No Winston Churchill
- Thread starter DMA
- Start date
Tielhard
Banned
It is hard to see that Churchill made any significant impact on world history. A better Prime minister may have forged a better relationship with the Soviets and avoided getting shafted by the Americans. A poorer one may have signed a peace with Germany in either case Britain and the Empire would continue.
Then again the man made so many cockups:
Galipolli,
Red Clyde,
the Anarchists,
naval budget
India,
Ireland,
Crete,
Singapore ...
... and few successes. The replacements would only have to rise above the level of complete failure to be head and sholders better.
Then again the man made so many cockups:
Galipolli,
Red Clyde,
the Anarchists,
naval budget
India,
Ireland,
Crete,
Singapore ...
... and few successes. The replacements would only have to rise above the level of complete failure to be head and sholders better.
Good Ol' Winston
Without him we wouldn't have those inspirational speeches. Especially this one:
'... We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender ...'
yup...
Location: Gifted Class
Mood:
Without him we wouldn't have those inspirational speeches. Especially this one:
'... We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender ...'
yup...
Location: Gifted Class
Mood:
Hmm, not a lot of Churchill fans here apparently. Since I'm a big admirer of Churchill, I'll say that without him the chances of a separate peace between Britain and Germany in 1940 goes way up. This could either result in a Nazi-dominated Europe or a Soviet dominated Europe - in either case, the effective death of free and independent government on the continent.
His failures and weaknesses were many, but I believe that most of the things that he has been blamed for would have happened with or without him. Gallipoli was supported by several other leading military and political figures, Churchill was simply the one who was chosen as a scapegoat when it turned into a bloody failure. Ireland was handled badly, but again this started with all of the executions in 1916 after the Easter Rising, when Churchill was not part of the cabinet, and there were plenty of other political and military figures in England who supported a "hard line" policy, so I don't see much being different without Churchill. The same can be said for India - Churchill did have a reactionary imperialistic view strongly mixed with racism, but so did most of the rest of Conservative party at the time. As for forging a stronger relationship with the Soviets and getting screwed over by the Americans, it is difficult to see how any other leader could have done better. Hardly any British politician trusted the Soviets because they were, well, untrustworthy. A ruler who goes on massive purges of his own military command for no apparent reason, and who condemns not only capitalists but also socialists who have different ideas than he does, and then turns around and agrees to partition eastern Europe with his most outspoken ideological enemy, does not exactly make an ideal partner. Britain was in a weak position vis-a-vis the US - they needed US help to fight a war, but they weren't in good financial shape.
His failures and weaknesses were many, but I believe that most of the things that he has been blamed for would have happened with or without him. Gallipoli was supported by several other leading military and political figures, Churchill was simply the one who was chosen as a scapegoat when it turned into a bloody failure. Ireland was handled badly, but again this started with all of the executions in 1916 after the Easter Rising, when Churchill was not part of the cabinet, and there were plenty of other political and military figures in England who supported a "hard line" policy, so I don't see much being different without Churchill. The same can be said for India - Churchill did have a reactionary imperialistic view strongly mixed with racism, but so did most of the rest of Conservative party at the time. As for forging a stronger relationship with the Soviets and getting screwed over by the Americans, it is difficult to see how any other leader could have done better. Hardly any British politician trusted the Soviets because they were, well, untrustworthy. A ruler who goes on massive purges of his own military command for no apparent reason, and who condemns not only capitalists but also socialists who have different ideas than he does, and then turns around and agrees to partition eastern Europe with his most outspoken ideological enemy, does not exactly make an ideal partner. Britain was in a weak position vis-a-vis the US - they needed US help to fight a war, but they weren't in good financial shape.
Hmmm... interesting PoD actually, obviously the Second World war comes to mind but there are fertile grounds for changes before this time. THe lack of Churchill as a prominent Liberal politician changes British political history pre WW1. Without his influence at the board of trade maybe there's a less successful set of New Liberal social reforms? Churchill's influence as 1st Sea Lord is also important and without him we could see a less effective Royal Navy in 1914.
So, Britain's in a marginally worse state then OTL come the war. Gallipoli's less likely to happen which is probably overall a bonus- it would be interesting to speculate where the troops used for the attack are sent instead. Wasted on the Western front I suspect. Tanks may also take longer to be introduced which is probably not a good thing. The absence of Churchill as a political factor in 1916 may do all sorts of odd things to the removal of Asquith as PM and the entry of Lloyd George, which could be fascinating- maybe without Churchill we could avoid the Liberal split?
