Peace in our time!

[Alikchi]

How could Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister have influenced events differently so as to prevent WWII in Europe (at least in his lifetime)?

Perhaps if the Baldwin gov't had ordered German troops out of the Rhineland in 1936, Britain's government would have had the gumption to stand up to Hitler in the future? Or perhaps a stronger alliance system in Europe - guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Czechoslovakia, for example, or more effective diplomacy with the Soviets so as to prevent the signing of the M-R pact. There must be a way to slow Hitler down short of war that is not simple "appeasement" or empty threats.

I am imagining PM Chamberlain dying in office as Britain continues to rearm, but with Germany staved off and war averted for a few extra years - remembered as the shrewd politico that bought time for Britain while standing up to Hitler. How could this have happened?

 

[Anaxagoras]

It is possible that, had the British and the French stood up to Hitler had any of three moments (1936 in the Rhioneland, 1938 in Austria and later in 1938 at Munich) that a military coup would have toppled Hitler.

 

[MarkA]

Britain and France were tough when dealing with Weimer. Because the Republic was dealing with the USSR and refusing to be the 'eastern bulwark' against bolshevism? Not to mention tha all through this time they were lauding Mussolini.

Once the great anti-communist hero Hitler came to power GB bent over backwards to acede to his demands. Ignoring their own policy they turned a blind eye to joint Soviet-German efforts unlike during the democratic phase of German inter-war times.

Perhaps Stalin was right all along.

 

[Blitzhund]

It should be remembered that the policy of Appeasement of Germany shared popular support in the UK up to the invasion of Poland.

If there had been support for a more aggresive PM in Parliament then Chamberlain would not have ever been in office in the first place.

Chamberlain never played Hitler the way that Hitler played him. Had a more clever PM been in place he would not only been able to meet Hiter's outmanouvre attempts but prevent him in the first place. Chamberlain was not the right man to thwart Hitler.

I can imagine another PM (perhaps Churchill in 37?) telling Hitler, "Well sir, if you'd like to protect the Ethnic Germans in the Sudentland then we shall provide you with the moving lorries to move them from Czechoslovakia's national territory."

 

[Wozza]

Perhaps Stalin was right all along.

Good epitaph.

Of course it was Stalin who signed the treaty with Hitler and kept his war machine going and caused untold misery, and err, the western powers who fought back.

Then there is all that lauding Mussolini, by calling him a gangster and nearly declaring war.

You do know that they have now opened the Moscow archives and they know that all the stuff you spout was made up?

 

[Earling]

But they did laud Mussolini prior to Italy invading Abyssinia didn't they? Not unreasonably ofcourse, he was after all largely acting in favour of their interests before then.

The problem is that at Munich Chamberlain didn't have much of a choice. Its highly debatable whether democratic Britain (or France) would actually declare war with Germany over Czechoslovakia. Most people were certainly against war at the time (as argueably alot were still against war in 1939). Churchill (and others) could advocate taking a stronger line.. but the most likely answer is they get voted out of office or their party, realising the danger, removes them. Someone more "appeaseing" gets in and Hitler has another go later on.

Could Chamberlain have had more effective diplomacy with the Soviets? Again.. probably not. I tend to think its harder, as an accountable democracy to perform acts realpolitik than it is for a dictator. Hitler could (and did) offer Stalin half of Eastern Europe.. what has Chamberlain got to offer? Good will amongst mankind and collective security isn't going to (and ofcourse never really did) effect Stalin's thinking. While Stalin turned out to be wrong in thinking he could judge Hitler, he was certainly right that Hitler would offer him more than the western democracies.

All Chamberlain could really do is somehow make a much stronger impression on Hitler (so Hitler comes to the conclusion that Britain is willing and able to fight a war). However while continueing to give in (and giving in to some degree is probably unavoidable) that is almost certainly impossible.

 

[Mike Stearns]

It is possible that, had the British and the French stood up to Hitler had any of three moments (1936 in the Rhioneland, 1938 in Austria and later in 1938 at Munich) that a military coup would have toppled Hitler.

As I understand things, there actually was a plot to whack Hitler in the mid or late 30s. When the plotters went to Britain seeking promises of political recognition, however, noone was willing to talk to them,

 

[Calgacus]

Good epitaph.

Of course it was Stalin who signed the treaty with Hitler and kept his war machine going and caused untold misery, and err, the western powers who fought back.

Then there is all that lauding Mussolini, by calling him a gangster and nearly declaring war.

You do know that they have now opened the Moscow archives and they know that all the stuff you spout was made up?

To be fair, even Churchill at one point praised Musso. It took them a while to realise just what kind of regime he was running.

I think Rhineland is the easiest and most painless point at which Hitler could be stopped, post-1933. The Germans were extremely cautious when they went back in, and were under orders to hightail it if the French showed any sign of standing up to them. The moment could also be used to strongly protest the German rearmament, which would have been pretty obvious to all by this time.

 

[Wozza]

To be fair, even Churchill at one point praised Musso. It took them a while to realise just what kind of regime he was running.

