Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2016 12:26:34 GMT
We know Churchill had health problems in later life during his second premiership, but would have happened had he died in 1943 during another period of bad health. Would Attlee have become PM? Who would have been the alternative? Would Britain have been able to secure victory by 1945?
|
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Oct 31, 2016 12:49:37 GMT
Wasn't Eden already seen as Churchill's natural successor by then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 31, 2016 12:51:38 GMT
By 1943 the basic pattern of the war had been settled. The only consequence of Churchill dying in 1943 would have been to bring forward D-Day by a few months (to early spring 1944). It might have meant a slightly earlier end to the war in Europe, in fact.
The more interesting question is what happens if Churchill dies in 1937.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2016 12:54:42 GMT
By 1943 the basic pattern of the war had been settled. The only consequence of Churchill dying in 1943 would have been to bring forward D-Day by a few months (to early spring 1944). It might have meant a slightly earlier end to the war in Europe, in fact. The more interesting question is what happens if Churchill dies in 1937. What happened to Churchill in 1937? |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 31, 2016 13:18:42 GMT
He was nearly killed in 1931 after being hit by a car in New York.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Oct 31, 2016 14:34:58 GMT
By 1943 the basic pattern of the war had been settled. The only consequence of Churchill dying in 1943 would have been to bring forward D-Day by a few months (to early spring 1944). It might have meant a slightly earlier end to the war in Europe, in fact. The more interesting question is what happens if Churchill dies in 1937. I'm assuming that depending on when in 1943 he died, without Churchill the Allies would've forgone their invasion of Italy and just gone straight for France, no? If that would've indeed been the case, I'd be curious to know what the politcal ramifications for Italy would've been, as how I understand things it was the invasion of Sicily that led to the impetus for Mussolini's overthrow that year. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 31, 2016 16:13:01 GMT
By 1943 the basic pattern of the war had been settled. The only consequence of Churchill dying in 1943 would have been to bring forward D-Day by a few months (to early spring 1944). It might have meant a slightly earlier end to the war in Europe, in fact. The more interesting question is what happens if Churchill dies in 1937. I'm assuming that depending on when in 1943 he died, without Churchill the Allies would've forgone their invasion of Italy and just gone straight for France, no? If that would've indeed been the case, I'd be curious to know what the politcal ramifications for Italy would've been, as how I understand things it was the invasion of Sicily that led to the impetus for Mussolini's overthrow that year. I disagree with this. There were plenty of very senior people in both the US and UK who recognised that the allies were not ready to invade France in 1943. That being the case it was never likely that a large allied army in North Africa would not be utilised as it was. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Oct 31, 2016 16:42:14 GMT
I'm assuming that depending on when in 1943 he died, without Churchill the Allies would've forgone their invasion of Italy and just gone straight for France, no? If that would've indeed been the case, I'd be curious to know what the politcal ramifications for Italy would've been, as how I understand things it was the invasion of Sicily that led to the impetus for Mussolini's overthrow that year. I disagree with this. There were plenty of very senior people in both the US and UK who recognised that the allies were not ready to invade France in 1943. That being the case it was never likely that a large allied army in North Africa would not be utilised as it was. I wasn't attempting to imply that the Allies would've attempted an invasion of France in 1943, but rather that they wouldn't have attacked Italy, and (like David Boothroyd suggested) would've brought forward the D-Day plans to earlier in 1944. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 6, 2017 1:29:57 GMT
I much prefer the two choices set out above, of death of Churchill in 1937 and Halifax getting the call instead of Churchill.
|
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944 
|
Post by johnr on Jan 6, 2017 10:33:23 GMT
I dont think you can bring D-Day much earlier in 1944. You are limited to the full moon parts of the month (8th/9th March, 7th/8th April, 7th/8th May) but also weather considerations. You certainly couldnt do D-Day any earlier than April, I would say.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 1, 2017 14:16:39 GMT
The Halifax administration and an accommodation with Germany coupled with the actuality of the Soviet-Nazi Pact or the immediate aftermath of the breach of that Pact could easily have placed us on the sidelines with no activity in Africa agreed and far more manpower to settle the Eastern Front much earlier. Then the Soviet Union dismembered into a series of puppet states.
|
|
