Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июн 2013
- Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligencesquared.com
__________________________
www.intelligencesquared.com/ev...
If ever a politician got a bum rap it's Neville Chamberlain. He has gone down in history as the British prime minster whose policy of appeasement in the 1930s allowed the Nazis to flourish unopposed. He has never been forgiven for ceding part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in the Munich Agreement of September 1938, and for returning home triumphantly declaring "peace for our time". The very word "appeasement" is now synonymous with him, signifying a craven refusal to stand up to bullies and aggressors. What a contrast to Winston Churchill, the man who took over as prime minister and who has ever since been credited with restoring Britain's backbone.
But is the standard verdict on Chamberlain a fair one? After all, memories of the slaughter of the First World War were still fresh in the minds of the British, who were desperate to avoid another conflagration. And anyway what choice did Chamberlain have in 1938? There's a good case for arguing that the delay in hostilities engineered at Munich allowed time for military and air power to be strengthened.
Just to add that handing over Czechoslovakia meant that Hitler got his hands on Czech military armaments industry and existing stocks which were sufficient to arm half of the German army in 1939/40 in the invasions of Poland, France , BeNeLux and Denmark / Norway. Czech production was expanded and was a major component of Nazi production to May 1945.
Except that pretty much all Czech industry didn't fall into German hands until after the complete occupation.
@@elrjames7799 the bulk of the Czech armaments industry was in German hands late 1938 , the balance in March 1939. Occupied Czechoslovakia was the only country in Europe in the period 1938-45 that grew its GDP, by over 20%. Its military factories produced artillery, hand weapons, ammunition, tanks, trucks , fighter aircraft for the Nazis but its size and contribution should not be a surprise given that it was the industrial heavy industry hub of the Austri-Hungarian Empire to 1918. The Czech army was large and very well equipped. Its entire stocks of equipment etc fell into German hands by March 1939 , in good time for reuse in 1939/40.
@@michaelmazowiecki9195 Where did you get this? Surely the bulk of Czech armaments manufacturing (including Skoda) only came into German hands upon total absorption?
@@elrjames7799 various sources. Germany took 38% and over 4 million inhabitants of the Czech Lands, which had all the industry (Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia) in September 1938, the balance in March 1939. Slovakia was entirely rural, agricultural. Weapon systems ,such as artillery, of the Czech fortifications were all taken undamaged in 1938. Czech economy was entirely subordinated to Germany in the inbetween period and final take over with direct German control in March 1939. At that date Germans took entire Czech gold reserves which enabled continuation of the Nazi 4 year plan. Also all weapons plants and entire Czech stocks of over 500 tanks and 1500 aircraft. Production was increased to the point that by 1945 Czech GDP was 25% greater than in 1938 (the only country in occupied Europe). The Czech Lands had been the industrial powerhouse of the Habsburg Empire. They formed the third leg of industrial Nazi Germany, together with the Ruhr and Upper Silesia, like the latter practically out of bombing range till 1945.
The Soviet Union invaded Poland in 1939. France invaded Germany in 1939, and the UK invaded Norway first in 1940.
For the motion:
[02:10] Prof. John Charmley, University of East Anglia
[21:12] Prof. Glyn Stone, University of the West of England
Against the motion:
[11:40] Sir Richard Evans, University of Cambridge
[32:36] Piers Brendon, Former Keeper of the Churchill Archives
Is anybody else really confused as to how appalling Glyn Stones arguments were?
Why was he talking about 1939 when the argument was about 1938 and why was he blaming the Americans when Britain and France were much stronger than the Germans and why was he saying we only had one ally in 1939 despite the fact that it was because of the Munich agreement that by sept 1939 Germany had already swallowed up two allies (Czech and Poland) and had alienated any other potential allies because they didn't think Britain and France could be trusted.
I'm not even an historian and I could have refuted all his arguments
DID PILDUSKI NOT STATE THE SAME THAT AN AGREEMENT IS USEFUL AS LONG AS IT MAKES SENSE TO KEEP TO THE PROTOCOLS THAT ALIGNS TO THE NATIOAL INTERESTS?
@@lewis5384 & @lenin chig You go to war with the allies you HAVE not the ones who kinda are. In the bag ones. Good words don't count for much. French sure didn't exactly rush into the war after the Poles got hit.
Poland allied with Germany and took a slice of Czechoslovakia in 1939.
