I hope you enjoy this video on Chamberlain and the logic of appeasement. My original conception for this video was to do a sort of for and against type of narrative - presenting the arguments both in favour and against appeasement. The script simply became too long and convoluted however, once I actually began writing it. Hence I've instead decided to do two videos: One where the thesis is (tentatively) sympathetic to Chamberlain and Appeasement. The next video will be (tentatively) sympathetic to Churchill and the anti-Appeasement argument. This is not meant to be a full-throated defence of Appeasement and Chamberlain, like say the work of John Charmley is. But I think it offers an interesting thesis & perspective on Chamberlain and the reasoning behind the policy he pursued. Your rebuttals/ additions to any of the points are of course welcome and encouraged. Apologies for the delay in this. As I say it is my fault for the initial idea being too complicated, and requiring me to rewrite it. Additionally, I have had quite a bit of trouble with RUclips over the last week regarding the videos mention of the leaders of Germany in this period. Consequently any mention of them by name has been wiped, though I'm sure you'll know who I'm talking about when I say 'Berlin' etc. Sorry if the audio is a bit variable in places, obviously there has been a few re-records. Thank you again for watching.
No worries then. I always peruse the comments, but this is the first time I've seen a creator explain the "why" of a vid. 2 parts? I look forward to watching the second. Cheers from Tennessee
I believe that Neville Chamberlain was a good man in an impossible position. If you listen to his declaration of war speech (on Wikipedia), it's easy to see that all he ever wanted was peace. He was not a fool nor was he weak.
A decent man can make mistakes - lord knows Churchill is lauded as the competent counterfoil to Chamberlain, yet Churchill had one or two mishaps under his belt too. I think Chamberlain redeemed himself by declaring war on Germany, changing his foreign policy once he saw it wasn't working.
@@DarthFhenix55 look at the suez crisis. The British were barely more moral then the Germans when it came to foreign policy at this time. The British. Like Hitler. Would invade any state they wished.
WW2 videos are a dime a dozen on RUclips, but this is anything but common quality. Your arguments are rational, flowing, multifaceted, and comprehensive in a way few others are. This is excellent work.
The British Chief of Staff wrote a note in March 1939 to the Cabinet writing "if the war were to go so badly that Poland and Romania are overrun". This quite clearly shows that the British did not expect Germany to be as successful or as powerful as they were. Germany went from being a pathetic creaking economy of 1939 to "the invincible juggernaut" in 1940 and this is all down to propaganda and needing an escape goat for disastrously bad decisions. Had the Chief of Staff instead wrote "if the war were to go so badly that Europe was overrun and the entire British Empire were to collapse", do you think Chamberlain would have been as quick to give Poland a security guarantee let alone declare war on Germany ? I suspect he would not have. The precedent of not going to war after stating you would do was already set by Palmerstone in the 1860s.
I think this is more a function of denial than it is about people's actual beliefs about the future of Poland in a total war. Nobody in high places would admit the truth about the likelihood of Poland holding, because if they did, it would be seen as a repudiation of the guarantee, a policy that was a diplomatic rather than military necessity.
@@erichluepke855 They did admit it though, the British military advice was that Poland would hold an Eastern Front for "up to 3 months". They KNEW Poland had no hope against Germany yet still chose the path of getting Poland into a war with Germany to prevent German-Polish agreement and have Poland as an Eastern Front in war.
Finally, someone who defends the justifications for appeasement without being patronizing or refusing to acknowledge the massive flaws. I might've just added 2 things, 1) I would referred to Joe by his full name Joseph Chamberlain (the mental connection is easier) and maybe mention his support for the Imperial Federation (Joseph's) and 2) mention when Neville died given that he didn't live that long after his premiership.
Appeasement was the only reasonable action to take at the time with the information they had at play. France and Britain was not ready to fight another war. The German-American relationship wasn't soured. The Japanese could have been swayed against aggression in the region. The British Economy would turn to dust and the colonies seized by Japan. These were reasonable fears for Britain at the time. That is why it took a figure like Churchill to take charge. He was far more willing to commit political suicide.
@@cseijifja I mean, the Spanish Empire was already entering into a period of decline by that point. The 30 years war and 80 years war had sapped so much of the Empire's strength it's not unreasonable to liken them to the world wars' effects on the British Empire.
14:00 The problem with this statement, which is all well and good and logical through and through, is that the exact same set of conditions applied to Poland as well, which was obviously next on Hitler's list if you had read and understood Mein Kampf. So the Allies gave up the Skoda tank factory, the Czech Army stockpiles and the excellent defensive lines in the Sudetenland, all for no corresponding increase in their own power. In essence they made the enemy stronger without gaining anything themselves except more time to rearm, but Germany was also doing that, and now they had the whole Czech economy working for them to help them too. Also, I read today in Speer's diary (questioned by some people, admittedly) that they were stunned when they tested their artillery against the Sudeten fortifications, and found it simply could not penetrate them. Also that Hitler's own view was recorded as, paraphrasing, "we will take enormous losses and it will be a difficult and costly struggle", before the Munich agreement was made. Finally there is the argument, probably the most compelling one to reject Munich, which is that there were rumblings of a coup against Hitler planned by military officers. The Sudeten fortifications would have been a difficulty for the 1938 German army, which was still not motorised enough for mobile warfare and had a lack of artillery and divisions compared to a year later. It would have been the best opportunity for a coup attempt the likes of which wouldn't come again. The terrain of Poland and defences there offered no chance of this happening. It is my view that Chamberlain made a fatal error which could have been avoided with a little more foresight.
It wasn’t rumbling he was told that a coup would happen if Germany declared war. The reason why their was no coup when Poland was invaded was because hitler increased his control so it was not possible.
There's other reading. Britain's senior-most military leaders collectively coordinated their briefings to Chamberlain just before Munich, advising that if Britain got into a war with Germany a that time, even along with France, that they wold lose. They pleaded for war to be delayed by even just 6 months, that this would make a big difference in Britain's readiness. France had a similar assessment that they would lose alone and had first approached USA but the Americans insisted on their neutrality. If USA had stood up and come to Munich along with Britain and France, things would probably have turned out much differently. (Yes, much of Germany's strength was on paper and there was a potential to defeat Germany militarily at that time; isn't hindsight great; but this highlights what information Chamberlain had to make his decision. And supporting a coup attempt would run the risk of a failed coup with this being an act of war - a war that the military leaders believed that they would lose.)
I claim that you didn't read "Mein Kampf". It's a tedious, self-contradictory pamphlet that claims about everything not even Hitler took seriously when he dictated it to Hess. It is blatantly wrong that the Wehrmacht wasn't "motorised enough" to conduct a mobile war. We know it is blatantly wrong because barely a year later, the same Wehrmacht conducted a successful mobile war in Poland. Fortifications for Germany have never been to be breached. That's the whole point of the operational planning at least since 1935 (and, arguably, even before, since the middle of the 1920s). Following the same logic, you could say that in 1940 France had mounted a successful defence against Germany as it could not penetrate the Maginot Line. No, it couldn't; that's why it went around. What we do know: * In 1938, Chamberlain was furious when the General Staff informed him the UK was in no position to intervene militarily into an armed conflict. * From Munich to Dunkerque, Chamberlain re-armed the UK armed forces. * In 1940 when "La Drôle de Guerre" went "hot", the British and French forces weren't prepared and it took Germany 6 weeks to concquer France; even today historians are puzzled by the "Haltebefehl" that prevented the total annihilation of the British forces in Dunkerque. * Until 1942, Churchill became more and more desperate as the USA didn't commit to helping the UK and the UK struggled hard to rearm itself further. Those are the facts. It stands to reason not to buy time with Appeasement would have accelerated the Dunkerque catastrophy 1 year earlier, as the British forces in 1938 were even more unprepared than in 1940. The French defensive focus meant that Germany could wait ("Sitzkrieg") until the preparations to attack in the West were ready. The Oster plot was postponed after Munich as Hitler had succeeded diplomatically where the General Staff feared a military confrontation would be impossible; those same officers, however, were astonished how fast France fell and how catastrophically the UK forces failed in 1940. They *thought* Hitler was bluffing in 1938; however, they got confirmation about the UK forces' dismal state in 1940.
Your clear telling of these complex and often diluted timelines is always admirable and highly praised by me - Provides a wonderful platform for discourse; healthy discourse I will add!
I feel like this is important and underappreciated. It's easy to say "that person was a moron to think that would work" or similar, but that's an easy out. Everyone operates in their own time with limited information, and everyone makes mistakes. Sometimes they're damn big mistakes.
Besides the fact that opting to resist german prevarication, so accepting war, would not have been an impossible situation at all, if anything it would've been a fairly easy and collective situation considering that many states in Europe would've been coalized and against a non-augmented Germany. The Czechs, their military industry and their country already would've been a huge tipping factor for the Allies (UK and France) in defeating Germany.
Yeah, we do this all the time with history. We make our own judgement calls with all of the information gained after the fact and how it all unfolded. It can't be stated enough how important it is to put yourself in the shoes of the person or group you are judging.
I don’t think chamberlain did a big mistake. It’s easy to imagine a shorter war with Germany when she was weaker but that ignores the fact that complete victory was the only solution to the nazi problem and that would require a total war even in 1933
Oh it is well known in Czechia that Chamberlain's strategy was a realpolitik executed terribly. That hardly makes him any better for us though. He still left us high and dry without any input on the situation and all for nothing, simply because he didn't understand the determination of his opponent and what advantages he gained from the agreement. We know very well
You are righ, but at the same time you're not considering how "Go and die for a foregin country just like 20 years ago" isn't a very convicing argument even when that was the right move, people wouldn't really realize how bad the situation was until they were the ones suffering.
@@DarthFhenix55 I am considering that. Doesn't change a thing. He still left us to the pack of wolfs. Really doesn't matter to me he thought the pack wouldn't be stronger bigger, still hungry and go after him next before he can craft proper spear.
@@DarthFhenix55 Don't go around goving guarantees you are unwilling to fullfill. That's why westeners are deemed untrustworthy and traitors in the eastern Europe. Cause you make promises you are unwilling to ever fullfill. Like USA and UK now which gave Ukraine guarantee of their borders in exchange for their nukes, but yet are to dispatch their troops to defend Ukraine.
@@basilmagnanimous7011 Oh, brother, I KNOW and I NOTICE. The h-caust has become a foundation myth for the new West. One centered on death. With its great evil and its great victim. Redefining concepts, scrapping and replacing values. Memorials for the h-caust everywhere but how scant the memorials for their saviors--curious. All peoples have exclusive right to their lands, ethnic Europeans have no right to theirs and permitted to go nowhere. Exclusive culture for all peoples but not for the European, theirs must be denied. True nationalism for everyone but not for the European man and woman. To suggest otherwise is the great sin. And you must not question it, must not do anything other than fully embrace it, despite how little it relates to you. And it's anathema to even display unapproved images, despite being a RUclipsr simply wanting to talk about British history. Disgusting.
@@basilmagnanimous7011 the nationalsocialist party and movement has been growing very fast in the last years and since the end of 2019 and 2020 it has been growing almost exponentially, so soon we will be in power again and we will actually fight against our socialists and we will do it for OUR people not the immagrants wich we should get rid of by any means only the most useful 100 could stay with their families bc we need scientists and other very important jobs, when they outlive theit usefulness than they will be kicked out of the country or something else... we will make our people proud again of their Germanic blood and of their country. And i myself i will promise that i will do anything for our people and devote my life to us Germanics... it's gonna be hard but victory will be assured we learned from the last time and the movement has adopted to our time, but no way that we are gonna let our country be destroyed along with our principles, morals and culture...
Excellent video, congratulations. It was good to see you recently expressing struggles with planning/editing, because this documentary continues your streak as a great historical channel at sometimes overlooked topics. Keep getting better at your craft. Would love to see you take on the task of describing how *ahem* "Berlin" managed to rebuild Germany's military prowess in the interwar years.
This here are some really fascinating points. I teach highschoolers and will use this topic in my coming history classes for the WW2 subject. Thank you for making this!
'Hitler is an honourable man, I do not for one moment believe he deceived me intentionally' - Nevile Chamberlain to the House of Commons in his address post the German invasion of Czechoslovakia
@@TheEvilAdventurer They didn't, the government of Czechoslovakia literally collapsed and left a vacuum that either the Soviet Union would fill or Germany.
