Winston Churchill killed in early 1945

Thande

Donor
Sounds almost like a N00BWI, but I don't recall a scenario like this being voiced before.

Churchill is killed in January 1945. Doesn't matter how; even if it was by an accident they would probably cover it up and claim it was a Luftwaffe bomb in order to stir up public outrage. Anyway, this is more or less too late to have any significant impact on the outcome of the war, but as for what follows...

Firstly, who would become Prime Minister in his stead? Attlee, as Deputy Prime Minister? The Tories in the Cabinet would not be happy, to say the least. If it was Attlee, I think he would probably call a general election ASAP to try and get himself a mandate. And my guess would be that he might get it, but nothing on the scale of OTL's landslide, partly due to public sympathy for Churchill and uncertainty over his successor - but the fact that a Tory-led national government has been around for more than a decade has got to count against the Conservatives.

What are your thoughts?
 
I`m not to knowledgable about British Politics, but I think it might actually be possible for the Conservative Party to hold onto power, depending on who end up as Prime Minister. I know in Canada, the deputy PM is not always the person who take over incase something should happen to him, so is their something similair involved in the UK...
 

Sachyriel

Banned
If Churchill is killed in Late 1945 he wouldn't be able to push the Americans to ke3ep their Quebec agreement promises and the nuclear age advances even more slowly due to the Americans dragging their feet without Churchill demanding that they co-operate as agreed!
 
I understand that Churchill had advised the King to call Eden in the event of his death.

There was still a huge conservative majority in the House of Commons.

I assume that Eden would not have been as influentual at Yalta.

I wonder if the Conservatives would have benefited from the 'martyr' thing if Churchill's death was by enemy action and also general sympathy.

I assume that Labour still wins in 1945. It is also possible that Labour would have won by more without Churchill being there.
 
Eden would likely have taken over control of the Conservative Party. He would likely lead the war-time coalition until Atlee feels confident enough to do what he did and call for it to be dissolved and then a general election.

Although there are many possibilities, without Churchill, the 1945 election would probably not be the landslide that it was. However the problem remains that Eden lacks experience in domestic affairs, and needs a strong, reliable ally in the Party room to cover that for him.

Given Eden's somewhat middle of the road politics in domestic affairs (there would certainly be no 'gestapo' comment that Churchill made) that he began to develop (do these ideas come to the forefront earlier?) later on.

I would say that Eden would still loose, but it would not be a landslide. Anything from OTL to only a small majority depending on how Eden conducts the campaign.
 
I'm pretty sure that Churchill basically filled out what essentially amounted to an order (I can't remember who it was directed to - probably the Cabinet) for Eden to be sent for as Prime Minister in the event of this happening. But even if he hadn't, Eden would still get it. The Tories were the front end of the coalition and they would want a successor from them, and in 1945 that can only mean Eden.

Eden was massively popular with the public, so even if Labour wins, then it will not be a landslide. I am not sure which way it would go tbh - Churchill himself didn't notably benefit the Tories in OTL. Eden, I think, though, had a sort of raw political appeal which Churchill perhaps lacked, and would also be riding on the memory of Churchill. So perhaps a Labour majority, but a small one.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
If it was Attlee, I think he would probably call a general election ASAP to try and get himself a mandate. And my guess would be that he might get it, but nothing on the scale of OTL's landslide, partly due to public sympathy for Churchill and uncertainty over his successor - but the fact that a Tory-led national government has been around for more than a decade has got to count against the Conservatives.

I doubt this. The British people would probably be be quite upset by Atlee calling a general election even though the war in Europe is still raging and V-1s and V-2s are still falling on London. They would likely see it not only as premature, but as motivated purely by partisanship.

I agree with those who say it would have been Eden.
 

Thande

Donor
On balance an Eden premiership does seem more likely. So let's say a small Labour majority in 1945...the question is, will this cause Labour to tone down some of their more radical policies without such a huge public mandate to implement them?

On the downside this may prevent or at least water down the creation of the NHS, but it also might lead to less poisoning of relations with the US.
 
WC dying on the battlefield isnt as farfetched as one would belived since he actually visited the frontline when it was on the Rhine at one point. Just have a German sniper realise who he is and take aim.

That same sniper would help the allies better if he took aim at Monty just before Goodwood IMHO.

Without WC his party isnt seen as his toy and might to better in the general elections that year
 
Top