quick question; churchill

hey, im working on the history of the british empire in my ATL, and im curious: do you all think winston churchill would be as notable were there no WW2?
 
Definitely not, he had alienated his party by being too much of a loose cannon: rebelling against Baldwin on India, being loyal far beyond the point of no return to the masochist-in-chief (King Ed) and a disarmament stance that was way out of line from Baldwin's.
 
He could have been had he done something different during those years but it's not possible if he remains on the same course and no WW2. Try having him immigrate and become a famed journalist/political figure in the U.S. perhaps?
 
He could have been had he done something different during those years but it's not possible if he remains on the same course and no WW2. Try having him immigrate and become a famed journalist/political figure in the U.S. perhaps?

no way in OTL they only got Churchill out of Parliament in a Box, same would be true in any ATL, he'd remain a famous and troublesome Backbencher till his death in 1965.
 
winston as a major figure in the US seems plausible; the two countries are strong allies ITTL. churchill in congress, maybe? or as an ambassador?

aside from that, short of being prime minister, what are possibilities for churchill?

and what if theres no WW1 either? would that improve his position?
 
Not really, Churchill was a Briton and short of an ASB Unmentionable Sea Mammal, I see no reason for him to emigrate at a mature age. By the 1930s Churchill had served as Chancellor and Home Secretary, so the other 2 Great Offices of State were the Foreign Office and No 10, both of which were firmly shut off due to his political isolation and the way the Conservative Party operated at the time: a small clique of self-appointed insiders (infamous "Magic Circle") chose the leader along with the outgoing PM, not the caucus at large.
 
winston as a major figure in the US seems plausible; the two countries are strong allies ITTL. churchill in congress, maybe?
no never, again in OTL Churchill was in the UK parliament for 62 years, when he left Parliament he was dead with-in 3 months he was dead, Churchill LOVED Parliament, he didn't need to be a front bencher to enjoy it


aside from that, short of being prime minister, what are possibilities for churchill?
the back benches likely


and what if theres no WW1 either? would that improve his position?
very hard to say but I'll go with yes, no WWI to kill the Liberal party so Churchill isn't seen as a party crosser, and no Gallipoli to bone Churchill, and lastly his India ideas aren't crazy with-out a World War weakened UK.
 
The sheer amount of butterflies needed to keep the Libs alive and prevent WWI (which is probably inevitable given that the prewar system of checks and balances- I forget Kissinger's word for it at the moment- was irretrievably broken by the alliance system) boggles the mind. Also, the Liberals were in favour of greater self-rule and always had been dating back to Gladstone, with the short lived and intraparty-wise highly destructive 2 years of Rosebery being bipartisan on Salisbury's foreign policy 25 years earlier. So his ideas wouldn't fly there either. It's like trying to shoehorn Cheney and Rummy into the Democratic Party's view on Iraq c. 2006.
 

abc123

Banned
hey, im working on the history of the british empire in my ATL, and im curious: do you all think winston churchill would be as notable were there no WW2?


He would, without WW2 be something like OTL Enoch Powell, warmonger and eternal theme for AH-writers...;)
 
No hope. He had to many failures behind him adn he was getting on a bit. It was only ww2 that revived his fortunes. Without that he would just have faded into obscurity over the years.
 
There's a simple answer No. He would be quoted as a classic example of Enoch Powell's "all political lives end in failure". He was in the right :winkytongue:lace at the right time in 1940 otherwise he would have been a has been with his most remembered moment being sacked over Gallipoli. He would have been regarded as a Maverick like his father and there would have been somethings referred to as the Churchill streak meaning instablity
 
Churchill is still a figure of reknown but his legacy would firmly be in the Edwardian epoch rather than a WW2 character. Look at his history and he was an unremarkable schoolboy who became a journalist and reported on the Boer war, colourfully depicting it for the readers back in England and engaged in several dangerous exploits.

He joined the Tory party like his father (Lord Randolph Churchill), quickly fell out of love with it and joined the Liberals, then went back to the Conservatives. He served as Chancellor AND Home Secretary, presiding over important periods in British History.

Whilst his legacy wouldn’t be global, it would nonetheless remain fairly important to British History at the time as a stalwart representative of the dying off of the aristocracy and the rise of the “middle classes” in British politics during the 20th century.

I guess it would depend on what the POD would be – no WW2 without Churchill would probably mean he takes a minor role in the Government during the war period and goes around saying “I told you so” whilst writing his memoirs as well as his “History of the English Speaking Peoples”. An averted WW2 might lead to some interesting situations with the Empire – he would argue very fervently for no breaking up of the Empire and be very passionate about keeping the Commonwealth together as a cohesive political unit which could present an interesting future if vision were realised.

Churchill as most people know was a natural orator who could speak to the people in a language they understood and cultivated a good relationship with the media, Lord Beaverbrook in particular who was to become a strong ally. Churchill therefore couldn’t be relied to fade away into the background and will remain one of the main figures of the 30s and 40s.
 
Top