I think Chamberlain's biggest problem (which can probably be generalized to everyone in power on his side) was that he underestimated what his side could do. He seemed to think that rearmament was needed when Germany had barely rearmed herself when the Rhineland crisis arose. He also severely discounted the value of having the USSR on the Allied side even if they couldn't send troops overland right away. Then there's the fact that the West Wall was unfinished and that Germany didn't have enough troops to fight the Czechs and the French at the same time. He bought into the German propaganda and accepted as settled the gloomy predictions of his chiefs.
You did a very fine job of showing Germany’s predicament in 1939. I e so often heard amateur historians say that if o my Germany had delayed the war for 5 years, the would have been in better shape. Even if that supposition were true, it doesn’t take into account that the western Allies would be in a vastly better position in five years.
@@pathutchison7688 If the Allies ignored what was happening to the east of Germany they would have kept all their colonies and they wouldnt have had any destruction and death from war because Germany had no interest in western Europe
@@98TrueRocker98 let’s assume you’re right. And the reich defeated the Soviets, or at least pushed them past the Urals to the point where they were basically defeated. Now France has a Giant Nazi Germany on its border. That’s a new Cold War at the very least. It could have been a lot worse too. And the time of colonies was about done. It wouldn’t have been tenable to hold on to them for long in that world any easier than this one.
@@pathutchison7688 It would have been the same Cold War as with the Soviets, or even better because Germany had more in common with other western countries then the Soviets
Actually Chamberlin's cabinet (and probably himself too since if he was so opposed to his cabinet he could just replace them) knew Hitler was likely to not be satisfied. However, in their minds appeasement was worth it both for the small chance Hitler would actually be appeased but in the likely event he'd go for more land, the time bought would give time for Britain to rearm. Of course they were wrong on both accounts. Britain's military wasn't in the best of shape during the Munich discussion, but Czechoslovakia had hardened defenses and post war analysis by British and Germans (no need to keep secrets from allies at this point) was done and everyone agreed if Britain stood behind Czechoslovakia, even if the French didn't send a single plane or soldier out of France, the Germans would be doomed. They's just bash their heads against fortifications they couldn't beat. The Royal Navy would strangle Germany's economy (remember Romania at this time wasn't a German ally) and the not-quite-rearmed British Army could pick apart a depleted Heer since again most of their forces would be in Czechoslovakia getting their butts kicked. Or maybe the German generals might just overthrow Hitler for ordering something so stupid since many old Reichswehr era generals agreed with the modern assessments. My point was many contemporary British politicians knew Hitler was probably untrustworthy and this wasn't some naïve belief in his character, even if their analysis on the military area was a bit off.
Or orrrrrrr, and hear me out, maybe, just maybe, Chamberlin and those who thought like him knew Hitler wasnt looking west but east and they didnt want to go to another stupid needless war
Very interesting, and this is very late, but do you think you could share the source for those analyses by the British and the Germans? I never heard of them, and the mainstream explanation of Czech history was that fighting would be pointless, and that we had no hope.
@@jonaskosak6766 its a moot point if the Czechs would have held or not. Why? Because the Germans were desperately short on just about every resource imaginable. From oil to food to steel to chromium they relied on imports this was a major reason for Germany's desire to conquer more land to start with. With no Munich agreement there is no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Germany would not receive grain, oil and rare metals from the USSR. Germany would not continue to receive steel from Sweden and Norway as the Brits would have dragged them into the war. Germany would not have any overseas imports. This would make German victory impossible before they even started in the worst case where they defeat the french they are still facing a war against the USSR except without the ability to hide behind the lie of a nonaggression pact.
Awesome video, although it was overlooked that Great Britain also placed a great amount of resources into Strategic Air defense. The Dowding system and the coordination of Fighter command was not the default in 1938 to 1941. The build up in the airforce was intentional and lead to a big affect in how the war ultimately turned out
Another great video! Since I can tell you put great care into your maps, for future reference Zara in Dalmatia was an Italian enclave from 1918, remaining Italian when much of the rest of Dalmatia was also annexed to Italy in 1941, the city is today Zadar in Croatia Keep up the great work!
I think I have never seen a video discussing Chamberlain or 1930's Britain to emphasise how terrible the condition of UK's armed forces were, and hadn't really internalised that from small details either, and those that have only glanced it as Chanberlain's appeasement. I hope this becomes the most successful video on the channel and maybe it'll inspire other RUclips historians to revise their attitude towards the man who actually for years prepared Britain for WW2 And like said, no one looks at time before 1938 Munich
Another fantastic video! Unfortunately, those of us living in contemporary times have a very biased view of history - we merely perceive historical events through the lense of hindsight. However, this video did an excellent job of upending that bias by providing us with a well researched series of events & decisions made at the time that ultimately lead up to the start of World War II. 😁👍
Appeasement was a good thing. It strengthened Germany to the point she fehlt capable to unleash a world war, a war that would ultimately destroy the european empires and the racist age of West Born in 16th century at very latest. All in all very good. 70 million died with a purpose...
Many people forget that Poland was the only nation that Britain and France could defend or at least show support. Appeasement should be called a more necessary sacrifice idea. However the other reason for Poland being the point to stand is the boogeyman of Europe, the Soviet Union.
Also Hitler wanted a British alliance as this would help him attack the United States. However the situation evolved into one where that was a impossibility.
@@dapperbunch5029 Hitler wanted a British rapprochement because he was an Anglophile, he had no ambitions for America since it was then as it is now patently impossible to invade the American continent. What he wanted was to ensure America would remain neutral in any European conflict.
Another excellent video! Really enjoyed the counterfactuals at the end. Made me reconsider the merits of appeasement. Would be interested to see a video explaining when appeasement worked.
Interesting to see the failures of Neville's policy in some ways mirrored by the way the EU handled Russia after its first invasion of Ukraine 9 years ago.
You (and many others) miss one important point. Giving up Czechoslovakia, gave Germans important industrial assets including ready to use tanks and other armament. Without Czechoslovakia Germany may possibly wouldn't decide to start the war against Poland. Appeasement started way earlier than we think. When after post WW1 deciding about the borders of Poland British government of Lloyd George heavily favorized Germany rather than Poland in assigning Upper Silesia region. British interest was more in German capacity to pay war reparation than in real justice for the local population. Anyway Munich pact was nothing more than buying some peace time for Britain at the expense of Czechoslovakia. Good business, wasn't it ?
@@secretname4190 German generals in France: masterfully cuts clean through the French army in the Ardennes. German generals in Russia: gets their ass whipped so badly they have to blame it on Shmadolf Shmitler and create the Russia biggest stronk myth.
@@secretname4190 while the initial push was amazing, it also never really secured the land it took, leading to smaller Russian groups who were cut off to go underground and become partisans, a huge detriment to Germany’s already overstretched logistics. once they were repelled from moscow it was mostly German generals making blunder after blunder and blaming it on moustachio. There are exceptions to this (Kharkiv is the only one I remember right now) German high command at the time of the initial push into Russia was filled to the brim with overconfidence. By the end of the war with Russia, it was full of lies to preserve their ego, lies of a clean Wehrmacht, lies that hitler cost the German army the whole war, lies of superior Soviet equipment (which is utter bullshit).
wanting to outmatch an opponant by giving him land and industry is quite a gamble (1/3 of german tanks in France in 1940 have been produced in czech industries) it was already too late to go this route
Difference is the Brits were also pretty unarmed in 1938 also. It's easier to go to war when you have at least a couple hundred planes vs about 30 that they had in 1938. Source: I have none it was a total guess, but Lord Halifax said something like 'every month meant more planes were built'.
Well made video from a unique, under explored, purely logistical perspective. but i’m sorry, “Britain had no nations to plunder in support of its war effort” is an absolutely insane statement
The video ignores the Oster conspiracy and that the German people didn't want war as much as the Western populace. I hope this aspect is covered in the follow-up of this video because it is an important consideration. If Hitler did attack Czechoslovakia they would not have had a population so assured in the Nazi government. The success of Munich was a move that solidified Nazi control and legitimised them while a war for the Sudetenland would have done the opposite. The Oster conspiracy was known to the UK and as such Chamberlain had enough knowledge to know that he could count on German instability. All you said is correct and the Allies were in a bad strategic position in 1938 but the Axis had it worse. Italy was less ready for war and Japan couldn't dare jump on the colonies yet. A war over the Sudetenland would be decided by the Czech fortifications. Even if the Oster conspiracy failed (though its attempt would force Hitler to purge some of his most valuable generals to keep hold) every day Czechia held firm was a day closer to the German population murdering Hitler. As such the only calculation to be done was if the Chezchs could have held (their prospects were good). Clearly, Chamberlain thought they weren't going to hold but considering the likely success of the Oster conspiracy it seems like a major blunder. Again even if we ignored the possible success of Oster the very attempt would place important generals like Generaloberst Ludwig Beck, General Wilhelm Adam, Generaloberst Walther von Brauchitsch, Generaloberst Franz Halder, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, and Generalleutnant Erwin von Witzleben, all prominent names and invaluable to later German successes (outside of Canaris who was fucking Hitler over at every opportunity), in the shitter. Germany's war effort was going to be hampered giving way more room for the Czechs to breath and the German populace to decide if they want to risk another WW1 (they didn't).
I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful critique, and will concede that I probably should have devoted at least a line or two to the conspiracy. However, the video does explicitly state that going to war in 1938 would have been more logical in hindsight. On the conspiracy, the idea that a politician should potentially send hundreds of thousands of young men to die on the vague notion that the enemies leader might be overthrown, is in my opinion a nonsense. And considering Hitler's luck when it comes to surviving assassination attempts, I think Chamberlain was absolutely right to ignore this factor.
@@OldBritannia Thank you for the reply. Just want to mention that the Oster conspiracy itself should not be considered too profoundly in such a video because Chamberlain could not have known its chances of success. It would have been quite the gamble to risk the lives of millions on some Germans promising to make a coup. What matter though is its implication. It proves the instability of the German regime and the possible unrest within the government and citizenry of the Reich. The Allies having knowledge of such instability just has to be mentioned. This is an important factor for any strategic analysis of the Allies' vs. the Axis's strength. War was not popular on either side in 1938 and that should be part of the calculus of power if one is to compare it to 1939 when the Germans were behind the war. So really I would just have enjoyed that part of the calculation mentioned when discussing why Chamberlain did what. On another note, the Hitler assassination survival luck is something that only exists in hindsight and not something that should be looked at at all. Just hoping that the German domestic front in 1938 and 1939 gets a bigger mention in the next video.
4:09 Make it 4. Soviet being Communist was seen as a threat just as much as German, Italy and Japan if not even greater otherwise Britain and French would have try to called Russia assistance like in WW1 but they didn't.
I love this and some of your other 1930’s videos in Europe. Showing how things weren’t quite set in stone. Although far too late in the history you cover, it would be cool to see a video from you comparing what happened in the 30’s and the events leading up to the Russo-Ukrainian war. You mentioning the British government was overstating the German aerial threat reminds me of the threat Russia would pose to Europe, militarily speaking.
Like the Holodomor, caused by Stalin's collectivization. Also, Britain didn't "overstate" the capabilities of the Luftwaffe. The London Biltzkreig is proof of that. In fact, the Battle of London, if a few things happened differently, would have been a German victory.
The actual true failure of Chamberlain and Deladier was not to attack Germany from the West in September 1939 which could have stopped the annihilation of Poland. Instead the BEF and French simply sat (Sitz Krieg) on the Alsace-Lorraine border. This allowed Germany to regroup and re-arm for its own assault later..
@@Imperium83 What a relevant name you have, 'goon', and a comment to match. Of course Germany wanted 'peace' after its successful conquests in East and Central Europe. But there were air raids and sea warfare. In France and the UK there was political turmoil between the Appeasement groups and those which had woken up to the intentions of Germany. Of course Germany's version of 'peace' involved invading neutral countries as well. The invasion of Norway caused the shift in the UK to Churchill and the Coaltion government he formed. So Goon you write rubbish and pro-Nazi rubbish at that.
That was not a failure of Chamberlain and Deladier. Such an attack was planned and in preparation. But Poland was effectively defeated in two weeks. It's impossible to organize an offensive in just two weeks. By the time the Allies were ready to attack Germany from the west, such an attack was rendered meaningless. Had the Poles held back the Germans better, it's possible that the Allies could have had time to attack the west. Although, even in such a scenario, Poland's position is hopeless and inevitable because they will still be attacked by the USSR and overrun.