Compare it with the 2021-2 Ukraine crisis with Putin in you know who's role. Should we nuke Moscow? Remember the Belgrade Memorandum that disarmed the Ukraine? SALT in Ukraine's wounds? Where was the outrage in 2014?
Chamberlain bought time. Question may be, Did he overpay? It was a necessary purchase.
When Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Britain and France together could have helped Czechoslovakia defeat Germany and stopped Hitler in his tracks. There was no need for an alliance with America.
Chamberlain threw the Jewish people to the wolves.
The Munich Agreement never failed. It was Chamberlain's decision to form an unworkable pact with Poland after it had invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938-39 that led to World War II. He should have pressured the anti-Semitic fascist regime in Warsaw more heavily to allow a referendum on Danzig.
We should have allied with Germany against the real threat.
The first speakers delivery detracts from his proposition. In love with his own voice
He might have made a better argument for British neutrality on practical and financial terms.
Would neutrality have been a plausible option in 1938-9? It might have slowed British decline for a further couple of decades, permitted a tidier winding down of the Empire, saved thousands of British lives, stopped the war bankruptcy that followed, and left the USA much further behind in its economic recovery and without ex-UK gilts, bonds and assets immediately postwar.
The wild card being, would Hitler have left Britain alone had this happened? For a few years, probably. Long enough. The Atlantic Wall would never have been needed and far more troops would have been available to fight the Soviet Union, though he would probably still have lost due to oil and logistics anyway.
Just a bit!
True but for many that style works for them. By that I mean the listeners.
His charisma makes his points more digestible - there’s very little effort in understanding a joke loaded with historical interpretation than historical interpretation. I personally appreciate the passion and enjoyment. Not that the others were incorrect in their delivery.
Yes, he does seem rather vain.
Dr Stone is mistaken (23:14) in asserting that Moscow wouldn't ally with Britain and France: the problem was indeed a practical one, in that the USSR could realistically only attack Germany by going through Poland, and in 1938 and 1939 Warsaw wouldn't contemplate Soviet troops on its soil because it knew the USSR would want back the provinces seized by Poland in 1920.
That left Moscow with the unappealing prospect of going to war against Germany and then waiting to be invaded - as happened anyway, but importantly in 1941 rather than 1939. The Soviet calculation in 1939 was thus essentially the same as the fragile case for western appeasement in 1938 - better war later than sooner, given the ongoing need to re-arm. German generals ironically felt the same: Hitler had other other plans.
My view of Chamberlain's action has softened over the years: Munich was a disgrace, but the practical alternatives were no more appealing given the political obstacles to an effective "grand alliance". Blaming French weakness is no defence, though: Britain was less likely to be invaded, as had happened to France twice in the previous century.
Dr Stone was not completely wrong, but British and French distrust during the Munich crisis had caused the Soviets to focus more on building their own bases of power rather than joining the West in an alliance against Hitler. During the negotiations between the Soviet Union and the West in 1939, there was a more pronounced covetousness on the Soviet side. For instance, in June 1939, Molotov from the Soviet Union refused to include the Netherlands and Switzerland in a guarantee along with Latvia, Estonia, and Finland, countries that concern Soviet interests. The reason is simple. The Soviet Union wanted an opportunity to infiltrate these Eastern European countries but it wanted nothing of an obligation to far away countries whose safety don't really matter to the Soviet Union.
Charmley would help his cause enormously if he cut out all the melodrama, histrionics and hyperbole and just made his case.
I couldn't agree more. That sort of thing might impress a class of spotty teenagers but there's no place for it in a mature debate.
I pretty much just skip these if he's even on the panel.
He is a bit much isn't he? 😂
He migth get a heart attack
He has no case, just melodrama and weakness.
Wonderful historical debate. Just wonderful. Thanks for sharing.
"If me auntie was me uncle she'd have a different set of equipment" - 1:08:27 My guy, It's been 10 years and have I got news for you!
1938- sold Czechoslovakia
1939-sold Poland
Well done, really.
1919 - Sold the Arabs
1922 - Sold Ireland
1931 - Sold China
1935 - Sold Etheopia
1936 - Sold Nicaragua
1939 - Sold the Baltic States
Not much better, especially because I can continue THIS list after WW2, right up to this very day.
@James Henderson True.
But at the expense of compromising about Ulster.
According to the logic of the time, it was part of Ireland.
