The Third Superpower: A British TL

Part I: The 1945 General Election

After the surrender of Germany, there was wild celebration in the United Kingdom on VE-Day. They had fought since the start of the conflict, for a while fighting alone with only the Commonwealth supporting them, and came out triumphant. Meanwhile, inside the Government, disagreements were emerging within the Coalition which had governed the UK during the war over the date of the next general election. Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the Conservatives wished to maintain the Coalition Government until Japan surrendered, while Deputy PM Clement Attlee and Labour wished to hold an immediate general election. Eventually, the two parties compromised on holding a general election in October, and until then the Coalition Government would remain in place.

On September the 2nd 1945, Churchill was able to announce to the British people, via the radio, that Japan had surrendered – finally, the Second World War had come to an end in an Allied victory. Once again, there was jubilation on the streets of London. However, it was at this point that Attlee and Labour demanded that a general election should be held. So, Churchill agreed to dissolve Parliament and set the date for the general election – September the 27th.

And so, the campaign began. In the time between May and September, the Conservatives had re-built their organisation on the constituency level, meaning that the Party was more prepared for a general election than they would have been if one was called shortly after VE Day. Meanwhile, Churchill utilised the oratory that had inspired Britons during the war to encourage the British people to re-elect his Government. However, an opportunity came for both the Conservatives and Labour when proposals emerged to broadcast a debate between Churchill and Attlee via the Radio.

Both men accepted the invitation, and so, one week before polling day, the two men went head-to-head. Millions of people tuned into their radios to hear a major development, not only in broadcasting but also in election campaigns all together. For many people, the highlight of the radio debate came towards the end. It started when Attlee claimed that the Conservatives would not implement the Beveridge Report. Churchill immediately responded with:

‘Mr. Attlee, if you checked the Conservative Party Manifesto, then you would know that we are wholly committed to implementing the recommendations of the Beveridge Report – one would think a potential Prime Minister would do his research!’

This caught Attlee off guard and the Labour leader, before thinking about what he was going to say, stated that Churchill’s Manifesto would take ‘some kind of Gestapo’ to implement. This shocked not only Churchill and the other men in the room, but also the listeners at home. It was outrageous to make such a comparison. In opinion polls conducted after the debate (for there were a few), Churchill was considered the clear winner, with 74% of people believing so. Churchill and the Conservatives were now confident of re-election, and ‘landslide’ was a word on the lips of some Conservatives.

Eventually, polling day, September the 27th, arrived and the people cast their ballots. However, the ballots of the British soldiers still serving overseas still needed to be transferred back to the UK, and so the counting did not start immediately. Eventually, however, in early October, the counting of votes began, and soon the party leaders began to hear the individual results of constituencies.

By the time half of the seats had declared, there was jubilation in Conservative Party Headquarters – the Conservatives were not only holding seats, but were actually making gains. Once every constituency had declared, it was clear that Churchill and the Conservatives had won a significant victory.
upload_2017-2-25_9-30-49.png


Soon, Churchill was called to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI invited Churchill to form his second Government. And so, Churchill, the man who had won the war, would now lead the UK into a new age.
 
Last edited:
While I am all for a timeline which has Britain not playing second-fiddle to the US, I can't see it as a super-power without an earlier POD.

Fact is that Britain was bankrupt at the end of the war and most of the colonies wanted independence. India for instance is going, there is simply not stopping that. All Churchill being PM means for this period is that Indias departure is going to be significantly more bloody.

As an old imperialist he also isn't likely to make the Commonwealth stronger constitutionally. Infact, Imperial Preference was instituted in the early 30s, but America forced Canada to drop it fairly quickly.

It was literally Americas policy post-war to destroy British power. Because kicking a friend while he's down is exactly what an American will do apparently?
 

Asami

Banned
With a PoD in 1945, Britain will not be a superpower. Churchill will just nose-dive the Empire even worse than it was nose-dived as per OTL; as the forces of nationalism and independence was surging, and he can't cling on forever.
 
With a PoD in 1945, Britain will not be a superpower. Churchill will just nose-dive the Empire even worse than it was nose-dived as per OTL; as the forces of nationalism and independence was surging, and he can't cling on forever.

Yeah, an unified Europe or at least an Anglo-French Union it's plausible but the UK alone it's out of the question; too much debt, too much war waryness
 
It was literally Americas policy post-war to destroy British power. Because kicking a friend while he's down is exactly what an American will do apparently?

Well, when your friend is suffering delusions of grandeur and is making diplomacy with other potential friends harder, then a reality check might prove hard but necessary.
 
Also, if Churchill is still PM in 1945, might be insist on Operation Unthinkable?

