Churchill retires in 1945

What if Churchill had retired after the 1945 general election? Who would succeed him as Conservative Party leader? How would this affect UK politics?
 
A couple of years ago (using a later POD) I suggested that the Conservatives might actually have fared better in 1951 with Eden at their head:

***

Suppose that after the general election of 1950 (where Labour had been reduced to a very precarious majority) and before that of 1951 (let's assume that it comes about on schedule) Winston Churchill suffers such a serious stroke (he had already suffered a minor one in 1949) that he can no longer function as leader of the Conservative Party, and Eden takes his place. Do the Tories do better or worse than in OTL in the 1951 general election?

On the surface, it would seem that Churchill's immense prestige would be a huge asset to the Tories. But as Harold Macmillan noted in his *Tides of Fortune 1945-1955* (p. 358) "the fact that he was known as a great war leader somehow or other, by a curious confusion of thought, led many people to be persuaded that he would welcome another opportunity of displaying his special qualities." In May Hugh Dalton had declared "If we get Churchill and the Tory Party back at the next election we shall be at war with Russia within twelve months." Most Labour leaders were less crude than this, but managed to create the same impression. (In the constituencies, according to Macmillan, an attempt was made by canvassers to create something like panic, a typical slogan being "Vote Tory and reach for a rifle, Vote Labour and reach old age.") Above all, the *Daily Mirror* in the late summer coined the slogan "Whose finger on the trigger?" which it repeated in its first editorial on the election, saying that this was the supreme issue at stake.

The next phase was described in David Butler, *The British General Election of 1951*, pp. 133-134:

"The *Daily Mirror* did not return to this theme until October 15th; on that day it began a special election feature devoting its second page to election letters from its readers; the first of these was prominently headlined 'The Finger on That Trigger Must Not Itch'. On October 18th it carried a front-page story based on a Paris despatch printed in the New York weekly, *The Nation,* to the effect that Mr. Churchill would deliver a 'peace ultimatum' to Stalin. On October 19th it elaborated the story, again on the front page, under the headline 'What DID Mr. Churchill say in Paris?' while a back page editorial headed 'Ultimatum Talk', while admitting that 'evidence was lacking', gave a warning against putting 'pressure' on Russia and demanded an explanation from Mr. Churchill. The Conservative Central Office issued a statement by Mr. Churchill describing the Paris report as 'completely false', and on October 20th the *Daily Mirror* published this in an almost identical position to its first story under the headline 'I didn't say it, says Churchill'. On the same day its election letters on the second page were grouped under the two headings 'When Labour's Finger Guards the Trigger' and 'Who's Churchill Leading Now?' On October 23rd the election letters were given pride of place in a spread across the two centre pages, and those which posed the war issue were again accorded prominence under the headline 'Whose Finger on the Trigger?' Then on the eve of the election the *Daily Mirror* let itself go. 'Whose Finger on the Trigger?' became a front-page banner headline above photographs of intending Labour voters, 'a cross-section of Britain's workers'. Finally, on polling day itself, the *Daily Mirror*'s front page was devoted to a sensational spread on the same theme which led Mr. Churchill to issue a writ for libel against the newspaper."

Eventually, the *Daily Mirror* made a settlement, paying Churchill's costs, as well as damages which he gave to a charity. But that was several months after the election. Very likely, the attempt to portray Churchill as a warmonger did have some effect. The average swing nationwide to the Tories was only 1.1 percent with the Tories achieving a net gain of 23 seats and Labour a net loss of 20. The Conservatives had a majority of 26 seats over Labour and 17 over all parties combined. According to Macmillan, this result ("It was enough, but just enough") was a disappointment to the Tories:

"We had been confident, judging by the Gallup Poll and from other indications, of obtaining a majority of at least fifty and perhaps more. The swing against us at the end was partly no doubt caused by the normal rally of estranged Labour voters to their own government. But it was largely the result of the bitter onslaught against Churchill on the 'warmongering' issue. 'A third Labour Government or a third world war' had proved a devastating slogan." (*Tides of Fortune,* pp. 360-61)

So again I'd like to ask how well the Tories would have done in 1951 if Eden instead of Churchill had led them. No doubt Eden was of much lesser stature, but Churchill's longtime anti-Bolshevism (despite the World War II alliance), fame as a war leader, and general bulldog persona, did, it seems to me, make it easier to portray him as a "warmonger" than Eden. (Ironically, in May 1953 when Churchill called for British-American-Soviet talks to take advantage of the opportunities he believed Stalin's death had presented, Labour began worrying about Churchill's health, and saying that his likely successors in the Tory Party did not share his commitment to peace...)