It was "carved up" to appease loyalists....
Or, a bit too much was carved off Ireland, without plebiscites to determine just borders, leading to bitterness...
@@ralphbernhard1757 Got me googling. Thanks!
You might have missed it but Poland was a trigger for the start of WWII.
@@hakapeszimaki8369 they didnt lol the soviets occupied it during their assault into germany after germany invaded the soviets
To be valuable, the question should be if Chamberlain deserves his low reputation. However, that question depends not on 20-20 hindsight, with full access to German archives, but on what Chamberlain was told at the time.
You obviously didn't listen. All intelligence agencies told him the dangers of Hitler. Also what would likely happen if they did not help Czechoslovakia.
And all of the military advice was against it.
@@thethirdman225 Exactly right. Right up to the 1940 Battle of Britain, even the RAF expected to be overwhelmed by superior numbers and quality in the Luftwaffe.
@@HSMiyamoto Even more than that, nobody can really say where this hypothetical war in 1938 would be fought. Sure, there would be fighting on the border of Czechoslovakia - probably in the south west - but what were Britain and France supposed to do? How were they going to support the Czechs? Pretty much nobody can answer this. And that was one of the biggest sticking points of the whole crisis.
Everyone knew that if Germany decided to invade, there was nothing anyone could do to prevent it.
Were Churchill (and others) bragging they would have not allowed Hitler to take Sudetenland *THUS* were ready to go to war with Germany right that moment? Unlikely. This is like proclaiming "Well, see what giving your wallet to the robber will do? You get shot anyway! Should have fought the robber in the moment". Hindsight is always 20/20. Not to take away from what Churchill HAD to (victoriously) to do after. History has been cruel to Poor Chamberlain.
After reading more about this and watching it a second time, I realised that there were so many incredibly important points that went begging here.
1) All the military advice, including that from the Americans, was not to go to war over the Sudetenland,
2) The Czech Army was nowhere near as strong as Richard Evans claims and even less strong than what Churchill claimed. It consisted of 14 regular divisions and 15 or 16 reservist divisions, not 30 or 40 ‘crack divisions’,
3) Nobody could decide on a venue,
4) Hitler proved, 6 months later, what everyone knew: he could walk into Czechoslovakia any time he liked and there wasn’t anything anyone could do about it.
That’s for starters. Nobody even asked questions about this.
The talk of a united front against Hitler is pointless if a) there was nothing anyone could do about it in time and b) there was nowhere to stage any potential armed confrontation.
And finally, nobody went into any detail about the roles of people like Benes or Hodza and the split in the Czech government.
ok, you do not make any sense he walked into a country that just has lost half of its industry and 90% of its fortification and he only walked in after Czechia mostly surrendered cos of the points I made before. Hitler could have attacked Czechia sooner and even tried it but he was stopped by his own Generals cos it would cause them to not be able to fight. The Czech military was far stronger than anybody expected cos Czech tanks were actually more modern than the ones that Germany had at the beginning of WWII. you should look at the fully militarised Czechia if you look at it in full strength when Hitler tried to attack it for the first time on 23. září 1938 At that time Czechoslovakia had more than a million troops and very good borders to defend the situation Hitler would lose 2 much in the Czech and German war that he could not have started WW2 after. And Czechia won wars against Germany many times before cos of the reason in the comment why it could not have happened when Germany was near to economic collapse and run by a Crazy person. By the way, even Sudetan Germans joined in the mobilization against Germany so they would probably not have found allies in them.
@@marskavols1073
*_”Hitler could have attacked Czechoslovakia sooner and even tried it but he was stopped by his own Generals cos it would cause them to not be able to fight.”_*
I don’t think so! Hitler had nominated a day in mid-September but Chamberlain persuaded him to postpone until the 1st of October.
How would it cause them not to be able to fight? That doesn’t make any sense.
In any case, I’m not completely sure of the point you are making. If the generals had any influence in this it doesn’t show up in what I’ve read. And they certainly weren’t trying to advocate _not_ attacking. It was all _’Certainly Mein Fuehrer!’_
@@thethirdman225 Yeah about the generals I learned it in school and they would not have stopped him a second time most likely. Well they would have 2 high losses and they took undamaged land in Czechia if there had been a war Germany would have had to win trow destroyed infrastructure there which would have weakened them after that but most likely the war would have been steil mate and no side would be able to push the other or at least very slowly which would bleed out German economy and may have been able to collapse the haul system or give option to allis get armed
@@marskavols1073 Any plot by the generals in 1938 would have failed as badly as the July Bomb Plot.
