Impact of Stalin and Churchill killed during Moscow Meeting August 1942?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

During mid-August Churchill came to visit Stalin in Moscow and stayed at his Dacha outside of Moscow, which was southwest of the city, no more than about 100 miles from the front line. What if the Germans had gotten intelligence about the meeting and killed both Churchill and Stalin in an air raid at night while they were there, say on the 15th of August? What impact would that have on the politics of Britain and the USSR? In Britain I'd imagine Anthony Eden would take over in place of Churchill, but Stalin's replacement might just be a council of Stalin's advisors, who may or may not get along. I'd also imagine that Soviet-British relations are strained, while the Brits probably launch a retaliatory air raid on Berlin or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Conference_(1942)

Would the lack of Churchill give the Americans more leverage to press for Operation Roundhammer in 1943 rather than Torch? Would Zhukov be given free reign to run the war by the post-Stalin leadership (whomever he or they might be)?
 
A Bonapartist USSR under Zhukov would be interesting to speculate about but I defer to the more learned to expand on exactly how it could function for the rest of the war
 
The most likely leader at this time is probably Molotov. Any leader but Stalin would be willing to give Zhukov more room, both because they lack Stalin's paranoia and titanic ego and because their hold on power would be much more precarious.
 

Deleted member 1487

The most likely leader at this time is probably Molotov. Any leader but Stalin would be willing to give Zhukov more room, both because they lack Stalin's paranoia and titanic ego and because their hold on power would be much more precarious.
Could Zhukov grab power away from the civilians then or even want to? Or say that Beria has to go?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria
Upon Stalin's death in March 1953, Beria was promoted to First Deputy Premier, where he carried out a campaign of liberalization. He was briefly a part of the ruling "troika" with Georgy Malenkov and Vyacheslav Molotov. Beria's overconfidence in his position after Stalin's death led him to misjudge other Politburo members. During the coup d'état led by Nikita Khrushchev and assisted by the military forces of Marshal Georgy Zhukov, Beria was arrested on charges of treason during a meeting in which the full Politburo condemned him. The compliance of the NKVD was ensured by Zhukov's troops, and after interrogation Beria was taken to the basement of the Lubyanka and shot by General Pavel Batitsky.[2]
 
There will be collective leadership in Moscow with Molotov the most likely leader or first among equals. It is possible Stalin's posts will be divided up to prevent any one person from being paramount. Zhukov and other military leaders will be too busy fighting the war to engage in any kind of political intrigue, although I expect any demands he makes will be approved with little debate.

For Britain, the PM will either be Eden or Jan Smuts. Smuts, despite being South African, was discussed as a PM in case Churchill should die or be incapacitated. He was seen as that important to the Imperial war effort. If not, then Eden is the natural choice as he is both a Conservative and does not have the taint of the "guilty men" who appeased Hitler. He would be acceptable to the wartime coalition.

I don't think the conduct of the war will change much. Alan Brooke simply won't permit an early invasion of France. The big changes will be postwar. Without Stalin, the Soviets will be much more eager to participate in the US aligned institutions and thus cooperate much more with the West in exchange for continued aid. There will still be many points of contention, but it is entirely possible that Soviet actions will allow for some continued form of postwar cooperation instead of a Cold War. Or maybe not. We'd have to see.
 
In Britain I'd imagine Anthony Eden would take over in place of Churchill, but Stalin's replacement might just be a council of Stalin's advisors, who may or may not get along. I'd also imagine that Soviet-British relations are strained, while the Brits probably launch a retaliatory air raid on Berlin or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Conference_(1942)

Would the lack of Churchill give the Americans more leverage to press for Operation Roundhammer in 1943 rather than Torch? Would Zhukov be given free reign to run the war by the post-Stalin leadership (whomever he or they might be)?

First off Eden isn't just a shoe in especially with other big names like David Margesson, 1st Viscount Margesson or Harold MacMillan

As for relationships, this double assassination, might tighten relations for Soviet and British soldiers against the common enemy ... Germany.

How does Princess Elizabeth react to Churchill's death?
 

