Say that the Great depression hits the UK worse than otl allowing the labour party to win the majority in 1935, how would Clement Attlee respond to the early expansion of Nazi Germany? Would he have been willing to fight to defend Czechoslovakia's sovereignty and could he convince Daladier to have France fight as well?
WI: PM Atlee during Sudetenland Crisis
- Thread starter Kaiser Tito
- Start date
Would he be able to get France on board or were they as hesitant for war as Chamberlain was?
In terms of foreign policy, Britain was always the stronger and more powerful nation, therefore always the bigger voice. Britain may not need France to survive but France absolutely needs Britain.
Kind off on a global scale but not so much when it comes to land armies in Europe, the reality is in order to invade Germany* in 1938 it's going to take a force significantly larger than than the BEF in 1938, and that means the majority of the invasion force will be French.
*which is the only way to to get to Czechoslovakia from the west
Last edited:
kham_coc
Banned
Would parliament be willing? - I dont think so.
Would France? - they would be the ones who would sign up to be the battleground, so I really doubt it.
Would the dominions?
Long term problem.
What happens if only the uk declares war?
Blockade until the Germans give in?
What does Poland do? (Nothing methinks).
What does Stalin do? What can he do?
Would France? - they would be the ones who would sign up to be the battleground, so I really doubt it.
Would the dominions?
Long term problem.
What happens if only the uk declares war?
Blockade until the Germans give in?
What does Poland do? (Nothing methinks).
What does Stalin do? What can he do?
I am not convinced things would be that different. Attlee was certainly on the more hawkish side of the party but the Labour Party was extremely pacifist and anti military in the 1930s. It’s shocking how effective “Guilty Men” was considering the Labour Party’s opposition to rearmament in the 1930s. I don’t think the Labour Party would be any different than the National Government.
Garrison
Donor
Well in the summer of 1938 everyone was basically assuming war was inevitable anyway, air raid shelters and trenches were being built and gas masks issued en masse. Even supporters of appeasement like Halifax thought Chamberlain was going to far in making concessions over the Sudetenland. The fact was if Atlee had just not been willing to go quite as far as Chamberlain did Hitler would have used that as an excuse to start a war and no one I suspect would have blamed Atlee.
Britain needs France as an invasion phrase and France needs Britain as for monetary and manpower reasons. The BEF was way too small and the French population was small compared to Germany with declining birthrates. In 1939 Germany's population was double of France's and France's industry was also smaller compared to it's European rivals
So France refuses to oppose Germany out of defeatism while Britain refuses to recognize Munich and prepares with Poland for the inevitable?
I think the British will play a big role in France's decision making
Garrison
Donor
And yet by 1939 French and British rearmament was rapidly overtaking Germany's owing to the massive economic disparity between Germany and the Allies. The British and French economies are in far better shape than Germany's was. They were basically rearming using about 5% of GDP, and Germany was up to 20%. In 1938 the Wehrmacht is no state to fight a war. Even in 1939 they were hoping that the Allies would accept the fait accompli after Poland was overrun. The Polish campaign used up a huge part of the munitions available to the Heer and the Luftwaffe and they were barely able to build up the stockpiles to sustain a short campaign in France. No one is going to be thrilled about a war in 1938 but they will fight if the British take a slightly firmer line over the Sudetenland.
Um, you missed the point. We are talking about British and French relations. This has nothing to do with rearmament statistics or whatsoever
Garrison
Donor
Yes and I was pointing out that based on the actual situation in 1938 talking about the French being defeatist is incorrect. No one in Britain or France wanted war, not the same as saying they wouldn't fight. Both Britain and France knew they had nothing to gain from another European war, problem was they were facing an opponent who was determined to have war. Only Chamberlain's extraordinary concessions and the general insistence of practically every senior military figure that German was unready for war persuaded Hitler otherwise, and within a few weeks he was ranting about being cheated. Also you brought up German industry, I was pointing that any suggestion its was stronger than France's in 1938 is also inaccurate, the German economy just couldn't afford to match the military production of the British and French once they geared up, not to mention they could buy materiel from the USA with foreign exchange that Germany had run out of.
I got the statistics from Germany's economy here :
As for the rest, I think it's possible for the Anglo French to go to war with Germany in 1938
Garrison
Donor
That page is primarily about Japan and the part that does mention Germany, the table with '% of Total Warmaking Potential', makes no sense. As per my previous post the Germany economy was essentially smaller than that of the British and French owing to some terrible economic planning. Owing to the disparity in total economic output the British and French could match German rearmament by spending a much lower percentage of that output.
Britain did not actually have a treaty with Poland until 1939. Poland did have a treaty with France, and the stated position of the Polish government was that they would fight Germany over Czechoslovakia if and only if France did (they did not even consider, until September 30, the possibility that Czechoslovakia might fight alone). If Atlee extends a treaty to Poland equivalent to the treaty with France...maybe they'd fight without France, but given the small size of the British army and the fact that Poland's problems are continental, France would have been considered the more important ally.
To my understanding, Daladier personally favored fighting for Czechoslovakia, but only with Britain's backing, and much of his cabinet (especially Georges Bonnet, foreign minister) was opposed totally.
If Atlee commits to war, I think France would follow him in and Munich would end in an ultimatum demanding Germany back off, which may or may not lead to Hitler suffering a 9mm stroke and a military government.
I meant that Britain would create a treaty sooner, but that's a good point.
It was split down the middle IOTL. The backbenchers of the Tories were forced against their will to vote for appeasement. If Atlee shows a hard-line attitude then labour plus conservative backbenchers would be in overwhelming majority of intervention. Even iotl the appeasement bill passed only due to the fact that the Tories had majority in parliament. If labour has a majority, a prerequisite for Atlee's premiership then that does not matter at all.