Churchill Dies Suddenly after the UK is Already Committed to Fighting On.
- Thread starter mrmandias
- Start date
I don't think so. I would rather just focus on whether having Churchill die sometime after the summer of 1940 could lead to any big changes. I can't think of any, but I would be interested if someone else can.
Last edited:
What difference did it make? I always thought the real limit on Lend-Lease was Congress and I think FDR had geopolitical reasons for wanting to support Britain with undeclared naval action in the Western Atlantic.
Deleted member 2186
The United Kingdom might end up negotiating with the Germans ore surrendering, that is what in a lot of TLs happens with no Churchill to lead the United Kingdom during its Darkest Hour.
Deleted member 94680
Wasn’t that list with the line of succession sent to the King in ‘45?
Personally, I think there’s a fairly good chance of Anderson being the “compromise candidate” in the immediate aftermath of Churchill’s death. Attlee would likely be the ‘deputy PM’ given his Labour leadership and strong anti-appeasement credentials, but that gives the problem of PM and Deputy PM not being Conservative.
Garrison
Donor
Halifax's time had been and gone in May and even then his chances were slim given he was seen as too close to Chamberlain to be acceptable. By the Autumn of 1940 it has to be a Tory who is committed to the war, so Eden is probable. As to the impact on the war well you will be trading one set of mistakes for another so I suggest VE-Day might be shuffled forward or back a few months depending on the differences but I don't think the final outcome is any doubt so long as the USA remains in support of the UK and Hitler sticks to his schedule in the east.
I’m not at all aware of the intricacies of UK politics but I agree it seems unlikely that a colonial who had never held elected office in the UK would get the nod to run not just the UK but effectively the whole Empire.
Also, is there a reason why Leo Amery never gets a mention in these discussion? He seems like he would have a good resumé, anti-appeasement, former boss of the Navy, peripheral role in the WW1 war cabinet. Certainly appears a better bet than Beaverbrook, Lyttleton, or Moyne.
It wouldn't be Eden that would be responsible for causing it, but the underlings under him, as well as how Singapore was under-prepared even well before WWII started. It would, however, make it easier for the US to ensure Britain did not reclaim its Asian colonies, so India might become independent sooner than OTL and Hong Kong would be under GMD control as originally planned - with consequences for the course of modern Chinese history - as potential examples. There would also be strong pressure on France to give up its Asian colonies as well, especially Indochina, so it wouldn't be just all singling out Britain.
It was caused in large part by Churchill diverting troops needed to finish the axis off in N.A to Greece instead,which allowed Axis forces on N.A to regain momentum.If the North African campaign was won more quickly,there would be more resources available.Plus,the half hearted effort Churchill made in the lead up to the Japanese DoW was really nonsensical.He sacrificed a lot of men, material and ships unnecessarily.
Deleted member 94680
The wiki page on Eden (attributed to "How Churchill Became Prime Minister" by Robert Blake), it seems to suggest that he ‘couldn’t’ be considered as PM in May ‘40 as he wasn’t in the War Cabinet. Does anyone know if this was a “thing”? I’m unaware of any law or ruling that says only members of the War Cabinet (which are selected by the previous dead/deposed/resigned PM) can become PM during a conflict.
Surely, the replacement PM (ie the MP selected by the ruling party without a general election whilst they maintain governance) can be anyone they choose?
Surely, the replacement PM (ie the MP selected by the ruling party without a general election whilst they maintain governance) can be anyone they choose?
Fearless Leader
Donor
Churchill definitely shaped the course of the war IMO. Assuming that he dies in late 1940, there's a good chance the Greek campaign looks very different. The RN wanted Suda bay in Crete but not much else. This change likely has ramifications for North Africa and in turn Malaya. The Canadians aren't sent to Hong Kong and Force Z isn't sent to Singapore as a deterrent. Bomber Command could also be shaped differently depending on the leader. Finally, and I'll admit this is a bit remote, but in OTL Churchill tarried on a joint Anglo-American nuclear program. If someone else was in charge, they might not in October 1941 which could lead to not only an earlier bomb but a vastly different postwar.
Without Churchill in charge, will the British divert troops to Greece? If not, can they roll up North Africa sooner?
Also without Churchill advocating an attack on the 'soft underbelly' is there an Italian front in 43 or do the wallies throw all their weight at France?
Also without Churchill advocating an attack on the 'soft underbelly' is there an Italian front in 43 or do the wallies throw all their weight at France?
Look More Closely Later
Gone Fishin'
(edited: typing error corrected)
Yes. Churchill worked his socks off doing diplomatic and liaison stuff during WW2. He met President Roosevelt multiple times - the first time I think was the conference in Greenland before the USA was in the war - and even flew to Moscow in 1942 to discuss strategy and what was and wasn't possible in terms of fronts with Stalin. Even if he didn't have the influence with them which he may well have deceived himself that he did, Churchill at least got Stalin and Roosevelt working nominally together with him, and occasionally trying to coordinate actions. And as far as I understand he tried to really push for some sort of League of Nations replacement arrangement, for after the war, to try and reduce hostilities between the Great Powers. (Others may have been pushing for it too, I grant.)
Plus he had (and this is in a context, remember, that his mother was American) an almost unshakable belief in the USA, which a different UK leader might not have done.
(Others have already commented on some of the military stuff.)
Last edited:
If Britain was able to provide the necessary forces because of an earlier end to the North African campaign, it likely wouldn’t have been a debacle.
It would have required several times the forces used OTL and better quality ones at that.
Also its no good holding Malaya and Singapore if the Philippines falls and the DEI is also invaded.
The place is surrounded and sending supplies becomes very difficult and Singapore useless as a Naval base.
Although inflicting heavier losses and perhaps more seriously far greater delay on the IJA would have large repercussions
Might result in Rangoon remaining in British hands and the China Road stays open through 1942?
And as to your point a larger Garrison if it was able to be sent (I'm thinking the entire 2nd AIF with 4 Divisions and a tank Brigade and possibly the 2nd NZ Division) along with less severe losses to the navy as a result of no desperate attempt to reinforce, supply and then evacuate the Crete defenders might allow for a greater naval force being sent to the Far East and combined this acts as a greater deterrence to the Japanese and the Thais.
Deleted member 2186
That it would be with Churchill holding a Tommy gun and on a killing spree but not a different prime minster who first might have see the BEF captured, the RAF destroyed in the Battle of Britain among other things.
Question in the OP was about after summer 1940. So Dunkirk happens as OTL. I doubt Churchill had a lot of input in the BoB, or that another PM would have and it would lead to the destruction of the RAF. The Luftwaffe is facing an uphill battle. The RAF had a good defensive system and organisation, while the LW was not equipped for the task and the British produced more fighters than the Germans. That's not going to change if Churchill dies after the summer of 1940.
Besides that it was not just Churchill who wanted to fight on.