Neville Chamberlain beyond Munich: The real story
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 июн 2024
- The forgotten legacy of the man often voted as Britain's worst Prime Minister. Historian Andrew Reekes reveals that he was actually a great interwar social reformer whose place in the public's memory was cynically exploited by Winston Churchill.
Also read 'More than Munich: The forgotten legacy of Neville Chamberlain' www.historywm.com/shop/produc... available from www.historywm.com and Amazon.
It is to be remembered that Churchill made such a great investment in writing history from his point of view because he had to do that to protect himself from the unwanted results of his own decisions.
...ALL THINGS CONSIDERED- I'D PICK CHURCHILL OVER CHAMBERLAIN ANY DAM DAY OF THE WEEK- AND TWICE ON SUNDAY!!!
@@daleburrell6273 You should pay attention to what Churchill had to say about Chamberlain. If you did, you wouldn't show so much ignorance and such a complete lack of subtlety or sophistication in your views. And I wish you luck finding a keyboard with a working caps lock key, as I can only assume you don't make enough money to afford one at the moment.
@@thomasjamison2050 ...I'LL TRY NOT TO LET YOUR DISAPPROVAL RUIN MY DAY-(!)
GO SOAK YOUR HEAD-(!)
One thing often overlooked about Chamberlain is he basically predicted the cold war. American Stalin biographer Stephen Kotkin points out that Chamberlain wrote to his sister with whom he was very close and open hearted, and in his letters to her he said that he was reluctant to form an alliance with the Soviet Union to rid Germany of Hitler, because he knew after such an action the Red Army would be in Central Europe, and it would be virtually impossible to get them out of there. In a way that's precisely what happened step by step in 1945-48. He was no fool for sure.
just watched the edge of war an i must say he tried
Yes! Great point. I really enjoy Kotkin as well. I was going to point this out, but you did first.
A man who new that Hitler and Stalin had made a deal was too naive to be a real leader.
@@mikemorales4855 What do you mean? The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was made in late August 1939, at a time when Chamberlain and the entire British government, as well as the French ahd long abandoned any illusions of appeasement towards Germany.
Whether or not he was naive in Munich or if he bought time knowing the agreement probably wouldn't hold, either way that has no bearing on the Hitler-Stalin pact since that one came into effect almost a year later.
That’s right! And he posed a very pertinent and challenging counter question to those parliamentary colleagues eager to get the Russians ie anti fascists to the core, on board, when he said and saying as though 50% hoping for a convincing counter reply but no such reply came proving his question absolutely valid; his question was… » …And how do we get the Russians to leave afterwards? »
I read somewhere that when Chamberlain returned from Munich he assembled his cabinet and told them, " Gentlemen, we must prepare for war".
Doesn’t surprise me if that’s true. The look on his face holding that piece of paper. It looked like he knew that piece of paper was worthy of only toilet paper.
...I'D SAY THAT OBSERVATION WAS A FEW YEARS TOO LATE-!!!
@@kokingtjoen5985 you’ve got way tooooohtgh YT ccmmgfvv C bggvvjhnn much time on your hands
I did too. It was in The Dandy when I was about four.
@@RobRoyBoaz With Korky the Cat!
Hindsight is always 20/20. It’s easy to castigate Neville Chamberlain for “underestimating” Hitler. But he was aware that his country was unprepared for a full-scale war. As this film shows, the Hurricanes were few and the Spitfires not ready! I’m glad this film shows exactly why he rose to the top ranks of British politics - his beliefs in social equity and fiscal prudence. If only everyone would bother to take a fresh look at history, rather than parroting old perspectives.
This is exactly why I study the field my friend. There are always new ways of viewing things. Some can be groundbreaking.
@@CoreyIOW Good to know that some people appreciate history, in this day and age! Cheers!
@@thomaschacko6320 the pity is they never seem to learn from it.
He gave Britain a year to,prepare
He signed Czechoslovakia
To Mr Hitler. What a treacherous snake
I too was a critic of NC. The twenties leading to the mid thirties, the country had no apetite for war and foolishly scrapped planes and many war materials [not the Navy]. Chamberlin had the task in the thirties to convince people of the need to re-arm. When the war started, Britian still was not prepared.
I apologize for misreading the man in my younger days.
I am still admire Chamberlain above all other public figures of the 20th century.
The name says it all!
...YOUR NAME SAYS IT ALL- BUT AT LEAST CLOWNS ARE ENTERTAINING: YOU ARE DISGUSTING!!!
@@daleburrell6273 I’ve read some of your comments. You appear very angry. May I ask, why did Churchill be part of the plans during the failed WWI attack at the Dardanelles yet was warned by the Greeks (who he later praised, too late by then) not to take that route as it was a suicide mission? UK lost too many unnecessarily and Churchill had a lot to do with this.
I know it’s off topic regarding Chamberlain but seeing the whole story of one’s life is an important factor. Looking at what chamberlain signed and his facial reaction, in my opinion, he knew that piece of paper was worth as much as toilet paper. I think it may have bought the nation time to build up its war artillery.
@@josephj6521 ...THAT WAS SURE AS HELL A DISASTER-!!!
@@josephj6521 1- WAS CHURCHILL THE PRIME MINISTER OF BRITAIN DURING THE DARKEST DAYS OF WW2? YES, OR NO, AND 2- AS PRIME MINISTER, DID CHURCHILL INSPIRE THE BRITS TO FIGHT ON UNTIL VICTORY WAS ACHIEVED? YES OR NO-!
1- DID NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN MISJUDGE HITLER, AND MAKE A DAM FOOL OUT OF HIMSELF- AND BRITAIN? YES OR NO, 2- DID NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN CAVE IN AT MUNICH, AND SELL CZECHOSLOVAKIA DOWN THE RIVER? YES OR NO!!
I REST MY CASE!!!
What an excellent retelling of conventional wisdom about Chamberlain! It is such a good thing that today's British politicans carry on this tradition- showing principle, committment to truth telling, motivated by the need to better the common good, subordinating expediency for values.....practising responsibility in the area of economic policy....obeying the same laws in the time of emergency ( such as rules on social gatherings) ..........hang on........wait.......have I got something wrong here?!!?
Why does everyone talk about absolute shit here? This was about Munich not how someone is trying to demonstrate how woke they are. The simple point is Chamberlain was a snivelling weak leader. History as much as I have seen attempted here can not be subverted. Stick to the Munich subject FFS.
@@hmasyarra I don't know who is being 'woke', which is, to me, a meaningless term. However, his attempts to come to an agreement with Hitler were very popular in the UK at the time, as can be seen from news reels and papers of the time. King George VI even wanted him to appear on the Buckingham Palace balcony.
His policy gave the UK additional time to prepare for WW2.
@@hmasyarra exactly
@@jimthorne304 Just as it give Germany time to prepare for WW2. Guess who used that time more effectively.
@@tefky7964 Nonsense. The German army was still reliant on horse transport throughout WW2. The Luftwaffe only developed 1 more fighter the FW 190 & the Kriegsmarine only started the war with about 50 U-boats
Many thanks for a very welcome corrective to the established view of Neville Chamberlain. The truth is that he was a brave and great man, in the sense that he sought as Prime Minister to do the right thing in horrendous circumstances. It is good that you have reminded viewers of his very substantial achievements both as Minister of Health and as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Domestically Chamberlain may have walked on water. However, his soft and snivelling dealings with Hitler at Munich only demonstrate contrary to the view here that he was played like a violin. Hitler took that weakness and shoved it down his throat. One can't rewrite history. Have you ever spoken to a Czech? This modern attempt to put weakness as some sort of an attribute is disgraceful. Peace in our time, 'eh.
Tell that to the Czechs he sold out to Hitler, and set the scene for WW2, Chamberlains weak appeasement gave Hitler the confidence to go all the way to World War.
Tell that to the Jews who could not emigrate to Palestine right after the WWII. You must be a foolish Brit. What else? A mini-Chambo.
I am old and know that Chamberlain bought us time.
We needed this time to re-arm, mainly in secret during the phoney war.
He also was dealing with a very right wing royal family and waiting for Churchill to take over at the right time.
It was pointless Churchill leading a war time unified government without something to fight with,
Chamberlain knew he was dying of cancer and bravely continued to work and buy time.
@@PhilippaBeale I'm sorry that has nothing to do with his weak performance at Munich. He appeased Hitler, the rest is semantics.
Of the ,just over 600 spitfires available in the battle of Britain ,300 were ordered by Chamberlain .History would have been very different if it wasnt for that one signature from this man Small thanks he got
Plus 5 KGV Battleships, Seven Fleet Carriers, the Town, Colony & Dido Class Cruisers, the Tribal Class and the J, K, L & M Class destroyers as well as the destroyer escorts as well the the the S, T, U and V Class submarines. Also either approved by Chamberlain as Chancellor or as PM.
And that's the crux of the situation. Appeasement.
