Reading Nick Smart's The National Government 1931-40, in the wave of optimism that followed the signing of the Munich Agreement Neville Chamberlain seriously considered calling a snap General Election, and both the press and Labour Party expected him to call a snap poll within months. Eventually Chamberlain decided to postpone an election from late 1938-early 1939 and seems to have planned for a poll in October-November 1939, by which point he expected his policy of appeasement to have guaranteeed 'Peace in our time' and slowed down/stopped the government's re-armarment programme in order to allow his to propose tax cuts.

But what if Chamberlain had called a snap election for November 1938? or prepared for an election in February-March 1939? (for arguments sake lets say a polling day before the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, reneging on the Munich Agreement, on 16th March)

The by-election record is mixed but generally predicts Labour would improve on its 1935 performance, but that the National Government would have been re-elected. Quintin Hogg had won the Oxford by-election for the government against an anti-appeasement independent in late October 1938, whilst in November a similar contest in Bridgewater saw the anti-appeasement Vernon Bartlett win a strong victory. Labour was to win Dartford off the government that same month, but on a fairly negligible swing. As a rough guess it appears Labour was on course to gain perhaps 30-40 seats in a 1938-39 poll, but not a great deal more.

If that were the case, it would put greater pressure on Attlee's leadership. OTL in the summer of 1939 there was a strong push by Hugh Dalton and Herbert Morrison to oust Attlee as leader, and in a situation where Labour had failed to make a significant breakthrough that push would have been stronger. Would he have been removed, or stood down as Labour leader?
 

Deleted member 94680

If that were the case, it would put greater pressure on Attlee's leadership. OTL in the summer of 1939 there was a strong push by Hugh Dalton and Herbert Morrison to oust Attlee as leader, and in a situation where Labour had failed to make a significant breakthrough that push would have been stronger. Would he have been removed, or stood down as Labour leader?
Unless he's removed immediately, the War will 'save' him. As soon as War breaks out, Attlee's anti-appeasement stance would be vindicated. Removing the Leader of the Opposition at the point that they were poised to be invited into government would be a poor decision.
 
Unless he's removed immediately, the War will 'save' him. As soon as War breaks out, Attlee's anti-appeasement stance would be vindicated. Removing the Leader of the Opposition at the point that they were poised to be invited into government would be a poor decision.

I agree. Actually if Labour gains seats, that would be a relatively strong showing since Chamberlain and the Tories would have expected to gain seats in the aftermath of Munich. And by March 1939, Attlee can claim "I told you so" and hang onto power that way.
 
Unless he's removed immediately, the War will 'save' him. As soon as War breaks out, Attlee's anti-appeasement stance would be vindicated. Removing the Leader of the Opposition at the point that they were poised to be invited into government would be a poor decision.
The war breaking out didnt save him in OTL, almost up until the very moment the wartime Churchill coalition was formed there were tensions surrounding Attlee's leadership. He was ill for several months during 1939, hence why it was Arthur Greenwood and not Attlee who gave Labour's response to Chamberlain's speech prior to the declaration of war on 2nd September, and had it not been for Greenwood's commitment to team play (and his chronic alcoholism being well known in Westminster) he could easily have replaced Attlee as leader. There is also the matter in July 1945, when after leading Labour to a landslide victory there was still a concerted attempt by Herbert Morrison (supported by Stafford Cripps and Ellen Wilkinson) to supplant Attlee as leader.
But would Attlee even survive until September 1939? In 1922 the PLP had ditched Clynes as leader only weeks after he had led Labour to over double its seat tally in a general election
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
IIRC the period between Munich and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia saw a gradual realisation in British public opinion that the MA was seriously flawed. A General Election in 1938 might have seen a National / Conservative government returned, but it would be a far more dicey prospect by March 1939.
 
Might be interesting to have a the election slightly later and for labour to take over before WW2
 
An election called in early March for early April could be very interesting. Purdah would mean the British government couldn't react and while we know Hitler was going to invade anyway they wouldn't in the ATL. Labour could blame Chamberlain both for the Munich Agreement and for calling a snap election that gave Hitler his chance.
The National government would still win, 1935 was such a massive landslide Labour have a mountain to climb but Chamberlain would be toast and he'd take Halifax down with him. So who succeeds, Churchill or is he still too unpopular?
 
Top