What would Churchill's legacy be if he died in 1939?

CommieScum

Perhaps in a bombing raid, the cause does not matter.

How would he have been remembered, without having led Britain through dark times?

Would Gallipoli loom larger? And how might Britain have fared?
 

MKD

As a political turncoat, drunk, warmongering, reckless adventurer responsible for one of the biggest calamities' in British/Empire military history. Turns out his mad rantings about Nazis were right but he was a shambolic man rightly shunned by the political elite for his past behaviours. Just like his father he was unreliable in the extreme.
 

A Piece of History

CommieScum said:
Perhaps in a bombing raid, the cause does not matter.

How would he have been remembered, without having led Britain through dark times?
Click to expand...

His... less than politically correct opinions and positions would be more well known, but they would change depending on the people being asked.

Indians? Absolutely loathed them and Hinduism. (They are a beastly people with a beastly religion), so the Indians of today would no doubt loath him as a symbol of the British Empire, though without the Bengal famines, no one would be accusing him of genocide.

Islam? Respected individual Muslims, but hated their religion. (The influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it). Islam wasn't really a controversial subject back then, but British nationalists of today would be citing Churchill as the final word on Islam.

Eugenics? Honorary Vice President of the British Eugenics Society. He would've likely been smeared with the same brush as the Nazis for this particular opinion.

Race? Thought White Protestant Christians were on the top of a racial hierarchy, with Indians being above Africans. He would've been the darling of American and British conservatives alike.

Unions? As Home Secretary, he sent in soldiers to support police at Liverpool where two strikers were shot dead. He would've been despised by the British political left and seen as an aristocratic relic of the British Empire's capitalist heydays.
 

Ventriloquist

Yeah, he wouldn't be remembered so much as an antifascist (even though he really wasn't one IOTL), but as someone who opposed the Nazis for encroaching on the British Empire's position in the world. Probably better all told tbh.

Chamberlain probably would have fallen in 1940 ITTL as well, so Eden would probably have taken over as PM and come out of the war with the same prestige as Churchill had IOTL.
 

Peg Leg Pom

Dorknought said:
His biggest mistake was still putting the Pound back on the Gold Standard at too high a rate.
Click to expand...
He shouldn't have done it at all.

All in all I think Churchill would be remembered as the last gasp of the high Victorian Aristocracy unable to adjust to the changing world of the 20th century. There will also be questions about his mental state and many comparisons made to his less than stable father.
 
Last edited:

Look More Closely Later

CommieScum said:
...And how might Britain have fared?
Click to expand...
Much better if it stops fighting in 1940 and signs an armistice after the Vichy French do, getting a breathing space for whatever UK government comes in (a UK General Election was due to take place) to reorganise and rearm if it wants, and maybe to jump back in if Hitler goes for Russia - or, they could (borderline Alien Space Bat though that might be) even try to sort out some of the problems and deep flaws of their empire.
 

MKD

I should also add: Churchill was the kind of man who would happily send soldiers in to crush strikers, someone who supported eugenics and racial hierarchies, someone who was happy to use poison gas on less "civilised" people & someone who wasn't keen on Jews, Muslims, Indians or Irish to the extent that he was thought "odd" even for a time of British supremacy"!
 

Mikestone8

He'd be remembered as a promising young politician who didn't live up to expectations.

It would be even m more ironic if he and Hitler *both* died in Jan or Feb 1939. He'd be just a footnote, while Hitler would be seen as a great statesman.
 

david31

You're forgetting his time as President of the Board of Trade where he brought in reforms including limiting miners to 8 hours at the coalface and tightening up safety standards underground. He vetoed the deployment of soldiers to the Tonypandy riots sending in unarmed policemen from the Met instead. He also supported reforms to the prison service including the better treatment of political prisoners and the improvement of conditions inside. He is also credited with drafting the first health and unemployment insurance legislation as part of the reformist Lloyd George administration.