@mwfp1987 The Ruhr was not undefended, there were more than a dozen German divisions in place (France also could not have known the exact number of troops) in fortified defensive lines to prevent any rapid French attack. In both previous wars with Germany (1914/1870), previous experience showed that a hasty offensives into the Rhineland had produced terrible defeats. Any attack into Germany by France in 1939 would thus necessarily be slow, in line with its methodical battle doctrine developed in 1918. And, should such an attack even have occurred and after overcoming the initial defenses, the French army would then be caught out in the open, outside of their defenses, by a rapid German counterattack. In short, there was no benefit to attacking. Contrary to your expectation, there were very good reasons why the British and French did what they did.
Excellent, very nuanced video. I think too much WW2 scholarship neglects the French, who were at least co-equal if not the more important factor in the interwar years RE Germany
Fantastic video with the correct opinion on allied appeasement! People often oversimplify something that could have (and did in many ways) work, and certainly contains a lot of nuance. Thanks, and good evening!
Ohh really??? May be history of your country was not so deeply harmed by Munich "betrayal" like mine that caused immediate destruction of Czechoslovakia in 1938/39 and subsequent deep mistrust of the Czech democratic elites towards the west that helped communists to persuade the postwar government to reject Marshall plan first and take the government in 1948 for next 40 years.
@Oldbrittania Credit for pointing out the parasitic nature of the Nazi Germany economy. Layman often like to talk about the ‘economic miracle’, but I try to point out that there was nothing special to the notion of conquering others, enforcing an imbalanced economic regime upon the vanquished, and shipping the difference home.
It's a perfect example of how hindsight is 20/20. Despite the fact at the time there was so much uncertainty and divergence of the changing face of the world, a lot of people just see it through the lens of what did happen, not what could happen.
Thank You for the video! Just as within talk about any pre-WWII action Treaty of Versalies has to be mentioned: if Germany was treatened like France after Napoleonic wars end (i.e. no border carving, no exotic countries along the border as "protection from future french aggression", etc.) there will be no such issues to be dealt with in such an original manner as "appeasement". Remeber that France and England were even tried to force Denmark (that was not participated in WWI!) to accept more lands from Germany in Schleswig - just to be one more buffer state! To say nothing about other strange decisions in Europe (What are the horrid actions Hungary did to loose 2/3 of its territory? Why didn't Greese gain Konstantinople and Smirna and Cyprus? etc.) led to the situation as even was pointed just after Versalies: "Thank God, we have peace!" - "No, it is just an armistice".
With "ifs", we can put the moon in a bottle. No one knows what would've happened without Versailles, or with a Versailles under different terms. Germany was the most powerful state in Europe anyway, it was only a matter of time before Berlin tried to turn this demographic and economic dominance into political hegemony, one way or another. To France, weakening Germany was a matter of survival, no revenge. Also, Greece lost their war against Turkey anyway. They got Smyrne, but they lost it right afterwards in 1921.
Thsnk you for the welcome change of perspective on both Chamberlin and the lead-up to War. My dad, who joined the Royal Navy in September 1938, always told me, with a tone fortmed by a decades-worth of military rote-memorization: "Chsamberalin bought Britain a year in which to prepare for the inevitable War'. Chamberlain is convenient scape-goat for simple historical orthodoxy that paints Churchill as Britain's Savior (which he as), compared to snivelling, weak Mr. Appeasement. When Chamberlain went to Berlin, he was Prime Minister of most of the British Empire (the Dominions be virtually independent' Hitler was far lower on the international prestige poll.)We fail to remember that Chamberalin commited Britain to Poland's defense, and was PM when War actually did break out. Yet, it was he, as Prime Minister, who informed the country that 'Consequently, this Nation is at War!' Your's isn't revisionist history; it's balanced and inclusive. Thank you for a very intriging mini-doc.
It is always cute to me how appeasement and security guarantees are seen as RealPolitik. There is a huge difference between realism and pragmatism/practicality.
It was popularised by Henry Kissinger, a German Holocaust survivor eho fled to the us and became a statesman / advisor with a lot of really bad geopolitical tales which lead to Nixon aiding in numerous regime changes and genocides.
it was the same people accusing chamberlain of cowardice who, if the war had broken out earlier, wouldve protested in the streets against unjustified military action.
@@EdgyDabs47 the Kaiser had only to refuse Austria his help to save Germany from disaster, and Chamberlain was never going to repeat his mistake, no matter how much controversy was generated
You know what they say about brits making them look the best. I mean look at napoleonic wars "Napoleone you're bad because you want to rule instead of us"
I've not watched the video yet, but I always found appeasement to be a flawed policy, but understandable given the aftermath of the great war, what I've never found acceptable is the phony war, (or sitskreig,) and then the post war abandment of Poland, the allies really left Eastern Europe to the dogs during the entire war.
I see Chamberlain as one of history’s tragic figures. An intelligent, capable, humane man, who was undone because he came up against something simply hard to comprehend.
Currently reading 'Innovation' by Peter Ackroyd and this very subject is discussed. Honestly, considering what had happened in Europe twenty years before, Chamberlain was doing the right thing, as you say, to buy time. He was thinking as an Imperialist with a GLOBAL perspective and not as a European with a regional focus.
Not that WW1 was anything like a party, but you really do feel for the French and British in those terms. You just got as drunk as you've ever been, you're passed out, then Germany starts blaring the Hörstwessellied and you're like "fuck man, already?" Then some guy named Hitler starts shaking your shoulder demanding the Sudetenland, and you're like "who even cares dude, just take it."
I think you misunderstand the situation fundamentally! There was no happiness drunkenness in 1919. Just a bunch of people who found themselves in a bad situation after the peace treaty. Great Britain was occupied with serious domestic problems. There were massive clashes and strikes, which led to the first use of tanks in history against the country's own population. And France, went into one of the most politically unstable periods in its history. And the legacy of Versailles weighed heavily. It was to be expected that this would be the case. And in a speech in Versailles in 1919, the British prime minister clearly predicted how things would continue with Germany, with rare political foresight: "One may deprive Germany of her colonies, reduce her army to a mere police force, and reduce her navy to the strength of a fifth-rate power. Still, when Germany feels that she has been wronged in the peace of 1919, she will find means at last , to compel restitution from its conquerors.To obtain retribution, our conditions may be severe, they may be harsh, and even ruthless, but at the same time they may be so just that the country on which we impose them feels, in its heart, it have no right to complain. But injustice and arrogance displayed in the hour of triumph will never be forgotten nor forgiven. I can think of no stronger reason for a future war than that the German people, who are sure to declare themselves as one of the most vigorous and powerful tribes in the world, would be surrounded by a number of smaller states, some of which had never before been established lasting government for itself, but each of which would contain large numbers of Germans desiring reunification with their homeland.” But that's exactly what happened because of France's vengefulness...
@@melchiorvonsternberg844 I'd draw your attention to the fact that I did preface it with "WW1 was nothing like a party." But everything you said is correct. Versailles was incredibly short sighted and punitive. I know a significant body of historians are fighting a rear guard action to defend it but the fact that WW2 happened a mere generation later tells you all you need to know. Barring breaking up Germany back into the Holy Roman Empire, it would've been far better to actually have an armistice (which Germany thought it was getting) than what happened. The results of the more lenient treatment of [West] Germany after 1945 also prove this.
@@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016 I am very pleased that there is now more emphasis on looking at facts than on justifications. More will happen. And then, hopefully, the French strategy of wanting to get this war at any price will finally be examined more closely. The Jean Jaures assassination, I think, is the key. I even make the bold claim that it was not the assassination of the Archduke but the assassination of Jean Jaures that made this war what it became...
@@melchiorvonsternberg844 cope harder. you invaded and got smacked twice. hopefuly the allies didnt make the same mistake as in ww1 of not completly crushing germany.
@@smal750 lol... You stupid child! Your knowledge of the events is as limited as your ability to make proper analyzes. What is the situation today? All the empires that Europeans built before World War I no longer exist. Without Germany, the liberation of the colonies would not have happened! And what did Germany lose in the end? 3 provinces in the fuckin' cold East, but France and England their vast empires. Germany leads the EU, the Americans provided us with nuclear weapons over 50 years ago and France offered to share their nuclear weapons with us. And one thing you should never do... underestimate the Germans and their abilities. That could be a rude awakening!
One of the big elements that played into this and the early defeats of the alies was the actions of intellectuals. Many had contributed heavily towards the disarmament and anti war sentiment that left the nations unable and unwilling to defend themselves.
The illogical feature of the appeasement policy isn't necessarily in the politics, but rather the magical thinking involved in the run-up to the crisis that resulted in appeasement. Neville believed that appeasement was the only way forward because past government policies had intentionally made deterrence non-credible. These same policies that Chamberlain himself helped push forward and champion. The massive disinvestment in the military accross democratic Europe basically guaranteed that a revanchist power would start a conflict in Europe. A constant pattern in world history is that dovish politicians stoke domestic war exhaustion in order to defund the military and funnel those funds towards their domestic pet projects. Meanwhile the detterence and balance of power created by that military and that allowed a peace to be negotiated in the first place is eroded, and nothing is left in its place. The power vaccuum caused by massive European military disinvestment leading up to 1939 is what encouraged the Nazis to pursue massive rearmament. They saw a weak and defenseless Europe, and like any other predator they attacked. This is why I always take an extremely dim view of dovish politicans who argue that military spending is wasteful. You fund a military to enforce a peaceful status quo. A peaceful status quo that these dovish politicans want to maintain, but they don't want to pay for.
Basically yeah, I am not a fan of the Military as a concept, but I understand their necessity, if you want peace prepare for war, most nations will only attack if they perceive a imbalance in power in their favor
A very good video well done! Chamberlain might have been regarded as one of the great men of British politics in the 20th century: he was smart, determined and he had a large majority in the House of Commons, which would have enabled him to stay in power and deliver his political agenda. Unfortunately for everyone, events where to prevent this happening.
According to Hitler himself, the munich agreement was the biggest mistake of his career. In February 1945, he said "we ought to have gone to war in 1938. September 1938 would have been the most favorable date." Germany desperately wanted a war in with France in 1938, which it was poised to win decisively. But chamberlain denied him this, giving the UK, France, and the soviets time to fix their militaries. It is possible that the much maligned Chamberlain actually prevented the ultimate triumph of Nazi Germany.
Hitler might have believed that, but it would probably have been his death. At the time substantial parts of the German military were plotting against them thinking he was putting Germany on the course of disaster. From what can be reconstructed, one of the officers even had a gun ready to shoot him in case the war started in 1938. It's also in error because the German army in 1938 was far weaker then the one that defeated France in 1940 and was far less likely to win. But well... Hitler was often enough not the best person in making realistic plans or realistic assessments. Conspiracy theorists like him rarely are.
You have to be joking, he gave Germany the Czech military industry and removed the Czechoslovak army out of existence. If he didn't the war would have ended at the latest in 1941 and the Soviets would never rule half the continent. His actions did more to harm to the democratic world then every Soviet leader after Stalin.
Nonsense. Hitler didn't know about the Oster putsch plan. But Chamberlain and Daladier did, since the German military had sent emissaries to London and Paris before the Munich conference to brief them about their plan to putsch, to be activated in the event that Hitler gave the order to march on Czechoslovakia. Furthermore, when Hitler toured the Czech fortifications along the border, he was so impressed by those fortifications that he told Goebbels "It is a good thing we didn't have to fight here because we would have bitten our teeth out". If Chamberlain had refused Hitler an agreement in Munich, (1) the Czechs would not have had any reason to abide by such an agreement and they would have resisted, (2) the Oster putsch would have taken place, throwing the Wehrmacht in disarray right in the moment of war. If it had been unsuccessful, it would have caused a crack down on the officer corps, weakening the Wehrmacht to the point that the invasion would have failed. The French army and the BEF could have quickly moved across Southern Germany for there was absolutely nothing standing in their way, which was the reason why the German military was against an attack on Czechoslovakia in the first place, they knew if Britain and France would attack, they would be defeated soundly. Last but not least, Stalin -- for all his faults and not without ulterior motives -- had tried to aid Czechoslovakia by sending troops, yet Poland and Romania denied them passage. Not to be deterred, the soviets then sent 100 fighter planes to Czechoslovakia including pilots and ground support personnel. This would have been a formidable defense against attacks by the Luftwaffe.
Not only did the Munich agreement hand over the vast fortifications build by the Czechs in the Sudetenland, and dissolve the Czech army, but it also facilitated the transfer of vast quantities of military industry and equipment that the Germans then used in order to invade France and later the USSR.