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...951-asset-or-liability-for-the-tories.422839/
 
On the other hand, the Tories got lucky by Attlee (at the King's suggestion) going for an October 1951 election at all. Had Attlee held on to 1952, Labour might well have been re-elected. No Churchill after 1945 might mean butterflies in terms of election timing.
 
Churchill apparently hated Eden, and basically stayed on to prevent him from taking office. The Conservatives almost certainly do better. Possibly even winning 1950. Churchill had led the country through the war, but was still a very controversial and openly reactionary figure. From 1945 Eden could have given the Tories a fresh, and relatively young, face.
 

Zen9

Banned
Eden could play up the 'new broom' side of his leadership. "A new man
for the new age".

Raises some questions about a whole raft of government decisions if the Conservatives are in power by 1950.
 
I once did some brainstorming about Eden leading the Tories in the 1945 GE with a more effective campaign that kept Labour’s majority to about 40. Atlee became more cautious in office, leading him to back Herbert Morrison’s model of the NHS, which in turn results in Bevan resigning from the government. Riven with splits the government collapses in around 1948 and Eden leads the Tories to a landslide victory. I gave up on it as an idea because given how much of the electorate blamed the Tories for the disasters of the early war years, and the poverty of the 1930’s its difficult to see a way they could have avoided a total walloping in 1945 no matter who was the leader. An Eden premiership from 1950 might have been very interesting, I read once that he favoured an early version of Right to Buy. If he’d been PM before that operation left him a Benzedrine addicted zombie he’d certainly be better remembered today.
 
Talking about 1951 is frankly moot because the Conservatives probably win 1950 with a majority. Eden was amazingly, crazily personally popular; Churchill was respected, but Eden had something more. In 1945, Gallup polled that 31% wanted Eden as the post-war PM, against 20% for Churchill, and 4% for Attlee, who was then occupying the office. In 1951 he also outpolled Churchill, and as Foreign Secretary he polled around 80% approval ratings. Talking about Churchill's baggage is only one half of the coin; the other is that Eden was more popular. He was not "of lesser stature" at the business end of that equation.

I think even pre-bial duct surgery misfortune Eden might not last long as PM, but it's definitely going to help the Tories electorally whenever the next election is in a big way.
 
Last edited:

Zen9

Banned
Yet at the same time Eden is not guaranteed to make the same decisions Churchill made.....
 
Churchill apparently hated Eden, and basically stayed on to prevent him from taking office.

Interestingly Attlee did the same thing in his party at the same time - his Eden was Herbert Morrison. Both Attlee and Churchill stayed on until 1955, but the former succeeded in his goal.
 
It was best that Churchill did not retire. Eden was useless and contributed to the Suez crisis. If Churchill had just managed to last until 1960 he would have probably agreed to a union with France and averted the Suez crisis, thus creating a third superpower. (He actually drew this up himself in 1940.) Retrospectively if Churchill had retired Eden would have just caused more chaos between 1950/1-55. There is clear distinction between competent and incompetent politicians in this case.
 

Deleted member 94680

Eden was useless and contributed to the Suez crisis.

“Useless”, generally speaking, is over-egging the pudding. Saying that, he pretty much created the suez crisis rather than merely contributing to it.

If Churchill had just managed to last until 1960 he would have probably agreed to a union with France and averted the Suez crisis, thus creating a third superpower. (He actually drew this up himself in 1940.)

Err, what? Where do you get this from? The French rejected this crazy bit of Churchillian machination out of hand in 1940 when they were balls to the wall. Why the hell would they contemplate it in 1956?

Retrospectively if Churchill had retired Eden would have just caused more chaos between 1950/1-55.

Very hard to say. Eden before his surgery was a completely different character. That and there was something about Nasser that riled him particularly. You can’t transplant Suez onto every other bit of foreign policy to assume it would be handled worse.

