David Lloyd George also on HMS Hampshire June 1916

David Lloyd George was supposed to accompany Field Marshall Kitchener on the Hampshire but a late minute change of plans meant he did not.

What would have been the effect of Lloyd George dying June 1916?
 
David Lloyd George was supposed to accompany Field Marshall Kitchener on the Hampshire but a late minute change of plans meant he did not.

What would have been the effect of Lloyd George dying June 1916?

At this point in time, Herbert Henry Asquith, was still Prime Minister, leading the nation into the First World War, but after a series of military and political crises led to his replacement in late 1916 by David Lloyd George.

So with out, David Lloyd George, Asquith would most likely be replaced by Andrew Bonar Law, who in June 1916 was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Leader of the House of Commons and Leader of the Conservative Party.

Another thing that Lloyd George's death would play is whether the Liberal Party, will remain united behind Asquith, instead of splitting up the party leading to its downfull.

Many historians stress that Asquith had high administrative ability , and argue that many of the major reforms popularly associated with Lloyd George as "the man who won the war" were actually implemented by Asquith.

So it depends on whether we have Asquith carry on as Prime Minister or give Andrew Bonar Law a longer time in office.
 
I'm not sure what effect no Lloyd George would have on the last years of the war.

Post-war, I think no Lloyd George would be an altogether positive thing. The man let his prejudices drive him at Versailles, greatly weakening the peace treaty. He ruined relations between Britain and France, he prolonged the wars in Eastern Europe and he worked to undermine any just settlement in the Middle East.

After Versailles he destroyed his own party in an ego-driven civil war.

In the 30s, he emerged as one of those supporting Hitler and wrote in support of German re-armament. In the 40s, he was one of those who urged that Britain should make terms with Germany.

And that's not even starting on his womanizing.

It may be that some elements of the British welfare state would have come later without him, however, I think that the welfare state was inevitable by 1916. So altogether, he seems to be one of those human beings the world would have been better off without.

fasquardon
 
Top