There was plenty of "'Well I am sure he is exactly what the wops need," to suggest that British or French foreign policy was pro-dictators in the 30s though is simply incorrect.

I think Rhineland is the easiest and most painless point at which Hitler could be stopped, post-1933. The Germans were extremely cautious when they went back in, and were under orders to hightail it if the French showed any sign of standing up to them. The moment could also be used to strongly protest the German rearmament, which would have been pretty obvious to all by this time.

I think the Rhineland only looks perfect in hindsight, if anything had been tried at the time it would have been a fiasco, as contemporary controversies on pre-emptive strikes demonstrate. I can think of few people who would risk a world war because the Germans invaded Germany.

Even Austria and the early stages of the Sudeten crisis are not clear - Hitler did after all point out that he was offering self-determination to Germans.

The period between Bad Godesburg and Munich is the crunchtime. Anything else is simply too soon.

 

[Calgacus]

There was plenty of "'Well I am sure he is exactly what the wops need," to suggest that British or French foreign policy was pro-dictators in the 30s though is simply incorrect.



I think the Rhineland only looks perfect in hindsight, if anything had been tried at the time it would have been a fiasco, as contemporary controversies on pre-emptive strikes demonstrate. I can think of few people who would risk a world war because the Germans invaded Germany.

Even Austria and the early stages of the Sudeten crisis are not clear - Hitler did after all point out that he was offering self-determination to Germans.

The period between Bad Godesburg and Munich is the crunchtime. Anything else is simply too soon.

That really depends how they play it. After all Germany was the one breaking the Treaty - if Britain and France could seize the moral high ground, they might be able to swing sympathy firmly against Germany.

 

[Wozza]

That really depends how they play it. After all Germany was the one breaking the Treaty - if Britain and France could seize the moral high ground, they might be able to swing sympathy firmly against Germany.

Arguably Germany was not breaking the treaty due to the fact that France was about to ratify a treaty with the Soviet Union - making the Locarno treay invalid.

I think one need only read some of the recent coverage of how vladimir putin has been "provoked" to see that these issues are never clear cut - or even if they are, will not seem so at the time.

 

[Calgacus]

Arguably Germany was not breaking the treaty due to the fact that France was about to ratify a treaty with the Soviet Union - making the Locarno treay invalid.

I think one need only read some of the recent coverage of how vladimir putin has been "provoked" to see that these issues are never clear cut - or even if they are, will not seem so at the time.

True. But I do think any time chosen to stop Germany after 1936-37 will probably involve a war. My choice of 1936 was, as I said, the painless option, not necessarily the one guaranteed to look good to world public opinion.

 

[Wozza]

True. But I do think any time chosen to stop Germany after 1936-37 will probably involve a war. My choice of 1936 was, as I said, the painless option, not necessarily the one guaranteed to look good to world public opinion.

If Hitler falls in 1936 due to Rhineland intervention and is replaced by some sort of traditional right-wing dictatorship (as is the only practical option really) what happens next?

Are their ambitions going to go away? Or are they going to be stoked by the fact that the Germans are not even allowed to occupy their own territory. It is an intervention which would solve nothing, whereas a showdown over the Sudetenland would have established a new modus vivendi, in which it has been shown what Germany can and cannot have.

 

[Calgacus]

If Hitler falls in 1936 due to Rhineland intervention and is replaced by some sort of traditional right-wing dictatorship (as is the only practical option really) what happens next?

Are their ambitions going to go away? Or are they going to be stoked by the fact that the Germans are not even allowed to occupy their own territory. It is an intervention which would solve nothing, whereas a showdown over the Sudetenland would have established a new modus vivendi, in which it has been shown what Germany can and cannot have.

Do you think they'd have been satisfied with their 'official' borders? IIRC right wing parties like the DNVP were pretty focused on revanchist agendas, particularly as concerns Poland. It's pretty unlikely that this would go away - in OTL it went away when the Germans in that region were 'removed', but without that, it's hard to see any kind of happy ending.

 

[MarkA]

Good epitaph.

Of course it was Stalin who signed the treaty with Hitler and kept his war machine going and caused untold misery, and err, the western powers who fought back.

Then there is all that lauding Mussolini, by calling him a gangster and nearly declaring war.

You do know that they have now opened the Moscow archives and they know that all the stuff you spout was made up?

Weimar Germany had very close trade and military and research links with the USSR. The western allies refused to accomodate any democratic German government requests for reasonable, even just treatment. Once Hitler comes to power and avows himself an ardent anti-bolshevik, he can do anything he pleases and the UK bends over backward to allow it.

I presume you are referring to Eden when calling Mussolini a gangster. He was alone in his dislike of Mussolini - not fascism. The ruling class of the Empire loved Il Duce. Churchill made speeches and wrote articles praising him right up to 1938/9. He spent happy times in his company.

Please read some history and what people actually said and wrote at the time - not repeat old western propaganda. What did the Soviet archives say? Confirmed the Anglo-French conspiracy to set the USSR and Nazi Germany at war and sit back and watch I suppose.