Assuming the war takes pretty much the same course as OTL but with different details the post-war situation should not be too different either. Britain may well have tried to return to the Gold Standard in 1924 anyway, and luckily for all concerned Churchill didn't have too much influence on the course of the General Strike. Assuming it hasn't been butterflied away, the abdication crisis might go differently without one of Edward VIII's more outspoken allies, although I can't see it changing the outcome.
Then we get to WW2, assuming an unforseen butterfly hasn't utterly changed the course of history by now... I doubt the lack of Churchill would have made as much of a difference as many think. Relations with the US might not be as good without Churchill, but that won't stop US entry at some point-and when that happens the War is as good as won in the long term. We'd have lost a lot of good speeches, but apart from that the war may actually have gone better for the UK without Churchill's intereference. Without the distraction of trying to save Greece in 1941 the British army could have got to Tripoli two years early, which might do interesting things to the French in North Africa. An invasion of Corsica and Sardinia in 1942 or similar? Of course without Churchill the British might be more keen to try something in France in 1942 or 43 like the Americans wanted.
Obviously the lack of Churchill will change the eventual course of the war, but the basics will remain the same- and the Tories will still lose in 1945 so we get the welfare state et al. Eden takes over as PM a few years earlier in 1951.
So, overall I don't think the 20th century without Churchill would be too different from OTL, barring any major butterlies. The details will be different, and the English language would be the poorer- OTOH, we wouldn't have lost the war. Churchill's significance comes in his symbolism IMO, something he himself was very aware of; as he said, 'History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it". The 20th century would have been far less interesting without him, and Britain would have lost a great symbol. But quieter, less interesting men would have taken his place and achieved much the same, albeit with rather less fuss.
So, Britain's in a marginally worse state then OTL come the war. Gallipoli's less likely to happen which is probably overall a bonus- it would be interesting to speculate where the troops used for the attack are sent instead. Wasted on the Western front I suspect. Tanks may also take longer to be introduced which is probably not a good thing. The absence of Churchill as a political factor in 1916 may do all sorts of odd things to the removal of Asquith as PM and the entry of Lloyd George, which could be fascinating- maybe without Churchill we could avoid the Liberal split?
Assuming the war takes pretty much the same course as OTL but with different details the post-war situation should not be too different either. Britain may well have tried to return to the Gold Standard in 1924 anyway, and luckily for all concerned Churchill didn't have too much influence on the course of the General Strike. Assuming it hasn't been butterflied away, the abdication crisis might go differently without one of Edward VIII's more outspoken allies, although I can't see it changing the outcome.
Then we get to WW2, assuming an unforseen butterfly hasn't utterly changed the course of history by now... I doubt the lack of Churchill would have made as much of a difference as many think. Relations with the US might not be as good without Churchill, but that won't stop US entry at some point-and when that happens the War is as good as won in the long term. We'd have lost a lot of good speeches, but apart from that the war may actually have gone better for the UK without Churchill's intereference. Without the distraction of trying to save Greece in 1941 the British army could have got to Tripoli two years early, which might do interesting things to the French in North Africa. An invasion of Corsica and Sardinia in 1942 or similar? Of course without Churchill the British might be more keen to try something in France in 1942 or 43 like the Americans wanted.
Obviously the lack of Churchill will change the eventual course of the war, but the basics will remain the same- and the Tories will still lose in 1945 so we get the welfare state et al. Eden takes over as PM a few years earlier in 1951.
So, overall I don't think the 20th century without Churchill would be too different from OTL, barring any major butterlies. The details will be different, and the English language would be the poorer- OTOH, we wouldn't have lost the war. Churchill's significance comes in his symbolism IMO, something he himself was very aware of; as he said, 'History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it". The 20th century would have been far less interesting without him, and Britain would have lost a great symbol. But quieter, less interesting men would have taken his place and achieved much the same, albeit with rather less fuss.
No Gallipoli might have lots of consequences. It might make people think that seaborne invasions were easier than they are in fact are in WW2
I have an idea that lots of the establishment figures wanted the Gold standard so I doubt that would change.