I think I read a Hurricane cost £35,000. Multiply by 50 to get a rough equivalent in today's prices: £1,750,000. 300 of those is £525,000,000. Nothing, we've spent 800x that fighting Covid.
Not only that but the Castle Bromwich factory, which was just coming on line at the start of the Battle of Britain, was started during Chamberlain's Chancellorship. Churchill and Beaverbrook made sure they got the credit for it.
There is only one measure to gauge “Munich” by: who gained more from the one year’s delay of WWII? Was it Britain or Germany? Germany acquired the whole of the Czech industrial capacity, which was considerable at the time, in one swoop, as well as the materiel of the Czech army, notably the Pz t38 and the Skoda guns, the best money could buy at that time. However, British aircraft industry outproduced Germany, Czech production capacity included, over that time. So who gained and who lost at Munich? I tend to conclude that Britain gained and Germany lost, but it is a fine thing.
It's not just production. The British Expeditionary Force, according to declassified cabinet briefings, would have been limited to just 32,000 men at the time of the Munich conference. Britain's army had been virtually erased in budget cuts in the early 1930s. The Army urged the politicians to delay the war and that even six months would make a huge difference. The time that was bought at Munich allowed public opinion to shift and allowed Britain to go to reintroduced conscription as well as increase military spending to 9% of GDP. Across the ocean USA saw war coming as well and saw the need to increase their military spending, which they did as well... reaching 1.05% of GDP. The pre-war expansion allowed Britain to create the army they fought the war with.
But, yeah, production was huge. The time was spent building destroyers that were needed to escort convoys, building up the RAF into a force that could ultimately win the Battle of Britain (going from just 2 squadrons of Hawker Hurricanes to the Hurricanes being considered second line fighters behind the newer Spitfires which Chamberlain's government acquired. And while 400,000 British soldiers (a huge increase from 1938) left much equipment behind at Dunkirk, the expansion of military production that had been well underway allowed this equipment to be replaced in a matter of weeks (over the summer of 1940 Britain concluded that they had surplus tanks in UK and sent them to Egypt to bolster the defense of the Suez Canal.
Where do people come up with this nonsense? If Chamberlain showed some balls with the Frog everything here is a moot point. Munich was the one chance they had to put Hitler back in the box. War if it was to come may have been years later. But at that moment Hitler was given the green light and by god did he drive through it.
@@hmasyarra Chamberlain held no sway with the French - he hardly talked to Daladier at Munich let alone confide or confer with him and even less ask him for his thoughts…weak politically France was at the time, he Neville was really unashamedly ignorant as regards other countries, not even speaking French and that was / is unforgiveable! Not that Daladier had much to offer, rather looking for someone adequate to follow…and trust. He had his critics too at home, and there was an unflattering nickname I cannot recall now but something on the lines of being a tough talker but a tough talk of a snail. (Chamberlain too was held likewise with little regard by the French who called him with the pun on his name “Monsieur J’aime Berlin” for giving into the bastards! )Renault was better but was saddled with an Anglophobic mistress with views very close to the admirers of fascist strong-arm tactics. Best of all would have been Mandel, who wouldn’t have been reticent with his words and someone who had even more of the Churchillian stamp than De Gaulle, at least where seeing through what Shitegrubber was upto with Czechoslovakia. But at the Munich stage few really knew how to manage the nasty business. All wanted to avoid a war. Except Hitler who may have been bluffing, but not that he cared, he knew he had the whole of his nation and especially the young and simple-minded with him. The Czechs didn’t a war either but with decent strong practical ie military as well as moral support they were ready and firm to a man. But politically, something was missing in their make up: where had they been, where had they stood the year before as regards the Anschluss? Why the question? Because immediately it was over and Schussnig had been made a prisoner like so many others and Mussolini hadn’t raised his little finger to help him - not like four years before when Schussnig’s boss had been murdered by Hitler’s men - the Czechs almost scurried to anxiously enquire of Hitler’s bragging disciple Goring as to whether The Anschluss might adversely affect their excellent relations…to which they were thankful to receive the Reichminister’s warm reassurances! I think this serves to remind us all that we were all afraid of yet another war, holding that the more we as civilised peoples learning of the futility of war to settle problems felt also that spending money on military matters was almost like slipping down further into the trap of waging war, and losing too given that not believing in war, we would be like amateurs and lose when faced with the new so-called dynamic fascist beliefs that expounded war like propaganda as though nothing else mattered…Therefore politicians and statesmen of the West, democratic and not totalitarian, were really half-hearted in manner when it came to bolstering up the confidence of smaller nations who looked to them as victors with experience of the Great War. The Austrians had sought some support from Britain and Eden had quipped that given they spoke the same language they’d come to some agreement, how indifferent, how cynical, yet in part to be expected since Continental differences and especially Central European countries were not Britain’s forte…and didn’t most Austrians want Union with Germany? Yearh, they certainly did, the poor victims, especially that ardent left winger Karl Renner who told his lot to vote for Shitegrubber! Then the Poles, when it came to them, they had been encouraged by Hitler to help themselves to the long standing problem with the Czech Republic over a mining town peopled by a large Polish population, and that was acquitted in their favour, as were other parts claimed by Hungary. Poland next came under Hitler’s focus, along with Danzig. Poland stood up for herself against the Gangster and Chamberlain gave a guarantee of support…moral support so be it but practical military support…ha ha, stuff it! We had the Will but not the means, or did we have the means but not the will? In reality we had little of either and couldn’t admit it nor would we wish to admit it but what then, we found we had to fill ourselves with nigh false optimism to believe in ourselves…And then came Winston, who bit the bullet, told us what we were worth but told us it was going to be far from easy, then to us to prove it would be our finest hour! And ye gods! A truer word No messin’ and no boasting either, but Churchill was the greatest being of 1940 and without him we’d have gone the same way as France! Off went our young soldiers fully kitted out and smart and in high spirits…but they had little idea what they’d be in for, nor did anyone tell them, for that isn’t the way to win, that’d be demoralisation… As for the poor Poles…we know how well they fought, and that many escaped to come to Britain, others to face the Russians…what the hell were they doing in Poland! Why, they would be patting their German comrades on the back at Brest Litovsk, and comparing their kit together over Scnapps and Vodka, even maybe boasting what they’d be doing to the Polish officers now their prisoners of war, and Geneva Convention? What the bloody hell is that Fritz, what do we care if the League of Nations expels us for Finland’s sake, it’s the last thing they do, eh Fritz,never was much good, ain’t that right Fritz? Maybe we can join the Axis?
@@hmasyarra They came up with this "nonsense" once the cabinet briefings were declassified showing how small and weak Britain's military had become out of Ramsay MacDonald's budget cuts
@@iansneddon2956 That for me is irrelevant. Appeasement is weakness pure and simple, dress it up any way you like Munich was a turning point, an opportunity to stand tall no matter the cost. Politics is a game of who blinks first, once Chamberlain blinked Hitler had carte blanche to do as he pleased. Whether England had 1 plane or ten thousand Hitler himself stated if the Allies held out he would not have moved. I'm not here to convince anyone the fact is the facts. Appeasement in any form is abhorant.
"History will not be kind to Neville Chamberlain. I know for I shall write it!" Winston Churchill
...THAT'S THE TRUTH-!!!
I don't think Churchill ever actually said that but that's the way it turned out in practice.
I have always believed that Neville Chamberlain is a much maligned man and politician.
...AND HE EARNED EVERY BIT OF IT!!!
YOU bet Your Life
The failure of people to agree with you is typical of the failures of mankind, failures such as created the 1930s crisis.
Neville Chamberlain was Hitler's gimp.
You have 32 approvals, and deservedly so.
Thank you for the deeper understanding of Chamberlin.
So good. A great man. How unfair history has been to him. His one mistake with Hitler was to believe he was dealing with an honourable man like himself. As for Churchill’s shabby behaviour, Alan Clark aptly described all politicians as ‘sharks circling.’
That's not a mistake that's a flaw. Show me one aggressor who is honourable. Maybe to you Putin is honourable or Biden is honourable or the Iranian's are honourable or the Chinese or the Nth Koreans are honourable. Sheesh!
Thank you very much for this! Beautifuly put together. I wish there were more views.
Neville Chamberlain died in November 1940, which is 14 months after war was declared, and not 9 months after war was declared, as stated by the commentator in this documentary.
quick maths
As I was born in 1950 I knew little about this man, who appears to deserve more respect than history has shown him. He looks a wise and honest man.
...AW, BULLSHIT!!!
Appearances can be deceiving. Honest, perhaps, but it has to be borne in mind that he was a tory. Wise, err no. The man was deluded, incompetent and treacherous, just ask the Czechs.
@@poundshopcicero3089 ...the road to HELL is paved with GOOD INTENTIONS!!!
@@poundshopcicero3089 ...YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONVINCE ME-
@@daleburrell6273 I was answering Mr Jackson above. Sorry !
