Just reading up on Churchill, I found out he had a mild heart attack on the night of 26 December 1942, after addressing the US Congress earlier that day. But what would have happened if the heart attack hadn't been mild, and Churchill had actually died? Who would have taken over, and might the course of the war have changed?
WI Churchill Dies in late 1942
- Thread starter MattII
- Start date
Garrison
Donor
Biggest effect is possibly no full scale invasion of Italy. Quite likely the Allies still take Sicily to secure the Med but if Italy then collapses and is occupied by the Germans the Allies would probably bypass it without Churchill's insistence on going for the 'soft underbelly'. I also think this would potentially be a POD that could make a D-Day in 1943 possible.
Chris Nation
Banned
As I understand it, the Army were also opposed to a cross-Channel invasion in 1943, quite apart from Churchill's opposition.
Well, he wouldn't be "Sir" Winston Churchill, as it was Queen Elizabeth II who knighted him as such in the first place.
Look More Closely Later
Gone Fishin'
I asked something similar in another thread, but was told (politely but firmly) by the original poster that it was off-topic and irrelevant to that thread/scenario, so I didn't pursue it.
I've come across the names of Attlee, Smuts, and Eden all floated around on this forum, as possible Churchill successors, but I couldn't tell you who was the leading candidate at any particular time.
Last edited:
Chris Nation
Banned
The Conservative Party are not going to put Attlee in office. He was Deputy Prime Minister, so it is possible, but only just, that he may have been allowed to become a caretaker PM until the Conservatives select a new leader.
Smuts is a romantic what-if, and favoured by the Royal family at the time, but totally impractical.
It would be Eden.
Last edited:
Will Eden, with a long anti-Italian history, push for an invasion/occupation of the Italian mainland? Also, OTL, Eden handled alot of sphere of influence diplomacy with the Soviets. Would he be less of a force for Cold War near the end of the war and postwar?
Garrison
Donor
But that was with huge commitments in the Med and Italy. The real deal breaker may be the Battle of the Atlantic, unless its concluded sooner, or at least the Allies think they are winning, it's still probably a no.
Specifically Brooke, the CIGS. Others like Dill were flexible or favored it. I've been trying to track down claims Monty favored it & was scolded by Brooke for telling him so.
Churchill addressed Congress on 26 December 1941. Churchill and Roosevelt met in the Casablanca Conference on 14 January 1943, so I very much doubt that Churchill had been in the US three weeks earlier.
The speech was a year earlier, but let's say he had another one a year later that was fatal. Even then it won't work, it was too late. You can't "invade Europe" at the last minute. You need time to move the troop and equipment there and do some last minute planning. The US had already campaigns they were fighting and weren't going to jeopardize because someone thinks they should go to Europe at the last minute.
Churchill's deputy would take the blame of losing Malaya and Singapore to the Japanese by February 1942.