It is VERY That Churchill was crucial in avoiding a deal in the summer of 1940 with the Nazis. If that happened it would have been truly awful.
However if some other Prime Minister took office in 1940 and did not do a deal well things might be better, for instance over India.
Unless whoever became Prime Minister (and could it have been Eden in 1940-1) was a very charismatic tory it is likely that the tory defeat in 1945 would have been even worse than in OTL.
I have an idea that lots of the establishment figures wanted the Gold standard so I doubt that would change.
It is VERY That Churchill was crucial in avoiding a deal in the summer of 1940 with the Nazis. If that happened it would have been truly awful.
However if some other Prime Minister took office in 1940 and did not do a deal well things might be better, for instance over India.
Unless whoever became Prime Minister (and could it have been Eden in 1940-1) was a very charismatic tory it is likely that the tory defeat in 1945 would have been even worse than in OTL.
That must be what inspired Howard Deanchinmokuchibi said:Without him we wouldn't have those inspirational speeches. Especially this one:
'... We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender ...'
yup...
Location: Gifted Class
Mood:
Quite a few anti-Churchill men in the room. But I think the world would look, and be some what different then it is today without him.
Most likely England would sign a peace treaty with Germany in WWII. Lord Hallifax wwas all in favor of Hitler's plans for a cease fire, and England could keep her empire to boot.
Then again if the tank was never created could Germany even get into position to ask for a ceasefire? First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill sponsored the Landships Committee to oversee development of this new weapon. The tank may have come along from some other man, but who? When? Maybe the tank would not come out till the 1930's?
Most likely England would sign a peace treaty with Germany in WWII. Lord Hallifax wwas all in favor of Hitler's plans for a cease fire, and England could keep her empire to boot.
Then again if the tank was never created could Germany even get into position to ask for a ceasefire? First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill sponsored the Landships Committee to oversee development of this new weapon. The tank may have come along from some other man, but who? When? Maybe the tank would not come out till the 1930's?
Fenwick said:
But Lord Halifax wasn't all in favour for Hitler's plans for a cease-fire as such- he was willing to consider German terms, but that does not indicate he'd accept them. We might see peace feelers being sent out to Berlin, but that doesn't in any way mean that they'd be remotely successful. After the Anschluss and Munich it was incredibly difficult to find any British politician who actually trusted Hitler, and that goes for Halifax too- he knew as well as anyone that Hitler's terms could not be trusted. Frankly, even if he didn't and went for a compromise peace he wouldn't remain Prime Minister for long- assuming we have a coalition government much as OTL in this Churchill-less TL then the Labour Party would not accept such a development, and neither would a large number of Tories. This would easily be enough to force a vote of no-confidence and Halifax was an astute enough politician to realise this.
Remember that the very reason Chamberlain fell from office was because he was percieved as not prosecuting the war with enough vigour- any replacement, whether it's Halifax or not, will be pressing for a greater rather then lesser involvement in the war. Personally, I always feel rather sorry for Lord Halifax- he seems to have been condemmed for all eternity to play the role of Nazi stooge when in reality he was a decent and patriotic individual who did Britain's status in Washington no end of good by his presence there as ambassador during the war.
Max Sinister
Banned
Churchill had his flaws, but standing up vehemently against Hitler makes him one of the few conservative politicians I really respect.
SO! Not only do we hate America, we hate everyone who admires America
Especially Churchill?
Sprechen Sie Deutch?
Without Churchill, it may well have become NECESSARY to Sprech Deutch! At least in places like LONDON and LIVERPOOL and EDINBURG!
Without Churchill, those kind, wonderful STALINISTS in Russia might have been up the creek without a paddle also. Surely, among the hate America First crowd THAT would be a bad thing!
Without Churchill, the USA would still be here, however. Sorry!
Especially Churchill?
Sprechen Sie Deutch?
Without Churchill, it may well have become NECESSARY to Sprech Deutch! At least in places like LONDON and LIVERPOOL and EDINBURG!
Without Churchill, those kind, wonderful STALINISTS in Russia might have been up the creek without a paddle also. Surely, among the hate America First crowd THAT would be a bad thing!
Without Churchill, the USA would still be here, however. Sorry!