Very interesting. I've never seen anyone try to get to the real man behind the public image before.
Note every word you said and then read my book and you will be somewhat amazed and thankful.
He was committed to peace at a fault; if that is at all possible. I commend his efforts.
@@christopherwelch136 ...AND TO HELL WITH CZECHOSLOVAKIA-(?)
Fresh view of the documents showed w indeed factually what a disgrace Chamberlain was regarding Munich, and more especially the Prime Minister of France, who had a treaty with Czechoslovakia, to come to their aide if attacked by Germany.
There is little doubt that Chamberlain accomplished much to improve the living standards of many. His sense of social justice and responsibility is not well known, and should be applauded.
One understand Chamberlain's wishes to avoid another war and his willingness to sacrifice much of the "national honor" of Great Britain in his efforts to avoid blood shed. His fatal flaw was his inability to fully appreciate the duplicity of Hitler and his minions. Chamberlain's upbringing and education suggested that negotiation was both desirable and possible. He was wrong.
More stupid theory. This man was a PM, not a newspaper boy.
i might be wrong but wasnt the population of sudetenland 90 percent german , as far as hitler goes he was a master hypnotist if there has ever has been one . the row of poliicians , generals . presidents that fully didnt understand hitlers duplicity are counted by the hundreds if not thousands .
Hitler and corp. were acting in bad faith.
My great-grandfather was a Czech post office manager in the Sudetenland area who, as a result of refusing to 'leave his post' was arrested by the incoming German army and spent over a year in some forced labour camp. They did eventually release him and allowed him to return home though.
@@kamka8149 of course Hitler was a master manipulator. However, Chamberlain bought time for rearmament, just like Stalin did.
Hitler's duplicity is only apparent in hindsight, unless one assume the power to predict the future.
I have such an opposite view of Neville Chamberlain. I still believe that his tragic attempt to appease Hitler was a total disaster! But I believe that his history as Mayor of Birmingham, England and his service in the British Cabinet was stellar! He could have been a great leader of Britain in a different time! To think that the Labour Party carried out Chamberlain’s social policies is a great irony!
Let’s face it; Labour carried out most of AH policies as well. Universal health, universities, social housing, nationalisation of certain industries such as railways. It is irony indeed that the two extremes of politics has so much in common.
If Chamberlain's policy re Hitler was wrong, it was not seen to be wrong at the time, in fact the Munich agreement was very popular initially.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Your insight is narrow and superficial. Your declaration is a regurgitation of the old and tired appeasement argument. Hitler was taking Poland regardless of a peace treaty or not. All the other nations in Europe allowed hitler to aggressively take over Austria and Czech.
@@davidmullineaux6157 Neville Chamberlain is equivalent to the modern version: Joe Biden! Only Churchill was right about Hitler, not Chamberlain! I am embarrassed that our current President is like Chamberlain.
@@johnherlihy4739 Churchill knew as much as everyone else. Biden is nothing like Chamberlain. Where do you get these dumb ass notions?
He gave Churchill the Airforce this country needed at the right time without which the battle of Britain would not have taken place.
A truly great man.
"We didn't need aircraft we need pilots" Sir Hugh Dowding. Sorry, Chamberlian cocked up big time. History now highlights that if both the frogs and poms had held their ground Adolf would have backed down. Sometimes the declaration of war in support of an ally is enough to make the aggressor baulk.
@@hmasyarra Nobody knew that at the time. Fact is, Chamberlain really had no choice. Churchill APPLAUDED his action at the time, and then wrote something otherwise in The Gathering Storm.
@@hmasyarra - compare the military forces of france and britain to that of germany in the late '30's... with the exception of the royal navy neither france or britain was in a position of strength to make hitler 'baulk'... chamberlain bought, britain at least, a certain amount of time to try rectify the situation...
He was pushed to re-arm by Churchill.
@@SK-lt1so Stop believing Churchill's self-promoting lies.
What an excellent little documentary. Chamberlains weakness pacifism and and desire for peace at any cost has been one of those long believed myths perpetuated by ignorance and malice, as described in this film. He wasn't perfect, he made mistakes but don't we all but above all he was a good man, and isn't that something we should all aspire to be?
...WHY DON'T YOU TELL THAT TO THE CZECHS?!
...YOU'RE NOT GONNA ANSWER MY QUESTION- ARE YOU?!!
@@daleburrell6273 Nothing to tell them, Dale. They were _complicit._ Read a book.
Came here after watching Munich. Jeremy Irons was great but the film is just kinda okay.
Very interesting finding out about all the good things he achieved that was subsequently forgotten.
I've spent hours defending this man on channels, such as military history ones, where he is attacked for being weak and naive. Why do people speak without doing their research first!
A very good question and the point I have tried to make as someone who researched the era and published a book pointing out the myth. Care levels are the basic explanation. Decency levels is another way to say it. The electorate rarely truly cares what it is voting for, so why care to be historically sane concerning a dead statesman, it is easier to accept an icon and to blame ruling elites for the problems of mankind.
It's pointless, because most people don't have a clue about how the world works, and are therefore prone to be deceived by emotional arguments (a fallacious form of argumentation).
As a British PM in those days, you had an Empire to protect.
A PM heading an Empire which refused Stalin's insidious "requests" for "an alliance", for a good reason.
Because the SU *was already safe,* and in no need of "an alliance." It was protected by barrier of independent states in the west, and only had Japan to worry about. As long as Stalin did nothing, the status quo would persist...indefinitely.
Because the Limitrophe States which Stalin wanted as a *precondition* for such "an alliance"...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states
....was not only a wall.
*Poland was not only a barrier, but also "a gate"*
Should Stalin ever try to break out of the World Island he sat on, the gate would open and Nazis would come pouring in...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
Should Stalin ever try to attack or eclipse western interests in China, or the Middle East, he'd get a suitable response.
He knew it, and it infuriated him...
The Limitrophe protected the British Empire, and Stalin wanted to erode it away with promises of "an alliance".
*Hitler was a lapdog, and he knew it, and it infuriated him...*
When Chamberlain came to Munich and put him in place, Hitler had to bow down to a little man with an umbrella, *which was also "a big stick".*
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology
Because Hitler cowered at Munich and gave in, *not Chamberlain* and historians have it all wrong...
Here's the thing about the deceiver.
The deceiver will always tell you "what the other side is planning" (sic.), *but the deceiver will never tell what he is planning himself...*
Stalin.
The great deceiver...
Stalin's devious offer for an "alliance" was sinister.
The aim of Stalin's politics (hinting at fake promises of mutual assistance) in case of war were never honest.
Neither before 1938, nor after.
Pre-1938, what would Stalin have done in case Hitler had invaded Czechoslovakia? (under *any scenario* with or without the "fake alliance")
Answer: *Nothing*
He would simply have pointed at his N/A Pact with Poland, pointed at "nasty Japan" in the East and said: *"Sorry you guys, I'd really really really like to to help you chaps out, but, but, but..."*
That would have been the result of trusting a mass-murderer and psychopath who's idea of a "debate" was a bullet in the back of the head...
*A war between GB, France and Germany.*
Luckily Chamberlain was wise enough to stave that off as long as possible, and to prepare the industrial and financial foundation for a war.
Post March 1939, Stalin made it perfectly clear what he wanted.
He wanted GB and France to "sign away" Poland, The Baltic States and Romania.
So dissed, what would these states have done the minute they found out they would be thrown under the bus in return for a Brit/French "dirty little deal" with Stalin?
Again, an easy answer: flee into the loving tender open arms of the eagerly awaiting Axis...
And then there was Stalin.
The man who sat on the "World Island" and intended to "rule the world", but couldn't...
The man whose forces could have easily crushed the Japanese Army in 1938, or 1939, and who could have easily rekindled Mao's "great leap" into China...but couldn't.
He had the land forces standing by and ready, to drive the Japanese off the mainland of Asia, to take over China (by proxy) and to eclipse western influence here forever...but couldn't.
Because dangling over his head was a "sword"...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles
Should he ever try that, the "gate" that was Poland would open, and the "fascists" would come pouring in...
It seems as if he would have to get rid of that "sword" first, before taking on China, and ridding western influence from East Asia forever...
not sure about weak. he did do great things. but he was definitely naive when it mattered most.
History is replete with good hearted people giving the world a legacy of war, misery, death, and destruction.
Please give an example.
And Chamberlain had the task to remedy such legacies, most people who attack him mean well, u-tube is replete with such fools, most of them doped up on biased documentaries and defective education.
Well, this got one thing wrong. He died on November 9, 1940. That's 14 months after the war started.
No. You are wrong. It stated 9 months out of office he died of cancer. It also opined the "had he died in 1937 as had his brother, he would have been better remembered etc"
@@Bastillian
*_"No. You are wrong. It stated 9 months out of office he died of cancer. It also opined the "had he died in 1937 as had his brother, he would have been better remembered etc""_*
The Munich Agreement was signed in September, 1938. Chamberlain stepped down as Prime Minister in May, 1940 and died in November. If you care to do the mathematics, you'll find that he died just over two years after Munich and died six months after stepping down.
