Chamberlain as Prime Minister?

How much of an affect would Chamberlain as British Prime Minister have had on the allied war effort?

Is it possible that if the British Conservative Party failed in ending Chamberlain's Premiership when it did, thus causing Chamberlain to lead Britain into the war, that he could not have rallied the international support needed to effectively fight the Germans, as well as not being a generally competent wartime leader, at least noting near that of Churchill? If Britain looked any weaker than it did when we entered the Eastern Front is it possible that we may not have entered at all, seeing the British and French defeat as sealed and focusing our efforts to the Pacific?

The stability of a British Government is key to their effective rallying of support both domestically and abroad. It was Churchill's ability to rally the support of nearly all Parliamentary factions that allowed Churchill to move past the partisan politics that dominates a Westminster System government and provide a strong unified front for fighting Germany. Chamberlain could not have held on to Labour support and was in fact losing Tory support, this would have prevented the unification of the British government and people, which would have spelled doom for their cause, which was essential to Allied victory in Europe.

It is not just about Prime Minister, it is about his gov't upon which his Premiership rests. No one would say the Labour Coalition during the Winter of Discontent of the late 1970's under James Callaghan would be fit to carry out a war as large as WWII, however the following Tory Thatcher gov't with its roughly 40 seat majority in the Commons undoubtedly could, as can be see with the Thatcher response in the Falklands. If Argentina would have to invaded during a Callaghan government I doubt if the UK would have responded with such effective speed. The situation seems to be the same in respect to WWII, if Chamberlain had continued would he have been able to act with the speed necessary to counter the Germans, who acted swiftly due to its dictatorial structure? It is imperative that a British wartime leader enjoy the solid support of the Commons, lest his focus not be upon running the war, but upon rallying the Parliamentary parties together in order to pass even trivial bills.

Would love some opinions.

 

If a nation feels threatened - and in 1939 GB had all reasons to feel as such, the internal rivalries usually are burried in favour for a common interest. As such the British public was aware that a strong and capable leader such as Churchill was required to lead them though this period.

As for the Falklands I would tend to believe that it was the Thatcher government which already was in power that enabled the desicion that was taken as an immediate response.

Under James Callaghan the action choosen by the Thatcher government would sooner or later have come too - but it might then have not been in favour for the British amongst world opinion.

If a Jimmy Carter instead of a Ronald Reagan would have been president of the USA at that time (therefore no Caspar Weinberger) - I would even tend to bet my bucks, that Britain would have been very ill adviced to vote for a military option.

Regards
Kruska

 

After Germany invaded Poland, Chamberlain looked like an absolute fool, perhaps even a fool's fool. I'm sure that an argument can be made that he achieved this notoriety well before the invasion of Poland.

I tend to think that he also felt this way but that pride, a common problem of politicians, prevented him from resigning.

Thus, it was absolutely impossible for him to continue successfully. If he had continued as the Prime Minister, it may very well be that Germany's successful conquest of Britain would not have been a "what if" in history!

Bob Guercio

 

I dont think it would have made a tack of difference to the outcome,the war in the atlantic would have worked out the same as would the BoB.
The only difference i see is the relationship with stalin,i dont know enough about chamberlins MO so i cant even guess how that might have gone.

 

Chamberlain was probably not as stupid as history portrays him (with the famous video of him waving the so called peace treaty with Hitler in the wind, as if it were some sort of magical document).

Chamberlain probably had no real illusions about Hitler intentions by the late 1930's, but the fact is he pursued the only course he could at the moment. When rumblings of war started on the continent with Hitler's bloodless annexation of Czechoslovokia and Austria, certainly most people knew that another war was almost certainly coming.
At this time period though (1937-early 1939) Britain was simply not ready for war. The new Spitfire fighter airplane was just coming into production in small numbers, the British lacked a fuel reserve, heavy bombers, tanks, merchant shipping, and motorized transport, and the "Chain Home" radar was just starting to be built. Chamberlain knew all he could do in this period was attempt to buy time for Britain to prepare to take on Hitler since they lacked the resources to actually back up any serious military threat. Chamberlain dragged his heels and appeased Hitler as much as he could, since Britain had no alternative at the time. By 1940 things were different under the leadership of Churchill, and the RAF was able to repel the luftwaffe during Battle of Britain, but only by a small margin.