He can't do it without Truman, so forget it. I do think there was talk of an RAF mutiny if they'd had to fight in India, so that's something to look forward to.
 
Well, when your friend is suffering delusions of grandeur and is making diplomacy with other potential friends harder, then a reality check might prove hard but necessary.

That reads like a rationalisation. And not a very good one.

By and large those nations which didn't like Britian (due to its imperialism) did not become friends with the West after independence of Britain colonies.

Hows about an example? Egypt. The Suez Crisis. Eisenhower even went on record later stating that siding against Britain on that matter was a mistake.

It wasn't because of "delusions of grandeur", it was because Americans don't like other nations having Empires. Nor did they like having other potential rivals - even if that potential rival was a friend at the time. The fact that there was a larger threat in the form of the USSR was totally irrelevant.
 
That reads like a rationalisation. And not a very good one.

Perhaps. Doesn't make it fit the situation on the ground any less.

By and large those nations which didn't like Britian (due to its imperialism) did not become friends with the West after independence of Britain colonies.

Accepting Soviet arms and influence isn't nearly as detrimental to Western interests as using said arms to shoot at British soldiers, which would have happened if they'd tried to stay in those places.

Hows about an example? Egypt. The Suez Crisis. Eisenhower even went on record later stating that siding against Britain on that matter was a mistake.

This was the same Eisenhower who okayed Ajax on Britain's behalf and didn't live long enough to regret that, so hardly a paragon of anti-imperialism.

It wasn't because of "delusions of grandeur", it was because Americans don't like other nations having Empires. Nor did they like having other potential rivals - even if that potential rival was a friend at the time. The fact that there was a larger threat in the form of the USSR was totally irrelevant.

Even if it wasn't the driving factor, there's no denying that efforts to maintain the British Empire as it was before the war are delusional, so that's definitely there. Anyways, if Britain suffered from getting used and tossed aside by a more powerful ally, well, sucks to be them, but it's not like they don't still pride themselves on how successfully they once did that to others. And unless you list a few things they could have held onto but for American meddling (I don't think Suez counts, they'd have had to hold onto it by force forever, and that would be prohibitively expensive), I'll maintain that it was just the inevitable not being delayed.
 
Even if it wasn't the driving factor, there's no denying that efforts to maintain the British Empire as it was before the war are delusional, so that's definitely there. Anyways, if Britain suffered from getting used and tossed aside by a more powerful ally, well, sucks to be them, but it's not like they don't still pride themselves on how successfully they once did that to others. And unless you list a few things they could have held onto but for American meddling (I don't think Suez counts, they'd have had to hold onto it by force forever, and that would be prohibitively expensive), I'll maintain that it was just the inevitable not being delayed.

I fully agree that maintaining the Empire as it was pre-war just wasn't going to happen.

My position was that America intentionally weakened an ally in a time when there were more important things to attend to. It is funny because they largely left the French Empire alone and indeed ended up helping out in Vietnam which as every school boy knows, was infact a war for independence that got hijacked by the powers that be.

Saying "Oh well America did it to help Britain in the long term" is really more along the lines of someone thinking "Oh hey, in hindsight screwing Britain over really helped them out!" and even then there are some examples where that isn't the case.
 
I fully agree that maintaining the Empire as it was pre-war just wasn't going to happen.

My position was that America intentionally weakened an ally in a time when there were more important things to attend to. It is funny because they largely left the French Empire alone and indeed ended up helping out in Vietnam which as every school boy knows, was infact a war for independence that got hijacked by the powers that be.

Saying "Oh well America did it to help Britain in the long term" is really more along the lines of someone thinking "Oh hey, in hindsight screwing Britain over really helped them out!" and even then there are some examples where that isn't the case.

We didn't actually help the French in Vietnam, or in Algeria, so I'm not buying this. We went in later "on the French behalf" just as much as we intervened in Korea on behalf of Japan. If France had more success in maintaining their influence post-war, then that's attributable to them playing a smarter game than the British and co-opting all of the independence leaders in Africa outside of Algiers, not American assistance. And again, I'm not that aware of British efforts to maintain their colonies being disrupted by American interference outside of Suez 1956, so I don't see them as too put-upon.
 
Thank your feedback, I'll definitely take it on board. In regards to how Britain will remain a superpower, there are some other PODs occurring elsewhere at the same time which will help out, while I am not suggesting that the Empire will remain the same. More will be revealed in the next few entries.
 
I'm going to go ahead and state here that I expect Britain's financial situation to be better after the War ITTL. Whatever your views on socialism (*boo, hiss*), setting up a National Health Service immediately after a massively expensive World War simply IS a bad idea from a financial perspective. I have no doubt that the Conservatives would indeed institute the Beveridge Report, but I imagine they'd manage the books better than what amounted at the time to a fairly radical socialist programme from Atlee.

