How would Neville Chamberlain be remembered if he had refused the Munich agreement and gone to war with Germany in 1938 Assuming that the result of the war is still defeat for the Germans.
Neville Chamberlain if He rejected the Munich agreement
- Thread starter Mister Abbadon
- Start date
That butterflies away American sympathy. And yes Chamberlain would be remembered.
At first, huge unpopularity from parliament and the public but I could expect this to mellow somewhat once the excesses of the Nazi regime become more well known. I'd expect a larger amount of people in the present day arguing that it was a mistake not to accept it though. A greater proportion of Europe would likely be spared occupation though.
Cook
Banned
I think he would be seen as a man who had tried his utmost to keep peace; going so far as to fly to Berchtesgaden to negotiate face to face with Hitler.
He would be seen as someone who was willing to compromise for peace; seeking a way to peacefully transfer the ethnic Germans inhabiting the border regions of Czechoslovakia over to German sovereignty without compromising the independence of the Czechs.
He would then be seen as a man of sound judgement, who was unwilling to compromise his integrity and the honour and security of the British nation; realising that there was no honourable deal to be had when Hitler relentlessly upped his demands every time Chamberlain agreed to his earlier conditions. Had he done this history would view him very differently: by the end of the conference Chamberlain had decided to throw the Czechs (a people whom he knew next to nothing about, didn't like what he did know and that he suspected of all being socialists) to the wolves. Consequently history has judged him to be a man of weak character, lacking judgement, completely out of his depth in international affairs, arrogant in his belief that he knew better than any of his cabinet colleagues and treasonous in the extreme: sacrificing a people who he had persuaded for the sake of peace to entrust their fate to his hands.
There is then the question of how history would have judged his performance as a wartime leader, and that depends heavily on what nature the war took and how it progressed.
Well for starters, he wouldn't have gone to war unless Germany had invaded Czechoslovakia, unlikely in itself since France would probably have taken the same stance, and invading the Sudetenland would not have been easy (the planned defences were far from complete, but also far from easily brushed aside, at least by the Germans).
If Hitler had cone all-out and invaded, he'd have bogged down in the Sudetenland, while the British and French hit him 'from behind' with blockades (the Kriegsmarine at the time had as capital-ships only Scharnhorst, Deutschland, Admiral Scheer and Admiral Graf Spee, which would, I suspect, have fared poorly against the Combined British and French fleets).
If Hitler had cone all-out and invaded, he'd have bogged down in the Sudetenland, while the British and French hit him 'from behind' with blockades (the Kriegsmarine at the time had as capital-ships only Scharnhorst, Deutschland, Admiral Scheer and Admiral Graf Spee, which would, I suspect, have fared poorly against the Combined British and French fleets).
Wrong. Hitler did not expect the west to cave in at Munich, and was disappointed he didnt get his war.
Of course, if he HAD tried invading Czechoslovakia, the war would have gone badly for him. Very badly. Youd have had France Britain and the USSR all united against him, and the German army wasnt nearly as strong in '38 as it was in '40, say.
Europe still eventually descends into war, but Chamberlain is possibly able to avoid being ousted long enough to die in office. At that point, the King sends for a leading Tory to take up the office as quickly as possible. I would have to guess it would come to the same choice as IOTL, between Winston Churchill and Lord Halifax.
There may well have been war, but it would not have been nearly as destructive as it was IOTL. I do not think Mussolini would have joined Hitler's idiotic war, and the combined might of Britain, France, Czechoslovakia, and maybe Poland would in the end crush him. It may well be that the Heer would say enough is enough, cap Hitler, and work out an armistice.
Hitler, unfortunately, was not the only one they would have to kill, even at this rather early stage. Even so, you may be right.
I don't think Germany would have fared that badly. The Anschluss had rendered Czechoslovakia doomed and Stalin could have done nothing of consequence against the Germans without going through at least Hitler's good friend (and collaborator in the Czech carveup) Poland. Having to fight a one front war against the Soviets, with German troops soon coming in to help the Poles against the Red Menace Poland would I think have done fairly well. Things would have been desperate for Germany from the beginning certainly but by no means would Germany be doomed. Although I do not like Turtledove's latest offering I think he is correct in that. Things would probably turn out better all things considered for Britain, and far better for France in the long run though.
Chamberlain would probably be blamed as the man who blundered the world into war by most people, he should have just given peace a chance!
I agree. Most likely we might see a reverse Long knives event, where the Nazi leadership and the SS forces will either get killed, arrested, or try to flee.
The Czechs were loading the Sudetenland with fortrifications (quite a number were already complete), and the Germans didn't have a great army at the time. Also, they're facing Britain and France as well, which is going to mean getting blockaded very quickly.
So, Chamberlain refusing to give Hitler lots of Czech land, and then declaring war when Hitler tries to take is anyway is seen as blundering into war? Somehow, I don't think that's likely, not when the whole thing was started by Hitler. Also, Chamberlain can fall back on Germany's takeover of Austria as a reason Hitler should be opposed in Czechoslovakia.
Admiral Fischer
Banned
Let's remember that the so-called Western Power simply abandoned Poland during the first phase of the war. What makes so different in Czechoslovakia's case? Why so many people are assuming that had no Munich happened, the Western Allies would have invaded Germany and kick Hitler's butt, when, historically, they did nothing to rescue the Poles?
They aren't going to go in, but Czechoslovakia isn't going to be an easy proposition, Germany's forces aren't brilliant, and the Czechs have been laying down fortifications since 1936. This is a fight the Germans can't really afford to get into. In addition, if Chamberlain does say 'no', Hitler is going to face rebellion from within his ranks, which isn't going to help either.
Last edited:
Chamberlain will be remembered very differently, very likely positively.
As for an earlier war, if it happens I recall there were advanced plans from members of the Heer to institute a coup. IIRC it very nearly happened OTL and Ludwig Beck was heavily involved.
However if the coup isn't pulled off, and the war still happens, Germany's starting position is greatly weakened. I also wouldn't rule out Hitler doing a deal with Poland, whose illegal seizure of Tesin after the Munich Agreement demonstrated they were very comfortable with Czechoslovakia being sold off. I know this seems unlikely given what we now know of Hitler's thoughts on Poland, but IIRC he only started acting belligerently towards Poland in 1939.
As for an earlier war, if it happens I recall there were advanced plans from members of the Heer to institute a coup. IIRC it very nearly happened OTL and Ludwig Beck was heavily involved.
However if the coup isn't pulled off, and the war still happens, Germany's starting position is greatly weakened. I also wouldn't rule out Hitler doing a deal with Poland, whose illegal seizure of Tesin after the Munich Agreement demonstrated they were very comfortable with Czechoslovakia being sold off. I know this seems unlikely given what we now know of Hitler's thoughts on Poland, but IIRC he only started acting belligerently towards Poland in 1939.
Last edited:
I wonder. This butterflies the Hollocaust. Hiter was a nasty evil piece of work but he would not have had the chance to arrange industrialized murder
If Poland had in fact been "Hitler's good friend", Polish-German armies would have been storming Moscow in 1941.
Poland did not take part in the Munich conference, and issued its ultimatum unilaterally after the great powers had officially sold Czechoslovakia out.
I think I remember a long and detailed post of somebody's (it could have been Cook) from a few months ago explaining why such a coup attempt was very unlikely to have worked.