Thank you for this. A truly dedicated man and public servant. A rare quality in any time. His faith in humanity was his great strength, but was turned against him by the reality of Hitler. Interesting that he did such great homework on domestic issues and yet seems to have failed to do his homework on Hitler and fascism.
It only seems that way because historians have yet to give the public the information required to see what Chamberlain was doing, biographies have related some of it, but the historians and documentary makers disregard the facts as if possessed by intention to keep the public doped on the subject. It is truly sad.
@@robertewing3114 interesting perspective.
A very diferent focus and one which I did not know.Thsnk you
Important to understand the full history of Chamberlain’s accomplishments.
No it's not, his achievements are irrelevant this is about Munich and the pathetic response he put forward. For every weak leader who talks of peace, there are ten dictators who will stab you in the heart all the while smiling. See Hitler in the Pathe film watch him he knew he had won and could go and do anything he liked all because of Chamberlain. No Munich was the beginning of WW2 because Chamberlain squibbed on peace.
@@hmasyarra ...YOU SUMMED IT UP PERFECTLY-!!!
@@hmasyarra Mark, I'm finally going to tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. Bombast =/= knowledge.
@@daleburrell6273trump sucks
Funny... Did it pop up to me do to the events in Ukraine??? I believe some events are similar.
Factually, no one can dispute the previous work of Chamberlain. His egregious error was attempting to negotiate with Hitler and Mussolini. Even placating Hitler with the Munich Agreement, to gain time for rearmament, was a folly.
Lot of parallels to Lyndon Johnson, who was effective and achieved a lot, but will be forever the guy who was brought down by his disastrous choices in Vietnam
but Chamberlain never plotted to assassinate his predecessor.
A long overdue tribute. But it should have mentioned that it was Chamberlain who declared war on a Germany at peace with Britain, a Germany that had not attacked, invaded or declared or made war on Britain. Mention of this would erase any stigma of Chamberlain as a gullible appeaser of Hitler and the Nazis, the sole reputation of Chamberlain's that does survive, albeit falsely. As soon as Chamberlain was shown, by Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939, that Hitler had lied to him at Munich in 1938, Chamberlain acted immediately and decisively to persuade not only Parliament but also France to go along with him in declaring war on Germany. All this is forgotten and swept under the rug in the mania and ecstasy to glorify the drunken fool and vainly posturing and strutting Churchill at Chamberlain's expense, a grossly unfair distortion and perversion of actual history.
Thank you so much for this video, Chamberlain was much maligned by Churchill as were others, We must remember what Chamberlain had seen a million lives wasted in a pointless world war, who wouldn't try to negotiate for a peaceful settlement, Munich gave the Uk a much needed breathing space to rearm and he was fully aware of what sort of man he was dealing with in Hitler , I wish we had a Chamberlain today in 2022 backed up by an Attlee.
"... he was fully aware of what sort of man he was dealing with in Hitler...". I was under the impression from watching this video that he was not fully aware - thought he was dealing with a man who also abhored war.
Yet Chamberlain was willing to sacrifice the working class lives yet again like so many Upper Class twts are prepared to do by guaranteeing Poland; at the time an unDemocratic nation. Wth? Britain or France were not even threatened. He was willing to kill his citizens defending another albeit smaller authoritarian nation.
And you talk about a pointless WW1 (which it was. Again Britain or France were not threatened and we ran off to defend some small east European ex-province).
@@Climpus He was dealing with a man who was undecided (most of the diplomatic push seems to have come from Ribbentrop) but prepared to use war to achieve his aims, hence the militarisation. Chamberlain showed he was very aware that Hitler was not a real person but an actor, addicted to stunts, who had plenty of emotion but little knowledge or understanding. He wrong footed the German dictator many times over the two weeks during which this was thrashed out.
Chamberlain was so frightened by Stalin that he was willing to appease Hitler. The movie BTW, is substantially accurate in portraying the events. The German military resistance was in fact ready to move against Hitler and did get in contact with British intelligence letting them know that they would move if Hitler attemted to invade Czechoslovakia. The movie also omits the little fact that besides France, the USSR was also a guarantor of Czechoslovakia. Their involvement contingent on France meeting her obligations. And they signalled that they werre ready to do so. They would have needed to transit through Poland, and Poland refused. Partly due to another little nuget omitted by the movie. Poland also recevied a piece of the spoils at Munich. It was a little piece and they paid a heavy price for it a year later.
And what came later, in the summer of 1939 following the full occupation of Czechoslovakia in March? France and Britain were negotiating with the USSR to form a united front against Hitler. But they sent only low level delagations to Moscow not empowered to make any aggreements and no progress was made. Chamberlain again. Meanwhile the USSR was still embroiled with the war with Japan in the East whose outcome at the time was far from clear and wanted to avoid a two-front war. And so with no prospect of aggreement with the British and French, they followed Chamberlain's example to delay the war with Germany they knew to be inevitable: the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
*_"Chamberlain was so frightened by Stalin that he was willing to appease Hitler."_*
No, that was the Foreign Office. Fear of Stalin was universal across Europe.
*_"Meanwhile the USSR was still embroiled with the war with Japan in the East whose outcome at the time was far from clear and wanted to avoid a two-front war."_*
No, that was decided very early when the Japanese got smashed at Khalkin Gol. The Soviet Union left a significant chunk of the Red Army in Siberia just in case the Japanese got any more bright ideas.
*_"And so with no prospect of aggreement with the British and French, they followed Chamberlain's example to delay the war with Germany they knew to be inevitable: the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact."_*
This was much less of an alliance than it appeared to be. What it did was simply detail the division of Poland. The Soviet Union would simply extend its borders to where they were prior to WWI.
@TheThirdMan You have the dates wrong. Khalkin-Gol fighting ended on September 16, 1939 with the Nomonhan offensive starting on August 20.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed on August 23. The resulting Soviet-Japanese treaty was concluded only in April, 1941.
So no, the longterm outcome with the Japanese was far from clear when the pact was signed.
That was why only 14 divisions were transferred from the East in 1941(out of about 100 available there) when the USSR was in dire straights in the West and only 4 were used in the Moscow counter offensive (about 5% of total participating). The "Soviets saved by Asiatic hordes" -- another myth of the defeated German generals.
Thank you! Considerably more to the man than I would have thought!
Neville Chamberlain was the Munich man (1938). This Munich policy: give in, give in again, give in.
The whole parliament on May 10, 1940 will criticize him, starting with Atlle leader of the opposition who will refuse national union under the leadership of Chamberlain. turning to chamberlain shouting "Dismiss ! Step Down!"
In our days I believe we are all grateful that (most of) our leaders try to prevent wars at all costs..
In those days and given the horrors of WWI it’s very understandable why he tried to prevent a new war as well.
I also believe that in recent years the opinion about Chamberlain has changed a bit from naive and weak to a leader who just wanted to keep his own people out of a bloody war.
Britain has never recovered from the First World War. Chamberlain was keenly aware of this when perhaps you could say it was all too obvious immediately after 1918. But we have still not got over it - in many senses. He was - rightly - striving for neutrality in the 1930s. What I like about him is that he put the welfare of the people of this country first.
Agree. I never understood what people thought he could do in 1938 besides trying agreements. No one could win a war with Germany on their own in the 1930's. Stalling and trying for agreements was all Chamberlain could do. You cant do more vs a vastly superior military adversary.
*_"What I like about him is that he put the welfare of the people of this country first."_*
That was his job and he gets no credit for it.
The recent movie on Netflix starring Jeremy Irons as Chamberlain portrayed him not as a naive fool that he has often been labelled with
i like the face who stand behind on the stairs of aircraft
Lord willing, my wife and I will be visiting Birmingham in a few weeks from South Africa. We are lovers of history, British history included, are there any “must-see” historical sites we should visit when we’re there?
The Chamberlain house Highbury, see the Chamberlain Highbury Trust
A man of peace and a man who knew he needed to delay Britain’s entry into the war to have any hopes of winning it.
And was willing to sacrifice the Czechs to get it. Played like a fish by Hitler.
@@fredpearson5204 His loyalty was for his family and to buy time to gear up the military complex he needed to successfully fight a war. Hitler was played and Chamberlin humbly excepted the criticism.
@@WoodstockG54, how'd that work out? Britain was woefully unprepared, even after sacrificing the Czechs, and what did they have to show for Chamberlain's brilliance? Dunkirk. Chamberlain had YEARS to deal with Hitler BEFORE Munich, and did jack shit. Go ahead and make excuses for him. Next you'll be telling me what a genius Petain was for surrendering and helping gain time for the French to take on the Germans. You lefties are all the same--all talk and no action...and sheep leading sheep to the slaughter by wolves.
