This probably depends on when, but if Churchill had died during WW2, who would have replaced him and any guesses on whether there would have been any changes of direction, for example would a Mediterranean strategy have been pushed as much.
I think Churchill's place would be taken by some of his followers with the same way of thinking (lord Beaverbrook, Sir. A. Sinclair...)
Beaverbrook From what I've rread, the only people to like Beaverbrook wre beaverbrrok himself and Churchill, most of the rest of the Cabinet despised him.
No Italy Campaign, everything else would have gone about the same, and Italy still would have changed sides, but all of it outside of Sicily would have been conquered. Churchill was the one to decide Italy was the soft underbelly, and to start an Italy Campaign.
Re: Beaverbrook But Churchill either wasn't very popular. It's not a matter of popularity, but ability.
Re: Beaverbrook His time in charge for the Ministry of Aircraft Production (MAP) from May 1940 doesn’t give me any confidence in his ability. He created a culture of fear and unwillingness to do anything that might affect the unreachable quotas he set for the aviation firms to meet and turned what appears to have been working very well up to then into chaos that continued long after he resigned in April 1941 and it was not until Wilfred Freeman returned to the post in October 1942 that some sense of order returned. His quota system was almost Soviet in thinking, which ties in with his constant ‘second front now’ campaign in his papers, which only seemed to have calmed down after Dieppe. True, whilst Beaverbrook was in charge at MAP there was a temporary increase aircraft numbers but at the expense of spares and reserves and more importantly at the expense of development and it can’t really be said that he had anything to do with the extra numbers that were achieved as it relied on decisions for factories taken 3 to 4 years previous by Freeman and his staff. There is a story (I don’t know how true it is) but apparently Churchill is supposed to have said to Ernest Bevin (who was one of those who detested Beaverbrook) that Beaverbrook was a magician to have achieved theses results to which Bevin replied, “You are right PM, I was always told magic is 9/10ths illusion”. Some of you may have heard me say this before but a good book to read is Anthony Furze’s ‘Wilfred Freeman – the genius behind allied survival and air supremacy 1939 – 1945’ though it does tend to praise Freeman a bit heavily in places (the title for a start).
Churchill dies Mid 1942 If he had died mid 1942, would his ‘North Africa then the soft underbelly of Europe’ theory have died with him and if so would there have been far more American pressure for something like Sledgehammer or Roundup and if these were successfully resisted as they historically were, would there have been an American move away from ‘Germany first’.
Such a move, away from the "Germany first" doctrine would have been extremely unexpected since the entire American war machine was aimed at that doctrine ever since the ABC talks. But I reckon that if the British were unwilling to invade Italy yet felt unprepared to invade France, the US would have gotten extremely impatient. On the other hand, the US certainly did realize the importance of winning the Battle for the Atlantic for the possiblity of any invasion of NorthWest Europe.
He was the Welsh Wizard, he was still in politics, he still had some popularity left, he had a reputation as a good war time leader, and there was a lot of talk of him taking over before Churchill came on to the scene.
i am afriad churchill was always on the scene..at that time lloyd george was a back bencher and had played no prominat role in british govt since 1922. he was at the outbreak of war almost 80 yrs old and died before its end. he also vistited hitler twice in 1936 and made some very positive comments about him..which carried him no favours with britsh public at all. so...still no chance! of him ever becoming pm again in ww2.
But the question is what if Churchill died, in which case Churchill would no longer have been on the scene.
i don't know who would replace him (politics during WW2 are a far-away-from-my-bed show) but i do know one thing. Hitler and Goebelss would started a great propaganda campaing proclaiming that the gods favoured Germany and that they would win the war. just as they did when Roosevelt died.
if as the question states churchill died during ww2 all my above points about lloyd george are relevent..he wasnt a heavy weight politician anymore and an old man.
From 1942 Clement Atlee was deputy prime Minister, he would have taken over if anything had happened to Churchill from this date, he was as anti-Nazi as Churchill. ps, Beaverbook wasn't an elected member of Parliament, so he couldn't be PM, and Lloyd George was a Liberal and the Liberal vote had collapsed in the inter war years, so there was no real way he could have gotten enough support to become PM.