Churchill and the Empire

What are the immediate implications of a Churchill victory in 1945 on the evolution of the British Empire? Specifically on:

India

My own gut feeling is that Churchill will try to renege on the promise of Indian independence. However, is it possible to - peacefully, or relatively peacefully - prolong British rule with a later date of departure? Is it possible that Partition looks different in such a scenario? Is it possible that Partition is avoided entirely at this eleventh hour?

Palestine

How does Churchill balance his personal bias in favour of the Jewish with British interests in the Middle East? Does Churchill accept the Harrison Report?

The Dominions

How do Britain's relationships change with the Dominions, if at all?
 
Australia disliked Churchill. He had tried to renege on the agreement made in 1939 about employment of the AIF. He liked to allow the British Army to split it into it's component parts and not fight as a cohesive force. He also tried to change it's deployment from the Netherland East Indies to Burma where if that had happened it would have simply gone it to the bag. Churchill did not respect Australia's dominion status at all.
 
Australia disliked Churchill. He had tried to renege on the agreement made in 1939 about employment of the AIF. He liked to allow the British Army to split it into it's component parts and not fight as a cohesive force. He also tried to change it's deployment from the Netherland East Indies to Burma where if that had happened it would have simply gone it to the bag. Churchill did not respect Australia's dominion status at all.
Do you think that dynamic flips when Menezies comes back?
 
There are several things you'd need to change:

- You'd need to butterfly away some of the bruising losses in Singapore and Tobruk which hurt the Tories immensely. Perhaps Churchill decides against the Greek adventure and pushes on for Benghazi before Rommel can arrive in force. Then, when the Japanese do attack Malaysia, the British can defend it properly.

- Make the Conservatives realize that they need to start gearing for a campaign during the war. Labour had put in the groundwork whilst the Tories had not. It showed.

- You'd also need to get Churchill to support the Beveridge Report, which is not impossible (Churchill had a history of being a social reformer) but he'd also probably run it as being a less expensive version of Labour's plan. At the very least, you could let Churchill focus on foreign affairs and give "Consensus" Tories like Anthony Eden and Rab Butler the domestic side of the campaign.

- NO GESTAPO COMMENT, NO GESTAPO COMMENT, NO GESTAPO COMMENT.

All this might not even push the Tories over the line. It might just lessen the blow.

I suppose you could also try to persuade Labour to keep the coalition going postwar, I've read quite a bit that a lot of people voted for Labour but wanted Churchill to keep on going as PM (or thought he could). However a continued coalition would be a feat in and of itself. WWI was still in living memory and Labour did not want to repeat the mistakes of Lloyd George.
 
Last edited:
India

My own gut feeling is that Churchill will try to renege on the promise of Indian independence. However, is it possible to - peacefully, or relatively peacefully - prolong British rule with a later date of departure? Is it possible that Partition looks different in such a scenario? Is it possible that Partition is avoided entirely at this eleventh hour?
AIUI Churchill very much did not believe Indian Independence or Partition was the best bet for either Britain or India. He would likely try and avoid both. However, failing that (and I can't see him succeeding) he will probably make peace with both of them.

A good example might be Iraq after WW1. As First Lord of the Admiralty and later Secretary of State for War and Air Churchill had been instrumental in raising the necessity of gaining a secure oil supply in general and of holding Iraq in particular. Yet a few years later as Secretary of State for the Colonies he gave full support to plans to withdraw from direct control of the area and give more control over to the Hashemite led administration. Its not an exact correlation as Britain still did get oil out of Iraq but it does show that Churchill, meddling and hyperactive and autocratic as he could be at times, could, and did, bow to political reality when necessary.

Palestine

How does Churchill balance his personal bias in favour of the Jewish with British interests in the Middle East? Does Churchill accept the Harrison Report?
He might. But he would also likely be pretty conscious of the need for Britain to retain a good relationship with the Arab Powers. I think he would likely try to walk the tightrope between them. I have doubts as to his success and I am not sure what he would do if he fails. It is also important to note that the British policy of limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine was continued and further formalized under Churchill, though I don't know how much he had to do with it personally.

The Dominions

How do Britain's relationships change with the Dominions, if at all?
Well, I know of no particular dislike of Churchill in Canada. There may even be more good feeling towards him than Atlee. But there also wasn't a particular desire to maintain a close relationship with Britain under the Liberals. And I kind of doubt Churchill and Makenzie King got along. St Laurent, though generally cautious was a Canadian Nationalist. So you will likely still see a slow pull away from Britain in Canada.
 