@@fredpearson5204 you fascists are all the same. They, the British, still came out on top in the end which most likely would not be the outcome if he got in early. America wasn’t coming to anyones rescue at the beginning. They only got involve when Japan woke them up.
@@WoodstockG54, read more, whine less, pussy.
In April 1939 USSR Foreign Minister, Maxim Litvinov, proposed a united front with UK and France against Nazi Germany. This could have prevented WW2 but they both rejected it. Litvinov was replaced with Molotov who signed the August 1939 Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact.
You sum it up well. Although I tend to look at Munich as not so much a mistake, but as a success that was too little too late. I believe Chamberlain inherited a huge problem and I think rather than being naïve, he was aware of it - perhaps more aware than most. While he had occupied himself fixing the problems at home, of an economically depressed nation, the ability to stand up to an aggressive force such as Hitler or Japan had been undermined through years of foreign policy that failed to recognise any potential threat. I believe in principle Churchill was right, and that in principle alone Chamberlain (by the time he was Prime Minister) may well have agreed with much of what Churchill was saying. But unlike Churchill, Chamberlain was able to see the practical situation as well as understand the principle. He realised that Britain and the Empire (which must be considered as an important factor in all this) would be unable to confront Hitler either diplomatically or militarily, without risking ultimate defeat. If he attempted to negotiate a peace with Hitler it could have potentially lasted, but I don’t believe Chamberlain to have been so naïve not to realise that it probably wouldn’t last. Britain needed time to work out how to handle Hitler, Mussolini, Japan and the ever present threat of Bolshevism. Munich 1938 was Chamberlain’s attempt to buy time. If he genuinely believed in Munich granting lasting peace, why on earth would he have been so determined an advocate for rearmament? I’m sure he was hoping for more time and was delighted to have achieved it. He would also have been acutely aware of Munich as a failure once war was declared. I believe Chamberlain was a clever politician and practical man who once in a position to allow Britain a chance to work out a solution to the “fascist” problem did the best to try and give it time to find such a solution. Unfortunately, the time bought was not long enough for a solution to be found. Britain and the League of Nations could have moved in the early 30s to prevent Germany’s ability for rapid assent once the Nazis seized power, but failed to see the need for such precautions, or at the least failed to act on the warnings. Churchill was sore at his warnings being ignored, but by the time Chamberlain was Prime Minister it was too late for him to really do anything more than he did. I believe to have done otherwise would have been well intentioned foolhardiness. But as we don’t get to “re-run” history and see what might have happened had Churchill been Prime Minister in 1937 and pursued a more aggressive approach to Hitler, we shall never know.
No he was not "right". I wouldn't call him naïve, but Germany at that time was not that strong to be able to fight a war, and Chamberlain (as well as many others) failed to see this. He was so scared of Luftwaffe raiding over Britan had he refrained from his personal "contribution" to stop the war, but it was irrational fear. British intelligence had enough information that air war agaist Britain is impossible for Luftwaffe to pull out in 1938. He just panicked and ironically bought Germany time to become a force, which almost brough Britain to defeat in 1940. War could be stopped in 1938 and it is Chamberlain to blame for this so he was nowhere close to "being right".
@@pavellahoda2845 ...YOU SUMMED IT UP PERFECTLY-!!!
That also shows the importance of not being a fanatic or blind critical person. Because the public narrative do not justice for ordinary and responsible personas like Mr.Chamberlaigne. We should get rid of the language which is targeting and seeking scapegoats.
Many don't know he was in the Churchill cabinet before he died. 🤔
Many do not know that it was Chamberlain who was the PM who actually had to find the courage to declare war on 3 September, 1939.
So strongly do I feel that Neville Chamberlain’s life work has been misconstrued, that I omitted to thank Andrew Reekes for his excellent work. Thank you. Alun
I am reading Churchill's first book of three on the Second World War titled "The Gathering Storm". In it Churchill has a high opinion of Chamberlain. Churchill's criticism was laid upon Britain, France and Russia's failure to rearm at the same rate of Germany until it was too late.
Chamberlain tried to avoid a murdering war. Churchill's remarks were unfair and cruel ...
While cruel I think most people would agree the remarks were not unfair.
you don't try to appease fascists, this man have no guts and balls
@@dafuqmr13 Facts? Chamberlain was briefed by the military before Munich on the options for going to war with Hitler. The briefing is a public document and can be tracked down. Essentially, Britain could field a force of about two divisions (~32,000 men), and the RAF only had two squadrons of modern fighter aircraft (Hawker Hurricanes).. The Army had been bled dry through budget cuts under Ramsay MacDonald and the Baldwin government hadn't done much better. The Military advised that delaying the war by six months, even at the cost of Germany gaining access to the industry of the Sudettenland, would leave Britain in a better position. So Chamberlain sacrificed the Sudettenland and bought time. He wasn't an idiot. He knew you couldn't buy off a bully, you had to face down the bully with strength. But he had inherrited a gutted military including an air force that was still flying biplanes. The Hawker Hurricane? That began to be acquired under Chamberlains government. After Munich, Chamberlain's government kept re-arming but didn't accellerate it to not provoke a war they were still not ready for. Then Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia.
And what did Chamberlain do then: Chamberlain re-established the alliance with France that Baldwin had undermined, reintroduced conscription, openned up the budget for aircraft acquisition (told the RAF to go ahead and order as many planes as the British aeronautical industry could build and let the government figure out how to pay for it) and pressured Supermarine to get their Spitfire into production ASAP. Overall military spending was increased to 9% of GDP (USA spends about 3.3% of GDP on its military). And he and the French extended the alliance to Poland, persuading the Poles to expand their military (including an order of modern fighter planes from France and UK, which unfortunately did not arrive in time for the invasion of Poland.
Oh, and that guy who had no guts or balls, he led his Country into a war - declaring war on Nazi Germany in response to the invasion of Poland.
What was America doing during all of this? Nothing. So I guess the Americans didn't have enough balls to be Neville Chamberlain..
BTW, Neville Chamberlain finally had to step down after the disasters of the Norway campaign, though at his recommendation the King invited a man even more responsible for screwing up the Norway campaign to form the next government (Winston Churchill). Churchill kept Chamberlain on as his righ hand in overseeing the war, with Chamberlain running war cabinet meetings if Churchill couldn't attend. Chamberlain would have continued on into the war in that role if his health hadn't failed (forced to retire for the last months of his fight against cancer).
Chamberlain was a coward and a traitor to other European countries.
@@miroslavbriza He wasn't, he was a good person who trusted the devil.
The man who strove for peace... I never really disliked Neville chamberlain. At least he tried to do what he believed was the right thing to do😞
He bent over for Hitler and that is a major sin
So did Hitler
@@vaux_manvv7520 Incorrect. The second world war led to the destruction of Old Europe, not to mention the deaths of 50 million European Christians and paved the way for Communism to take hold in the West. The result is the open borders, Marxist 'utopia' you see before you today.
@@daisyd7815 Found someone to blame!
@@vaux_manvv7520 The Duke of Wellington bent over for Ney, and you are bending over to breaking point.
I've heard that speech of Chamberlain many times but, still, to hear a person say "Hitler" with normalcy is still haunting.
Stalin was far worse.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Chamberlain's support of Churchill against Halifax in that critical time when there was a strong movement to bow to Hitler and accept a peace treaty. I often wondered if Chamberlain did so out of realization of his error in Munich or to simply try and salvage some part of his reputation before the end of his life.
Well, after all, Chamberlain did declare war on Germany. I doubt that he felt that supporting Churchill would salvage his reputation more than that did.
@@lawsonj39 It is the Crown who declares war through the Prime Minister, so Chamberlain was again humiliated by being reduced to the status of a messenger.
@@oldschool1993
The Crown does not declare war, it's the PM and the cabinet. Just as Tony Bliar demonstrated over the Iraq war.
The Queens role is merely ceremonial.
@@johnbrereton5229 Wrong, the crown is the ONLY entity that can declare war, the PM and parliament are the ceremonials, even though in modern practicality the roles have been reversed.
@@oldschool1993
I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense.
Since the Civil war and the execution of King Charles I Sovereignty was passed to the electorate who elect MPs into Parliament to govern. It is Parliament who can declare war, not the Monarch, the Monarchs role is merely ceremonial.
Excellent and understanding appraisal of a worthy man who only wanted to do his best and to succeed in doing so.
Compliments to the narrator on his deep respect and appreciation of his subject Neville Chamberlain R.I.P.
His quiet dignified vocal style is to be admired for what is not an enviable task to render good account of the man that Neville Chamberlain was and wished to be for whatever his faults he most certainly did not deserve to die so early in his life.
