No Winston Churchill.

What if Winston Churchill (for some reason) had died in early 1930s?
In other words,the history can change for a single man?
 

d32123

Banned
Nothing really changes in the outcome of WW2.
Massive butterflies for anyone born after the point of divergence, though.
 
Nothing really changes in the outcome of WW2.
Massive butterflies for anyone born after the point of divergence, though.

Who replaces him, though?

The Allies could have mishandled WWII - resources are all well and good but useless if badly used.
 
i recall reading somewhere that the actions of churchill actually caused ww2 to last longer.

Dunno about that, but I've often read that regarding WW1. I'll go ahead and claim that the fact the Ottomans entered at all was entirely his fault. Other than that, he pushed for Gallipoli instead of Kitchener's planned attack on Alexandretta, which would have crippled the Ottomans just fine.
 
Dunno about that, but I've often read that regarding WW1. I'll go ahead and claim that the fact the Ottomans entered at all was entirely his fault. Other than that, he pushed for Gallipoli instead of Kitchener's planned attack on Alexandretta, which would have crippled the Ottomans just fine.
That implies that the decision to seize the Ottoman battleships being built in Britain was a uniquely Churchillian one. It wasn't. In fact as far as I can tell it was standard practice at the time - we did the same with Chile's unfinished warships, and Chile was in no danger of coming into the war against us.
 
I recon Cooper would have a shot at PM position.

Butterflies ahoy, but it's less unlikely than you think. The big stumbling block is how long Winston lives and how he dies - if he lives long enough to mentor Duff and then dies in a fashion that allows Duff to lead the Churchillite faction then he'll probably be a shoo-in come May 1940.
 
What if Winston Churchill (for some reason) had died in early 1930s?
In other words,the history can change for a single man?

You have to wonder who would have carried the anti-apeasement torch: Anthony Eden? Leo Amery? Neither had a big following in the country. My best guess is Halifax succeeds Chamberlain as PM in May/June 1040 - and an accommodation or truce is agreed with Germany shortly after.
 
Yes, otherwise Germany would have won faster.
Indeed, Churchill was the lone voice of reason in a political establishment baying for a surrender. And besides, from June 1941, The Nazis had little chance of winning the war anyway. All Britain had to do was hold out.
 

Deleted member 1487

Indeed, Churchill was the lone voice of reason in a political establishment baying for a surrender. And besides, from June 1941, The Nazis had little chance of winning the war anyway. All Britain had to do was hold out.

This is somewhat overblown. Talk of negotiations were suggested, but even Halifax refused to surrender. German terms were considered unacceptable anyway, so without Churchill WW2 would have gone on just the same, but without the inspiration of Churchill the British public wouldn't have had as high of morale. Not much changes AFAIK.
 
Recognition of Germany's dominance in mainland Europe, return of the old German colonies nicked after 1918, mainly African with some Pacific islands, and restoration of normal trading/ambassadorial arrangements.

AFAIK that was about it, not even imposition of the Nurenburg Race Laws.
 
Top