 

One must remember two separate things about Chamberlain:

First, while he is seen as a "fool" for having trusted Hitler, only looking at his taking that appeasement position isn’t necessarily a fair judgment. In that year between Munich and Poland’s invasion he increased the national debt by increasing war production. The largest peacetime increase in production of war materials by any democratic nation in peacetime (to that time), between the end of 1938 and middle of 1939.

He (Chamberlain) reintroduced conscription, and taxes went up to pay for these things, not endearing him to the citizenry. In 1936 Britain had introduced its four-year rearmament plan, while it was a modest plan, it existed. Then between 1938 and 1939 military spending doubled, military conscription was re-implemented, and the Home Guard re-equipped with WW1 stockpiled rifles.

By January of 1939, the navy had been strengthened and production of war planes had been increased; in February 1939, defense spending was increased yet again, this time to £580 million and free air-raid shelters were given to ¼ million Londoners, and gas masks distributed. Also the BEF was enlarged and training increased so as to comply with the French demand for British troops guaranteed to be sent to the continent. The French wouldn't agree to join Britain in the guarantee of Polish sovereignty in the case of "European Power" (read Nazi Germany) aggression without that promise of the BEF.

Some people also fail to realize the depths to which the great economic depression was affecting Great Britain in 1938 with some 1.5 million unemployed in 1938 alone. Actually in 1936 the government had closed Palmer's shipyard in Jarrow, England which had always built warships due to lack of government funds. The years worth of time gained also allowed the five King George V class battleships in all the shipyards, whose keels had been laid down in 1937 to all be completed and launched by early 1940. The Admiralty also completed and launched three aircraft carriers by 1939 which had been dragging along since 1937, Formidable, Illustrious, and Victorious. These aircraft carriers all survived the war, I think. I have no idea how many smaller warships and submarines were completed in that vital year between late 1938 and late '39. Another poster on a different forum posted this, and I don’t doubt his numbers in the least:

"At the time of Munich Agreement, RAF Fighter Command had exactly three operational Hurricane squadrons, with three more in the process of conversion, but not yet operational. The other sixteen squadrons were made up of Gloster Gladiators and Gauntlets, and Hawker Furys and Demons - all biplanes. Fighter Command had exactly one Spitfire on charge (test). Not one Spitfire squadron - one Spitfire aircraft."

"The delay gave the RAF time to get its modern fighters into service, and the British aircraft industry time to shift into full gear. By 1940, Britain was outproducing Germany in aircraft by 58%."

This period of time also allowed Great Britain to nearly complete its Chain Home radar system, with the adding of the Chain Home Low sets which lowered the altitude detecting range to compliment the existing high altitude sets, no small feat in itself.

Chamberlain’s "peace in our time" of ‘38, was a sound-bite to soothe the press and populace while he and the military shortly thereafter began to increase their preparedness for the conflict I’m certain they foresaw looming on the horizon. Just my opinion using the 20/20 lens of hindsight of course.

Second, when he resigned he knew full well he was dying of cancer, which he did before the end of the year, and it was he who recommended Churchill for the position of PM. I remain convinced he did NOT wish to see Halifax nominated, not because it was against the law at the time (Halifax was a Lord, and not an elected official), but because he felt Halifax was entirely too pro-Fascist. Even if the little problem of him being a Lord was overcome by a waiver or something, it was clear that Halifax would not have been supported by either the Labor or Liberal Parties, and it is likely he himself (Halifax) didn’t want the job, he probably also recognized that it was Churchill who could rally the nation in a unified front.

If Chamberlain had lived (in a "what if" scenario), even he recognized that his past performance, as widely perceived, and tax increase was not going to instill confidence in the British citizens, and cancer or no he most likely would have resigned anyway. So much for my defending Chamberlain, his personality probably would have made the great co-ordination between Britain and the US less efficient at the very least. He was a bit of a "cold fish", not nearly the warm and outgoing type that Churchill was.