After reading several other definitive histories of the period, Churchill was right in stating that an early hard line after the Anschluss would have set Hitler back as the Fuhrer's grasp on power and over his army Generals was tenuous at the time. Hitler's successes cemented his control so he could proceed with his Master Plan instead of holding back. I think Chamberlain was correct in concluding that an early declaration of war would have left Britain totally underprepared and probably overrun had Hitler attempted to invade. Britian needed time and he bought that with his reputation and his appeasement because there really was no other choice at that specific moment. It was too late by then to avoid the inevitable conflict Most pundents at the time (and so many in the United States) thought Hitler undefeatable. Churchill was the leader Britain needed to win but Chamberlain bought the time, and, considering Dunkirk and the German air war over London in 1940, barely enough time at that.
You can’t judge Chamberlain on speculation.
Where’s the letter now in museum?
Bloody good question.
Chamberlain is an example of why we hate politicians.
You are an example of why bad politicians will continue to survive.
Chamberlain certainly is targeted at times because he is mistaken to be another elected parasite prepared to tolerate evil - a mistaken opinion inevitable when historians fail to tell the public the unofficial story
In his obituary for Chamberlain in House of Commons Churchill said it had fallen to Chamberlain to “ be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes … But what were these hopes… they were among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart - the love of peace,… the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity ….” Churchill was fair to Chamberlain. The problem is rooted in the fact that Churchill read Hitler better than Chamberlain.
Anybody who has bothered to see events in Germany prior to 1938 and/or read Mein Kamph could see where AH was going. I mean he laid out his entire manifesto and everyone ignored it.
*_"The problem is rooted in the fact that Churchill read Hitler better than Chamberlain."_*
This is wrong. Chamberlain had smoked Hitler out from his first meeting at the Berghof in the middle of September. His meetings with him at Bad Gotesberg a week later probably showed Chamberlain at his best, seeing through the tirades and cheap political stunts and exposing Hitler as a diplomatic novice. Many mistook Hitler's bombast for something more than what it was and even gave it the name 'Realpolitik'. So far everything I've read on the meetings that took place between Chamberlain and Hitler show him to have been wide awake to cheap Nazi stunts and histrionics.
I can cite examples of this.
Churchill, on the other hand, not trusted by any part of the British government, spent that second week undermining the shaky alliance Chamberlain spent months establishing.
How could Chamberlin dare to decide about the fate of one of the last democratic country in central Europe without even let the represenatiives of this state being part to the Munich Conference about their own country. Even more when England had an alliance pact with France and Czechchoslovakia to keep Germany in its borders. He betrayed completely Czechoslovakia - a country so far away of which we do not now anything - and sold it for a one more year of appeasment of a dictator. Shame on him, a man of no honour at all, whose handshake of an British gentleman was no more than a ridicule. Sent from a Czech citizen. He brought shame on England in the mind of every Czech. A shame Churchill was not negotiating in these times with Herr Hitler. History would have been totaly different and millions of lives would have been saved.
Agree completely!
What NC did to the Czech's at Munich
Was a shameful act
Not worthy of a true statesman
NC did accomplish some great things
But his prewar appeasement of Hitler
And peace at any price
Was not one of these
A nice documentary
But does not change my opinion much of NC
@@davidahrens2841 ...WELL, IT DOESN'T CHANGE MY OPINION OF NC EVEN ONE DAM BIT-!!!!
I personally believe every nuance fade when taking in consideration his actual behaviour towards the czechs. They were not invited to take part in negotiations, and Chamberlain pressured the czechs to accept terms. He stated that he did not think the british people wanted war for a nation they knew nothing about, well the british government on several occasion throughout the 1800s and early 1900s sent thousands of young men to die to conquer a few mountains in central asia or a few pieces of sand in East Africa, they were however not willing to actually fight to protect democratic rule against totalitarianism in Europe. Ever since Hitler came to power news articles about concentration camps, repression, antisemitic boicots and pogroms, as well as racial laws. Well Chamberlain was not willing to go to war for a country he knew nothing about, he was however willing to sacrifice a country he knew nothing abouth without asking the czech government or the czech people.
The world was moving towards war. Hitler was openly rearming and breaking the treaty of Versailles, there was a civil war in Spain were Francos fascists were backed by Mussolinis and Hitlers regimes. Hitler had annexed Austria after subverting the country for years. He actively used a fifth column in the form of Henleins party in Czechoslovakia to agitate for war and he even backed an insurgency led by Henleins paramilitaries around the time fo the Munich agreement.
I think it is fair to say that the appeasment policy gave Hitler an incredible amount of confidence. A british ambassdor to Germany wrote already years before a review of Mein Kampf which were sent to british politicians were he described it as a plan for military expansion and conquest. All of this were known at the time and actively conveyed in newspaper.
I personally believed that considering the fact that a significant number of tanks in the German arsenal were czech produced, that Chamberlain rather enabled the war to happen sooner than to delay it. What he did was shameful, I hope he was embarrased when Hitler tanks rolled into Prague on 15.March 1939 and Hitler immediately set his sights on Memel in Lithuania. A man more thirsty for conquest has hardly been seen in history.
Hitler was quite convinced, that Great Britain, and France were war weary, and in no mood for another "Great War". He also knew, that in spite of all the losses of territory, and confiscation of military hardware, and consequent political chaos, that German was still morally strong. Under his party's leadership, rearmament occurred quickly. He was ready to call the bluff of any who opposed his plans, and vision for the future. Along with many other Pan-Germans, he was convinced of a conspiracy to establish a "One World Order" under the tight control of International Jewish Finance Bankers. The events of 1938 only strengthend his resolve, and confidence that he was answering to the call of Providence!
Very good. Well said
Good morning everyone! I am not Mr. Chamberlain’s lawyer and even don’t want to defend him against anybody, but I think that it’s just easy nowadays to criticise someone who tried the best he could, to keep Europe in peace with the resources and specially the informations that he had, at that time! Well, at least this is my thought ! Regards from Brazil 🇧🇷
Staying out of war is admirable. Being made a fool at the expense of millions of others is not. He was guilty of being a fool. His birthright under a class system was the near ruin of the world.
@@stevefranckhauser7989
*_"Being made a fool at the expense of millions of others is not. He was guilty of being a fool."_*
Read a book. 🙄
It is true that the First World War had a strong effect on Chamberlain as it did many of his generation. Thank you for filling in details I was unaware of. Today pensions in Australia need reforming.
Strong effect. If you are like me an Australian then mate pull your head out of your arse. Sick of ratbags always with their hand out. So where is your money for old age? What did you do with all your super? The dole needs to be abolished and every aged pensioner should be provided with solar on their roof to help reduce costs. Get off you are embarrassing Australia.
@@hmasyarra I paid in taxes for my grandparents old age and my parents old age. My turn coming up. You think you are fully protected with super? Think again. You do not know how many people lost super when the banks in the USA went under. It could happen again.
@@rodneymarsden3003 Don't give me that leftist rubbish. We all paid taxes. I supported your family as well. As my dear old Dad said to me, 'You are older a lot longer than you are young, so prepare for it.' I'm 64 retired since 2013, no debt cause I lived to be ready for reaping my gravy from super. I don't give a rats for those unprepared to sacrifice or who pissed it up against a wall. And yes the smart ones are fully protected. Australia is soft and a bunch of whining cry babies. As I said hope you sent your money back to SCOMO, mine paid for solar on the roof. Oh, check out my Ben Hall website cheers.
@@hmasyarra We paid taxes and we expected to be treated right.
Background music far too loud
1:06
wasn't that Sir Robert Vansittart behind PM Chamberlain ?
Vansittart was courting the Henleinists.
It’s extremely easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to predict what the right course of action would have been in any particular circumstance.
But nobody in their right mind takes their country into a war if it can be avoided. For Chamberlain this was especially so, with the dreadful carnage of the trenches only 20 years previously.
Even with the rearmament programme, in 1938 Britain was in no position to credibly fight a war with Germany which, by contrast, had been preparing for war since 1933.
The 1938 Munich agreement was a last-ditch effort to avoid a war. But it also bought us another year to keep on rearming and by 1939 we could - just, only just - be in a position to credibly prosecute a war with Germany.
But faced as we are now with possible military entanglements in both Ukraine and/or Taiwan, the awful weight of responsibility in committing your country to fighting a war becomes apparent to us too.
People are conflating issues irrelevant to Munich. Munich was the key. Munich was where the Pom and Frog could have nipped it in the bud. Just stick to the subject of appeasement because Chamberlian is guilty.
@@hmasyarra
Haha, you haven't addressed a single one of the points I made.
And it's really, really foolish to think that just Munich, and only Munich, was the key.
If you were to clue yourself up with a bit of history, you'd find it never is just a single issue, but that a lot is going on in the background at the same time.
However, the use of terms like Pom and Frog indicates your level, and that you don't do learning, or books...
@@lawrieflowers8314 You conflate too many irrelevant issues with the fact Chamberlain was an appeaser. No doubt domestically he was a good PM. But in the end that counts for naught.
@@hmasyarra
Yep, you still haven't addressed a single one of the points I made.
@@lawrieflowers8314 In this case it is just a single issue. So there is nothing to address the facts are plain to see. Appeaser end of story. Keep waffling if you wish I'll answer.
