What did Neville Chamberlain need to save his reputation?

[Histor32]

Chamberlain stood down because of the failure in Norway, so a better showing there would maybe have helped. But then he'd be the man who lost France, while Churchill with his navy connections gets seen as the man who enabled Dunkirk and defied Germany.

So it looks like we have to go back to Munich, and have him put up a stronger show against the OTL arrangement, although I'm unsure what could be changed. Perhaps when he arrives home, he does a more downbeat assessment - not so much Peace in Our Time, as Peace for Now in a troubled world. That could take away his reputation of being gullible or deluded (which is a bit unfair as he was buying time to prepare for the inevitable).

Other than that, you'd probably have to start rearmament a year or so earlier. Too soon and the UK ends up like Italy with obsolete technology, but 6 or 12 months earlier and it might be just enough to provide more equipment and better training, set up a few more shadow factories, have a few more anti sub vessels in train, and maybe get aircraft cannon ready in time for the Battle of Britain and have 6 pounders starting production in mid 1940.

He'd still be tainted by the loss in Norway or in France, but it could set up a storyline of Chamberlain as the man who planned and Churchill as the man who delivered.

This would help quite a bit. Chamberlain historically comes across as gullible and all old-school thinking Germany will play ball


Granted he has no 100% idea that Germany won't .. but he has enough intelligence to not look dumb.

Ego and belief that has got the little corporal to listen to reason is what gets him the wrap.

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

Well, with a POD too early, you butterfly away WW2 (at least as we know it) and he has no OTL reputation to be saved from.

The best bet, I think, is avoiding the collapse of France. Did he have anything to do with it? No. Could he realistically have prevented it? Also, probably, no. Is he going to be the first politician to get the blame for events over which he hasn't any control? No. So, if France doesn't leave the war-at least for a year or so-he is the guy whose delaying tactics and rearmament program stopped the bloody Nazis in their tracks . It's WW1 all over again, only he's long gone by the time everybody get tired of another generation of attrition. If the war is a short one, his reputation rides the coattails of victory.

The next best bet is a successful Norwegian campaign. Aside from the tactical, strategic, and economic advantages the UK gains over Germany, it will be the first major British offensive, and a successful one (and without those damned pesky allies). Once again, if it all goes awry later (and I think it would take Hitler some time to attempt a counter action-perhaps named operasjonsforsegling?), he is too long gone to get any of the blame.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Well, with a POD too early, you butterfly away WW2 (at least as we know it) and he has no OTL reputation to be saved from.

The best bet, I think, is avoiding the collapse of France. Did he have anything to do with it? No. Could he realistically have prevented it? Also, probably, no. Is he going to be the first politician to get the blame for events over which he has n't any control? No. So, if France doesn't leave the war-at least for a year or so-he is the guy whose delaying tactics and rearmament program stopped the bloody Nazis in their tracks . It's WW1 all over again, only he's long gone by the time everybody get tired of another generation of attrition. If the war is a short one, his reputation rides the coattails of victory.

The next best bet is a successful Norwegian campaign. Aside from the tactical, strategic, and economic advantages the UK gains over Germany, it will be the first major British offensive, and as successful one (and without those damned pesky allies). Once again, if it all goes awry later (and I think it would take Hitler some time to attempt a counter action-perhaps named operasjonsforsegling?), he is too long gone to get any of the blame.

Good point on the timing. OTL he left because of the Norwegian campaign but would have been forced to resign in a few months due to ill health.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

Wouldn’t that be the default expectation tho? France not falling is what everyone thought would happen and was shocked when it did fall. Doesn’t he need more?

The Norway campaign not to be a failure would have been nice. Though, TBF, much of the fault lay with Norwegian lack of readiness and blunders by the British Forces rather then Appeasement per se.

 

[Post]

So it looks like we have to go back to Munich, and have him put up a stronger show against the OTL arrangement, although I'm unsure what could be changed. Perhaps when he arrives home, he does a more downbeat assessment - not so much Peace in Our Time, as Peace for Now in a troubled world. That could take away his reputation of being gullible or deluded (which is a bit unfair as he was buying time to prepare for the inevitable).

This is an excellent suggestion, I thought about it myself but wasn't sure if it fell within the OP's question that "now that war is one is there anything that Neville could have done to salvage his reputation?"

 

[jacob ningen]

This is an excellent suggestion, I thought about it myself but wasn't sure if it fell within the OP's question that "now that war is one is there anything that Neville could have done to salvage his reputation?"

somehow be healthier so he can pull a churchill and write memoirs and share the state secret that britain needed the year to poland to rearm. So hes like Doran Martell.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Fall of France is a red herring. Chamberlain stepped down on 10 May 1940 on the first day of Fall Gelb. France hadn't fallen then!

Crazy idea here, but could his reputation be salvaged after he left office? If you don’t have a war where “Britain stands alone”, would subsequent armchair historians be more inclined to cut Chamberlin some slack, maybe along the lines of “well he couldn’t stop the war, but it’s probably a good thing he at least delayed it”. Churchill, likewise, may have less of a behemoth reputation, with the popular understanding that he oversaw a phase of the war (which may be shorter overall) rather than being considered synonymous with it.

 

[Belisarius II]

Crazy idea here, but could his reputation be salvaged after he left office? If you don’t have a war where “Britain stands alone”, would subsequent armchair historians be more inclined to cut Chamberlin some slack, maybe along the lines of “well he couldn’t stop the war, but it’s probably a good thing he at least delayed it”. Churchill, likewise, may have less of a behemoth reputation, with the popular understanding that he oversaw a phase of the war (which may be shorter overall) rather than being considered synonymous with it.

Not likely, Chamberlin died of cancer at the end of 1940.