@@MarkHarrison733 heh what plot I was talking about advice not plot
What most historians miss about World War 2 is that Hitler had no desire to invade Western Europe. He wanted to move east and invade the Soviet Union. Had Britian and France not declared War after Nazi Germany invaded Poland, Hitler would've gone on and invaded the USSR and two of the most Evil Regimes in history would've destroyed each other on the Eastern front and no matter who would've won, the Victor would've been so weakened that the British and French would've been able to dominate Europe most likely to the present day. Exactly what did Britian and France get out of going to War in 1939? By the end of the War both Britian and France were economicly and militarily exhausted, There were more American troops in Western Europe than the other Western allies combined and a massive Soviet Army sitting right across the Elbe River and able to threaten Western Europe for almost a half of a century and was only held back by the threat of turning Europe into a radioactive wasteland before they could push on to the Rhine.
Yes - Hitler's real objective was Lebensraum ( living space ) .
But he was also quite annoyed he didn't get a war over the Sudetenland .
Recall , FDR and the US were maintaining a position of isolationism . American public opinion was totally against another war and it was not until Pearl Harbor that public opinion completely sung the other way .
So the bottom line is this , had Britain and France not declared war , Hitler could have unleashed the entire Luftwaffe and Herr on the Soviets and captured the oil fields * and Moscow . Regardless of who won , the world would have be come a different place .
.
* Recall, many strategic decisions were made in WW II because of oil .
.
You're correct that Hitler had no desire for Western Europe, but France would fear for its security if Hitler was allowed to take the greater part of Europe and if he succeeded in overrunning the Soviet Union too. If France ever got into conflict with Hitler, Britain certainly had to help France. Hitler didn't want to occupy England, but he did plan on imposing a naval blockade on Britain and force it to come to terms with him. If Britain doesn't want to be left at the mercy of Hitler, then it would have to fight Hitler along with France. Your point that the victor in the Eastern Front would've been weakened significantly deserves praise. However, both Hitler and Stalin would've recognised the potential exploitation by the West once the war comes to an end.
“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.' - Winston Churchill to Neville Chamberlain as France and England threw Czechoslovakia to Hitler.
Stephen Randel Churchill was a warmonger
Churchill was an old bag, liar, war mongerer and traitor. Neville was brillaint and wanted peace with the germans, which would have been achieved if not for that ol' bag churchill
@@Archive41024
Britain : We want Peace!
Also Britain : *Declares war on Germany
Who declared war?
@@thethirdman225 Neville Chamberlain
A point Richard Evans makes on his chapter on the road to war in his book "The Third Reich in Power" notes that many of the appeasements, especially the re-militarization of the Rhineland and the Austrian Anschluss, but even to an extent the Annexation of the Sudenenland, was largely seen as a justifiable rectifying of the Versailles treaty by the international community
That's a pretty good example of why the opinion of the international community doesn't have much value.
Especially International law which is always getting broken.
When Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Britain and France together could have helped Czechoslovakia defeat Germany and stopped Hitler in his tracks.
@@wilverbal If the opinion of the international community doesn't have much value, why was Hitler waiting for an opportunity? Why was he concerned with obtaining a moral advantage even during the Czech crisis?
And the March into the Rhineland was also the last opportunity to stop him. After that, war was almost inevitable.
It was a betrayal.
no.
There is a problem with this whole topic. We know now that Hitler basically lied to almost every single person he ever spoke to. So the question is, should Chamberlain have been able to forsee this or not?
That assumes he didn’t and if he didn’t then what was the point of rearming Britain in the 1930s?
In 1938, both Chamberlain and Henderson were aware that the Czech crisis might well be a stalking horse for Hitler's territorial ambitions. However, that was not sufficient to reject Hitler over such a seemingly reasonable demand. Hitler wanted a revision of Versailles, with whose cause many British sympathised. Chamberlain's position was that of rearming so that Britain could defend itself in case Hitler attacked Britain. In other words, it was defensive rather than offensive. The latter was not viable in 1938 because of the various objective factors mentioned in the talk such as economic capacity, public opinion, manpower, the availability of resources, and lastly the military's battle readiness. Chamberlain wanted to see whether there would really be a war, and if there is, Britain would at least be prepared for it, but an offensive was way too costly.
