In 1931 Winston Churchill was hit by a car in NYC but survived? What if he died? Would the Brits surrender after the Fall of France? How would history go on?
WI: Winston Churchill killed in 1931?
- Thread starter ThatOneGuy
- Start date
Come 1940, Labour and the Liberals would probably try to organize a vote of no confidence or trigger a general election since the Conservatives don't have anyone they will agree to serve under in a coalition government. That's a major reason why Churchill was made PM in the first place: he was the one leading Conservative who could unite all the parties in a coalition government. Attlee could become PM 5 years early while bombs are being dropped on London.
Ian_W
Banned
Clem Attlee would have absolutely fought on.
As a side point, he was the second-last man off the beach at the retreat from Gallipolli. The last was his batman, who was pushing the boat off the sand that Attlee was rowing.
Labour and the Liberals held a minority of seats in 1940 and basically had two options 1) Agree to serve in an all party coalition or 2) Refuse to serve. Halifax didn't really want the job of war leader and hadn't a Commons seat so probably the most prominent anti- appeasement Conservative ITTL would become PM. Probably Eden. Possibly even Duff Cooper who was able but in normal circumstances too compulsive a womanizer to be risked as Party leader. Liberals and Labour could probably have got away with insisting that PM should not be a former appeaser and should be from the Commons. Public opinion would have been on their side and some Conservatives would have agreed. They haven't the Parliamentary numbers to push for anything more.
The Tories would never have consented to a Labour PM at a time when they commanded over double their number of seats in the Commons. The most likely successor would probably be Halifax instead.
1. Oh No Not Again.
2. Not a lot changes.
3. Absolutely not.
4. Much as OTL. The Nazi regime can't invade the UK, there's a BoB, a submarine blockade and eventual US involvement with the Allies victorious.
Quite possibly the UK avoids some of Churchill's mistakes and the war is less pointlessly bloody and the world a better place.
The "Churchill dies in a car accident in 1931" and the "FDR is assassinated in 1932" scenarios are two of the most common and almost cliched Axis victory scenarios.
Of the two, the FDR assassination is the better one to bring it off. If nothing else, Roosevelt put George Marshall in charge of the US army and oversaw a much needed overhaul of the US army and a military buildup in 1940-41. This is the sort of thing very likely to be butterflied away under another President, which means without FDR at the very least the USA enters World War 2 on the Allied side on schedule, but with an army that that is at about the same level of quality as the contemporary Italian army. You very likely get no "Arsenal of Democracy" as well. But then there is also the chance that the "New Deal lite" of Garner is inadequate and the Americans wind up going fascist themselves, in which case all bets are off, they might wind up fighting the war as allies of Germany.
In the case of Churchill, the entire British establishment, and this even includes Halifax, really did seem to reluctantly conclude in 1939-40 that yes, they really did have to fight Hitler and Germany again. Once they realized this, Churchill was the most suitable candidate for the job. You would still get the UK at war, but with a somewhat less dynamic PM. Someone on a wargaming forum did a timeline with Halifix as PM and Churchill pretty much out of the picture, and it was well done and fascinating, though really long. Someone here linked to it. Essentially the UK does make a "cold peace" with Germany in 1940, but winds up in a war with Japan anyway, while keeping much more of the imperial structure intact -the lack of the European war really does help financially. But at the end of the timeline Hitler is finishing up conquering Russia. So you have that. If Churchill not being PM butterflies away Brooke's appointment as CIGS that will also hurt somewhat since it was Brooke who essentially came up with the war winning Anglo-American strategy.
Of the two, the FDR assassination is the better one to bring it off. If nothing else, Roosevelt put George Marshall in charge of the US army and oversaw a much needed overhaul of the US army and a military buildup in 1940-41. This is the sort of thing very likely to be butterflied away under another President, which means without FDR at the very least the USA enters World War 2 on the Allied side on schedule, but with an army that that is at about the same level of quality as the contemporary Italian army. You very likely get no "Arsenal of Democracy" as well. But then there is also the chance that the "New Deal lite" of Garner is inadequate and the Americans wind up going fascist themselves, in which case all bets are off, they might wind up fighting the war as allies of Germany.
