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 Labo
ur 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.