So basically, the Conservatives win in 1945 in the UK. How does this effect the world, such as decolonization, the international scene, domestic politics, etc?
The Bulldog Holds On: What if Churchill won in 1945
- Thread starter LegendOfBeanos
- Start date
Britain probably would recover from war slower and social reforms would are delayed with some years. Probably hard-line conservatism would face its end earlier. Labour probably would win 1950 election.
Decolonisation, speciality India, would go differently. Churchill wanted to keep India so things are going be pretty messy at worst.
Decolonisation, speciality India, would go differently. Churchill wanted to keep India so things are going be pretty messy at worst.
Enough has to change for the Tories to win that you really have to go into the why first. This was not a close election, there's no campaign season magic bullet to get Churchill in. The public were tired of the Tory-led national government that had existed for a decade and a half, blamed the Conservatives for appeasement and genuinely wanted what Labour were selling. Without changing the war itself I don't see how Churchill can overcome that.
It is extremely difficult for the Tories to win outright. Perhaps if Churchill doesn't make his "Gestapo" gaffe and goes all in on running a similar campaign to Attlee's promising a social welfare state, there would be a hung Parliament and Churchill could stay on by forming a coalition with the Liberals. But he had done nothing to strengthen the Tory party infrastructure during the war, whereas Labour was widely credited for successfully managing domestic affairs. Labour had been leading in election polls as early as 1942, so you would have to reshape the dynamics of the election for Churchill to stay on. The fact is that Churchill was a great war leader, but he did not have as good an understanding of domestic politics.
It was such a big swing OTL, that it's hard to think what could cause a change short of a near-labour committment to things people really wanted. If they deliver, they're not the conservatives [1] and if they don't they'll risk a generation in the political wilderness for lying to the people who fought and died for the country and to their WW1 veteran parents who were previously let down after WW1.
I'll readily agree that India's independence is likely to be a major banana skin with Churchill in charge.
[1] Churchill's WW2 history suggests he recognised the value of keeping people housed fed and healthy when they'd lost homes and jobs so they could keep contributing to the wartime economy. It's not such a big logical or philosophical step to say that this is also likely to be good for a rebuilding post-war country, but it's not a particularly good fit with conservative policy, and especially not with the more traditional party membership. Parties can and do move left or rightwards over time, but it usually results in a lot of disturbance.
I'll readily agree that India's independence is likely to be a major banana skin with Churchill in charge.
[1] Churchill's WW2 history suggests he recognised the value of keeping people housed fed and healthy when they'd lost homes and jobs so they could keep contributing to the wartime economy. It's not such a big logical or philosophical step to say that this is also likely to be good for a rebuilding post-war country, but it's not a particularly good fit with conservative policy, and especially not with the more traditional party membership. Parties can and do move left or rightwards over time, but it usually results in a lot of disturbance.
Churchill's pre WW1 record is also worth a look, especially when you consider his pre Admiralty offices such as President of the Board of Trade where he introduced the Miners Eight Hours bill which restricted the number of hours worked underground. He was prominent in the Asquith administration that introduced Lloyd George's National Insurance act, the foundation stone of the Welfare State.
Given this background I think we would have seen some version of a National Health Service but it would probably have been means tested and restricted to the very poor.
Britain would not recover as fast and the Conservatives would be seen as cold and distant and some Labourites might even make the argument that they would just want perpetual war and could care less about the average Briton.
Thus by the time the next election is called, Labour wins big and enacts what they did otl after the war, though maybe they have less power as I’m guessing the Conservatives would play up the threat of communism and would accuse Labor of allowing nations in Central Europe to fall.
Thus by the time the next election is called, Labour wins big and enacts what they did otl after the war, though maybe they have less power as I’m guessing the Conservatives would play up the threat of communism and would accuse Labor of allowing nations in Central Europe to fall.
Atlee and Labour winning the '45 election spooked the US so they attached lots of conditions to loans we desperately needed. Had Churchill won, that may not have happened.
*Eyebrows ping off the ceiling*
Not happening. Sorry, my grandfather was adamant that the Tories could never have won the 1945 election, as they were blamed for the Great Depression being as bad as it was in the UK plus the War starting due to earlier mistakes involving Appeasement. Add on the massive desire for a national health service and that was it. It was never going to be a Tory victory in 1945.
I'm a bit reluctant to say this can't happen, but it would require a number of factors. What if Attlee's career is cut short in 1931 so that he never becomes Labour leader? This means an entirely different leadership for the party and they may not be as strong in 1945 as they were in OTL. Though it may be a stretch to assume circumstances would otherwise remain the same, so it may be better to assume he's forced to retrie for whatever reason during the war government.
One factor I've noticed is that the total numbers of votes case increased by 4.7 million between 1945 and 1950. Labour's vote went up by 1.3 million but the Conservatives gained an additional 3.7 million votes during the same period. Even the Liberals gained an additional 500,000 votes between 1945 and 1950.
I wonder if the fact the war in the Far East was still in progress was a factor in this reduced turnout. Efforts were made to ensure that all votes from soldiers still serving overseas were collected but there were probably logistical difficulties in getting the participation of soldiers based in remote locations.
Had Churchill been successful in delaying the General Election until late 1945 or early 1946, he may have been successful in reducing Labour's overall majority (I doubt that the Tories would have won). It is unlikely that the Conservatives would have won; rank and file soldiers were strongly in favour of Labour and the association of the Tories with the Great Depression was frequently cited as a reason for voting Labour.
I wonder if the fact the war in the Far East was still in progress was a factor in this reduced turnout. Efforts were made to ensure that all votes from soldiers still serving overseas were collected but there were probably logistical difficulties in getting the participation of soldiers based in remote locations.
Had Churchill been successful in delaying the General Election until late 1945 or early 1946, he may have been successful in reducing Labour's overall majority (I doubt that the Tories would have won). It is unlikely that the Conservatives would have won; rank and file soldiers were strongly in favour of Labour and the association of the Tories with the Great Depression was frequently cited as a reason for voting Labour.
Impossible unless you drastically change WW2, as in stop the Wehrmacht in France kind of change.
Like you say the rank and file soldiers largely went for Labour, Churchill was more popular on the home front than on the frontlines, getting more soldier votes in may only make Labour's majority larger.