 

Good thing Chamberlain wasn't prime minister during the whole war. He would of fell to the Germans pretty quickly. Right before the war, he "appeased" Hitler by letting him take czech after talking in Munich. The world would of been different if he stayed there any longer

 

Yes, thank you very much Clint, and all who responded

 

Are you aware that Chamberlain did lead Britain into war with Germany ?
Chamberlain was PM until May 1940, when he resigned due to the fact that while he won a vote of no confidence over the campaign in Norway, it wasn't by a large enough majority to command the full support of the House Of Commons


Post by brndirt1

Chamberlain asked Halifax if he was interested in the position of PM before he asked Churchill, it was only when Halifax raised a number of difficulties in accepting the position (ie; him being a member of the House Of Lords) and generally giving Chamberlain the impression he didn't want the job that Chamberlain asked Churchill about accepting the role.
Secondly, the leadership of the Labour and Liberal parties had already been asked if they would be willing to work with Halifax in a national government of all parties, they raised no objections to him in this role.
Thirdly, Halifax was in no shape or form a pro-Fascist. He may have supported appeasment until the Munich crisis ( it was during this time that he came to realise the policy had failed), however it wasn't due to any pro-Fascist sympathy, but a dislike of war, and the knowledge of Britain's unpreparedness for it.

If Halifax had really wanted to be Prime Minister in May 1940 there is no question that he would have been appointed to the role.

 

you miss a salient point in your opening post. You touch on tory party and also rallying of international support..however no british labour member would serve him in coalition. He could not ever garner home support...so other matters did not matter

 

There's no hindsight required, the archives have been pretty well picked over by now.
Lifting a pertinent section from the wikipedia article on Chamberlain"

So that's the future Chief of the Imperial General Staff and the Deputy Secretary of the Comittee of Imperial Defence respectively. They may have modified their views later on in light of events and additional knowledge, but at the time the consensus view among the defence establishment appears to have been that they would be screwed in an immediate war with Germany and needed to buy more time.
Churchill was more aggressive in these matters, but then he seemed to have only the loosest grasp on what was required in fighting a modern war.

 

ilruso..get a copy of strange victory by your own ernest may..a great chapter there on chamberlain..but i cannot agree with clint on the succession of winston. He was far from chamberlains choice.

 

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that Halifax himself put Churchill up for the post when he himself demured. I also was under the impression that Churchill was (while not Chamberlains' first choice) fully acceptable to both he and the House of Commons. Perhaps I am mis-remembering this? If so I apologize.

 

no clint, perhaps i need to expand..not meaning to diminish what you say..but even my dislike of halifax, precludes the fact he was no facist or a sympathiser. Chamberlain would always prefer him to winston. In fact when he had a previous position to bestow he chose inskip over churchill.

 

Now I see where you were coming from. No problem.

 

Chamberlain was no fool,otherwise you do not remain 6 yrears chancellor of the exchequer ,he wanted no war in 1938 because it could have as result the end of the empire and because Britain had nothing to fight,a declaration of war would mean that France would fight and France was not willing to fight without a British army;recommended reading:the origins of WW II from A.Taylor

 

Found an interesting audio here:

BBC - Today - Is criticising Chamberlain unfair?

 

An other point of view from"the decline and fall of the British aristocracy e (D.Cannadine :The King wanted Halifax,Chamberlain wanted Halifax,most Conservatives wanted Halifax;and so did many in the Labour party .(P.232 ) and :He did not want the job under these-or any ? -circumstances. Like Curzon,it was not so much his peerage,as his temperament,thas was the decisive and deciding factor. In this case ,it seems clear,Halifax could have had the job for the asking,but he did not want it;he did not put his claims,and he gave his peerage as his excuse .(Source :J.W.Wheeler-Bennett:King George VI :his live and reign(1958) .440-446)

 

Its a simple annolagy, and my admiration for winnie is always tempered by my disdain of his peace time politics but cometh the hour cometh the man. Halifax had stalked the fox churchill had battled many real foxes. May 28th 1940 showed all there would be no vichy Britain but it was closer than many will ever admit. Chamberlain was not a bad man not even naieve as some would have us believe. His ideology was to protect Britain.. Churchill's was to protect his version of freedom and democracy. Small difference you may say. But the methods are gigantic in detail.