JLCook said:
Ummm.... well no. The lack of Churchill wouldn't have made Britain make a seperate peace with Hitler. Indeed, it may have actually done Britain some favours militarily, as already stated. Britain's war effort would have been less colourful and the English language deprived of some wonderful speeches and prose, but the end result would have been largely the same. And fun though your rant is, even had the Germans somehow managed to occupy the UK (which was never going to happen) I doubt we would be speaking German. Not even in Edinburg (sic)...
JLCook said:
I fail to see how Churchill made much of a difference to the Russian war effort- indeed, the fall of Britain would only aid Russian preparedness as Stalin would know he was next and not be able to bury his head in the sand like OTL. If Britain makes a compromise peace (which it wouldn't, even without Churchill there) then the Iron Curtain will come down along the Rhine or the Seine in the late 40's, not the Elbe in 1945.
Although why I bother deigning such a rant with a response is slightly beyond me.
Then we get to WW2, assuming an unforseen butterfly hasn't utterly changed the course of history by now... I doubt the lack of Churchill would have made as much of a difference as many think. Relations with the US might not be as good without Churchill, but that won't stop US entry at some point-and when that happens the War is as good as won in the long term. We'd have lost a lot of good speeches, but apart from that the war may actually have gone better for the UK without Churchill's intereference. Without the distraction of trying to save Greece in 1941 the British army could have got to Tripoli two years early, which might do interesting things to the French in North Africa. An invasion of Corsica and Sardinia in 1942 or similar? Of course without Churchill the British might be more keen to try something in France in 1942 or 43 like the Americans wanted.
You are taking far too much for granted. Churchill's energy, leadership and strategic clarity at the time of Dunkirk was spectacular, he resisted French urges to drag more British forces into a losing battle whilst granting enough concessions to get the French to support the Dunkirk evacuation.
I actually agree that lord Halifax might well have rejected terms in OTL June 1940. However, had he become PM on May 10 1940 Britain might not have been in a position to do so if the BEF had been captured or Fighter Command thrown away in France.
The Mers el-Kebir attack is also a spectacular demonstration of decisiveness and resolve in the face of adversity - whether right or wrong. Bringing the US into the war looks inevitable in hindsight but not in the context of repeated failure to do so up to 1940 by various European leaders.
Churchill's three greatest mistakes are:
Gold Standard, Gallipoli and Greece
Gold Standard is one he was actually forced into. Establishment opinion was overwhelmingly behind the idea, Churchill was the one resisting it - rather like Thatcher over the ERM.
Gallipoli and Greece are more accurate to pin on Churchill, but lots of people who declared afterwards they had never thought much of the idea did not disagree at the time - these are wider failure's than a single man's.
You are taking far too much for granted. Churchill's energy, leadership and strategic clarity at the time of Dunkirk was spectacular, he resisted French urges to drag more British forces into a losing battle whilst granting enough concessions to get the French to support the Dunkirk evacuation.
I actually agree that lord Halifax might well have rejected terms in OTL June 1940. However, had he become PM on May 10 1940 Britain might not have been in a position to do so if the BEF had been captured or Fighter Command thrown away in France.
The Mers el-Kebir attack is also a spectacular demonstration of decisiveness and resolve in the face of adversity - whether right or wrong. Bringing the US into the war looks inevitable in hindsight but not in the context of repeated failure to do so up to 1940 by various European leaders.
Churchill's three greatest mistakes are:
Gold Standard, Gallipoli and Greece
Gold Standard is one he was actually forced into. Establishment opinion was overwhelmingly behind the idea, Churchill was the one resisting it - rather like Thatcher over the ERM.
Gallipoli and Greece are more accurate to pin on Churchill, but lots of people who declared afterwards they had never thought much of the idea did not disagree at the time - these are wider failure's than a single man's.
MrP
Banned
Well, attempting Norway in the light of the Gallipoli failure seems questionable. I've always liked Churchill; he seems like a pleasant and honourable old duffer. As Wozza points out, having a strong war leader's a good thing. Can the majority of you imagine seeing Blair as a focal point for resistance against a nefarious foreign power? I cannot.
I find it most peculiar that noone has mentioned Churchill's Boer War service yet. He did exist before WWI, y'know
I find it most peculiar that noone has mentioned Churchill's Boer War service yet. He did exist before WWI, y'know
MrP, he did?!?
Ironically, in 1940 Churchill's having been out of power for so long constituted an advantage. It was inevitable that the Brits would take serious losses as they were militarily unprepared, and since no one could blame Churchill for the policies leading up to WWII...