He was also enormously generous. He gave significant parts of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Ok, he forgot to ask Czechoslovakia; a minor oversight.
...IT'S NOT FUNNY-!!!
@@daleburrell6273lol kind of is
@@irenaveksler1935 ...I'LL BET THAT THE CZECHS ARE NOT LAUGHING-(!)
@@daleburrell6273 Okay? What Czechs saw the comment
@@daleburrell6273 Unless you are Czech you have nothing to say
Also the sudetanland Germans [which were big enough to make the second largest party in Czechoslovakia] was like actually opressed by Czechoslovakia
Also Slovakia was opressed
I bet the Slovaks and Sudetenland Germans are laughing
It's good to have some information to balance my prior views of Chamberlain. Thank you.
My Dad, who lived and served in WW2, always felt Chamberlain gave Britain an extra year to rearm as war was inevitable.
He was a visionary a truly truly great man, sadly drunken politicians dismissed him
...WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR BRAINS- OUT OF A MANURE PILE?!!
Truly a great and civilised man, and it is time he will get the credits that he deserves.But sadly enough, in times of war you need politicians like Churchill or Trump to deal with dictators and madmen.You need an thief to catch a thief.
@Tim Loo2 I doubt that. Trump is capable of anything and totally unpredictable. They can't read him, and that scares the shit out of them. Hell, this guy is crazier than I am, I better be carefull with him, something like that.
@Tim Loo2 Biden actually undid some of the Trump sanctions on Putin so who’s selling out the USA to Russia?
trump is hitler with a lower IQ
@@victoriousvirago6686 Well, he is pretty successful with that low IO. And what about you? I assume you believe you are on the level of a man like Einstein,right?
@@r.p.vanloon6403 thats a weird thing to say, "assuming i am as smart as einstein." hey trump said he got vaccinated. i assume u did as well. why do you hold trump so highly? all the bankruptcy, jan 6, and spread of misinformation. sounds more like hitler to me than anything. the only thing is he wasnt smart enough to stay in power.
He sounds like a good man! Thank-you.
Neville Chamberlain was Hitler's gimp.
Until a few years ago, like many others, all I knew about Chamberlain was his naivety in believing that he could negotiate with a treacherous maniac like Hitler and his goal of peace at almost any cost. I know now about his genuine concern regarding the poverty rife in Britain between the wars and his efforts to improve the lives of ordinary people. In fact, Neville Chamberlain’s efforts to improve the lives of the millions of poor people would put most of today’s backstabbing, self enriching politicians to shame. I have also learned about his efforts to rearm Britain in the 1930’s demonstrating that he was anything but naive.
The constant criticism of his efforts to achieve a peaceful solution to the Nazi crisis has destroyed his reputation and his good work on social and economic reform. He deserves to be remembered as one of our most hard working, genuine and caring politicians.
Labour would not let the government rearm.
...it is refreshing to see a deep dive into the whole life of Neville Chamberlain...a very capable technocrat...but, unfortunately, a rather poor judge of character in foreign affairs...
Great watch. Doing my undergraduate dissertation on chamberlain. He appears to be an extremely complex man. A man with a deep rooted commitment to peace, justice and principle. Whilst at the same time his commitment to his principles undid him. Also a key man to note is Sir Joseph Ball and his paper the Truth, an anti Semitic and pro fascist paper to which he supported as it attacked “anti appeasers”. History is starting to balance out the “guilty men” verdict of Chamberlain but his complexity is fascinating and full of contradictions
The best quote about him is “an honourable man in an inhonourable decade”
Podrian activar subtitulos en español
Suggest seeing the new film "Munich: The Edge of War". Pay close attention to the scene set in Munich with the two main characters - one English Oxford student reading German and one German Oxford student - discussing the 1932 German election that brought Hitler to power.
While I agree that Chamberlain did a lot of good. There is no denying that the people of Czechoslovakia had every right to be mad.
Edit: It is clear to me that many people do not like my stance as this is a Chamberlain support video, but I assure you if you're going to reply to my comment keep in mind that I am proud of my nation and that will never change no matter what serious or bs arguments you throw in my general direction.
What did the other countries of Europe do to support Czechoslovakia in 1938? Poland joined in with Germany, as did Hungary later, in taking Czech territory. Did Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Belgium or Romania take trade sanctions against Germany, or did they all crawl along in fear of Germany? Chamberlain in UK, and Daladier in France, were the only government heads to declare war on the Axis; all other countries did nothing, until they were attacked (including USSR & USA). Churchill insisted Chamberlain stayed in the War cabinet when Winston was leader. The Conservative Party kept Chamberlain as party leader after Churchill was Prime Minister.
@@keithhallam1155 It's quite difficult for me to really get what you are saying here it's a lot to take in could you please be more specific?
I know I may sound stupid but for me it's quite late and I am exshausted from work.
@@lampionmancz There is too much concentration upon Chamberlain, and the UK, as if they were the only appeasers. Much of Europe was also pro Nazi, with Finland, Hungary, Romania & Bulgaria fighting with the main axis powers. Mr Chamberlain was advised by officials NOT to wave his paper and claim peace when he returned from signing; he immediately quadrupled the RAF projected size, buying whole Industrial estates in Coventry & Birmingham, to create the big aircraft factories which built the RAF. Since it is still controversial today how WW1 began, this 1938-39 appeasement made it clear who started WW2.
With that I agree 100%
there was 3 million Germans in Sudetenland. Their will had to be respected too !
When in the morning, the schoolyard bully punches one in the nose, one does not then take afteroon tea with said bully and signal that he may have biscuits as well.
In principle, I agree, but it also depends on how long a game you are playing. It's not about winning the first battle, it's about eventually winning the war. An example of that is the Tet offensive, if I remember correctly. I've forgotten his name, but the leader of the vietcong knew that they would eventually lose that battle, but he also knew that Americans would have beamed into their homes pictures of the vietcong swarming like ants all over US-held property, and that was his objective. That's when public opinion turned against the war, and that was ultimately what led to the US withdrawal. Over-simplified it a bit, but it's a good example of playing the long game and being prepared to lose a battle in order to win the war. There's a public position he would have to take as PM, the issue is what were his private papers and correspondence saying as to his real thoughts?
@@herseem Point taken, however, just as American public opinion malleability was a known quantity by the time of Tet, so too were Hitler and Chamberlain.
The former a raving butcher leading millions with a call to German conquest, and, the latter a weak politician following a pipe dream of a peace that no longer existed.
In real time Neville was roundly mocked at home and abroad for his fanciful capitulations.
Eighty plus years on it would seem
NC's spirit is reincarnated here in America.
@@garyjett7232 Well, what I find a bit strange though is that he had foresight about the likely consequences of complex situations and as chancellor was very stict and helped stop Britain becoming bankrupt. Similarly, he previously predicted that the rush of wealth in poor areas caused by relatively well-paying jobs would end up being squandered, so he started a bank and encouraged people to save. And he also predicted the behaviour of Russia in the future, and urged the UK to re-arm after the first world war. So this is a guy who seems to have a good understanding of both people's behaviour and of how complex political situations can unfold over the long term. That seems to be at odds with being completely taken in by HItler, even in those earlier years. This suggests to me that the agreement was probably a time-buying move. But I don't know - that's why I said what he actually says in private documents and correspondence might reveal what was really going on in his mind about that.
@@herseem Granted 20/20 is a wonderful thing. And you do well by N C, his hard work, and achievements.
History is largely unkind to his memory as he utterly failed to check Hitler before 60 plus millions of lives were made forfeit.
Hitler himself marveled a number of times at his own good fortune while confronting timidity from other governments ,as, he was far weaker and more poorly positioned militarily than even he realized.
It might be remembered that antisemitism and admiration for Nazi achievements were not uncommon in Britain, and elsewhere in the years leading up to 1939-40. National Socialism appeared to many to be credible and viable option. I could not hazard a guess what role public sentiment, coupled with a dread of large scale war, played in N C's mind and decision making.
But then, leadership often requires clarity and determination against a tide. Correct me if I recall incorrectly that N C was already a mortally sick man without knowing it. At least, he appears somewhat gaunt and weary (overwork and stress perhaps?).
Those can impact critical decision making as well.
@@garyjett7232
*_"The former a raving butcher leading millions with a call to German conquest, and, the latter a weak politician following a pipe dream of a peace that no longer existed."_*
This is exactly the problem: this image is wrong, both of Chamberlain and to a lesser extent, Hitler.
*_"In real time Neville was roundly mocked at home and abroad for his fanciful capitulations."_*
Not really. It was widely accepted.
2:52 -- What is a Zizal Plantation?
Sisal is a plant that can be made into rope, particularly rope by which dictators are hung, and factually this was part of Chamberlains policy, as explained to his private secretary in Munich, Douglas Home.
Very similar to Hoover. Brilliant successful career leading up to the big job, but then stumbling when he gets there and is faced with an unprecedented crisis.