The Munich Agreement never failed. It was Chamberlain's decision to form an unworkable pact with Poland after it had invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938-39 that led to World War II. He should have pressured the anti-Semitic fascist regime in Warsaw more heavily to allow a referendum on Danzig.
@@MarkHarrison733 Interesting perspective. Not sure I completely agree but it shows a distinct double standard, _vis a vis_ British policy. And isn't it funny how much credence the 'Polish Government in Exile' had during the Cold War?
They had no right to give lands and split countries…
Quite painful to watch Charmley, and listen to his cheap current political point-scoring.
Most painful because he imagines people are seeing him as witty and acid and charming when he sounds unfunny cloddish and unpleasant.
His ignorance as well, he clearly has no idea what he’s talking about
@@BattlestarZenobia You sound like an expert…🥺
I haven't got past the the introduction but I glanced at your comment and I love it ha ha
I quite agree with you, well put. He is full of histrionic bluster and quite evidently thinks he is a crowd favourite. He is descending into becoming a Rent a Prof., his own end of glory.
@@adrianmaxwell7483 -Doesn't diminish his point though.- Doesn't mean he's wrong. Only that people are less likely to listen to him.
I wish I had read Glyn Stone, instead of hearing him trying to present.
This is utter nonsense. The Germans were not ready for all out war in 1938. The year long delay that this agreement gave them is what allowed them to improve their forces and thus be able to conquer France.
+Lance Jacobs The year long delay also allowed GB to invest in rearmament. The most effective British countermeasures during the BoB (radar, ground control for fighter command, etc.) were not ready in 1939, and British cities would have been flattened if there had been a BoB in 1939, instead of 1940.
Germany essentially had the same weapons in 1939 than they had in 1940 (for example the He-111, Do-17 bombers, or the the Bf-109 and 110).
Chamberlain was a cowardly asshole. I would so love to desecrate his grave. Have you no concept of all the millions that died in the European Theatre in WWII, because of his cowardice??
Lance Jacobs Oh?
I didn't know he started WW2 :-)
What would you have done differently if you had been him?
I would have rather committed suicide, than appeased Adolph Hitler by caving into him. He was clearly a Nazi sympathizer.
Have you no desire to piss on his grave? He is one of the most despised figures in history, in my book.
+Lance Jacobs you failt o say what you would have done better? easy to say that from your comfortable chair. "Have you no concept of all the millions that died in the European Theatre in WWII"...i fail to see how this is chamberlain fault
No-one ever mention British Lord Runciman who officially visited Czechoslovakia in summer 1938 and reported to PM Chamberlain that the Sudeten Germans have the right to self-determination, as promised by US President Wilson's 14 points in 1918.
Yup.
Therefore the only real mistake was in 1919, not allowing self-determination to "draw the borders".
Men in suites "drew lines on the map", naively believing millions would simply put up with being "carved up" and seperated from business partners, work, family or friends....
He did, but it was Wilson who determined that they would be become part of Czechoslovakia, the reasoning being that Czechoslovakia, without the Sudetenland, would be completely untenable as a country, and easy prey to it's neighbours. Regardless, the outcome would have been the same, had they been placed within Austria, as they wished, they would have been swallowed up when Hitler took Austria and nothing would have changed.
@@bolivar2153 Wilson was playing "divide and rule" with Europe, while GB (dragging along France as the "junior partner") was playing "divide and rule" with the continent.
Only the blind cannot see...
@@bolivar2153 Versailles was a "nail in the coffin" of Europe as the leading "power" in the world, in the same way as it was a "nail in the coffin" of Empire (already failing).
Allowing the USA a say in European matters, was a massive *nail,* which might have had short-term gain for a few fans, but would have long-term disadvantages.
The American Century did not fight for European unity the same way they fought for their own unity (Civil War).
On *their* side of the Atlantic = fight for unity
On the other side of the Atlantic = fight for disunity
Stay blind buddy.
Captain Smith screaming *"it wasn't my fault"* as he was drowning doesn't matter...
@@bolivar2153 Captain Smith screaming *"I didn't do anything wrong"* doesn't change the *outcome.*
It doesn't matter what "instinct" or "narrative" you are going to answer with.
*It doesn't change the outcome.*
Get it?