The fatal flaw with the idea of appeasement was, while it did indeed give greater time for Britain to strengthen its army, the British armament speed during that purchased time was still lower than that of Germany. In other words Britain wasn't buying time for itself, it was in practical terms buying time for Germany.
Neville chamberlain was a good man as far as I could tell, he wanted peace above all else because he seen the First World War himself. He didn’t want to send British men to the same fate and that is what people condemn him for. It’s true churchhill was needed, but chamberlain did everything he could.
One of the first things Chamberlain did on returning from Munich was to massively increase orders for fighters. He was not fooled by Hitler and the situation was clear. Had he gone to war in 1938, the Battle of Britain would have primarily fought with Gloster Gladiator biplanes. It was fought with Hurricanes and Spitfires, thanks to Chamberlain
Such a thing can only be cheered by someone who mistakenly believes that the Battle of Britain prevented an invasion. But that is by no means the case! Hitler decided that the invasion would not go ahead. And long before that air battle ended...
@@EdgyDabs47 Of course it was about weakening the British defenses through the air battle. But that wasn't actually a prerequisite for being able to carry out an invasion. Because the moment an invasion is launched, all the advantages that the RAF had given the British during the fight deep in English airspace are gone. If a Briton is shot down at sea, he is not two hours later on a new plane to take part in the fighting again, if he survived at all. The short distances for the British are gone. And the German fighters have more fuel left to fight and if the planes are damaged, the way home is much shorter. You must also realize that contrary to popular belief, the Royal Navy was unable to prevent an invasion. That was the conclusion reached by a commission of naval experts set up by Churchill. Also, contrary to popular belief, the ship convoys for the invasion were by no means largely destroyed by British air raids on the launch ports. That's only a hero's tale... I am supplying the figures for this, about the plans of the Germans and the shipping space actually available, at the end of the 2nd decade of September. The Kriegsmarine calculated the requirement at the end of July '40 to the following volume: 155 freighters (about 700,000 GRT) 1,722 punts 471 tug 1,161 motor boats This includes losses of 10%. The Kriegsmarine reported operational readiness by September 19: 168 freighters 1975 punts 100 coasters 420 tugs 1,600 motor boats This clearly shows that everything was ready and just waiting for the GO. There are other aspects too... When the invasion begins and takes place, it will be a real shock to the British, because that hasn't happened for almost 900 years. The Royal Navy would lose a mass of heavy units and experienced seamen. And even if the invasion failed, public opinion alone would make the entire British strategy considerably more defensive. Because the others, after demonstrating that it was possible, could try again. Also, that could bring in additional allies for Germany. I'll just say Spain now. In that case, the Mediterranean would be lost to the British. Even a German defeat would be a strategic success for Germany. Not attacking was the worst of all options...
@@melchiorvonsternberg844 It would've been an absolute logistic nightmare for Germany. Contested naval landings are one of the most difficult situations in warfare for the attackers. Germany also had little experience with amphibious assaults. Britain was not totally unprepared like you suggest. We had sea defenses on the south and east coast. I could go down to my local beach right now and find WW2 munitions in the sand, spent in training exercises in preparation for a German invasion. There's a good chance it would've dragged America into the war sooner as well, i don't see how that serves Germany well.
@@EdgyDabs47 Again and again the same bloodless objections... It's not at all about whether the invasion would have been successful or not! Strategically, even a failed invasion would have been a catastrophe for England. Because the ship losses of the Royal Navy would have been considerable in any case. The shock of the invasion would have had an enormous effect on the population and the Royal Navy's aura would have been shattered and the Empire's power in insecure regions (Middle East/India) would have faltered. The Empire would have acted significantly more defensively over the next few years. This changes the course of the war considerably. What would it have cost the Axis powers? No more men and material than the Balkan campaign, apart from the ships. But these were primarily prize ships from the victorious western campaign anyway. And because of that, the Balkan campaign would not have been necessary anyway. I'll write it again very slowly now, for those who can't read sooo fast: Not attacking was the greatest stupidity ever...! Now I almost forgot the Americans... If the landings begin in the 3rd decade of September, then there are still more than 6 weeks until the 1940 elections in the USA. Before that, nothing will happen across the pond anyway. For Poland, Germany took only 4 weeks. For all of Western Europe, just 6 weeks. If things go well, the Germans will be at Hadrian's Wall by the time of the election. And one more thing that should not be forgotten. With a successful German landing, all the British fascists will come out of their holes again...
At the re-arment of Rhine it could be excused. But by the time Czechoslovakia was taken over and Poland and Czechs begged France and Britian for war in defence of Czechs it has no excuses. UK and France couldn't by any logic expect to militarize faster than Germany while Germany was in war economy since '37 and they refused to spend as much at arms.
Poland did not begged allies to defend Czechs. It was very opposite, unfortunately. Poland was trying to take advantage of Czechoslovakia when they were in Sudetenland crisis.
@@Glassius89 it is well documented that Poland announced full willingness in joining the war against Germany if France would decide to uphold their guarantee to the Czechoslovakia and multiple times communicated that in their opinion a war from two sides as 4 countries is their preferential outcome. Only as France proved completly unwilling to do anything to defend Czechoslovakia Poland demanded Zaolzie to protect the Polish people living there. Poland decided that loosing Zaolzie was acceptable cost to uphold political connections. Only as those connections proved to be completly innefective Poland decided to prioritize saving Polish people over them and demanded the territory Czechoslovakia stole during Polish-Soviet war of 1919-1921 while Poland was unable to defend it's western border.
@@Ussurin Well documented, great. When did Poland announced, it is willing to protect Czechoslovakia? Because it did not confirm when Pierre Laval was asking Beck for it in 1935. Beck did not answer. In the same year Poland established K7 (Komitet Siedmiu) which was planning urprising and dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. In march 1936 Poland asked Yugoslavia if they would oppose partitions of Czechoslovakia. In August 1936 Maurice Gamelin arrived to Poland and asked for it Rydz-Śmigły, he also did not confirm they can ally Czechoslovakia. The same happened in September 1936 in Paris. In June 1838 Leon Noёl heared the same from Rydz Śmigły. In September 1938 Poland was already telling to Germany, than if anything happens, Poles are taking Zaolzie. You can check articles "Gdy Polak i Czech się biją: Dlaczego nie udało nam się zawiązać sojuszu przeciwko Hitlerowi z Czechosłowacją?" by Andrzej Krajewski and "Zajęcie Zaolzia przez Polskę w 1938 roku. Dlaczego nasze wojsko wzięło udział w rozbiorze Czechosłowacji?" by Rafał Kuzak. The whiole diplomatic offensive before Munich agreement is described in book "Kiedy wybuchnie wojna? 1938. Studium kryzysu" by Piotr M. Majewski.
@@Glassius89 On the Munich Conference Poland was opposing the whole agreement and only after they found no support in western allies, they joined the talks to save the Poles from potential German rule.
This is video is very hard to watch from a Polish perspective. The fact of the matter is, that in 1939 and 1940 france and Britain essentially did not attack Germany in the phoney which directly contributed to the disasters that followed.
It’s even harder to read your comment from a Czech or Slovak perspective considering Poland contributed directly to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and France and Britain decided to guarantee autocratic Poland rather than democratic Czechoslovakia.
Funny thing is if Poland accepted Hitlers demand for the return of Prussian land he probably would have spread Poland, hell he might of given Poland Soviet lands such as Belarus and Ukraine. That said Czechoslovakia stood no chance.
@@Carl-Gauss That democracy of Czechoslovakia was not quite simple, as it was quite a mean country with aggresive politics toward minorities and even supporting Ukrainian nationalist in Poland. Poland did similar things to Czechoslovakia with preparing Polish urprisings in Zaolzie. Western allies wanted Poland and Czechoslovakia to befriend each other, yet both considered each other as nuisance...
@@Carl-Gauss Listen up, pal. When we in Poland say about ww2 as a disaster, we refer to the genocidal actions rather than annexations themselves. In this matter, you had it easy.
It always Saddens me that Chamberlain died before wars end. He died when the world was being consumed by dark forces and to not know the epic tales of heroism and heartbreak until victory on 5/1/1945
He wanted to avoid a repeat of the millions of deaths of WWI, and sadly didnt realise he was dealing with a genocidal madman who wanted exactly that to happen
@@againsttheleftandright4065 what? Hitler set up the most infamous death camps of all time, ever heard of the Holocaust? but of course a WWII video brings out the neo nazis
I hope you enjoy this video on Chamberlain and the logic of appeasement. My original conception for this video was to do a sort of for and against type of narrative - presenting the arguments both in favour and against appeasement. The script simply became too long and convoluted however, once I actually began writing it. Hence I've instead decided to do two videos: One where the thesis is (tentatively) sympathetic to Chamberlain and Appeasement. The next video will be (tentatively) sympathetic to Churchill and the anti-Appeasement argument.
This is not meant to be a full-throated defence of Appeasement and Chamberlain, like say the work of John Charmley is. But I think it offers an interesting thesis & perspective on Chamberlain and the reasoning behind the policy he pursued. Your rebuttals/ additions to any of the points are of course welcome and encouraged.
Apologies for the delay in this. As I say it is my fault for the initial idea being too complicated, and requiring me to rewrite it. Additionally, I have had quite a bit of trouble with RUclips over the last week regarding the videos mention of the leaders of Germany in this period. Consequently any mention of them by name has been wiped, though I'm sure you'll know who I'm talking about when I say 'Berlin' etc. Sorry if the audio is a bit variable in places, obviously there has been a few re-records. Thank you again for watching.
No worries then. I always peruse the comments, but this is the first time I've seen a creator explain the "why" of a vid. 2 parts? I look forward to watching the second. Cheers from Tennessee
Niall Ferguson is wrong: here's why.
this is VERY well done! I really hope TIK sees this and does a reaction video!!
RUclips forced you to censor this? That's absurd!
@@Young.Supernovas *anything* referring to the bad man with a small mustache gets corporate censored yeah
I believe that Neville Chamberlain was a good man in an impossible position. If you listen to his declaration of war speech (on Wikipedia), it's easy to see that all he ever wanted was peace. He was not a fool nor was he weak.
A decent man can make mistakes - lord knows Churchill is lauded as the competent counterfoil to Chamberlain, yet Churchill had one or two mishaps under his belt too.
I think Chamberlain redeemed himself by declaring war on Germany, changing his foreign policy once he saw it wasn't working.
He wasn’t weak, but to say he wasn’t foolish for trusting Hitler is pushing it
Good men don’t sell countries without hearing what they have to say. British imperial pride tainted any morals he had
@@ChevyChase301 Being fair, he wasn't neither the first nor the last man who did that. Just see what happened with the east block in the cold war.
@@DarthFhenix55 look at the suez crisis. The British were barely more moral then the Germans when it came to foreign policy at this time. The British. Like Hitler. Would invade any state they wished.
WW2 videos are a dime a dozen on RUclips, but this is anything but common quality. Your arguments are rational, flowing, multifaceted, and comprehensive in a way few others are. This is excellent work.
The British Chief of Staff wrote a note in March 1939 to the Cabinet writing "if the war were to go so badly that Poland and Romania are overrun". This quite clearly shows that the British did not expect Germany to be as successful or as powerful as they were. Germany went from being a pathetic creaking economy of 1939 to "the invincible juggernaut" in 1940 and this is all down to propaganda and needing an escape goat for disastrously bad decisions. Had the Chief of Staff instead wrote "if the war were to go so badly that Europe was overrun and the entire British Empire were to collapse", do you think Chamberlain would have been as quick to give Poland a security guarantee let alone declare war on Germany ? I suspect he would not have. The precedent of not going to war after stating you would do was already set by Palmerstone in the 1860s.
Scapegoat, though I imagine they would also have appreciated a goat to ride to safety.
I think this is more a function of denial than it is about people's actual beliefs about the future of Poland in a total war. Nobody in high places would admit the truth about the likelihood of Poland holding, because if they did, it would be seen as a repudiation of the guarantee, a policy that was a diplomatic rather than military necessity.
@@erichluepke855 They did admit it though, the British military advice was that Poland would hold an Eastern Front for "up to 3 months". They KNEW Poland had no hope against Germany yet still chose the path of getting Poland into a war with Germany to prevent German-Polish agreement and have Poland as an Eastern Front in war.
an "escape goat". Are you 12? What a terrible take. Germany's economy was extremely robust after Big H came into power.