In the case of Churchill, the entire British establishment, and this even includes Halifax, really did seem to reluctantly conclude in 1939-40 that yes, they really did have to fight Hitler and Germany again. Once they realized this, Churchill was the most suitable candidate for the job. You would still get the UK at war, but with a somewhat less dynamic PM. Someone on a wargaming forum did a timeline with Halifix as PM and Churchill pretty much out of the picture, and it was well done and fascinating, though really long. Someone here linked to it. Essentially the UK does make a "cold peace" with Germany in 1940, but winds up in a war with Japan anyway, while keeping much more of the imperial structure intact -the lack of the European war really does help financially. But at the end of the timeline Hitler is finishing up conquering Russia. So you have that. If Churchill not being PM butterflies away Brooke's appointment as CIGS that will also hurt somewhat since it was Brooke who essentially came up with the war winning Anglo-American strategy.
Deleted member 94680
Britain will still fight on, if the only difference is the absence of Churchill.
That trope is a bit exaggerated too. The unions would have really hated Garner but, if you analyse his views, he supported maybe 85% of the New Deal measures and most of the bits he opposed were either frills (like the murals and the Federal Writer's Program) or measures that economists now conclude inhibited recovery. The farm relief and the TVA would still have gone ahead as would most of the public works programmes. He would probably be remembered today TTL as a strong and capable two term President and (not counting Wilson) the first Southern President since Andrew Johnston.
Well, no Churchill may have led to Halifax becoming PM although butterflies could well have this happen differently. Regarding Halifax, certainly some people think he would have accepted a negotiated peace. Is this the case as shown in movies like Darkest Hour? Would he have refused becoming PM or fought on?
How exactly did they all come to agree to postpone the election that would have been due in 1940 otherwise? Was it only after Churchill became PM that Labour and the Liberals were on board with that?
Two possibilities, First Halifax makes a peace, while rearming like crazy, even chamberlain supported that on the qt.
Second less likely, the Hess Hamilton meetings take place, Anti soviet alliance not merely protecting the empire, but stopping the holocaust through massive resettlement in madigascar or elsewhere. Certainly not just, but better than mass murder.
Second less likely, the Hess Hamilton meetings take place, Anti soviet alliance not merely protecting the empire, but stopping the holocaust through massive resettlement in madigascar or elsewhere. Certainly not just, but better than mass murder.
Yes, they wouldn't accept Chamberlain or Halifax. And it was seen as impractical to hold an election while a new leader had just taken charge in a time of extreme military crisis.
Deleted member 94680
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1940_War_Cabinet_Crisis
“We might say to Signor Mussolini that if there was any suggestion of terms which affected our independence, we should not look at them for a moment. If, however, Signor Mussolini was alarmed as we felt he must be in regard to Herr Hitler's power, and was prepared to look at matters from the point of view of the balance of power, then we might consider Italian claims. At any rate, he could see no harm in trying this line of approach.“
I think from what I’ve read, that Halifax was inclined to try for a peace, but a peace that pretty much left the Empire alone and intact. The Cabinet Crisis as OTL was pretty much dominated by Churchill’s belligerence and the rest fell into place after that. Minus Churchill I’m not sure who would become the dominant voice in the War Cabinet for fighting on, so there’s a chance Halifax’s view could win the day.
That, however, isn’t that. There’s many facets to play out after that, the terms offered by Germany for one, Italy’s claims are another. There’s also the very real possibility that a Halifax government taking this deal to the House may lose a Vote of No Confidence and fall.
Deleted member 94680
Yes there’s a good chance he would. Would he be in the War Cabinet though? He was appointed by Churchill, after all.
That’s something that’s never occurred to me before. Minus Churchill in May ‘40 (if he dies in ‘31) the makeup of the Government would likely be entirely different.
What about a larger role for the liberal party? Lloyd george would be out, I know Sinclair was in favor of fighting on.
What kind of terms *would* Hitler have offered? Would he really be OK with a well-armed liberal democracy right across the English Channel, or would he have insisted on some sort of puppet government and/or on British Jews being handed over to the SS? I know Churchill referred to the possibility of Oswald Mosley being put in charge if they were to sue for peace, but I don't know how likely that was. I guess there's also the question of whether the royal family might decide that they're no longer bound by the norms of constitutional monarchy in keeping relatively silent on actual political issues.