Napoleonrules
Banned
Is it at all possible that he could have tried to force a united Commonwealth of India as the only option? And if he tried would it work?
Given the scale of the Labour victory in 1945, where basically the British voter said: "We trust Churchill with the war. We don't trust him with the peace," (and given his attitude on many subjects, the British voter of 1945 was probably not a complete fool), I find it hard to think of a method by which the result could be changed.
Indeed, interestingly, my grandparents said the same thing. It was not an indictment of Churchill, but an indictment of the pre-war Tories. Incidentally, they voted Liberal, not Labour despite being from a poor background.To the extent that it was an "anti-" vote.... I've seen a pretty worthwhile argument made that the 1945 election was more a verdict on the Conservative Party, as it had governed before the war and acted during it, than it was a verdict on Churchill - who was, after all, merely the head of a coalition national wartime government.
It wasn't Labour or the Libs who had delivered six years of appeasement and the terrible war that followed, after all.
That's not surprising, the unions were their main source of funding. Everyone in a union was charged a political levee as part of their fees, even if they were members of another political party. When you add in the fact that closed shops forced workers to join, whether they wanted to or not, that's a lot of money heading into the Labour Party's bank balance.The Labour Party also let unions gain too much power.
I don't see how Churchill's going to win a 1945 general election; not unless WW2 has gone radically different from the OTL or something has caused him to 'cross the floor' and switch to the Labour party. The Conservative party (hello there Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Chamberlain) didn't exactly cover themselves in glory in preparing the country for WW2, and the coalition government during the war has shown that Labour party figures can potentially be part of running the country reasonably effectively, so electing Labour isn't necessarily going to be a catastrophe for the country.What would be the state of Britain today had Churchill won an outright victory in the '45 general election and would said state be comparatively better what was created after OTL's Labour Party victory?
...The Housing Squad, and, as necessary, the Cabinet, will ensure an intensive drive forward with the housing programme as a military operation, in which all controls are to be used and special brigades of demobilised men enlisted for two years at exceptionally favourable terms, to go from one part of the country to another, getting the thing started...
...The matter of building these houses is to be handled exactly with the energy that would have been put into any of the battles we have won. Nothing is to stand in the way...
...The reason why we do not bring home the men we want to get the industries started is because of the anger it would cause among Class A. Class A stands first and super-sacred. Any infringement upon their rights might cause the gravest disaster, as it did last time. We must carry them with us at all costs...
...I do not think we should take the responsibility on ourselves of managing this very difficult place while the Americans sit back and criticise. Have you ever addressed yourself to the idea that we should ask them to take it over?...
...At any rate, the fact that we show no desire to keep the mandate will be a great help. I am not aware of the slightest advantage which has ever accrued to Great Britain from this painful and thankless task. Somebody else should have their turn now. However the Chiefs of Staff should examine the matter from the strategic point of view...