Post war rationalizing. Disregard generals rewriting to make themselves and their nation look better
Finally, someone who defends the justifications for appeasement without being patronizing or refusing to acknowledge the massive flaws. I might've just added 2 things, 1) I would referred to Joe by his full name Joseph Chamberlain (the mental connection is easier) and maybe mention his support for the Imperial Federation (Joseph's) and 2) mention when Neville died given that he didn't live that long after his premiership.
Appeasement was the only reasonable action to take at the time with the information they had at play. France and Britain was not ready to fight another war. The German-American relationship wasn't soured. The Japanese could have been swayed against aggression in the region. The British Economy would turn to dust and the colonies seized by Japan. These were reasonable fears for Britain at the time. That is why it took a figure like Churchill to take charge. He was far more willing to commit political suicide.
@@jerm70 Giving away territory that doesn't belong to you is a disgrace.
@@optimatus then you should fight instead of waiting for other country to send young men to die for you
@@optimatus So would be sending young men to die when you think a war is not able to be won. Your point?
@@imreallynoob8311 That's what Chamberlain did in 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland.
Would love to see a more in depth look on the war of the Spanish succession in the future
i know so little about this but it always gets referred to would love to see more channels talking about this
The Ageod wargame "Wars of Succession" covers this conflict and is loads of fun in multiplayer for those who are interested.
The war that shifted the world order from a spanish one to an english one.
@@mstebs there’s a great mod for Hoi4 called ‘Empire’
It covers many conflicts in the 18th century, in particular the War of Spanish Succession.
@@cseijifja I mean, the Spanish Empire was already entering into a period of decline by that point. The 30 years war and 80 years war had sapped so much of the Empire's strength it's not unreasonable to liken them to the world wars' effects on the British Empire.
14:00 The problem with this statement, which is all well and good and logical through and through, is that the exact same set of conditions applied to Poland as well, which was obviously next on Hitler's list if you had read and understood Mein Kampf. So the Allies gave up the Skoda tank factory, the Czech Army stockpiles and the excellent defensive lines in the Sudetenland, all for no corresponding increase in their own power.
In essence they made the enemy stronger without gaining anything themselves except more time to rearm, but Germany was also doing that, and now they had the whole Czech economy working for them to help them too.
Also, I read today in Speer's diary (questioned by some people, admittedly) that they were stunned when they tested their artillery against the Sudeten fortifications, and found it simply could not penetrate them. Also that Hitler's own view was recorded as, paraphrasing, "we will take enormous losses and it will be a difficult and costly struggle", before the Munich agreement was made.
Finally there is the argument, probably the most compelling one to reject Munich, which is that there were rumblings of a coup against Hitler planned by military officers. The Sudeten fortifications would have been a difficulty for the 1938 German army, which was still not motorised enough for mobile warfare and had a lack of artillery and divisions compared to a year later. It would have been the best opportunity for a coup attempt the likes of which wouldn't come again. The terrain of Poland and defences there offered no chance of this happening. It is my view that Chamberlain made a fatal error which could have been avoided with a little more foresight.
It wasn’t rumbling he was told that a coup would happen if Germany declared war. The reason why their was no coup when Poland was invaded was because hitler increased his control so it was not possible.
There's other reading. Britain's senior-most military leaders collectively coordinated their briefings to Chamberlain just before Munich, advising that if Britain got into a war with Germany a that time, even along with France, that they wold lose.
They pleaded for war to be delayed by even just 6 months, that this would make a big difference in Britain's readiness.
France had a similar assessment that they would lose alone and had first approached USA but the Americans insisted on their neutrality. If USA had stood up and come to Munich along with Britain and France, things would probably have turned out much differently.
(Yes, much of Germany's strength was on paper and there was a potential to defeat Germany militarily at that time; isn't hindsight great; but this highlights what information Chamberlain had to make his decision. And supporting a coup attempt would run the risk of a failed coup with this being an act of war - a war that the military leaders believed that they would lose.)
@@iansneddon2956 How did that delay work out for Britain?
Even though Britain and France declared war after Poland, they still did nothing like with Czech. Phoney war and all
I claim that you didn't read "Mein Kampf". It's a tedious, self-contradictory pamphlet that claims about everything not even Hitler took seriously when he dictated it to Hess.
It is blatantly wrong that the Wehrmacht wasn't "motorised enough" to conduct a mobile war. We know it is blatantly wrong because barely a year later, the same Wehrmacht conducted a successful mobile war in Poland.
Fortifications for Germany have never been to be breached. That's the whole point of the operational planning at least since 1935 (and, arguably, even before, since the middle of the 1920s). Following the same logic, you could say that in 1940 France had mounted a successful defence against Germany as it could not penetrate the Maginot Line. No, it couldn't; that's why it went around.
What we do know:
* In 1938, Chamberlain was furious when the General Staff informed him the UK was in no position to intervene militarily into an armed conflict.
* From Munich to Dunkerque, Chamberlain re-armed the UK armed forces.
* In 1940 when "La Drôle de Guerre" went "hot", the British and French forces weren't prepared and it took Germany 6 weeks to concquer France; even today historians are puzzled by the "Haltebefehl" that prevented the total annihilation of the British forces in Dunkerque.
* Until 1942, Churchill became more and more desperate as the USA didn't commit to helping the UK and the UK struggled hard to rearm itself further.
Those are the facts. It stands to reason not to buy time with Appeasement would have accelerated the Dunkerque catastrophy 1 year earlier, as the British forces in 1938 were even more unprepared than in 1940. The French defensive focus meant that Germany could wait ("Sitzkrieg") until the preparations to attack in the West were ready.
The Oster plot was postponed after Munich as Hitler had succeeded diplomatically where the General Staff feared a military confrontation would be impossible; those same officers, however, were astonished how fast France fell and how catastrophically the UK forces failed in 1940. They *thought* Hitler was bluffing in 1938; however, they got confirmation about the UK forces' dismal state in 1940.
Your clear telling of these complex and often diluted timelines is always admirable and highly praised by me - Provides a wonderful platform for discourse; healthy discourse I will add!
I feel like this is important and underappreciated. It's easy to say "that person was a moron to think that would work" or similar, but that's an easy out. Everyone operates in their own time with limited information, and everyone makes mistakes. Sometimes they're damn big mistakes.
Besides the fact that opting to resist german prevarication, so accepting war, would not have been an impossible situation at all, if anything it would've been a fairly easy and collective situation considering that many states in Europe would've been coalized and against a non-augmented Germany.
The Czechs, their military industry and their country already would've been a huge tipping factor for the Allies (UK and France) in defeating Germany.
Yeah, we do this all the time with history. We make our own judgement calls with all of the information gained after the fact and how it all unfolded. It can't be stated enough how important it is to put yourself in the shoes of the person or group you are judging.
@@dusk6159 That's cool but they didn't know that
I don’t think chamberlain did a big mistake. It’s easy to imagine a shorter war with Germany when she was weaker but that ignores the fact that complete victory was the only solution to the nazi problem and that would require a total war even in 1933
Oh it is well known in Czechia that Chamberlain's strategy was a realpolitik executed terribly. That hardly makes him any better for us though. He still left us high and dry without any input on the situation and all for nothing, simply because he didn't understand the determination of his opponent and what advantages he gained from the agreement. We know very well
You are righ, but at the same time you're not considering how "Go and die for a foregin country just like 20 years ago" isn't a very convicing argument even when that was the right move, people wouldn't really realize how bad the situation was until they were the ones suffering.
You're literally a fake country that had no business existing after WW1 and everyone knew it then.
@@DarthFhenix55 I am considering that. Doesn't change a thing. He still left us to the pack of wolfs. Really doesn't matter to me he thought the pack wouldn't be stronger bigger, still hungry and go after him next before he can craft proper spear.
@@DarthFhenix55 Don't go around goving guarantees you are unwilling to fullfill.
That's why westeners are deemed untrustworthy and traitors in the eastern Europe. Cause you make promises you are unwilling to ever fullfill. Like USA and UK now which gave Ukraine guarantee of their borders in exchange for their nukes, but yet are to dispatch their troops to defend Ukraine.
@@troo_6656 Maybe your country should have been stronger. For the sake of peace, some countries are indeed expendable.
This censorship required in this video is a disgrace
I enjoyed this exploration of Chamberlain and 'appeasement', thanks for the upload
@@basilmagnanimous7011 Oh, brother, I KNOW and I NOTICE. The h-caust has become a foundation myth for the new West. One centered on death. With its great evil and its great victim. Redefining concepts, scrapping and replacing values. Memorials for the h-caust everywhere but how scant the memorials for their saviors--curious.
All peoples have exclusive right to their lands, ethnic Europeans have no right to theirs and permitted to go nowhere. Exclusive culture for all peoples but not for the European, theirs must be denied. True nationalism for everyone but not for the European man and woman. To suggest otherwise is the great sin.
And you must not question it, must not do anything other than fully embrace it, despite how little it relates to you. And it's anathema to even display unapproved images, despite being a RUclipsr simply wanting to talk about British history. Disgusting.
The greatest irony here is youtube says theres 2 replies but they don’t actually show up when you click the comment lel
@@basilmagnanimous7011 thou art an intelligent man
@@iron2684 You are both 14.
@@basilmagnanimous7011 the nationalsocialist party and movement has been growing very fast in the last years and since the end of 2019 and 2020 it has been growing almost exponentially, so soon we will be in power again and we will actually fight against our socialists and we will do it for OUR people not the immagrants wich we should get rid of by any means only the most useful 100 could stay with their families bc we need scientists and other very important jobs, when they outlive theit usefulness than they will be kicked out of the country or something else... we will make our people proud again of their Germanic blood and of their country. And i myself i will promise that i will do anything for our people and devote my life to us Germanics... it's gonna be hard but victory will be assured we learned from the last time and the movement has adopted to our time, but no way that we are gonna let our country be destroyed along with our principles, morals and culture...
Brilliantly done! A very stimulating and thought-provoking video essay on a topic often discussed in the same old terms.
I love you channel, man! It’s always made me think about the what if’s, as well as a bigger understanding of the time periods at hand.
Excellent video, congratulations. It was good to see you recently expressing struggles with planning/editing, because this documentary continues your streak as a great historical channel at sometimes overlooked topics. Keep getting better at your craft.
Would love to see you take on the task of describing how *ahem* "Berlin" managed to rebuild Germany's military prowess in the interwar years.
"Britain had no nations to plunder as a means of financing her military"
Colonies: "Am I a joke to you?"
That wouldn’t be sustainable if they wanted to keep them,
Plus they were already doing that to finance other stuff.
This here are some really fascinating points. I teach highschoolers and will use this topic in my coming history classes for the WW2 subject.
Thank you for making this!
'Hitler is an honourable man, I do not for one moment believe he deceived me intentionally' - Nevile Chamberlain to the House of Commons in his address post the German invasion of Czechoslovakia
@iMakz lol okay Joseph
@@TheEvilAdventurer They didn't, the government of Czechoslovakia literally collapsed and left a vacuum that either the Soviet Union would fill or Germany.
@@Imperium83 no you pulled that out of your ass
@@TheEvilAdventurer Ok, Rabbi
@iMakz Germany literally invaded Czechoslovakia both in 1938 and 1939.
I think Chamberlain's biggest problem (which can probably be generalized to everyone in power on his side) was that he underestimated what his side could do. He seemed to think that rearmament was needed when Germany had barely rearmed herself when the Rhineland crisis arose. He also severely discounted the value of having the USSR on the Allied side even if they couldn't send troops overland right away. Then there's the fact that the West Wall was unfinished and that Germany didn't have enough troops to fight the Czechs and the French at the same time.
He bought into the German propaganda and accepted as settled the gloomy predictions of his chiefs.
You did a very fine job of showing Germany’s predicament in 1939. I e so often heard amateur historians say that if o my Germany had delayed the war for 5 years, the would have been in better shape. Even if that supposition were true, it doesn’t take into account that the western Allies would be in a vastly better position in five years.
The Allies would have been in a even better position if they didnt salivate at the prospect of a war with Germany and looked after their own business
@@98TrueRocker98 In what respect, specifically?
@@pathutchison7688 If the Allies ignored what was happening to the east of Germany they would have kept all their colonies and they wouldnt have had any destruction and death from war because Germany had no interest in western Europe
@@98TrueRocker98 let’s assume you’re right. And the reich defeated the Soviets, or at least pushed them past the Urals to the point where they were basically defeated. Now France has a Giant Nazi Germany on its border. That’s a new Cold War at the very least. It could have been a lot worse too. And the time of colonies was about done. It wouldn’t have been tenable to hold on to them for long in that world any easier than this one.