So let's get rid of Winnie!
POD October 1939. On the way to a meeting the newly appointed First Lord of the Admiralty is killed by a stray German bomb.
April 1940. Lack of advance planning for landing in Norway leaves a few units unprepared for landings, but also leaves them undistracted by a change in plans. The RN, not involved in the planned landings, is unleashed.
Heavy Cruiser Hipper and 4 escorting destroyers sunk by RN destroyer flotilla under Captain Vian as they return from landing German troops in Trondheim.
Elsewhere a British squadron overwhelms two German light cruisers and 4 torpedo boats, while the Home Fleet destroys Scharnhorst and Gneseniau.
RESULT: Kriegsmarine crippled. Sea Lion impossible. Hitler must seek some alternatives.
Battle of France: Major changes, evacuation at Dunkirk slower/less intense, @20,000 Brits not evacuated.
Battle of Britain: Invasion not seriously considered, massive air raids only.
Mers Al Kebir: Operation Catapult not launched. Major elements of French Fleet seized by Hitler in January 1941 including 3 battleships(one incomplete) and one battlecruiser.
British do not rush most of available armor to Egypt. O'Connor's successful destruction of substantial Italian forces never takes place. On arrival of Afrika Korps, frontline is in Egypt and not central Libya.
1941: Rommel breaks British forces in Egypt, takes Cairo/Suez Canal. Malta starved into surrender. Greece, Yugoslavia seek accomodation with Hitler.
Barbarossa: Turkey also joins Axis. Fall of Caucasus region occurs.
1942: Pearl Harbor, Japanese victories in Pacific. German summer offensive includes mopping up near Stalingrad. Stalin surrenders, yields Baltic States, Belarus, all of western Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kola Penninsula in treaty. British sue for peace with Hitler.
1943 and on: Cold War between US and Germany? US nuclear strike ravages Europe? You decide.
Ironically, in 1940 Churchill's having been out of power for so long constituted an advantage. It was inevitable that the Brits would take serious losses as they were militarily unprepared, and since no one could blame Churchill for the policies leading up to WWII...
So let's get rid of Winnie!
POD October 1939. On the way to a meeting the newly appointed First Lord of the Admiralty is killed by a stray German bomb.
April 1940. Lack of advance planning for landing in Norway leaves a few units unprepared for landings, but also leaves them undistracted by a change in plans. The RN, not involved in the planned landings, is unleashed.
Heavy Cruiser Hipper and 4 escorting destroyers sunk by RN destroyer flotilla under Captain Vian as they return from landing German troops in Trondheim.
The Hipper was the proverbial hard-luck ship of the Kriegsmarine, unable to move without suffering mechanical failiure or attracting bombs or torpedos or ramming by HMS Glowworm.
Elsewhere a British squadron overwhelms two German light cruisers and 4 torpedo boats, while the Home Fleet destroys Scharnhorst and Gneseniau.
In the former case a British force including four cruisers actually had the German force caught in port, but due to concern regarding possible German captures of Norwegian coastal defenses...
RESULT: Kriegsmarine crippled. Sea Lion impossible. Hitler must seek some alternatives.
Battle of France: Major changes, evacuation at Dunkirk slower/less intense, @20,000 Brits not evacuated.
Battle of Britain: Invasion not seriously considered, massive air raids only.
Mers Al Kebir: Operation Catapult not launched. Major elements of French Fleet seized by Hitler in January 1941 including 3 battleships(one incomplete) and one battlecruiser.
British do not rush most of available armor to Egypt. O'Connor's successful destruction of substantial Italian forces never takes place. On arrival of Afrika Korps, frontline is in Egypt and not central Libya.
1941: Rommel breaks British forces in Egypt, takes Cairo/Suez Canal. Malta starved into surrender. Greece, Yugoslavia seek accomodation with Hitler.
Barbarossa: Turkey also joins Axis. Fall of Caucasus region occurs.
1942: Pearl Harbor, Japanese victories in Pacific. German summer offensive includes mopping up near Stalingrad. Stalin surrenders, yields Baltic States, Belarus, all of western Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kola Penninsula in treaty. British sue for peace with Hitler.
1943 and on: Cold War between US and Germany? US nuclear strike ravages Europe? You decide.