 

[Velardi The First]

Interesting question....I don't personally think that Chamberlain could have saved his reputation, as he actually believed that Hitler was sincere at Munich...In the actual reality, Hitler told his foreign minister Von Ribbentrop that the agreement he signed was worthless and wasn't worth the paper he signed it on, and that he had no intention of honoring it...So in the end, it made chamberlain look like a fool, however he was trying to avoid another war .

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Not likely, Chamberlin died of cancer at the end of 1940.

Ah, I forgot the OP said "before he is replaced or dies"; obviously if he's still resigning in roughly similar circumstances, the best he could hope for is that his reputation is salvaged posthumously.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Interesting question....I don't personally think that Chamberlain could have saved his reputation, as he actually believed that Hitler was sincere at Munich...In the actual reality, Hitler told his foreign minister Von Ribbentrop that the agreement he signed was worthless and wasn't worth the paper he signed it on, and that he had no intention of honoring it...So in the end, it made chamberlain look like a fool, however he was trying to avoid another war .

This is the core of the tragedy of Chamberlain. Its difficult to see how he could have had better intel on the objectives of the top of the nazi hierarchy. But, that he had very bad information & understanding is painfully clear. There were a number of Germans in the government feeding the French, Brits and other nations low grade intel. Military docs, ect... but had there been one near the top providing a clear idea of Hitlers actual objectives Chamberlain may have made different decisions 1937-1938. so would the French for that matter.

 

[Garrison]

Well i found smacking him into the ground in a plane crash helped. Seriously something needs to give him a wakeup call before Munich so he doubles down on rearmament and the idea that Munich was just playing for time becomes the default view of historians.

 

[GarethC]

Is not a significant problem with history's view of Chamberlain that Churchill was so prominent in writing it?

The Churchillian legend seems the greater if Chamberlain (who was conveniently too dead to argue with it) is cast as an appeaser or an optimist or a fool or anything but a shrewd politician who saw that Germany had got the jump on re-armament and delayed war for a year in order to get the industrial might of Britain and France shifted towards a wartime stance.

And so Churchill writes of being a voice in a wilderness... that the previous residents in Number 10 had not tamed.

If Churchill has a plane crash before he can finish The Second World War then perhaps a greater acknowledgment of Winston's flaws and Neville's savvy both might become the conventional wisdom.

 

[lukedalton]

somehow be healthier so he can pull a churchill and write memoirs and share the state secret that britain needed the year to poland to rearm. So hes like Doran Martell.

The problem is that not only by throwing Czechoslovackia at Monaco at give Germany all the necessary to pursuit the war in the first place but the year obtained was basically for nothing due to the fall of France and the loss of all the equipment at Dunkirk.
What he need? He need that France don't fall so at least Monaco can be seen as a necessary evil, otherwise he will become what he is today

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Two things come to mind even if history otherwise goes on as before.
1) Don't come back from Munich waving a piece of paper around and declaring "Peace in out time".
2) Don't give a speech just before the invasion of Norway saying "Herr Hitler has missed the bus". (You give that sort of speech only after the RN smashes the German invasion fleet, as they should have done.)

At least then his own words wouldn't make him look like a complete blithering idiot.

 

[James Ricker]

In 1938 treat appeasement as a temporary solution. Before the Munic agreement was even sighned,start a much bigger military build up.

 

[Histor32]

This is an excellent suggestion, I thought about it myself but wasn't sure if it fell within the OP's question that "now that war is one is there anything that Neville could have done to salvage his reputation?"

This I agree with ... Stronger show ... Back it with something to drive the point home to Hitler.

Hitler was a gambler, but he respected and also feared the British empire... So a good Munich showing .. maybe Hitler gets this or that or what he wants, but he also gets a stern finger and to stfu and take a seat style reprimand

 

[Look More Closely Later]

Is not a significant problem with history's view of Chamberlain that Churchill was so prominent in writing it?

The Churchillian legend seems the greater if Chamberlain (who was conveniently too dead to argue with it) is cast as an appeaser or an optimist or a fool or anything but a shrewd politician who saw that Germany had got the jump on re-armament and delayed war for a year in order to get the industrial might of Britain and France shifted towards a wartime stance.

And so Churchill writes of being a voice in a wilderness... that the previous residents in Number 10 had not tamed.

If Churchill has a plane crash before he can finish The Second World War then perhaps a greater acknowledgment of Winston's flaws and Neville's savvy both might become the conventional wisdom.

'Guilty Men' by 'Cato' (published 1940) came out years before Churchill's WW2 memoirs and as far as I can understand was written by three journalists; this was one of the early books which really went after the 'appeasers'.
And take out Churchill, and (assuming a non-Axis victory to the war) you take out Churchill's efforts to at least partially rehabilitate Neville Chamberlain as a man with honourable motives who simply didn't understand Hitler.

 

[Alan]

Chamberlain did not actually do much wrong. At the time pf Munich the case could be made that Germany was only supporting the claim of irredentist German minorities. After the German occupastion of Prague Chamberlain became much more bellicose, reintroduced conscription and issued the guarantee to Poland. The Norwegian fiasco which ousted him was ironically the project of Churchill. Their respective reputations do not actually mirror their achievements, since Chamberlain was actually a very successful businessman and civic administrator in Birmingham.m, while most of the military interventions inititiated by Churchill led to disaster. He also had a habit of sacking his best generals,

 

[Fries]

Die earlier, I think. I know that's kind of a weird take but I feel like that's kind of the best thing that could've happened to his reputation: and I think it's a trend that's happened a lot in history with people like JFK, Stonewall Jackson, Emperor Taisho, even people like Frederick II and Julius Caesar.