@@pathutchison7688 It would have been the same Cold War as with the Soviets, or even better because Germany had more in common with other western countries then the Soviets
Actually Chamberlin's cabinet (and probably himself too since if he was so opposed to his cabinet he could just replace them) knew Hitler was likely to not be satisfied. However, in their minds appeasement was worth it both for the small chance Hitler would actually be appeased but in the likely event he'd go for more land, the time bought would give time for Britain to rearm. Of course they were wrong on both accounts. Britain's military wasn't in the best of shape during the Munich discussion, but Czechoslovakia had hardened defenses and post war analysis by British and Germans (no need to keep secrets from allies at this point) was done and everyone agreed if Britain stood behind Czechoslovakia, even if the French didn't send a single plane or soldier out of France, the Germans would be doomed. They's just bash their heads against fortifications they couldn't beat. The Royal Navy would strangle Germany's economy (remember Romania at this time wasn't a German ally) and the not-quite-rearmed British Army could pick apart a depleted Heer since again most of their forces would be in Czechoslovakia getting their butts kicked. Or maybe the German generals might just overthrow Hitler for ordering something so stupid since many old Reichswehr era generals agreed with the modern assessments. My point was many contemporary British politicians knew Hitler was probably untrustworthy and this wasn't some naïve belief in his character, even if their analysis on the military area was a bit off.
Or orrrrrrr, and hear me out, maybe, just maybe, Chamberlin and those who thought like him knew Hitler wasnt looking west but east and they didnt want to go to another stupid needless war
Very interesting, and this is very late, but do you think you could share the source for those analyses by the British and the Germans? I never heard of them, and the mainstream explanation of Czech history was that fighting would be pointless, and that we had no hope.
@@jonaskosak6766 its a moot point if the Czechs would have held or not. Why? Because the Germans were desperately short on just about every resource imaginable. From oil to food to steel to chromium they relied on imports this was a major reason for Germany's desire to conquer more land to start with. With no Munich agreement there is no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Germany would not receive grain, oil and rare metals from the USSR. Germany would not continue to receive steel from Sweden and Norway as the Brits would have dragged them into the war. Germany would not have any overseas imports. This would make German victory impossible before they even started in the worst case where they defeat the french they are still facing a war against the USSR except without the ability to hide behind the lie of a nonaggression pact.
Awesome video, although it was overlooked that Great Britain also placed a great amount of resources into Strategic Air defense.
The Dowding system and the coordination of Fighter command was not the default in 1938 to 1941. The build up in the airforce was intentional and lead to a big affect in how the war ultimately turned out
Great video, greetings from Serbia 🇷🇸🤝🇬🇧
There are Serbs that like Britan ? 🤨
@@Lucas_07-PL They are mindless communists Russian puppets.
This channel is the new HistoryCivilis for me.
Great job of explaining a nuanced situation, I very much enjoyed your work!
Another great video!
Since I can tell you put great care into your maps, for future reference Zara in Dalmatia was an Italian enclave from 1918, remaining Italian when much of the rest of Dalmatia was also annexed to Italy in 1941, the city is today Zadar in Croatia
Keep up the great work!
This was a superb exposition. Well done, sir.
Very interesting and well made -- looking forward to Part 2!
What...?
I think I have never seen a video discussing Chamberlain or 1930's Britain to emphasise how terrible the condition of UK's armed forces were, and hadn't really internalised that from small details either, and those that have only glanced it as Chanberlain's appeasement. I hope this becomes the most successful video on the channel and maybe it'll inspire other RUclips historians to revise their attitude towards the man who actually for years prepared Britain for WW2
And like said, no one looks at time before 1938 Munich
It won't, it won't surprise them, only a truly competent presentation will challenge their mind set.
Its really difficult to express how impressed i am with your content both in terms of style and content
Another fantastic video! Unfortunately, those of us living in contemporary times have a very biased view of history - we merely perceive historical events through the lense of hindsight. However, this video did an excellent job of upending that bias by providing us with a well researched series of events & decisions made at the time that ultimately lead up to the start of World War II. 😁👍
Appeasement was a good thing. It strengthened Germany to the point she fehlt capable to unleash a world war, a war that would ultimately destroy the european empires and the racist age of West Born in 16th century at very latest. All in all very good. 70 million died with a purpose...
Many people forget that Poland was the only nation that Britain and France could defend or at least show support. Appeasement should be called a more necessary sacrifice idea. However the other reason for Poland being the point to stand is the boogeyman of Europe, the Soviet Union.
Also Hitler wanted a British alliance as this would help him attack the United States. However the situation evolved into one where that was a impossibility.
@@dapperbunch5029 Hitler's fantasies about a UK-German alliance are irrelevant. The geo-politics was that Germany was an enemy of France and UK.
@@dapperbunch5029 Hitler wanted a British rapprochement because he was an Anglophile, he had no ambitions for America since it was then as it is now patently impossible to invade the American continent. What he wanted was to ensure America would remain neutral in any European conflict.
@@serebii666 he wanted to destroy America's naval and economic influence. It would prevent the so called, "Jewish influence".
Another excellent video! Really enjoyed the counterfactuals at the end. Made me reconsider the merits of appeasement. Would be interested to see a video explaining when appeasement worked.
Another fantastic episode, thanks for making it.
Interesting to see the failures of Neville's policy in some ways mirrored by the way the EU handled Russia after its first invasion of Ukraine 9 years ago.
What "failures"? Neville's policy was very much successful. It kept Britain out of a needless and retarded war
After Chechnya really
Why?
@@DrMrPersonGuy why?
@@Howleye because russia annexed them with barbaric tactics.
You (and many others) miss one important point. Giving up Czechoslovakia, gave Germans important industrial assets including ready to use tanks and other armament.
Without Czechoslovakia Germany may possibly wouldn't decide to start the war against Poland.
Appeasement started way earlier than we think. When after post WW1 deciding about the borders of Poland British government of Lloyd George heavily favorized Germany rather than Poland in assigning Upper Silesia region. British interest was more in German capacity to pay war reparation than in real justice for the local population.
Anyway Munich pact was nothing more than buying some peace time for Britain at the expense of Czechoslovakia. Good business, wasn't it ?
Good point, Czechoslovakia had vast arms industry
...and Krupp got Skoda.
Yeah this. Fall Gelb was a HUGE bit of luck that required multiple lines of failure among the allies to succeed
@@secretname4190 German generals in France: masterfully cuts clean through the French army in the Ardennes.
German generals in Russia: gets their ass whipped so badly they have to blame it on Shmadolf Shmitler and create the Russia biggest stronk myth.
@@secretname4190 while the initial push was amazing, it also never really secured the land it took, leading to smaller Russian groups who were cut off to go underground and become partisans, a huge detriment to Germany’s already overstretched logistics. once they were repelled from moscow it was mostly German generals making blunder after blunder and blaming it on moustachio.
There are exceptions to this (Kharkiv is the only one I remember right now)
German high command at the time of the initial push into Russia was filled to the brim with overconfidence.
By the end of the war with Russia, it was full of lies to preserve their ego, lies of a clean Wehrmacht, lies that hitler cost the German army the whole war, lies of superior Soviet equipment (which is utter bullshit).
Excellent scope, context, and presentation! Thank-you for this!
wanting to outmatch an opponant by giving him land and industry is quite a gamble (1/3 of german tanks in France in 1940 have been produced in czech industries)
it was already too late to go this route
Difference is the Brits were also pretty unarmed in 1938 also. It's easier to go to war when you have at least a couple hundred planes vs about 30 that they had in 1938. Source: I have none it was a total guess, but Lord Halifax said something like 'every month meant more planes were built'.
Well made video from a unique, under explored, purely logistical perspective.
but i’m sorry, “Britain had no nations to plunder in support of its war effort” is an absolutely insane statement
Good comment TC
It is interesting, to be honest, seeing that fear everyone had of a second potential WW1 round 2.
Please keep this up, always look forward to your episodes
Thank you, I appreciate it.
The video ignores the Oster conspiracy and that the German people didn't want war as much as the Western populace. I hope this aspect is covered in the follow-up of this video because it is an important consideration.
If Hitler did attack Czechoslovakia they would not have had a population so assured in the Nazi government. The success of Munich was a move that solidified Nazi control and legitimised them while a war for the Sudetenland would have done the opposite. The Oster conspiracy was known to the UK and as such Chamberlain had enough knowledge to know that he could count on German instability.
All you said is correct and the Allies were in a bad strategic position in 1938 but the Axis had it worse. Italy was less ready for war and Japan couldn't dare jump on the colonies yet. A war over the Sudetenland would be decided by the Czech fortifications. Even if the Oster conspiracy failed (though its attempt would force Hitler to purge some of his most valuable generals to keep hold) every day Czechia held firm was a day closer to the German population murdering Hitler.
As such the only calculation to be done was if the Chezchs could have held (their prospects were good). Clearly, Chamberlain thought they weren't going to hold but considering the likely success of the Oster conspiracy it seems like a major blunder. Again even if we ignored the possible success of Oster the very attempt would place important generals like Generaloberst Ludwig Beck, General Wilhelm Adam, Generaloberst Walther von Brauchitsch, Generaloberst Franz Halder, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, and Generalleutnant Erwin von Witzleben, all prominent names and invaluable to later German successes (outside of Canaris who was fucking Hitler over at every opportunity), in the shitter. Germany's war effort was going to be hampered giving way more room for the Czechs to breath and the German populace to decide if they want to risk another WW1 (they didn't).
I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful critique, and will concede that I probably should have devoted at least a line or two to the conspiracy. However, the video does explicitly state that going to war in 1938 would have been more logical in hindsight. On the conspiracy, the idea that a politician should potentially send hundreds of thousands of young men to die on the vague notion that the enemies leader might be overthrown, is in my opinion a nonsense. And considering Hitler's luck when it comes to surviving assassination attempts, I think Chamberlain was absolutely right to ignore this factor.
@@OldBritannia Thank you for the reply. Just want to mention that the Oster conspiracy itself should not be considered too profoundly in such a video because Chamberlain could not have known its chances of success. It would have been quite the gamble to risk the lives of millions on some Germans promising to make a coup. What matter though is its implication. It proves the instability of the German regime and the possible unrest within the government and citizenry of the Reich. The Allies having knowledge of such instability just has to be mentioned. This is an important factor for any strategic analysis of the Allies' vs. the Axis's strength. War was not popular on either side in 1938 and that should be part of the calculus of power if one is to compare it to 1939 when the Germans were behind the war. So really I would just have enjoyed that part of the calculation mentioned when discussing why Chamberlain did what.
On another note, the Hitler assassination survival luck is something that only exists in hindsight and not something that should be looked at at all.
Just hoping that the German domestic front in 1938 and 1939 gets a bigger mention in the next video.
Incredible video! The amount of quality and detail you put into these always amazes me.
Äh... No!
4:09 Make it 4. Soviet being Communist was seen as a threat just as much as German, Italy and Japan if not even greater otherwise Britain and French would have try to called Russia assistance like in WW1 but they didn't.
Great video, looking forward to part 2!
I love this and some of your other 1930’s videos in Europe. Showing how things weren’t quite set in stone.
Although far too late in the history you cover, it would be cool to see a video from you comparing what happened in the 30’s and the events leading up to the Russo-Ukrainian war. You mentioning the British government was overstating the German aerial threat reminds me of the threat Russia would pose to Europe, militarily speaking.
Like the Holodomor, caused by Stalin's collectivization.
Also, Britain didn't "overstate" the capabilities of the Luftwaffe. The London Biltzkreig is proof of that. In fact, the Battle of London, if a few things happened differently, would have been a German victory.
Amazing how everyone hates bankers, but they must take their money in order to operate without being toppled by a frenzied populace.
This is becoming my favourite RUclips channel
The actual true failure of Chamberlain and Deladier was not to attack Germany from the West in September 1939 which could have stopped the annihilation of Poland. Instead the BEF and French simply sat (Sitz Krieg) on the Alsace-Lorraine border. This allowed Germany to regroup and re-arm for its own assault later..
Eight months later... as France and the UK did nothing and Germany tried to sue for peace the entire time.
@@Imperium83 What a relevant name you have, 'goon', and a comment to match.
Of course Germany wanted 'peace' after its successful conquests in East and Central Europe. But there were air raids and sea warfare. In France and the UK there was political turmoil between the Appeasement groups and those which had woken up to the intentions of Germany.