Australia disliked Churchill. He had tried to renege on the agreement made in 1939 about employment of the AIF. He liked to allow the British Army to split it into it's component parts and not fight as a cohesive force. He also tried to change it's deployment from the Netherland East Indies to Burma where if that had happened it would have simply gone it to the bag. Churchill did not respect Australia's dominion status at all.
Well, they had cause ... Gallipoli ... a right royal muck up == the original plan might have made some sense but by the time the Australians were sent in after the fleet bombardment had failed, the enemy were waiting for them .. if the troops had been landed first with the element of surprise it might just have worked .... but to land them months after making your intentions obvious was indeed just sending men to their deaths .... Churchill should have called it off after the moron of a French Admiral ran half a dozen battleships into a string of mines that sunk half of them instead of trying to use the Australians to recover the situation.
 
Well, they had cause ... Gallipoli ... a right royal muck up == the original plan might have made some sense but by the time the Australians were sent in after the fleet bombardment had failed, the enemy were waiting for them .. if the troops had been landed first with the element of surprise it might just have worked .... but to land them months after making your intentions obvious was indeed just sending men to their deaths .... Churchill should have called it off after the moron of a French Admiral ran half a dozen battleships into a string of mines that sunk half of them instead of trying to use the Australians to recover the situation.

Gallipoli only started the mistrust of Churchill. It was the further failures to respect Australia's dominion status that put the lid on him. His attempt to renege on the return of the AIF from the Middle East was sufficient to make sure that Curtin's plea to Washington was not just empty words. It was further reinforced by the Cairo Conference in 1943 which failed to have any representation from Australia (or New Zealand) and attempted to decide the course of the post-war Pacific. That did not go down well in Canberra and was one of the main reasons why the ANZAC Pact was signed in 1944. Australia and New Zealand had a long history of being slighted by the British. They attempted to put that right and assert their independence.
 
Gallipoli only started the mistrust of Churchill. It was the further failures to respect Australia's dominion status that put the lid on him. His attempt to renege on the return of the AIF from the Middle East was sufficient to make sure that Curtin's plea to Washington was not just empty words. It was further reinforced by the Cairo Conference in 1943 which failed to have any representation from Australia (or New Zealand) and attempted to decide the course of the post-war Pacific. That did not go down well in Canberra and was one of the main reasons why the ANZAC Pact was signed in 1944. Australia and New Zealand had a long history of being slighted by the British. They attempted to put that right and assert their independence.
It is very fair to say Australia and New Zealand have a history of being slighted by Churchill, but not the British.
 
Churchill was a senior minister and Prime Minister. I think that counts as "the British" for these purposes.
Prime Ministers come and go, I don't think they are a good judge for the country, as they do not represent the rest of the government or the population.
 
Prime Ministers come and go, I don't think they are a good judge for the country, as they do not represent the rest of the government or the population.
By definition, in a Westminster democracy, they do represent the majority of the seats in Parliament and hence the majority of the voters...
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
By definition, in a Westminster democracy, they do represent the majority of the seats in Parliament and hence the majority of the voters...
The tail end of the sentence is incorrect. IIRC the last party to receive over 50% of votes cast in a UK General Election was Labour in 1951 - and they lost!
(A bit like Hilary winning the popular vote but Donald installed in the White House).
 
By definition, in a Westminster democracy, they do represent the majority of the seats in Parliament and hence the majority of the voters...
In Churchill's case he represents the choice of the 1922 committee of the Conservative party. The only election he won was for his seat in Parliament. The ordinary Conservative MP's didn't get a vote on his leadership, let alone the general membership of the Party. Not that the 1922 Committee wanted him, but he was the only one able to lead a wartime coalition.
 
The tail end of the sentence is incorrect. IIRC the last party to receive over 50% of votes cast in a UK General Election was Labour in 1951 - and they lost!
(A bit like Hilary winning the popular vote but Donald installed in the White House).
Under the simplistic first-past-the-post voting system that the UK employs who wins the election represents the will of the majority of the voters.
 
Under the simplistic first-past-the-post voting system that the UK employs who wins the election represents the will of the majority of the voters.
Saying politicians represents the will of the voters is just absurd, do you think the average briton wanted the government to disrespect Australia like Churchill did?
 
Saying politicians represents the will of the voters is just absurd, do you think the average briton wanted the government to disrespect Australia like Churchill did?
I have no idea. I am not British. I think most British people were largely indifferent to the fate of Australia.
 
I have no idea. I am not British. I think most British people were largely indifferent to the fate of Australia.
"I think most British people were largely indifferent to the fate of Australia."
This is a completely insane thing to say. Australia was British, so obviously Britons are going to care a lot about Australia. And unlike America or Canada, the British population in Australia is very recent, Australians to a large extent considered themselves to be British transplants.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Under the simplistic first-past-the-post voting system that the UK employs who wins the election represents the will of the majority of the voters.
Afraid you are wrong - at least since 1951. In the last GE the Conservatives won 43.6% of the votes cast yet won a majority (not small) of the seats.
 
Top