I've always thought Neville Chamberlain did the best he could with what he had to work with. He did buy time for preparation for war. And for the most part he was a great Statesman.
Neville Chamberlain was Hitler's gimp.
Was Chamberlain in a more advantageous position in 1939 than in 1938 after loosing Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia as allies? Hitler gained Soviet Union as an ally in 1939 and consequently the second world war was underway.
The Soviet Union and Germany were not "allies" as you suggest. They signed a non-aggression pact. Not the same thing at all.
@@peterbennet7145
Well they both invaded Poland from different sides and divided it up between them. Russia also helped to train Nazi pilots and provided Germany with fuel and raw materials, that sounds very much like allies to me.
@@johnbrereton5229 It's well known and documented that both the Russians and Germans anticipated war with each other within 5 years of their signing a "Non Aggression" Pact. I don't know but "Non Aggression" sure doesn't sound like "Alliance". In fact, Churchill welcomed the Russian invasion of Poland 5 days after the Germans entered, due to it tying up German divisions in the East. This is a fact, a written fact, a fact written by Churchill himself, with his signature. This is just one example of how nuanced the prelude to war was. Does that make Churchill evil? No. He was playing a game of chess, just like Hitler and Stalin. But go ahead and stick with your game of checkers... or tic-tac-toe. Games fitting for armchair generals.
@@wgreiter
Yes indeed, amateur revisionist generals like yourself, denying reality because it doesn't fit into your preconceived ideas of what you believe should be true.
However, in the real world enemies can often become allies if it benefits them. Just as it did between the Nazis and the Russians. Churchil even warned Stalin that Hitler was planning to betray him and attack, and despite Nazi troops assembling on his border Stalin didn't believe him. Instead he believed the British were trying to deceive him, not the Nazis. These are all verifiable facts, not armchair Generals opinions, like yours are.
@@johnbrereton5229 Give me an example of anything I stated as revisionist or opinion. What I stated are facts, non-aggression pacts are not alliances. Both the Germans and Russians considered each other the primary existential threat within five years, prelude to war. The military coalition that formed with GB, USSR and USA, is an example of an alliance. Denying that makes you a revisionist. Another fun fact for you to compliment your Churchill comment. Chamberlain rebuffed numerous overtures by Stalin to form an anti-Hitler coalition with GB and France. He had an overabundance of warnings regarding Barbarossa , including from his own intelligence, not just Churchill's. Churchill's warning did play to his paranoia and suspicious nature, but the West has never given Russia a need to be wary of malicious intent. I just gave you a bit more... now what part of this is revisionist or opinion?
Chamberlain essentially did the same thing as Stalin. Both countries needed to stave off war with Germany for as long as possible while they re-armed. Chamberlain was just less cynical about it.
We need MORE peace makers, not less.
Revisionism--if he was that wonderful how come he was so shortsighted?--but quite interesting. It would be nice if a biographer of an opposite viewpoint were giving their comments as well.
This is marvelous perspective on a much maligned man. I like the idea that Neville Chamberlain perhaps intended to _briefly_ appease Hitler to allow Britain more time to prepare its defenses. 🇺🇸💛🇬🇧
Can't believe anybody would say Chamberlains reputation is undeserved. He chose dishonor, it wouldn't matter if he had solved poverty for all time and cured cancer too. "He chose dishonor" should be the only three words remembered about him.
The UK and France were not ready for war in 1938.
Thanks for this. I must admit it has changed my view of Chamberlain and the conventional view of him. OK, he may have been too trusting of Hitler, but hindsight is easy, and it did buy an essential year of extra time before war became inevitable. And it ignores his decades of excellent work as a politician before then.
Neville was no fool. He was playing for time and building up the British military.
He was also playing for public opinion. He isolated every one of the revisionist States, All four of them - not simply the right-wing three.
before the Munich Betrayal, UK, France, Czechoslovakia, and Poland can take Nazi Germany out, they are much much stronger than Nazi Germany, building military my ass
@@dafuqmr13 Absolutely false. France was still badly prepared due to its tremendous loss of life in WWI, a still divided UK and an insignificant Czechoslovakia.
I forgot to mention Poland who believed they could take on German armored divisions with their cavalry!
Chamberlain is truly a great gentleman.It is sad that he happened to live with the evil Hitler at the same age.
great gentleman bhahaha
He made mistakes but overall Britain could have had worse. He had to deal with an impossible situation: budget cuts had left Britain's military weak (at the time Britain could have fielded two divisions for a war in Europe, that's just 32,000 men), and Intelligence indicated France wasn't going to stand up. So he had to capitulate at Munich.
Chamberlain ultimately presided over what may still be the greatest peace-time military expansion in British history, bringing military spending up to about 9% of GDP (USA currently spends just 3.3% of GDP on its military) to prepare Britain to confront Hitler.
Churchill got to make some great speeches around the Battle of Britain, but that battle was won with the Royal Air Force that Chamberlain rebuilt.
Hitler wasn’t evil you inbred.
@@RUMPLEforeskin25 Fanboy for the genocidal despot a little louder, won't you? Us decent folk appreciate knowing where you lot stand.
People who argue that Chamberlain bought time for Britain seem to forget he also bought time for Germany. And not only time, but also all military equipment of Czechoslovakia, which was not marginal, as 70% of former Austria-Hungary heavy industry was situated in Czech Lands, and all this industry was now forced to produce for German war effort. He also broke the last democratic country in central Europe - an important hub for refugees fleeing fascism, leading to much more civilians sent to camps. Before annexing Czech industry, Hitler had no chance against Britain, France and Soviets. I mean he never had a chance, but there could be a fast local conflict instead of world war. Hitler gained much more than Britain with that "bought time".
The Cabinet were aware of the facts, they did their job, the historians have not done theirs.
Respect. Never knew this about him.
I do hope that this comes as some comfort, albeit fat too late, to Neville Chamberlain's descendents..
I’m related to him 😢
Fu ck you
To the man who founded the most successful war in history? Kings Counsel my dear.
Liar
@@kphillipeb ...says someone who is probably too fat to climb the stairs out of the basement...
Like it or not the British were not able to come to the Czech's aid. The French had an obligation by treaty to do so and they had no absolutely no intention of provoking Hitler. So without the French it would merely have been a symbolic and pointless gesture going to war on their behalf. The public mood was against getting involved. The euphoric welcome he received at Buckingham palace is testament to it.
Why must film makers add needless & distracting music 🤔🙄
So, if Churchill was prepared to besmirch Chamberlain to enhance his own reputation in his own books (The Gathering Storm) would we not now call into question his other writings?
Churchill's writings are pretty well known for being self-serving and not necessarily accurate
Churchill is lauded by the same controlled media which lauds Hillary. He's no more than a puppet of the new world order. Churchill sided with Bolshevik Russia, took bribes from a group linked to Bolshevism, spoke in favour of one world government, is cited as a Founding Father of the EU, received the Kalergi prize for furthering "European unity", wrote the intro to one of Kalergi's books advocating race-mixing and rejected at least three peace offers to further prolong war and the suffering of Europe, while forcing Germany into unconditional surrender to prevent her rising up again in opposition to the NWO. Following the war, 725 million Europeans were sacrificed to Bolshevism along with half of Europe, including Poland in whose defence the war had been allegedly fought. Some victory. "You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."--Winston Churchill. Oh and did I mention that among other things war criminal Churchill was a prolific drunkard in addition to being suspected of buggering young boys. He apparently had an official impersonator for when he was too drunk to appear in public. Public opinion certainly wasn't as pro-Churchill as we're led to believe - here's some contemporaneous graffiti excoriating him as war criminal:
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=44631 www.theflameuk.com/index_html_files/07%20Winston%20Churchill%20the%20pervert.pdf
Error 404 This video makes it seem like Churchill’s memoirs are the main reason people look unfavourably on Chamberlain’s legacy. No, people don’t like Chamberlain because without his appeasement the Nazis would have been quickly defeated and there would have been no world war and no Holocaust. These consequences of his appeasement are a matter of historical record.
@@daisyd7815 Following the war the Soviet Union collapsed, all four noisy nations put out of business.
@@champagne.future5248 Idealism is your cure for everything?
Pee Pee Poo Poo - Neville Chamberlain
very interesting
Thank you for this debate. Of course it is many years too late, but I feel that Neville Chamberlain did NOT simply seek appeasement with Hitler, but had some larger vision of the future in mind. Yes, Hitler wasn't as rational or as sane AS Chamberlain hoped that he might be, Chamberlain directed the German ambitions towards the EAST and towards the Soviet Union. Chamberlain hoped that Fascist Germany would take down the Soviet Union. eventually. I don't consider that moral, but I also don't consider Russia's calculation that if Germany attacked France and their capitalist neighbors and annihilated them, that Soviet Communism would prevail. I guess that makes me an Anarchist, although I identify myself as a democratic socialist...