• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Anthony Eden (1897-1953)

Oppo

Well-known member
Pronouns
he/him
In June 1953, Winston Churchill suffered a stroke that seemed to be the end of his time as PM. This was not to be the case, as he quickly recovered and his replacement-in-waiting Anthony Eden was seriously ill as well. Eden eventually would take over from Churchill in 1955.

However, what if the tables turn and Eden dies from his bile duct operation? Eden was thought as the next Tory leader for the entire period Churchill was in office, so there would be questions on who would succeed him. Rab Butler, Harold Macmillan, Gwilym Lloyd George, and Duncan Sandys could be possibilities.

Would Churchill try and stay on for another election? Without Eden, there is less pressure on him, yet Churchill’s mental capacity was declining by 1955. Foreign affairs could have a big impact such as the issues of decolonization and Anglo-Soviet affairs.
 
Last edited:
In June 1953, Winston Churchill suffered a stroke that seemed to be the end of his time as PM. This was not to be the case, as he quickly recovered and his replacement-in-waiting Anthony Eden was seriously ill as well. Eden eventually would take over from Churchill in 1955.

However, what if the tables turn and Eden dies from his bile duct operation? Eden was thought as the next Tory leader for the either period Churchill was in office, so there would be questions on who would succeed him. Rab Butler, Harold Macmillan, Gwilym Lloyd George, and Duncan Sandys could be possibilities.

Would Churchill try and stay on for another election? Without Eden, there is less pressure on him, yet Churchill’s mental capacity was declining by 1955. Foreign affairs could have a big impact such as the issues of decolonization and Anglo-Soviet affairs.

Wait, I swear someone did a vignette about this.
 
Although the Series of Fortunate Events timeline was great, would Macmillan be the obvious choice? When he was Defense Minister Churchill frequently tried to overrule his decisions, and Supermac was one of the only people to openly encourage Churchill to step down. Churchill would probably recommend the Queen to pick someone else.
 
However, what if the tables turn and Eden dies from his bile duct operation? Eden was thought as the next Tory leader for the either period Churchill was in office, so there would be questions on who would succeed him. Rab Butler, Harold Macmillan, Gwilym Lloyd George, and Duncan Sandys could be possibilities.

How strong a chance could any of these three fellows had at the period? Particularly Lloyd-George Jr., I wonder.
 
Butler was the one who people presumed would be in charge in 1953 and if Eden dies, then he doesn't have to actually fight for it. On the other hand, succession aside, Eden was also one of the few Cabinet ministers who could force Churchill to back down. With the Geneva Conference, collapse of the EDC, and Suez debate all having involved Eden getting involved, whether his replacement is Selwyn Lloyd, Gwilym Lloyd George, or Oliver Lyttleton (initially proposed for Chancellor until Butler got the job), it's going to have repercussions that might make either one of the three important.

Eden's death might give Churchill room to delay as he only stepped down when Eden started shoving him aside in 1954 and Lord Salisbury started calling his resignation-bluffs over summits with Moscow. If Eden's dead, there's no clear successor, but it might also hurt his position too if he's letting his heirs die before they get to Number 10. Not to mention that Churchill wasn't exactly back to his prime after his own stroke. Eden's ill-health probably saved his position IOTL.

I'd say if Eden died on the surgery table, there's going to be a renewed push for Churchill to stand down. Whether it works is up in the air, but if it does then it's going to be Butler invited to Number 10. Macmillan didn't get his promotion until 1954 and no one else in the Magic Circle would challenge it. If Churchill lasts to OTL, it might be Butler against whoever comes after Eden-depending on how 1954-5 changes-but again possibly to Butler.

Although, considering Butler's personality, it might be that Churchill just goes on and on until Suez bubbles into shooting. That might put the cat among the pigeons.
 
Oh, yet another 'Suez would have been a triumph without evil Ike!' timeline.
Not my intention I actually since I respect Ike's decision. Since Macmillan was as gung ho as Eden, and in fact was to blame for misjudging the American perspective, only by delaying Operating Muskateer and removing Ike could I produce a radically different outcome. Even if Stevenson had won the election Ike would have been in office for months so I concluded he had to die to make a significantly different POD. The other alternative is a different timing or an outcome for the general election Eden called after his took over the leadership.
 
