DBWI: Lord Churchill not assassinated by Irish nationalist in 1915

Status
Not open for further replies.
What if the Irish nationalist Ian O’Reilly hadn’t shot Lord Winston Churchill in February 1915? What would be the impact on the Great War? Who would’ve won this alt-Great War? Would this butterfly the anti-Irish sentiment that swept the US, leading to the election of Republican Charles Everett Hughes, and his conservative economic reforms? What else would be impacted?
 
Okay.....I'll ask again (asked in pre-1900 on another thread): isn't a DBWI supposed to be about an event that actually happened OTL and we're pretending that it didn't? Since this did not happen OTL, it's just a WI, not a DBWI.
 
Okay.....I'll ask again (asked in pre-1900 on another thread): isn't a DBWI supposed to be about an event that actually happened OTL and we're pretending that it didn't? Since this did not happen OTL, it's just a WI, not a DBWI.

OOC: He didn’t get shot IOTL. ITTL, he did. That’s the POD.
 
There's a complex PoD in advance. OTL, Winston Churchill was not "Lord Churchill". As the son of a younger son of a peer, he was a commoner. Also, the construction "Lord <surname>" doesn't exist. It's either "Lord <given name>", as in "Lord Randolph" Churchill, or "Lord <peerage>", as in "Lord Palmerston" (Henry Temple, Viscount Palmerston). There are cases where the peerage is created with the surname, as in "George Curzon, Marquess Curzon of Kedleston".

Winston could be "Lord Churchill" only if he or his father had been created "<rank> Churchill of <someplace>".
 
Winston Churchill was more likely to be shot by “unionists” than republicans.
Fact the USC (B-men) attempted to assassinate him in Belfast, but he was ushered out away from the ambush. My grannies brother was one of the men involved in the incident. This was several years later that the pod’s timeing.
 
What if the Irish nationalist Ian O’Reilly hadn’t shot Lord Winston Churchill in February 1915? What would be the impact on the Great War? Who would’ve won this alt-Great War? Would this butterfly the anti-Irish sentiment that swept the US, leading to the election of Republican Charles Everett Hughes, and his conservative economic reforms? What else would be impacted?

... You focus on the impact the assassination had on AMERICA? Seriously?

Are we just going to ignore the impact the assassination of Winston had on The United Kingdom and the anti-Republican sentiment it kicked up there? The Sea Lord was one of Catholic Ireland's greatest champions within the Liberal party, and his death and the public outcry basically demanded they end their association with the Irish Nationalist party, which resulted in the fall of the Asquith government and the controversial wartime election which resulted in the landslide Conservative-Unionist victory and outbreak of the St. Patrick's Day Rising when the Home Rule bill was withdrawn despite its pre-war passage. The resulting (if brief) Imperial "Civil War" (Though I'd argue that's too grandiose of a term... it was more of a series of extremely forceful military-police actions: bloody, but too one-sided to really be called a war) between the forces of the Empire and various extremists which resulted in the UK basically bowing out of its involvement in the Great War not only lead back to the roll-back of so many of the Liberal's economic and political reforms of the early 20th century, but contributed greatly to the post-war sense of Anglophobia within France and Russia.

If Churchill had survived, and continued to push for and keep things stable enough in the Empire to safely allow for Imperial military forces to be deployed to fronts in the East (There were plans to put pressure of the Ottomans at several key points, if I recall correctly), the War itself probably lasts longer as the sheer weight of British resources will eventually crack the Straits, allowing Russia to export the grain she needs (and access to more abundent British credit) to avoid her historical bankruptcy in 16'. The resulting inflation in food prices though as bread floods out of the country and currency floods in probably won't be good for the domestic popularity of Czar Nicholas's government though; while the Russian war effort might benefit, a longer war which ends with Petrograd deeply in debt and its people hungry probably dosen't benefit Russia in the long run even if they win and seize some territories. We'd also see alot less protectionism and a looser structure to the British Empire than IOTL: it was already moving towards more decenteralization under the Dominion system in the late 19th/early 20th century, and without the shock of the Imperial Civil War to show how that move was merely imboldening secessionists and weakening the security/viability of the interconnected economic system the Liberal doctrine of Free Trade would probably have emerged victorious. Weather this leads to the slow lose of British industrial-commerical dominance as her old industries continue to lose ground to American and German competitors, or encourages the market to impliment the kind of complete retooling/modernization that would lead to a major economic boom I'm not certain, but the end result is certainly more "swingy" than the steady, controlled growth we saw under the protective tariff and government-mandated improvements/investments of the 20's-40's.

As for the end result of The Great War, like I said we probably see Russia last rather than being squeezed by financial pressures to negotiate a peace with the CP in March of 1916 through the mediation of the Danes. The Treaty of Copenhagen, while fairly extensive if we only look at sheer acreage, was actually the most modest of the post-war treaties; Russia itself only having to concede a few provinces in Transcaucasia to the Ottomans, concede Poland to Germany and the Habsburg Duel (Soon to be triple, once the Kingdom of Poland was integrated) Monarchy, and acknowledge the partition of Serbia. Compare that to the (ironically) Carthaginian peace imposed on the Italians at Zagreb after the outbreak of the Piedmont "Rose Revolution" and Church-backed Crusade for the Patrimony of St.Peter and the crippling economic concessions, confiscations, and indemnities slapped on the French and Russia managed to get out very leniently. In a longer war, where the Russkies bleed more and lose more territory (Given the pressure the CP was putting on the Eastern Front at the time historically), we probably see a greater share of the CP's gains being in the East than the West: Italy probably stays intact, and from Russia we probably see a lose of the Baltics, at least.
 
Okay.....I'll ask again (asked in pre-1900 on another thread): isn't a DBWI supposed to be about an event that actually happened OTL and we're pretending that it didn't? Since this did not happen OTL, it's just a WI, not a DBWI.

Correct. This is a what if question in roleplaying form.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top