Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 17th, 2018, 05:39 PM   #1

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,717
Blog Entries: 8
Would a Britain led by the Labour Party have been more willing 2 help Czechoslovakia?


Would a Britain led by the Labour Party have been more willing to help Czechoslovakia in 1938?

I'm curious as to how much Britain's position in regards to Czechoslovakia in 1938 was influenced by the Conservative mindset of Neville Chamberlain. That way, I'd like to figure out if the Munich Agreement was a relatively predetermined event or whether a different British Prime Minister would have acted differently during this time in regards to the Czechoslovakia/Sudetenland issue.

Any thoughts on this?
Futurist is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 17th, 2018, 05:52 PM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,921

The Munich Agreement was very much Chamberlian's baby it hard too any other Prime Minister going down that path.

I think it's pretty certain a labor leader would have been more inclined to help Czechoslovakia and been and more anti Hitler. Enough to go to war is hard to to say.

I think without Chamberlain it would have been an actual war and invasion of Czechoslovakia, the whole going to Hitler thing, Munich conference none it it would have happened under another leader.

But would another reader have gone to war over an invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938?
pugsville is online now  
Old May 17th, 2018, 05:53 PM   #3

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,717
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
The Munich Agreement was very much Chamberlian's baby it hard too any other Prime Minister going down that path.

I think it's pretty certain a labor leader would have been more inclined to help Czechoslovakia and been and more anti Hitler. Enough to go to war is hard to to say.

I think without Chamberlain it would have been an actual war and invasion of Czechoslovakia, the whole going to Hitler thing, Munich conference none it it would have happened under another leader.

But would another reader have gone to war over an invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938?
I have a question--would France have been willing to go to war on behalf of Czechoslovakia without Britain?
Futurist is offline  
Old May 17th, 2018, 05:58 PM   #4
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,921

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
I have a question--would France have been willing to go to war on behalf of Czechoslovakia without Britain?
No. I am pretty certain that is just a cold stone fact.

With Britain Yes.
pugsville is online now  
Old May 17th, 2018, 06:00 PM   #5

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,717
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
No. I am pretty certain that is just a cold stone fact.

With Britain Yes.
OK.

Anyway, if Czechoslovakia can't even count on France's support, then it might have been willing to voluntarily give up the Sudetenland. Of course, the key question is whether Hitler would accept negotiations with the Czechs or whether he would want "a splendid little war" to get what he wants.
Futurist is offline  
Old May 17th, 2018, 06:03 PM   #6

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,717
Blog Entries: 8

Also, as a side note, what do you think about my question here, pugsville? :

Plausibility Check: A new German capital in Czechia?
Futurist is offline  
Old May 17th, 2018, 06:06 PM   #7
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,921

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
Also, as a side note, what do you think about my question here, pugsville? :

Plausibility Check: A new German capital in Czechia?
I think not. Just don; find that an interesting question. Yes in a totalitarian Nazi Germany such things could be done.
pugsville is online now  
Old May 17th, 2018, 06:07 PM   #8
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,655

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
I have a question--would France have been willing to go to war on behalf of Czechoslovakia without Britain?
This is a really good question because while France was largely responsible for the existence of Czechoslovakia and specifically for the purpose of being an alternative buffer to Germany in the East(along with other states in what was known as the "Little Entente") by the 1930s, France had engaged in appeasement independent of Neville Chamberlain, refusing to advance to stop Hitler militarizing the Rhineland(a much more low risk move than war over Czechoslovakia). Mussolini on the other hand was about to go to war with Hitler in 1934 when Hitler was trying to make a move on Austria.

I'd be inclined to guess no because the Munich Agreement only gave Hitler parts the German speaking Subetenland and in the 1930s, it seemed to have been the popular consensus that Versailles was too tough on the Germans and until Hitler took the entirety of Czechoslovakia, all of his aggressive actions seemed justified independently, including the demand for the Danzig Corridor. France had suffered immensely from WWI and the Little Entente was designed to protect France from Germany not to protect the Little Entente from Germany on France's behalf. By 1938 it seems the Versailles goal of keeping Germany down was already a lost cause.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old May 17th, 2018, 08:35 PM   #9

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,717
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 View Post
This is a really good question because while France was largely responsible for the existence of Czechoslovakia and specifically for the purpose of being an alternative buffer to Germany in the East(along with other states in what was known as the "Little Entente") by the 1930s, France had engaged in appeasement independent of Neville Chamberlain, refusing to advance to stop Hitler militarizing the Rhineland(a much more low risk move than war over Czechoslovakia). Mussolini on the other hand was about to go to war with Hitler in 1934 when Hitler was trying to make a move on Austria.

I'd be inclined to guess no because the Munich Agreement only gave Hitler parts the German speaking Subetenland and in the 1930s, it seemed to have been the popular consensus that Versailles was too tough on the Germans and until Hitler took the entirety of Czechoslovakia, all of his aggressive actions seemed justified independently, including the demand for the Danzig Corridor. France had suffered immensely from WWI and the Little Entente was designed to protect France from Germany not to protect the Little Entente from Germany on France's behalf. By 1938 it seems the Versailles goal of keeping Germany down was already a lost cause.
Honestly, I suspect that France's Eastern European alliance system was meant to work both ways--specifically both to provide protection to France and to provide protection to Poland, Czechoslovakia, et cetera. Of course, this is mere speculation on my part. That said, though, I don't think that Eastern European countries would have been very eager to sign up for an alliance that was perceived as one-sided.

You are probably correct that France would have ultimately chickened out if Britain was unwilling to fight, though. Ultimately, France would have simply felt that it was too weak to honor its promises and its alliance commitments.
Futurist is offline  
Old May 17th, 2018, 09:39 PM   #10
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 743

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
Would a Britain led by the Labour Party have been more willing to help Czechoslovakia in 1938?

I'm curious as to how much Britain's position in regards to Czechoslovakia in 1938 was influenced by the Conservative mindset of Neville Chamberlain. That way, I'd like to figure out if the Munich Agreement was a relatively predetermined event or whether a different British Prime Minister would have acted differently during this time in regards to the Czechoslovakia/Sudetenland issue.

Any thoughts on this?
Doubt it. Britain was leery of another war with Germany and willing to sacrifice much (including Czechoslavakia) to avoid it. People seem to forget that Chamberlain returned from his meeting with Hitler to wild cheers from his countrymen, not approbation.
Strontium90 is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
britain, czechoslovakia, labour, led, party



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What if the Liberal Party dominated interwar Britain Thomson1190 Speculative History 16 January 16th, 2017 05:31 AM
Why isnt there a 'Labour Party' in the US like in the UK? Lekbo American History 59 February 20th, 2016 06:31 PM
Corbyn, UK Labour party leader notgivenaway Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 2 September 27th, 2015 03:19 PM
Did the rise of the Labour Party make Liberal decline inevitable? Fabius Maximus European History 16 April 7th, 2011 07:42 AM
The British New Labour party 1997 campaign and media TheAutumnPeople6 History Help 4 November 28th, 2009 04:02 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.