[aap1966]

I would like your views....

Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles by re-arming in the 1930s. The League of Nations did not act to enforce the treaty, driven in part by a desire to avoid war and in part by a perception that it was inappropriate to meddle in "internal" German activities. On March 7th, 1936 the Rhineland was remilitarized, breaking the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pact. The Munich conference (September 29, 1938) was to ensure "peace in our time" but subsequently the Sudetenland was annexed and then, in direct defiance of the Munich agreement, Czechoslovakia was occupied. (March 1939). As we all know, Poland was invaded on September 1, 1939.

Now, let's say Churchill, not Chamberlain, had been British Prime Minister during the 1930s. Say he had agressively re-armed Britian and had met the remilitarization of the Rhineland with a military campaign to enforce the Treaty of Versailles (despite the member nations of The League of Nations perferring to appease Hitler). Say it was a drawn out war with no easy victory, but did result in Hitler's (and the Nazis') downfall.

Would Churchill be seen as a hero who prevented a World War, or as an imbecilic national leader driven be ideology and aggression who bogged Great Britian down in a prolonged war with no clear exit strategy, a war not unambiguously supported by The League of Nations and hence "illegal"?