Of course Germany's version of 'peace' involved invading neutral countries as well. The invasion of Norway caused the shift in the UK to Churchill and the Coaltion government he formed.
So Goon you write rubbish and pro-Nazi rubbish at that.
That was not a failure of Chamberlain and Deladier. Such an attack was planned and in preparation. But Poland was effectively defeated in two weeks. It's impossible to organize an offensive in just two weeks.
By the time the Allies were ready to attack Germany from the west, such an attack was rendered meaningless. Had the Poles held back the Germans better, it's possible that the Allies could have had time to attack the west. Although, even in such a scenario, Poland's position is hopeless and inevitable because they will still be attacked by the USSR and overrun.
@@pax6833 DRIVEL. The poiunt is UK-France could have attacked and did not do so.
@mwfp1987 The Ruhr was not undefended, there were more than a dozen German divisions in place (France also could not have known the exact number of troops) in fortified defensive lines to prevent any rapid French attack. In both previous wars with Germany (1914/1870), previous experience showed that a hasty offensives into the Rhineland had produced terrible defeats. Any attack into Germany by France in 1939 would thus necessarily be slow, in line with its methodical battle doctrine developed in 1918.
And, should such an attack even have occurred and after overcoming the initial defenses, the French army would then be caught out in the open, outside of their defenses, by a rapid German counterattack.
In short, there was no benefit to attacking. Contrary to your expectation, there were very good reasons why the British and French did what they did.
Great video about a very misunderstood prime minister, and posted on the anniversary of mustache man’s accession to the German chancellery no less
Great video, it's very hard to find nuanced discussions of really anything these days, but I think you have done a good job presenting one here.
Excellent, very nuanced video. I think too much WW2 scholarship neglects the French, who were at least co-equal if not the more important factor in the interwar years RE Germany
I am so glad you made this video
You should have way more subscribers. Great work. Been binging em. Good show.
The censorship is crazy nowadays !! Great Video, thanks for producing it.
Fantastic video with the correct opinion on allied appeasement! People often oversimplify something that could have (and did in many ways) work, and certainly contains a lot of nuance. Thanks, and good evening!
Fantastic video. I've always hated how quickly people use Munich as an example for everything without looking at any of the facts beforehand.
Ohh really??? May be history of your country was not so deeply harmed by Munich "betrayal" like mine that caused immediate destruction of Czechoslovakia in 1938/39 and subsequent deep mistrust of the Czech democratic elites towards the west that helped communists to persuade the postwar government to reject Marshall plan first and take the government in 1948 for next 40 years.
Excellent video. Helps explain quite a bit. I look forward to part 2. Cheers
@Oldbrittania Credit for pointing out the parasitic nature of the Nazi Germany economy. Layman often like to talk about the ‘economic miracle’, but I try to point out that there was nothing special to the notion of conquering others, enforcing an imbalanced economic regime upon the vanquished, and shipping the difference home.
It's a perfect example of how hindsight is 20/20. Despite the fact at the time there was so much uncertainty and divergence of the changing face of the world, a lot of people just see it through the lens of what did happen, not what could happen.
Another fantastic video!
Very good video mate, you always put out quality 👌
No... It overlooked basic things!
Thank You for the video! Just as within talk about any pre-WWII action Treaty of Versalies has to be mentioned: if Germany was treatened like France after Napoleonic wars end (i.e. no border carving, no exotic countries along the border as "protection from future french aggression", etc.) there will be no such issues to be dealt with in such an original manner as "appeasement". Remeber that France and England were even tried to force Denmark (that was not participated in WWI!) to accept more lands from Germany in Schleswig - just to be one more buffer state! To say nothing about other strange decisions in Europe (What are the horrid actions Hungary did to loose 2/3 of its territory? Why didn't Greese gain Konstantinople and Smirna and Cyprus? etc.) led to the situation as even was pointed just after Versalies: "Thank God, we have peace!" - "No, it is just an armistice".
With "ifs", we can put the moon in a bottle. No one knows what would've happened without Versailles, or with a Versailles under different terms. Germany was the most powerful state in Europe anyway, it was only a matter of time before Berlin tried to turn this demographic and economic dominance into political hegemony, one way or another.
To France, weakening Germany was a matter of survival, no revenge.
Also, Greece lost their war against Turkey anyway. They got Smyrne, but they lost it right afterwards in 1921.
Thsnk you for the welcome change of perspective on both Chamberlin and the lead-up to War. My dad, who joined the Royal Navy in September 1938, always told me, with a tone fortmed by a decades-worth of military rote-memorization: "Chsamberalin bought Britain a year in which to prepare for the inevitable War'. Chamberlain is convenient scape-goat for simple historical orthodoxy that paints Churchill as Britain's Savior (which he as), compared to snivelling, weak Mr. Appeasement. When Chamberlain went to Berlin, he was Prime Minister of most of the British Empire (the Dominions be virtually independent' Hitler was far lower on the international prestige poll.)We fail to remember that Chamberalin commited Britain to Poland's defense, and was PM when War actually did break out. Yet, it was he, as Prime Minister, who informed the country that 'Consequently, this Nation is at War!' Your's isn't revisionist history; it's balanced and inclusive. Thank you for a very intriging mini-doc.
It is always cute to me how appeasement and security guarantees are seen as RealPolitik.
There is a huge difference between realism and pragmatism/practicality.
Do you have the word Real Politik, borrowed from German...?
@@secretname4190 But the term is not exact use in the original sense of the word. But that's not uncommon with German loanwords in English...
It was popularised by Henry Kissinger, a German Holocaust survivor eho fled to the us and became a statesman / advisor with a lot of really bad geopolitical tales which lead to Nixon aiding in numerous regime changes and genocides.
"Realpolitik" and "realism" have become meaningless words used by any diplomat or politician trying to defend his own ideas about foreign policy.
This channel is so bloody good
it was the same people accusing chamberlain of cowardice who, if the war had broken out earlier, wouldve protested in the streets against unjustified military action.
Definitely. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
The war wouldnt have broken if the British government didnt declare it upon Germany
@@EdgyDabs47 the Kaiser had only to refuse Austria his help to save Germany from disaster, and Chamberlain was never going to repeat his mistake, no matter how much controversy was generated
this may be your best video yet. excellent information, great presentation, 10/10
Worst
Flawed indeed but in this situation nobody could have made a decision that would have left everybody happy.
Definitely. A couple missed opportunities, but a hugely difficult situation.
thanks for the video! great into! I´m a tour guide in Berlin and I still learnt many things here!
9:14 I higly doubt that😂😂😂
Keep up your videos, you are great.
You know what they say about brits making them look the best. I mean look at napoleonic wars "Napoleone you're bad because you want to rule instead of us"
Thank you for this video. I've very much enjoyed many of them.
I've not watched the video yet, but I always found appeasement to be a flawed policy, but understandable given the aftermath of the great war, what I've never found acceptable is the phony war, (or sitskreig,) and then the post war abandment of Poland, the allies really left Eastern Europe to the dogs during the entire war.
The conclusion actually made the arguments more confusing
I see Chamberlain as one of history’s tragic figures. An intelligent, capable, humane man, who was undone because he came up against something simply hard to comprehend.
An aggressive revanchist warmonger is hard to understand?
@@DeltaAssaultGaming I mean Churchill's whole schtick is "lol us Englishmen are so quirky, facetious, contrarian and difficult to understand".
Currently reading 'Innovation' by Peter Ackroyd and this very subject is discussed. Honestly, considering what had happened in Europe twenty years before, Chamberlain was doing the right thing, as you say, to buy time. He was thinking as an Imperialist with a GLOBAL perspective and not as a European with a regional focus.
Not that WW1 was anything like a party, but you really do feel for the French and British in those terms. You just got as drunk as you've ever been, you're passed out, then Germany starts blaring the Hörstwessellied and you're like "fuck man, already?" Then some guy named Hitler starts shaking your shoulder demanding the Sudetenland, and you're like "who even cares dude, just take it."
I think you misunderstand the situation fundamentally! There was no happiness drunkenness in 1919. Just a bunch of people who found themselves in a bad situation after the peace treaty. Great Britain was occupied with serious domestic problems. There were massive clashes and strikes, which led to the first use of tanks in history against the country's own population. And France, went into one of the most politically unstable periods in its history.
And the legacy of Versailles weighed heavily. It was to be expected that this would be the case. And in a speech in Versailles in 1919, the British prime minister clearly predicted how things would continue with Germany, with rare political foresight:
"One may deprive Germany of her colonies, reduce her army to a mere police force, and reduce her navy to the strength of a fifth-rate power. Still, when Germany feels that she has been wronged in the peace of 1919, she will find means at last , to compel restitution from its conquerors.To obtain retribution, our conditions may be severe, they may be harsh, and even ruthless, but at the same time they may be so just that the country on which we impose them feels, in its heart, it have no right to complain. But injustice and arrogance displayed in the hour of triumph will never be forgotten nor forgiven. I can think of no stronger reason for a future war than that the German people, who are sure to declare themselves as one of the most vigorous and powerful tribes in the world, would be surrounded by a number of smaller states, some of which had never before been established lasting government for itself, but each of which would contain large numbers of Germans desiring reunification with their homeland.”
But that's exactly what happened because of France's vengefulness...
@@melchiorvonsternberg844 I'd draw your attention to the fact that I did preface it with "WW1 was nothing like a party." But everything you said is correct. Versailles was incredibly short sighted and punitive. I know a significant body of historians are fighting a rear guard action to defend it but the fact that WW2 happened a mere generation later tells you all you need to know. Barring breaking up Germany back into the Holy Roman Empire, it would've been far better to actually have an armistice (which Germany thought it was getting) than what happened. The results of the more lenient treatment of [West] Germany after 1945 also prove this.
@@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016 I am very pleased that there is now more emphasis on looking at facts than on justifications. More will happen. And then, hopefully, the French strategy of wanting to get this war at any price will finally be examined more closely. The Jean Jaures assassination, I think, is the key. I even make the bold claim that it was not the assassination of the Archduke but the assassination of Jean Jaures that made this war what it became...
@@melchiorvonsternberg844
cope harder. you invaded and got smacked twice. hopefuly the allies didnt make the same mistake as in ww1 of not completly crushing germany.
@@smal750 lol... You stupid child! Your knowledge of the events is as limited as your ability to make proper analyzes. What is the situation today? All the empires that Europeans built before World War I no longer exist. Without Germany, the liberation of the colonies would not have happened! And what did Germany lose in the end? 3 provinces in the fuckin' cold East, but France and England their vast empires. Germany leads the EU, the Americans provided us with nuclear weapons over 50 years ago and France offered to share their nuclear weapons with us. And one thing you should never do... underestimate the Germans and their abilities. That could be a rude awakening!
One of the big elements that played into this and the early defeats of the alies was the actions of intellectuals. Many had contributed heavily towards the disarmament and anti war sentiment that left the nations unable and unwilling to defend themselves.
Funny how a century later, Macron was travelling to Moscow to do the same thing.
Interesting presentation with a few pieces I’d not seen before.
The illogical feature of the appeasement policy isn't necessarily in the politics, but rather the magical thinking involved in the run-up to the crisis that resulted in appeasement. Neville believed that appeasement was the only way forward because past government policies had intentionally made deterrence non-credible. These same policies that Chamberlain himself helped push forward and champion. The massive disinvestment in the military accross democratic Europe basically guaranteed that a revanchist power would start a conflict in Europe. A constant pattern in world history is that dovish politicians stoke domestic war exhaustion in order to defund the military and funnel those funds towards their domestic pet projects. Meanwhile the detterence and balance of power created by that military and that allowed a peace to be negotiated in the first place is eroded, and nothing is left in its place. The power vaccuum caused by massive European military disinvestment leading up to 1939 is what encouraged the Nazis to pursue massive rearmament. They saw a weak and defenseless Europe, and like any other predator they attacked. This is why I always take an extremely dim view of dovish politicans who argue that military spending is wasteful. You fund a military to enforce a peaceful status quo. A peaceful status quo that these dovish politicans want to maintain, but they don't want to pay for.
Basically yeah, I am not a fan of the Military as a concept, but I understand their necessity, if you want peace prepare for war, most nations will only attack if they perceive a imbalance in power in their favor
He funded the military...
Great video, can’t wait for the next one
A very good video well done! Chamberlain might have been regarded as one of the great men of British politics in the 20th century: he was smart, determined and he had a large majority in the House of Commons, which would have enabled him to stay in power and deliver his political agenda. Unfortunately for everyone, events where to prevent this happening.