Also, Churchill might find it easier to get a loan/grant/gift from the Americans than the Labour Party did. I expect he's also be a stronger negotiator vis a vis the Soviets given his experience.

I don't know what butterflies might occur as a result in terms of Empire. Perhaps India is somehow maintained as a Dominion for longer? Britain maintains more exclaves (e.g. Malta)?
 

David Flin

Gone Fishin'
I'm going to go ahead and state here that I expect Britain's financial situation to be better after the War ITTL. Whatever your views on socialism (*boo, hiss*), setting up a National Health Service immediately after a massively expensive World War simply IS a bad idea from a financial perspective. I have no doubt that the Conservatives would indeed institute the Beveridge Report, but I imagine they'd manage the books better than what amounted at the time to a fairly radical socialist programme from Atlee.

Also, Churchill might find it easier to get a loan/grant/gift from the Americans than the Labour Party did. I expect he's also be a stronger negotiator vis a vis the Soviets given his experience.

I don't know what butterflies might occur as a result in terms of Empire. Perhaps India is somehow maintained as a Dominion for longer? Britain maintains more exclaves (e.g. Malta)?

One can argue the toss about the financial costs of setting up the Welfare State in the aftermath of WW2. Politically, it had to happen. Too many people remembered the Depression of the post WW1 period, and the Conservatives simply weren't trusted to do this. Given Churchill's known views regarding such things as the General Strike and the Jarrow Marchers, I find it hard to think of any mechanism by which the Conservatives could come close to victory in 1945. Furthermore, many of the soldiers (as witness any number of memoirs) remembered all too clearly which party supported Appeasement, and which party supported starting the fight against Fascism early on in the Spanish Civil War.

If we arm wave vigorously, and say that Churchill wins in 1945, Britain is well stuffed. Churchill opposed bitterly Independence for India, and would have fought to the last to prevent this happening, up to and including deploying troops to prevent it. He'll fail, but not before destroying Britain financially trying to keep India. And remember the troops want to come home. India is going to get Independence, and the only question is the details.

ITTL, given the set-up, my analysis would be that Britain is heading rapidly for the toilet. It will try to hold on to too much for too long at too great an expense, will fail to provide a safety net worth speaking of, and there will be a repeat of the 20s, only with a less biddable electorate.
 
Politically, it had to happen.

Indeed, and I suspect it will even with Churchill in power. That doesn't mean they will spend as much, or do it as quickly. And the point about the American loan still stands.

Churchill opposed bitterly Independence for India, and would have fought to the last to prevent this happening, up to and including deploying troops to prevent it. He'll fail, but not before destroying Britain financially trying to keep India.

Churchill was an imperialist, but he was also a realist. I sincerely doubt that he would squander Britain's blood and treasure on such an obviously hopeless cause. He was absolutely against Indian independence, as you say, but that doesn't mean he was also incapable of seeing sense. My view (and hope) is that he will simply bind India to Britain as closely as possible as a Dominion, rather than use force.
 

hipper

Banned
The only real way for the UK to maintain Great power status after WW2 is for a different decision to be taken on the tube alloys program.

  • That programme gets developed instead of a say heavy bomber offensive against Germany - and the technology of the 1940 studies is not shared with the US. Give the UK some smart development and they develop a few Gun type uranium implosion devices. These are used to end the war in Europe with an atom bomb on Berlin that kills Hitler. Japan makes peace after the devastation in Germany is known,
The UK has a few years of nuclear leadership before the US and the Soviet Union develop their bombs.
 
Indeed, and I suspect it will even with Churchill in power. That doesn't mean they will spend as much, or do it as quickly. And the point about the American loan still stands.

After comparing the NHS to the Nazis? I'm skeptical. Being a Conservative often involves assuming that no change is inevitable.

They must also remember which party led them to victory in the war. That obviously doesn't remove the mistakes of the Conservative Party, but my gut feeling is that it would at the very least make up for them.

A coalition government, actually. Attlee was in the War Cabinet.

Churchill was an imperialist, but he was also a realist. I sincerely doubt that he would squander Britain's blood and treasure on such an obviously hopeless cause. He was absolutely against Indian independence, as you say, but that doesn't mean he was also incapable of seeing sense. My view (and hope) is that he will simply bind India to Britain as closely as possible as a Dominion, rather than use force.

Was he? His reactions to the Chanak Crisis and the assassination of Henry Hughes Wilson suggest otherwise. Anyways, keeping India as a Dominion would open up an uncomfortable can of worms over who dictates Commonwealth policy that I don't think he'd find appealing either.
 
Top