Not my intention I actually since I respect Ike's decision. Since Macmillan was as gung ho as Eden, and in fact was to blame for misjudging the American perspective, only by delaying Operating Muskateer and removing Ike could I produce a radically different outcome. Even if Stevenson had won the election Ike would have been in office for months so I concluded he had to die to make a significantly different POD. The other alternative is a different timing or an outcome for the general election Eden called after his took over the leadership.

You have to understand that there's a rich tradition in online AH of people relitigating Suez with the aim of proving that the British and French had a great idea and that an imperialist victory would keep the Arabs in line. Shattering Arab political ambitions and establishing pro-Western governments- read: even more cronyist regimes than OTL- usually goes hand hand with a general aversion to decolonisation.

On reading your piece a second time, it didn't hit those tropes quite as hard as it seemed at first glance, but I'm letting you know why an approach to Suez has to be quite original (and has to communicate that originality) or a lot of people will roll their eyes as a first reflex.
 
You have to understand that there's a rich tradition in online AH of people relitigating Suez with the aim of proving that the British and French had a great idea and that an imperialist victory would keep the Arabs in line. Shattering Arab political ambitions and establishing pro-Western governments- read: even more cronyist regimes than OTL- usually goes hand hand with a general aversion to decolonisation.

On reading your piece a second time, it didn't hit those tropes quite as hard as it seemed at first glance, but I'm letting you know why an approach to Suez has to be quite original (and has to communicate that originality) or a lot of people will roll their eyes as a first reflex.
Fair enough, I suppose a more variant (but still not totally original) AH scenario, is that the West pulls a Mossadegh-style coup to remove Nasser?
 
Be more interesting if they just gave Nasser the loans he wanted.

Pitching an idea here: UK+France are trying to keep the canal c. 1955, a different US president than Ike is in office and alt!POTUS has Beef with the UK and France about trying to keep colonialism afloat, maybe Stalin has a stroke a few years early and it's a less paranoid dude in the Soviet Union and a *very* slightly stronger Kruschev Thraw. So when Nasser gets denied his loans, wellllll there's some gentlemen from Washington and Moscow on the line with coordinated or not so coordinated pitches to him for the loan money the Brits/French won't give him but on better terms and with some sweeteners about seconding some ACE/BOR people to Egypt to provide technical assistance and beef up the engineering departments at Egyptian unis. Maybe you could get a like decade of Weird Cold War Coalition politics that's just US+USSR+NAM cooperating at arm's length to sideline various Western European colonial ventures, I think that would be fun.

*I personally think Aswan Dam was a massive mistake but it's probably getting built soooooo
 
I'm just saying in general terms. EMPIRE WAS GOOD AH is the most dull sort of thing.

Yea, this is why I went with US giving the loan, I thought funky US/USSR/NAM anti-old-guard-colonial empires coalition v. Old Guard Empires would be a more interesting alt-cold war, especially if the US is a little less rabidly anticommunist and the soviets a tad more politically liberal.

EDIT: Also if the Sino-Soviet split still happens you then get some interesting possibilities with who gets the US+each NAM country as a friend in the breakup.Technocrat Leninist v. Maoist cold war anyone?
 
Last edited:
Yea, this is why I went with US giving the loan, I thought funky US/USSR/NAM anti-old-guard-colonial empires coalition v. Old Guard Empires would be a more interesting alt-cold war, especially if the US is a little less rabidly anticommunist and the soviets a tad more politically liberal.
Assuming anything even vaguely resembling OTL WW2, if the Americans decide they would like an end to colonialism more than they fear Soviet Europe, the empires end very very quickly. Probably with a Soviet-backed coup in Paris for starters, and with all parties in London scrambling to work out how they can show more commitment to decolonisation and hang the casualties in the process.
 
Egypt becoming the British Algeria/Vietnam is by far the most likely outcome of Suez proceeding given the utter lack of planning on the British side beyond Eden's monomanical obsession with killing Nasser, but as far as I'm aware it's still unwritten as AH. Which is a shame as it's a fascinating (if grim) scenario. Admittedly between the politics of it and the British financial situation it wouldn't last very long.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top