Churchill Dies

What if Churchhill died in the trenches during World War 1(went apparently to redeem himself after something, if I'm remembering correctly.) Would the Labor Party have replaced him during World War 2? Were there other leaders that could have? Or is England going to have to do this without Churchhill's charisma?
 
A very big question, because the butterflies are huge. With Churchill dead in 1916, there very well might not be a WWII as we know it. Yes, I'm serious. Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the early 1920s Baldwin governments and highly influential within the Tories and the Government until 1929. Without Churchill's hardline stance against the Unions, the General Strike might not have happened, there would have been different conversations around Whitehall etc and ultimately the British government would have developed to have different priorities. Perhaps only slightly so compared to OTL, but that's the thing about butterflies. They can leave you scratching your head.

Now, what does this mean for 1930s Germany? Hitler will almost certainly still rise - a different UK government is unlikely to change that. Let's say he does and events go as usual. Churchill was well out of favour by 1936 and so Chamberlain would get the nod when Stanley Baldwin retires as per usual, Winston being dead won't change that. It's this 1930s period that is the most interesting for the British war effort and post-war world. Without Winston, who do the 'troublemakers' (the Tory MPs who opposed Appeasement) rally around? Do Eden, Macmillan and co simply have different fates and views, again thanks to butterflies stemming from the old warhorse not being in the Commons?

We don't know, and if the war goes as OTL to 1940 - which it wouldn't, because by then Churchill was overseeing the fleet and obviously wouldn't be ITTL - would Neville even be forced to resign? The troublemakers led a rebellion that got rid of him. Now, he was ill, so he might die in office a few months later but still, huge butterflies. Dunkirk might not even happen in the same way, Churchill played a large part in that.

In short, this is a huge question that can't really be answered. If you're looking for who would replace Chamberlain if Churchill went under a bus in, say, March 1940, then that's a different matter entirely. There's the slim possibility of Attlee heading a Wartime Coalition but it's more likely that Eden (although he was young) would get the nod from the Magic Circle.
 
What if Churchhill died in the trenches during World War 1(went apparently to redeem himself after something, if I'm remembering correctly.) Would the Labor Party have replaced him during World War 2? Were there other leaders that could have? Or is England going to have to do this without Churchhill's charisma?
To begin with, if he had died in the trenches he would have had to be replaced by someone else. But he was never a member of the Labour Party - he was a Conservative who had temporarily switched to the Liberal party for his own personal gain then switched back again when it was to his advantage.

There were indeed other leaders - Clement Atlee for instance - he ran the country while Churchill was micro- (and mis-) managing the war effort.

Churchill had charisma? He was a Churchill-centrist, big-mouthed, racist, warmonger who had no talent for anything but speech-making (at which, it must be said, he was excellent).
 
I meant the Labor Party replacing Churchill.

I actually don't like Churchill either(scary part of the romantic right, different timeline could've been Fascist, seriously. Sorry if this sounds heretical to you.) However, I do admit he was quite a charismatic figure.

With that in mind, could Clement Attlee perhaps have lead England against Nazi Germany instead? I know, another huge question, considering the first already produces butterflies that could destroy nations in power, but still.
 
I meant the Labor Party replacing Churchill.

I actually don't like Churchill either(scary part of the romantic right, different timeline could've been Fascist, seriously. Sorry if this sounds heretical to you.) However, I do admit he was quite a charismatic figure.

With that in mind, could Clement Attlee perhaps have lead England against Nazi Germany instead? I know, another huge question, considering the first already produces butterflies that could destroy nations in power, but still.

Firstly, it's the Labour Party. We're not Australia.

Secondly, you're right, he flirted with fascism a lot, was a big fan of Il Duce and could see the logic in centralising power to a small group or individual (but who didn't? It all made sense until the horrors of a police state emerged). And the less said of his views on Jews and Indians the better. But let's not forget that in a 'different timeline' Adolf Hitler could theoretically have been born in Minnesota and been FDR's Vice President. The more terrifying thing about Churchill is that in our timeline he could well have turned out a fascist if it suited him.

Thirdly, what you've said about the Labour Party somehow 'replacing' Churchill is really impossible to put into practice. If you're asking that if Churchill wasn't around in May 1940 Attlee could have led a government against the Nazis then yes, there is a small chance that could happen. However one must remember the Tories have a huge majority in parliament at this point and so it's not very likely. Eden would be more plausible but, again, he was very young. Halifax getting in and calling for peace is another genuine possibility. There's an excellent TL dealing with that, called 'Halifax'. Do look it up.

