union (Though worse than Stalin is hard to imagine)

What about the plan to make Smuts PM? Hmmm, I think Churchill might have been playing a game of divide-the-potential-rivals. He was a politician, after all.

Blue Max said:
Churchill, Stalin and FDR are named, but its quite possible that others die there as well; Molotov and Eden, both potential successors, are foreign ministers and could be among the victims, as well as Cordell Hull of the United States

If Churchill & Eden dies Smuts might be unacceptable. Churchill was not only PM, he was head of the Tory Party, a position he'd achieved after Chamberlain's death, through a ballot at a conference attended by MPs and constituency party chairmen. That had been a mere formality because he'd been prime minister for more than a year--but I don't think Smuts could become leader of the Tories this way, and I'm not certain the leading Conservative ministers would want it to appear that another Lloyd George-style outsider was leading a government in a parliament with a Tory majority thanks to the machinations of a 'golden circle'*.

PM Duff Cooper?


*The expression Golden Circle wasn't coined until the fifties, and the leadership succession of MacMillan.
 
Top