Deleted member 1487

First off Eden isn't just a shoe in especially with other big names like David Margesson, 1st Viscount Margesson or Harold MacMillan

As for relationships, this double assassination, might tighten relations for Soviet and British soldiers against the common enemy ... Germany.

How does Princess Elizabeth react to Churchill's death?
I doubt it would tighten things, as Churchill's life was the responsibility of Soviet security. That's like the US allowing the assassination of Churchill near DC.
What does Princess Elizabeth have to do with anything?
To be PM in wartime you have to come from the war cabinet and both of the two men you mention weren't part of the War Cabinet by August 1942.

There will be collective leadership in Moscow with Molotov the most likely leader or first among equals. It is possible Stalin's posts will be divided up to prevent any one person from being paramount. Zhukov and other military leaders will be too busy fighting the war to engage in any kind of political intrigue, although I expect any demands he makes will be approved with little debate.

For Britain, the PM will either be Eden or Jan Smuts. Smuts, despite being South African, was discussed as a PM in case Churchill should die or be incapacitated. He was seen as that important to the Imperial war effort. If not, then Eden is the natural choice as he is both a Conservative and does not have the taint of the "guilty men" who appeased Hitler. He would be acceptable to the wartime coalition.

I don't think the conduct of the war will change much. Alan Brooke simply won't permit an early invasion of France. The big changes will be postwar. Without Stalin, the Soviets will be much more eager to participate in the US aligned institutions and thus cooperate much more with the West in exchange for continued aid. There will still be many points of contention, but it is entirely possible that Soviet actions will allow for some continued form of postwar cooperation instead of a Cold War. Or maybe not. We'd have to see.
Without Churchill Brooke might not command as much power. Also Molotov was very confrontational with the West after WW2. Jan Smuts wasn't in the war cabinet by 1942, in 1941 he was made a field marshal. The idea was floated, but that was in 1940 and seems to have fallen by the wayside in 1941.
 
I doubt it would tighten things, as Churchill's life was the responsibility of Soviet security. That's like the US allowing the assassination of Churchill near DC.
What does Princess Elizabeth have to do with anything?
To be PM in wartime you have to come from the war cabinet and both of the two men you mention weren't part of the War Cabinet by August 1942.

The Soviet's can't stop a sudden air raid attack.

Elizabeth was very interesting in politics, she cried during Chamberlain's resignation and had a special fondness for Winston Churchill

And if you have to be in the War Cabinet to be PM than it can only be Eden.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Soviet's can't stop a sudden air raid attack.
They could have prevented it from happening with better security and AAA defenses, or at least that is what the anti-communists in Britain would say.

Elizabeth was very interesting in politics, she cried during Chamberlain's resignation and had a special fondness for Winston Churchill
Okay? Not really a significant factor in the politics of the assassination.

And if you have to be in the War Cabinet to be PM than it can only be Eden.
Yup, which is why I threw him out there.
 
I suspect that there would be no civil war; the army is too busy fighting the Germans. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if there was significant fighting in Moscow, but more on the scale of bodyguard vs bodyguard. I suspect that Zukhov would keep the army under control, focused on fighting the facists, unless the fighting got too major...
 
Clement Atlee was appointed the Deputy Prime Minister in 1942 and ran the country whilst Churchill was on his trips abroad. He pretty much ran the country anyway whilst Churchill looked after the Diplomatic and Military side of things. Atlee had a massive presence in Parliament and in the all important committees which do a lot of the boring stuff to keep the country running.
 

Deleted member 1487

Clement Atlee was appointed the Deputy Prime Minister in 1942 and ran the country whilst Churchill was on his trips abroad. He pretty much ran the country anyway whilst Churchill looked after the Diplomatic and Military side of things. Atlee had a massive presence in Parliament and in the all important committees which do a lot of the boring stuff to keep the country running.
Yeah, but he was Labour Party, so the Conservatives in the majority wouldn't accept him being PM.
 
