Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Futurist
Member
Posts: 1314
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Post by Futurist » 04 Sep 2018 02:55

What if Neville Chamberlain would have died three years earlier?

Who would have become the new British Prime Minister in such a scenario? Lord Halifax?

Also, what differences would there be, if any, in Britain's foreign policy starting from 1937 in this scenario? For instance, would a Soviet alliance actually be achieved in this scenario?

Any thoughts on all of this?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9464
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Post by ljadw » 04 Sep 2018 11:15

Nothing would change and on September 3 1939, Britain would still declare war on Germany .

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 1722
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

Re: Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Post by Gooner1 » 04 Sep 2018 11:44

Futurist wrote:
04 Sep 2018 02:55
What if Neville Chamberlain would have died three years earlier?

Who would have become the new British Prime Minister in such a scenario? Lord Halifax?
Halifax is out - the last time there was a Lord as Prime Minister, the old Queen was still on the throne.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir John Simon would be out as a Liberal National, the two more senior cabinet positions after that would be Sir Samuel Hoare as Home Secretary and Anthony Eden at Foreign Affairs. So probably between those two as favourites with RA Butler, William Morrison and Kingsley Wood as outsiders.

Hoare was an appeaser though whether he had the self-confidence to do Munich is doubtful. Eden later resigned in opposition to Chamberlains policy on appeasement to Italy and opposed Munich.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9464
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Post by ljadw » 04 Sep 2018 13:25

Eden supported appeasement of Germany,but resigned because Chamberlain wanted to be his own foreign secretary .

pugsville
Member
Posts: 691
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Post by pugsville » 04 Sep 2018 14:02

Quite possible War would break out in 1938. Only Chamberlain was going fly to Germany at the last minute to try and stop a German invasion. France and Britain wanted some dignified exit from any entanglements with Czechoslovakia, they were not willing to stand up for Czechoslovakia. Hitler was unwilling to stop the invasion almost no matter what, as it turned out Chamberlain managed to dictate a alleged peaceful solution of withdrawal ahead of the invasion and the trumpeting of a scrap of paper saying somehow this was peace in our time.

Other British politicians were unable to do this gymnastics, I don't think unwilling, just unable. Chamberlain was willing to lend a lot further out the window and go running to Germany. I don't think any other possible prime minister would have been capable of such a act. More about rigid class attitudes, and ideas about geneltemen's conduct rather than morality.

Hitler would have invaded without the camouflage of Munich, there would have been shooting people would have died. Maybe not many and it might have been over pretty quickly. maybe not. But the Choices for Britain and France would have been much starker. They might have been a more shameful and explicit back down and looking away, but almost certainly would have catapulted Churchill to power and a more belligerent mood in Britain.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 1771
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 18:15
Location: Canada

Re: Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Post by maltesefalcon » 04 Sep 2018 15:27

Chamberlain played the role of peace keeper to the hilt. But in reality, the UK was only a minor player in the grand scheme of things. It was more important to gauge the reactions of France and USSR to any aggressive moves. Any UK prime minister would have to encourage all three nations to gang up on the Germans. If the Russians and French backed down, the UK's attitude would be irrelevant.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 1722
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

Re: Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Post by Gooner1 » 04 Sep 2018 17:10

maltesefalcon wrote:
04 Sep 2018 15:27
Chamberlain played the role of peace keeper to the hilt. But in reality, the UK was only a minor player in the grand scheme of things. It was more important to gauge the reactions of France and USSR to any aggressive moves. Any UK prime minister would have to encourage all three nations to gang up on the Germans. If the Russians and French backed down, the UK's attitude would be irrelevant.
Well France always looked to the UK first. More importantly no Munich means a German invasion of Czechoslovakia is probable which makes the leadership in the democracies almost irrelevant.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 1771
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 18:15
Location: Canada

Re: Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Post by maltesefalcon » 04 Sep 2018 19:46

I'm not disagreeing, but I'm trying to make a different point. You are correct...Daladier was in fact swayed by Chamberlain. But that is merely a demonstration of Daladier's weakness, not Chamberlain's strength.

It was France who needed to stand for the Czechs and it was France who needed to sway Britain to their way of thinking, not vice versa. Real change probably would need a different PM in both Paris and London.

Hitler was not really concerned about war with Britain until after the sumer of 1940. And you could have had the most hawkish British PM of all time, but he would not have declared war on the Germans, if the French refused to participate. (Even when it came to war a year later, Britain only contributed about <10% of the land force for the Battle of France.)

The Russians did stand up to Hitler, until it was obvious that they had no support. That pushed them straight into Hitler's lap. Perhaps if Reynaud had been French PM at the time?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9464
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Post by ljadw » 05 Sep 2018 12:41

No Munich does not mean war between CZ and Germany .There was no relation between Munich and war/peace .
And, as there was no common border between CZ and the USSR, the USSR could not stand up to Hitler .CZ could not expect real help if it said no to Hitler's demands, only liberation after 6 years of war, that's why it yielded to Hitler's demands .