There is clear distinction between competent and incompetent politicians in this case.

Which case? Suez or generally speaking? Because if it’s the latter, then I suggest you review the actions of the two between WWII and Churchill’s death.
 
Err, what? Where do you get this from? The French rejected this crazy bit of Churchillian machination out of hand in 1940 when they were balls to the wall. Why the hell would they contemplate it in 1956?

It's something which bubbles up on this board from time to time. It's based on Guy Mollet, the Anglophile French PM at the time of Suez, batting around some fairly bizarre schemes for a union between France and the UK, or at least France joining the Commonwealth.

Needless to say, union between the two countries had not the slightest chance of being accepted in either country, and even the mildly more realistic prospect of France joining the Commonwealth would have likely caused uproar in France if it had emerged Mollet had been pushing it.
 
If Churchill had just managed to last until 1960 he would have probably agreed to a union with France and averted the Suez crisis, thus creating a third superpower. (He actually drew this up himself in 1940.) Retrospectively if Churchill had retired Eden would have just caused more chaos between 1950/1-55. There is clear distinction between competent and incompetent politicians in this case.

That assumes France would agree to do that.

Err, what? Where do you get this from? The French rejected this crazy bit of Churchillian machination out of hand in 1940 when they were balls to the wall. Why the hell would they contemplate it in 1956?

It's something which bubbles up on this board from time to time. It's based on Guy Mollet, the Anglophile French PM at the time of Suez, batting around some fairly bizarre schemes for a union between France and the UK, or at least France joining the Commonwealth.

Needless to say, union between the two countries had not the slightest chance of being accepted in either country, and even the mildly more realistic prospect of France joining the Commonwealth would have likely caused uproar in France if it had emerged Mollet had been pushing it.

Actually, in 1940, the union appears to have had a good chance of happening, both Churchill and De Gaulle supported it. It would be completely impossible for it to happen in 1956, though.
 
That assumes France would agree to do that.

Still won;t make a superpower.

The French offered it 1956 and Eden refused... useless piece a... He evokes great anger considering he's the reason why we're in the Brexit cockup. If there is one politician I truly detest with utter contempt it's him, along with Chamberlain and Fairfax of course. Stuck up Oxbridge pr%ick. Don't get wrong Churchill made mistakes, was aristocratic but ultimately had logical common sense which won him the war. I don't care if Eden contributed to the Suez crisis or was the cause of it, there both the same to me. No, it had an equally good chance of succeeding in 1956, after 1956 the French power brokered with Germany and that lives until today. That is the only reason why Europe has not befallen into wars.

Let's just say if the French-German power partition broke, and I was the British Prime Minister, I would offer a British-French Union to the French. The French were basically offering superpower status through marriage and it is something my country is finding difficult to come to terms with, and of course, the union would become a superpower, we made Concorde together.

I'll calm down now...
 

longsword14

Banned
Actually, in 1940, the union appears to have had a good chance of happening, both Churchill and De Gaulle supported it. It would be completely impossible for it to happen in 1956, though.
The sole purpose was to keep France from signing the armistice. Can't see it lasting beyond the war.
 

Deleted member 94680

It's something which bubbles up on this board from time to time. It's based on Guy Mollet, the Anglophile French PM at the time of Suez, batting around some fairly bizarre schemes for a union between France and the UK, or at least France joining the Commonwealth.

Wow. Do you have a link to any reference to it? I’ve read a couple of histories of Suez and neither of them mention it that I remember. I just don’t see how an Anglo-French Union would help or resolve the Suez Crisis in any way. Or how it would be implemented. Bizarre.
 
Wow. Do you have a link to any reference to it? I’ve read a couple of histories of Suez and neither of them mention it that I remember. I just don’t see how an Anglo-French Union would help or resolve the Suez Crisis in any way. Or how it would be implemented. Bizarre.

Here's a BBC article on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6261885.stm (Albeit with a clickbait title) I thought it was a reasonably well-known bit of trivia amongst us on here.

It is indeed a bizarre notion, but heads of governments have got some extremely strange blue sky ideas into their heads over the years; it's not necessarily indicative of their realism. It seems like Mollet was letting his Anglophilia fuse with a sort of late fifties French malaise.
 
Top