I cant see anyone outside of the War Cabinet becoming PM and whoever the War Cabinet chooses is probably going to be asked by King George VI to form a new government.
The War Cabinet in Aug 42
Winston Churchill, Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, Conservative Party
Clement Atlee, Deputy Prime Minister (not an actual office as such but an Honorific title, he ran the country whilst Churchill ran the war) Labour Party
Sir John Anderson Lord President of the Council (in charge of the wartime economy) National Party
Anthony Eden, Foreign Seceratary, Conservative Party
Stafford Cripps, Minister Without Portfolio, Independent (Usually voted with the Labour whip)
Ernest Bevin, Minister of Labour, Labour Party
Oliver Lyttleton, Minister of War Production, Conservative Party.

I think Beaverbrook might still have attended War Cabinets but wasnt officially a member by this time. Richard Casey was also a member of the War Cabinet but I dont think he actually attended meetings as he was Resident Minister for the East.

In Aug 42 it is going to be between Atlee, Anderson, Eden and Cripps.
Atlee had by far the most power and cross party support particulary with the anyone but Eden faction in the Conservatives.
Anderson was popular and highly thought of by Parliament and with the support of the Conservatives might have got the job
Eden was not particulary popular in Conservative Party or the War Cabinet at this time and never held a Domestic Portfolio but had widespread popularity with the public.
Cripps was an independent though former member of the Labour Party I doubt he could have carried the Conservatives or Labour as he was considered too left wing, though very popular with the public.

Atlee versus Eden. If it came to these two Atlee would have had full backing of the Labour MPs but Eden would have struggled to gain the full backing of Conservative MPs and more importantly the full backing of Conservative Ministers in the Cabinet and War Cabinet also US government officials couldnt stand Eden he just didnt seem to be able to get over his natural superiority with them and by 1942 thats a big issue if you dont get on with the money men. Eden might have been able to form a Government but it would have destroyed the War Coalition.

The sensible compromise choice was probably Anderson he seems a bit dry but he was capable of working with everybody.
 
And she was only 16 so in terms of influence she had the square root of sod all!
MTI4NTA5MTQwMTMyNzQzMTc4.jpg

However in 10 years time, she will be taking the throne over from her father, in OTL there was a personal relationship between Elizabeth coming unexpectedly to the throne in her mid-twenties and Prime Minister Winston, who was not only of vast age and experience, less tempestuous and mercurial than he had once been, but he was also a historian who could rekindle his talks of fighting in Africa, working in the government of her grandfather, uncle and father.

Decades later, when asked which PM she enjoyed meeting with the most, the sovereign replied “Winston of course, because it was always such fun.” One of the household staff confirmed this, reporting that “I could not hear what they talked about, but it was, more often than not, punctuated with peals of laughter, and Winston generally came out wiping his eyes.”

It is even suggested that Winston had felt something towards Queen Elizabeth as if she were his granddaughter and spoke to her like that. I just think this has to be seen when talking about killing him off.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
However in 10 years time, she will be taking the throne over from her father, in OTL there was a personal relationship between Elizabeth coming unexpectedly to the throne in her mid-twenties and Prime Minister Winston, who was not only of vast age and experience, less tempestuous and mercurial than he had once been, but he was also a historian who could rekindle his talks of fighting in Africa, working in the government of her grandfather, uncle and father.

Decades later, when asked which PM she enjoyed meeting with the most, the sovereign replied “Winston of course, because it was always such fun.” One of the household staff confirmed this, reporting that “I could not hear what they talked about, but it was, more often than not, punctuated with peals of laughter, and Winston generally came out wiping his eyes.”

It is even suggested that Winston had felt something towards Queen Elizabeth as if she were his granddaughter and spoke to her like that. I just think this has to be seen when talking about killing him off.

Unfortunately as Churchill is killed in 1942 ITTL he is not around when Elizabeth succeeds to the throne 10 years later, so all of the above does not happen.

The point is in 1942 Princess Elizabeth will have absolutely no say in who would replace Churchill as PM. George VI had no say in Churchill replacing Chamberlain - he probably would have preferred Halifax (recalling WC's support for big brother Edward?) - and would not have been entitled to influence the succession in 1942, let alone his under-aged daughter.
 
Top