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 1771
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 18:15
Location: Canada

Re: Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Post by maltesefalcon » 06 Sep 2018 00:01

That makes sense I guess. The UK had no common border with either Germany or Poland. So they would never declare war on Germany if they attacked Poland either.
Oh...wait a minute...

pugsville
Member
Posts: 691
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Post by pugsville » 06 Sep 2018 02:54

ljadw wrote:
05 Sep 2018 12:41
No Munich does not mean war between CZ and Germany .There was no relation between Munich and war/peace .
And, as there was no common border between CZ and the USSR, the USSR could not stand up to Hitler .CZ could not expect real help if it said no to Hitler's demands, only liberation after 6 years of war, that's why it yielded to Hitler's demands .
disagree. Without France and Britain brow beating the Czechs to roll over war is the likely outcome. Without Munich Hitler almost certainly would have invaded, at which point the Czechs almost certainly would have fought.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 1314
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Post by Futurist » 06 Sep 2018 04:08

pugsville wrote:
04 Sep 2018 14:02
Quite possible War would break out in 1938. Only Chamberlain was going fly to Germany at the last minute to try and stop a German invasion. France and Britain wanted some dignified exit from any entanglements with Czechoslovakia, they were not willing to stand up for Czechoslovakia. Hitler was unwilling to stop the invasion almost no matter what, as it turned out Chamberlain managed to dictate a alleged peaceful solution of withdrawal ahead of the invasion and the trumpeting of a scrap of paper saying somehow this was peace in our time.

Other British politicians were unable to do this gymnastics, I don't think unwilling, just unable. Chamberlain was willing to lend a lot further out the window and go running to Germany. I don't think any other possible prime minister would have been capable of such a act. More about rigid class attitudes, and ideas about geneltemen's conduct rather than morality.

Hitler would have invaded without the camouflage of Munich, there would have been shooting people would have died. Maybe not many and it might have been over pretty quickly. maybe not. But the Choices for Britain and France would have been much starker. They might have been a more shameful and explicit back down and looking away, but almost certainly would have catapulted Churchill to power and a more belligerent mood in Britain.
Everything that you wrote here makes sense, pugsville!

Anyway, what I'm wondering is this--would Churchill have been willing to fight over the Memelland if Nazi Germany still demands it?

Also, do Nazi Germany's demands for Danzig and the Memelland get delayed in this scenario?

pugsville
Member
Posts: 691
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Post by pugsville » 06 Sep 2018 04:39

Futurist wrote:
06 Sep 2018 04:08
Anyway, what I'm wondering is this--would Churchill have been willing to fight over the Memelland if Nazi Germany still demands it?

Also, do Nazi Germany's demands for Danzig and the Memelland get delayed in this scenario?
Things would be decided before then I think. Without Chamberlain I think not British of French political leader was capable of moving as quickly or bending so quickly to get a Munich like agreement. Without Which Hitler would have invaded Czechoslovakia. This would have precipitated a much more serious crisis in Britain. I see it either resolving in war in 1938, or some fairly complete abnegation of Continental entanglements of any sort, in which case I cannot see Churchill becoming PM.

If war did not break out in 1938, Churchill would not be prime minister. I can;t see any real will to do much almost regardless of provocation in the short term, so I think nothing would be done about Memelland.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 1314
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Post by Futurist » 06 Sep 2018 04:42

pugsville wrote:
06 Sep 2018 04:39
Futurist wrote:
06 Sep 2018 04:08
Anyway, what I'm wondering is this--would Churchill have been willing to fight over the Memelland if Nazi Germany still demands it?

Also, do Nazi Germany's demands for Danzig and the Memelland get delayed in this scenario?
Things would be decided before then I think. Without Chamberlain I think not British of French political leader was capable of moving as quickly or bending so quickly to get a Munich like agreement. Without Which Hitler would have invaded Czechoslovakia. This would have precipitated a much more serious crisis in Britain. I see it either resolving in war in 1938, or some fairly complete abnegation of Continental entanglements of any sort, in which case I cannot see Churchill becoming PM.

If war did not break out in 1938, Churchill would not be prime minister. I can;t see any real will to do much almost regardless of provocation in the short term, so I think nothing would be done about Memelland.
What about Danzig?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9464
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Neville Chamberlain dies in 1937

Post by ljadw » 06 Sep 2018 08:23

pugsville wrote:
06 Sep 2018 02:54
ljadw wrote:
05 Sep 2018 12:41
No Munich does not mean war between CZ and Germany .There was no relation between Munich and war/peace .
And, as there was no common border between CZ and the USSR, the USSR could not stand up to Hitler .CZ could not expect real help if it said no to Hitler's demands, only liberation after 6 years of war, that's why it yielded to Hitler's demands .
disagree. Without France and Britain brow beating the Czechs to roll over war is the likely outcome. Without Munich Hitler almost certainly would have invaded, at which point the Czechs almost certainly would have fought.

Return to “What if”