Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if Winston Churchill was killed before WWII

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What if Winston Churchill was killed before WWII

    If Winston Churchill was dead before WWII would he beable to spar on his nation to victory. Or would Britain fall apart becuase of lack of leadership. I am interested in feedback about this subject.

  • #2
    Originally posted by GA_Thrawn35 View Post
    If Winston Churchill was dead before WWII would he beable to spar on his nation to victory. Or would Britain fall apart becuase of lack of leadership. I am interested in feedback about this subject.
    I don't think that the UK would have fallen to the Germans, but their effectiveness during the war (in getting US support, keeping the homefront together, etc.) would have been reduced a bit.

    Besides, Churchill was pretty much a complete B.A.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by GA_Thrawn35 View Post
      If Winston Churchill was dead before WWII would he beable to spar on his nation to victory. Or would Britain fall apart becuase of lack of leadership. I am interested in feedback about this subject.
      Without Churchill's leadership in the dark days of May/June 1940 its probable that Britain would have come to some sort of peace deal with Nazi Germany, because I don't see anybody with the required leadership skills in the Conservative Party to rally both Parliament and the country to continue the fight.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by redcoat View Post
        Without Churchill's leadership in the dark days of May/June 1940 its probable that Britain would have come to some sort of peace deal with Nazi Germany, because I don't see anybody with the required leadership skills in the Conservative Party to rally both Parliament and the country to continue the fight.
        I can see no other logical or probable result from Churchill's premature death. Certainly Neville Chamberlain wasn't up to standing up to Hitler as he'd proven at Munich.

        While I'm not certain Britain would have actually have been conquered and become a Britannic version of Vichy France, I can't see anything other than some sort of negotiated peace with Hitler (with dreadful results for the war as a whole).
        Go is to chess as philosophy is to double-entry bookkeeping. - Nicholaï Hel in Shibumi

        Comment


        • #5
          Folks who have analyzed British politics ofthe era usually point to Halifax as Chamberlains replacement. I dont know the details but Halifax is susposed to have strongly favored peace. Certainly Chamberlains ministry had run its course by the end of April and someone would have replaced him.

          Comment


          • #6
            Halifax most probably would have asked for peace. No German troops in Britian, Hitler didn't want to occupy Britain at that time. Fewer German troops in the west, more for Barbarrossa.

            And probably no Yugoslavian revolt against a German-leaning government.

            Italy might still attack Greece, but with no British support, Germany might have waited to help Italy and attacked Russia first.

            Comment


            • #7
              At that point it was either Churchill or halifax. But without Chirchill there would have been another alternative. We obviously dont know who that alternative would be and never will but difficult times could have brought someone else to the surface in the absence of Churchill.

              Comment


              • #8
                Assuning Britan makes some sort of armistice or peace treaty with Germany, how long does it last? Britian had a long history of knocking down contininal powers that became too much. Intermittant long running wars with France, Holland, and Spain during their years of dominance were the rule. I suspect in the longer run Britian would not sit still.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by trebuchet View Post
                  Certainly Neville Chamberlain wasn't up to standing up to Hitler as he'd proven at Munich.
                  Chamberlain's actions at Munich were in keeping with what the British knew, or thought they knew, at the time. There was no public support for war with Germany in Britain or France, especially as Hitler's demand seemed fairly reasonable (bringing Germans back under German rule). Additionally it was believed that the Wehrmacht was much more powerful than it actually was and with the rearmament program still in its infancy neither Britain nor France felt they could combat Germany in 1938.
                  Signing out.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Perhaps peace talks begin, but then some Briton gets pissed off and they go right back to war.
                    http://chickencrap.com/images/1472.jpg

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Halifax

                      Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                      At that point it was either Churchill or halifax. But without Chirchill there would have been another alternative. We obviously dont know who that alternative would be and never will but difficult times could have brought someone else to the surface in the absence of Churchill.
                      I read an alternative history of the period that posits this very question. The author chose Halifax as the alternate PM and he did seek a negotiated peace. Margaret Thatcher was about 17 at the time so that leaves her out as an alternative choice. Too bad the Iron Lady wasn't born in Boston or New York. She would have made a hell of a President.

                      As is the case most of the time, in 1940 the right man was in the right place at the right time.
                      God Save The Republic.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Once Britain signed a peace treaty, it would not have tried to use it's army for a long time. There's be no italian attack in Africa, for instance.Besides, the UK might have shifted more resources to The Far East to deal with Japan.

                        Once Germany attacked the USSR, Britain might have tried covert operations to aid Russia, or a form of leand-lease, but that's all.

                        Once Germany started bleeding to death in Russia, that's a different story, but again it depends on the situation with Japan.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Besides Halifax, who was in the running?

                          I can only assume that Churchhill died in a way that had no influence on the events at hand.

                          Had he perished on the Athena, for example, that might have had a galvanizing effect on his party, right?
                          "Why is the Rum gone?"

                          -Captain Jack

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
                            Had he perished on the Athena, for example, that might have had a galvanizing effect on his party, right?
                            Possibly. But Churchill was a maverick, a politician who had crossed the benches more than once. Part of the reason that he had the support from the Labour Party was that he wasn't seen in the same light as Chamberlain or Halifax. One distinct possibility, assuming that everything else goes as in the OT, is that following the fall of the Chamberlain administration no-one would be able to form a broad coalition government. This would leave Britain somewhat rudderless at a time of deep crisis.
                            Signing out.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by grognard View Post
                              Once Britain signed a peace treaty, it would not have tried to use it's army for a long time. There's be no italian attack in Africa, for instance.Besides, the UK might have shifted more resources to The Far East to deal with Japan.

                              Once Germany attacked the USSR, Britain might have tried covert operations to aid Russia, or a form of leand-lease, but that's all.

                              Once Germany started bleeding to death in Russia, that's a different story, but again it depends on the situation with Japan.
                              That has paralles with the British wars vs the French revolutionary government and Bonaparte. Back down some when in a bad spot, subsidize the 'enemys or our enemy', instigate trouble where possible.

                              The return to conventional military operations when circumstances are right. Of course this assumes the leaders still favoring policys similar to Appeasement do not dominate the government. If so then Hitler will have it so much easier.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X