He also got cancer in his ass
Great Videos, as always
According to Hitler himself, the munich agreement was the biggest mistake of his career. In February 1945, he said "we ought to have gone to war in 1938. September 1938 would have been the most favorable date." Germany desperately wanted a war in with France in 1938, which it was poised to win decisively. But chamberlain denied him this, giving the UK, France, and the soviets time to fix their militaries. It is possible that the much maligned Chamberlain actually prevented the ultimate triumph of Nazi Germany.
Hitler might have believed that, but it would probably have been his death. At the time substantial parts of the German military were plotting against them thinking he was putting Germany on the course of disaster. From what can be reconstructed, one of the officers even had a gun ready to shoot him in case the war started in 1938.
It's also in error because the German army in 1938 was far weaker then the one that defeated France in 1940 and was far less likely to win.
But well... Hitler was often enough not the best person in making realistic plans or realistic assessments. Conspiracy theorists like him rarely are.
Are you joking ? By allowing him to start a war he prevented nothing but peace in the World .
You have to be joking, he gave Germany the Czech military industry and removed the Czechoslovak army out of existence. If he didn't the war would have ended at the latest in 1941 and the Soviets would never rule half the continent. His actions did more to harm to the democratic world then every Soviet leader after Stalin.
Nonsense. Hitler didn't know about the Oster putsch plan. But Chamberlain and Daladier did, since the German military had sent emissaries to London and Paris before the Munich conference to brief them about their plan to putsch, to be activated in the event that Hitler gave the order to march on Czechoslovakia.
Furthermore, when Hitler toured the Czech fortifications along the border, he was so impressed by those fortifications that he told Goebbels "It is a good thing we didn't have to fight here because we would have bitten our teeth out".
If Chamberlain had refused Hitler an agreement in Munich, (1) the Czechs would not have had any reason to abide by such an agreement and they would have resisted, (2) the Oster putsch would have taken place, throwing the Wehrmacht in disarray right in the moment of war. If it had been unsuccessful, it would have caused a crack down on the officer corps, weakening the Wehrmacht to the point that the invasion would have failed. The French army and the BEF could have quickly moved across Southern Germany for there was absolutely nothing standing in their way, which was the reason why the German military was against an attack on Czechoslovakia in the first place, they knew if Britain and France would attack, they would be defeated soundly.
Last but not least, Stalin -- for all his faults and not without ulterior motives -- had tried to aid Czechoslovakia by sending troops, yet Poland and Romania denied them passage. Not to be deterred, the soviets then sent 100 fighter planes to Czechoslovakia including pilots and ground support personnel. This would have been a formidable defense against attacks by the Luftwaffe.
Not only did the Munich agreement hand over the vast fortifications build by the Czechs in the Sudetenland, and dissolve the Czech army, but it also facilitated the transfer of vast quantities of military industry and equipment that the Germans then used in order to invade France and later the USSR.
Very logical. Thanks for the video.
Wow...basically Germany by 1939 was like "We are too far in to pull back now...fuck it" and just threw the whole table upside down.
Like putin now.
Fantastic video as always!
The fatal flaw with the idea of appeasement was, while it did indeed give greater time for Britain to strengthen its army, the British armament speed during that purchased time was still lower than that of Germany. In other words Britain wasn't buying time for itself, it was in practical terms buying time for Germany.
Not often that I will like a video before I watch it!
Neville chamberlain was a good man as far as I could tell, he wanted peace above all else because he seen the First World War himself. He didn’t want to send British men to the same fate and that is what people condemn him for. It’s true churchhill was needed, but chamberlain did everything he could.
your videos are always interesting
One of the first things Chamberlain did on returning from Munich was to massively increase orders for fighters. He was not fooled by Hitler and the situation was clear. Had he gone to war in 1938, the Battle of Britain would have primarily fought with Gloster Gladiator biplanes. It was fought with Hurricanes and Spitfires, thanks to Chamberlain
Such a thing can only be cheered by someone who mistakenly believes that the Battle of Britain prevented an invasion. But that is by no means the case! Hitler decided that the invasion would not go ahead. And long before that air battle ended...
@@melchiorvonsternberg844 Why would the Luftwaffe attack Britain then? What would they achieve?
@@EdgyDabs47 Of course it was about weakening the British defenses through the air battle. But that wasn't actually a prerequisite for being able to carry out an invasion. Because the moment an invasion is launched, all the advantages that the RAF had given the British during the fight deep in English airspace are gone. If a Briton is shot down at sea, he is not two hours later on a new plane to take part in the fighting again, if he survived at all. The short distances for the British are gone. And the German fighters have more fuel left to fight and if the planes are damaged, the way home is much shorter. You must also realize that contrary to popular belief, the Royal Navy was unable to prevent an invasion. That was the conclusion reached by a commission of naval experts set up by Churchill. Also, contrary to popular belief, the ship convoys for the invasion were by no means largely destroyed by British air raids on the launch ports. That's only a hero's tale... I am supplying the figures for this, about the plans of the Germans and the shipping space actually available, at the end of the 2nd decade of September.
The Kriegsmarine calculated the requirement at the end of July '40 to the following volume:
155 freighters (about 700,000 GRT)
1,722 punts
471 tug
1,161 motor boats
This includes losses of 10%.
The Kriegsmarine reported operational readiness by September 19:
168 freighters
1975 punts
100 coasters
420 tugs
1,600 motor boats
This clearly shows that everything was ready and just waiting for the GO.
There are other aspects too... When the invasion begins and takes place, it will be a real shock to the British, because that hasn't happened for almost 900 years. The Royal Navy would lose a mass of heavy units and experienced seamen. And even if the invasion failed, public opinion alone would make the entire British strategy considerably more defensive. Because the others, after demonstrating that it was possible, could try again. Also, that could bring in additional allies for Germany. I'll just say Spain now. In that case, the Mediterranean would be lost to the British. Even a German defeat would be a strategic success for Germany. Not attacking was the worst of all options...
@@melchiorvonsternberg844 It would've been an absolute logistic nightmare for Germany. Contested naval landings are one of the most difficult situations in warfare for the attackers.
Germany also had little experience with amphibious assaults.
Britain was not totally unprepared like you suggest. We had sea defenses on the south and east coast. I could go down to my local beach right now and find WW2 munitions in the sand, spent in training exercises in preparation for a German invasion.
There's a good chance it would've dragged America into the war sooner as well, i don't see how that serves Germany well.
@@EdgyDabs47 Again and again the same bloodless objections... It's not at all about whether the invasion would have been successful or not! Strategically, even a failed invasion would have been a catastrophe for England. Because the ship losses of the Royal Navy would have been considerable in any case. The shock of the invasion would have had an enormous effect on the population and the Royal Navy's aura would have been shattered and the Empire's power in insecure regions (Middle East/India) would have faltered. The Empire would have acted significantly more defensively over the next few years. This changes the course of the war considerably. What would it have cost the Axis powers? No more men and material than the Balkan campaign, apart from the ships. But these were primarily prize ships from the victorious western campaign anyway. And because of that, the Balkan campaign would not have been necessary anyway. I'll write it again very slowly now, for those who can't read sooo fast: Not attacking was the greatest stupidity ever...!
Now I almost forgot the Americans... If the landings begin in the 3rd decade of September, then there are still more than 6 weeks until the 1940 elections in the USA. Before that, nothing will happen across the pond anyway. For Poland, Germany took only 4 weeks. For all of Western Europe, just 6 weeks. If things go well, the Germans will be at Hadrian's Wall by the time of the election. And one more thing that should not be forgotten. With a successful German landing, all the British fascists will come out of their holes again...
Hi ya love the video, really interesting. I was just going to ask if this is your full time job at the moment or is this a side gig?
At the re-arment of Rhine it could be excused. But by the time Czechoslovakia was taken over and Poland and Czechs begged France and Britian for war in defence of Czechs it has no excuses.
UK and France couldn't by any logic expect to militarize faster than Germany while Germany was in war economy since '37 and they refused to spend as much at arms.
Poland did not begged allies to defend Czechs. It was very opposite, unfortunately. Poland was trying to take advantage of Czechoslovakia when they were in Sudetenland crisis.
@@Glassius89 it is well documented that Poland announced full willingness in joining the war against Germany if France would decide to uphold their guarantee to the Czechoslovakia and multiple times communicated that in their opinion a war from two sides as 4 countries is their preferential outcome.
Only as France proved completly unwilling to do anything to defend Czechoslovakia Poland demanded Zaolzie to protect the Polish people living there. Poland decided that loosing Zaolzie was acceptable cost to uphold political connections. Only as those connections proved to be completly innefective Poland decided to prioritize saving Polish people over them and demanded the territory Czechoslovakia stole during Polish-Soviet war of 1919-1921 while Poland was unable to defend it's western border.
@@Ussurin Well documented, great. When did Poland announced, it is willing to protect Czechoslovakia?
Because it did not confirm when Pierre Laval was asking Beck for it in 1935. Beck did not answer. In the same year Poland established K7 (Komitet Siedmiu) which was planning urprising and dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. In march 1936 Poland asked Yugoslavia if they would oppose partitions of Czechoslovakia. In August 1936 Maurice Gamelin arrived to Poland and asked for it Rydz-Śmigły, he also did not confirm they can ally Czechoslovakia. The same happened in September 1936 in Paris. In June 1838 Leon Noёl heared the same from Rydz Śmigły. In September 1938 Poland was already telling to Germany, than if anything happens, Poles are taking Zaolzie. You can check articles "Gdy Polak i Czech się biją: Dlaczego nie udało nam się zawiązać sojuszu przeciwko Hitlerowi z Czechosłowacją?" by Andrzej Krajewski and "Zajęcie Zaolzia przez Polskę w 1938 roku. Dlaczego nasze wojsko wzięło udział w rozbiorze Czechosłowacji?" by Rafał Kuzak. The whiole diplomatic offensive before Munich agreement is described in book "Kiedy wybuchnie wojna? 1938. Studium kryzysu" by Piotr M. Majewski.
@@Glassius89 On the Munich Conference Poland was opposing the whole agreement and only after they found no support in western allies, they joined the talks to save the Poles from potential German rule.
@@Ussurin Poland did not officialy participate in Munich conference. Can you say what Pole was defending Czechoslovakia on Munich conference?
This is video is very hard to watch from a Polish perspective. The fact of the matter is, that in 1939 and 1940 france and Britain essentially did not attack Germany in the phoney which directly contributed to the disasters that followed.
It’s even harder to read your comment from a Czech or Slovak perspective considering Poland contributed directly to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and France and Britain decided to guarantee autocratic Poland rather than democratic Czechoslovakia.
Funny thing is if Poland accepted Hitlers demand for the return of Prussian land he probably would have spread Poland, hell he might of given Poland Soviet lands such as Belarus and Ukraine. That said Czechoslovakia stood no chance.
@@Carl-Gauss That democracy of Czechoslovakia was not quite simple, as it was quite a mean country with aggresive politics toward minorities and even supporting Ukrainian nationalist in Poland. Poland did similar things to Czechoslovakia with preparing Polish urprisings in Zaolzie.
Western allies wanted Poland and Czechoslovakia to befriend each other, yet both considered each other as nuisance...
@@Carl-Gauss Listen up, pal. When we in Poland say about ww2 as a disaster, we refer to the genocidal actions rather than annexations themselves. In this matter, you had it easy.
@@Carl-Gauss Well you marched into Zaolzie in 1919 when we were busy holding off the soviets, so not like we started
Great video for better understanding the policy of the western Allies during the 1930s.
15:53 what is that small hole in the US
Salt Lake in Utah
It always Saddens me that Chamberlain died before wars end. He died when the world was being consumed by dark forces and to not know the epic tales of heroism and heartbreak until victory on 5/1/1945
Saddened for no reason, Roosevelt was reelected and the battle of Britain won.
He wanted to avoid a repeat of the millions of deaths of WWI, and sadly didnt realise he was dealing with a genocidal madman who wanted exactly that to happen
"genocidal madman who wanted exactly that to happen"
Ironically, this description fits Churchill way more than it fits Hitler.
@@againsttheleftandright4065 what? Hitler set up the most infamous death camps of all time, ever heard of the Holocaust? but of course a WWII video brings out the neo nazis
@@Rynewulf
The holocaust? Never heard of it.
@@againsttheleftandright4065 ... what are you on? There is this thing called holocaust
@@warwolf3005
The holocaust doesn't exist? Then how do you explain the dead unicorns?
Great channel, good man.