Churchill was a product of upbringing like all of us. And he was more than just the man mainly responsible for Hitler not winning the War.
 

CommieScum

Nathan Bernacki said:
His... less than politically correct opinions and positions would be more well known, but they would change depending on the people being asked.

Indians? Absolutely loathed them and Hinduism. (They are a beastly people with a beastly religion), so the Indians of today would no doubt loath him as a symbol of the British Empire, though without the Bengal famines, no one would be accusing him of genocide.

Islam? Respected individual Muslims, but hated their religion. (The influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it). Islam wasn't really a controversial subject back then, but British nationalists of today would be citing Churchill as the final word on Islam.

Eugenics? Honorary Vice President of the British Eugenics Society. He would've likely been smeared with the same brush as the Nazis for this particular opinion.

Race? Thought White Protestant Christians were on the top of a racial hierarchy, with Indians being above Africans. He would've been the darling of American and British conservatives alike.

Unions? As Home Secretary, he sent in soldiers to support police at Liverpool where two strikers were shot dead. He would've been despised by the British political left and seen as an aristocratic relic of the British Empire's capitalist heydays.
Click to expand...
Yes, but how does the POD make all this worse? I would assume he would be less hated without for example, the Bengal Famine.
 

Richard V

He’d be mostly remembered for Gallipoli because even schoolboys will know that. His warnings about Hitler and need for rearmament might be remembered by history buffs. A lot of people were apprehensive about the Nazis and even Chamberlain was pro-rearmament. The question was whether Germany would strike east first. Churchill's early death would just make his warnings look like grandstanding to come back from the political wilderness. His racist views of non-white people would not register at all since it was wide spread.
 
Last edited:

ArtosStark

Peg Leg Pom said:
He shouldn't have done it at all.
Click to expand...
They didn't have near as much choice as it seems. Post War the British had wanted to create an international monetary system with defined reserve currency zones and the international regulation of gold exchange. It was actually a system not too dissimilar to the one that we use today, though not exactly. This would have benefited Britain, by improving their opportunities and softening the blows that they knew were coming. They had managed to get this system passed at Genoa, but the US refused to sign off on it. The US favoured an unregulated Gold Standard to give full vent to their newly expanded financial strength. And since they were the largest creditor, their agreement was necessary. The debate went on for several years but eventually it was becoming clear that the US had won. The British had managed to create only a small sterling zone with a few eastern European economies participating. Canada and Australia were considering pegging their currency to the dollar rather than to the pound and other parts of the Commonwealth were even further along the road to shifting focus from Britain to the US. The US Treasury indicated that they may be willing to cooperate with the British on their proposed system once Britain returned to Gold (there was doubt at time whether the Mark was to be backed by the Pound or the Dollar. If it was the Pound the US risked being pushed out of markets by an Anglo-German economic block. Britain going to Gold removed this as a problem). However, once Britain did go back to gold, the US was no longer in need of compromise and backed off of helping the British.

Basically, the British return to Gold was assured when the Commonwealth showed an interest in economic cooperation with the US even at the expense of Britain.

Anglo-American Financial Rivalry in the 1920s on JSTOR

Based on British and American primary sources, this article analyzes Anglo-American differences in the reconstruction of the international monetary order. Londo...
www.jstor.org www.jstor.org
 

balllightning

Banned
Well, good riddance for the starters.

Had Halifax chosen to continue the war, he would have been a far superior war leader than Churchill ever could have been.
 

Monk78

Why did he lose elections after the war ? Compared to his image today , if he runs he will give Jesus himself a tough fight
 

marktaha

Banned
Mikestone8 said:
Some, probably but not much. After all, Kemal Ataturk was brutal to the Greek and Armenian minorities, but it didn't stop him being widely admired.
Click to expand...
Churchill and Ataturk both among my heroes. Book about Churchill's life until 1939 "Churchill: A Study in Failure" by Robert Rhodes-James.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top