Ultimately, though, this idea of yours that you can tailor-make a scenario whereby Labour leads Britain through the war rather than Churchill is a little misguided. You're certainly not going to do it with a POD in 1916 - or rather, certainly not going to guarantee it. Without Churchill in Number 11 Downing Street in the 1920s the lot of the British worker will be different, Labour's competing economic policy will be different, et cetera et cetera. If you want to put Clem Attlee in Number 10 in 1940 (which I think you've revealed is your real purpose here), do so with a PoD of, perhaps, 1938 or 1939. In my joint TL with RogueBeaver, Irrevocable Determination, Churchill has a minor heart attack in the mid 1930s and refuses the premiership when offered it by Edward VIII and the Magic Circle in 1938. The butterflies that ensue lead to his chosen successors - Duff Cooper and Anthony Eden - being discredited in much the same way Chamberlain was in OTL 1940. Do you see where this is going? We've not quite got to the outbreak of war yet, but if you're looking for Labour leaders running Britain during the war, you may want to take a look at it.

Now, as for the question of Clem being in charge during the war, the real question is one of how his cabinet is made up. Clem was a superb administrator and really kept the country running while Churchill kept spirits high and used his military experience to assist in the military decision making - but crucially he (nearly) always followed his Generals' advice. Take notes from that, Hitler. A Clem-led Britain would be one that lacked inspiration from on high but remained determined and well-run. Labour might still win a landslide in 1945, perhaps an even greater one - they'd be able to say 'look what our Clem did, he won the war even though he had to do it with a parliament stuffed full of Tories who gave us ten years of Depression and six years of war!'. The butterflies that come from that are, of course, monstrous in size.

I hope this answers some of your queries. As a man of the left myself I'm interested in Labour's role in the war, and how things would have gone had it been expanded. The key thing to remember though is that with no election since 1935, the parliamentary arithmetic of 1940 (elections were suspended during the war, unlike in the USA) makes a Labour PM heading a wartime coalition unlikely. Unlikely, but not impossible - but one must remember Clem was the perfect Deputy PM. A 'backroom boy' with incredible organisational skill but little charisma. If he had been a strong enough character, there's a chance negotiations would have put him in Number 10 with Eden as Deputy PM. Remember Ramsay MacDonald officially headed the 1931-1935 coalition government despite the Tories making up most of it. In a time of war, the men in grey suits might have accepted Attlee if he was absolutely the right man for the job - the problem with this idea, however, is that it's not obvious that he was. Would Attlee have made a great Prime Minister? Yes, he proved that come 1945. Would he have been able to be a great leader? Perhaps not.
 
Churchill had charisma? He was a Churchill-centrist, big-mouthed, racist, warmonger who had no talent for anything but speech-making (at which, it must be said, he was excellent).
That is the definition of charisma, by and large. Racist imperialist warmongers (and in so much as these characteristics can be applied to Churchill they can also be applied to an awful lot of people at the time) can be as charismatic as wet pinkos.
 
That is the definition of charisma, by and large. Racist imperialist warmongers (and in so much as these characteristics can be applied to Churchill they can also be applied to an awful lot of people at the time) can be as charismatic as wet pinkos.

Very true. And Chookie is unfair to Churchill in that he goes too far - the man was a gifted politician and able to make decisions in an informed manner - though this ability sometimes failed him - and, of course, the only winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature to have ever lived in Number 10. So we can add 'author' to the list.

He was also a pretty good AHer.
 
Very true. And Chookie is unfair to Churchill in that he goes too far - the man was a gifted politician and able to make decisions in an informed manner - though this ability sometimes failed him - and, of course, the only winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature to have ever lived in Number 10. So we can add 'author' to the list.

He was also a pretty good AHer.
And of course Churchill's military interventions were by no means all bad - for example, sending tanks to North Africa in 1940 and delaying a cross-Channel invasion until 1944. He was also I think right on most of the big questions of the war. Churchill's main failing was that he was inclined to demand action now and today instead of taking a rather more cautious approach, but if he hadn't been that kind of fellow then we may well have come to terms with Hitler in 1940.
 
Thanks guys! That actually wasn't my original intention, but I became very curious about that upon hearing more about Atlee's role during World War 2. However, I don't know NEARLY enough about British politics to do that, all the more shown here.:p
 
I think there would be lots of little butterflies rather than any big PoDs resulting from Churchill's early death - while he was a senior and important Liberal and Conservative Cabinet minister during the late 1910s and 20s most of the big decisions he took would also have been taken by most conceivable replacements - the Coalition would still have intervened in Russia and the Conservatives would still have put Britain back on the Gold Standard, with even less doubt given that Churchill was a little dubious about the merits of doing so. However, having different personalities is still a big difference and it may well be that another reasonably prominent Conservative or Liberal politician is given a chance to shine by Churchill's absence and becomes a more credible contender for No. 10.
 
With a POD in 1916? Really?

I was humouring the conceit. Note that in my opening line I say WWII is unlikely to happen as we know it, but by the time you reach that part of my argument I've accepted a degree of handwavium as necessary to keep the world in any way recognisable without Churchill dominating the top of British politics in the 1920s.

Derek - there's no way of knowing. Without Churchill as his mentor, Eden may have developed a completely different political instinct and career.
 
Top