As i agreed with Mr Charmley about WW1 here his side was totally ideologically blind and stuck on isolationism and appeasement just like US and UK in 30s.
Specially their repeated argument about inability of democracy like Britain to make deal with Soviets about Baltic territories and Romanian Bessarabia( something British were happy to do both before- during WW1 and any previous war and just few yrs later when actual WW2 started) while the same time they see no logical flaw in their argument and keep defending Munich agreement and UK pushing the Czechoslovak government( only democracy left east of Germany during that time and with the strongest economy and military industry in region) to accepting its terms UK& co agreed on with Germany without even single one Czechoslovak representative allowed to be present.
I'd say that says a lot more about their double standards and treatment of facts which dont fit their narrative than about Chamberlain policies and situation in late 30's Europe.
Someone else happy to sacrifice British lives. Even when no treaties are in place.
@@ianandrewoconnor9032 Brits had no formal treaty with Czechoslovakia but French did. And French( unwilling to fight any war with Germans without UK support) were enabled to abandon their treaty obligations due the British willingness to stage "international conference" about Czech borders and Czech minorities with Germany and Italy but without single Czechoslovak representative present. As Czechs say: About us without us.
And then both France and UK just used the result- the Munich treaty they come up with without any Czech input to force already mobilised and ready to fight Czechoslovakia to surrender to Germans. First borders and democracy, not even yr later well before WW2 start even their nominal sovereignty over the leftover territory and guaranteed by France and UK in the same Munich treaty.
And one can easily argue this decision may costed UK more lives than if they decided to support French in honouring their treaty with Czechoslovakia. In hindsight we now know Germans and German Western border was way less prepared to face Western powers than they pretended to be that time and then they were when they actually started WW2.
@@rehurekj Then take that up with the French and stop dragging Britain into your Central European territorial quarrels, the largest standing army in Europe at the time was the French, Britain as always was neither prepared nor did it want a war, why the fact that the French were allied to CZ meant that Britain should be dragged into another European territorial conflict is unclear to me, our commitments to Poland were met.
The fact that the French stood back for a year whilst Poland was defeated also beggars belief, and meant that in effect Britain and its empire lost many more lives than necessary, i don’t see a word of criticism there, but I suppose the lesson is choose allies whom you can depend on to keep their word.
@@ianandrewoconnor9032 It is pretty clear that France was letting Britain take the diplomatic lead at this time so as to tie Britain closer to itself. As Britain went, so would France go.
Democracy? A state created by foreigners in which a minority ruled the majority against their will? Don't make me laugh.
For czechs and slovaks will munich betrayal be always bad and unforgivable.
Don't conflate the two
@
Edih CZ
We are not asking for forgivness from Czechoslovakia.
Well, will it?
@@Infernal460 nobody asks you for forgiveness now...we feel pity for you
CrazyTraffic pity? Why?
42:06 - Danegeld refers to a general warning and a criticism of any coercive payment
I think it's wishful thinking that Chamberlain could have prevented WWII.
It is a myth that Germany started the war or even wanted war with America or Britain. A quick run through France to round up those criminals responsible for the Versailles treaty and then to the east to destroy communism and expand the German Empire (Totally fine for Allies to have Empires but not "the bad guys"). Instead Churchill bankrolled by Jews (yes he could be anti-Semitic but was a drunk and easily manipulated by money) and FDR who wanted to remove German competition to their export market in Europe and saw his chance to out maneuver the bumbling oaf Churchill who lost the Empire paving the way for the age of American supremacy took the first moves towards war. The west made the decision on Poland and many tens of millions died unnecessarily because of it. There is also good evidence that the Jews would have simply been pushed out to the east were it not for the war on the western front.
I definitely agree. Based on Hitler's long-held ambitions as well as the progress of British rearmament in 1939, it's inconceivable that Hitler wait much longer.
He certainly couldn’t have prevented it by starting it a year earlier.
@@becoming_a_historian218 One of the great mistakes of this is the long-held assumption that Hitler wanted a war. This is largely the analysis of the British Ambassador in Berlin, Henderson, who was considered by many to be something of a hysteric.
Hitler, in fact, did not want a war. On the other hand, he was prepared to have one to serve his territorial ambitions.
Choose the lesser evil (appeasement) so one can live to fight another day. Hindsight is always 20/20 but no one including Churchill and his supporters, much as they would brag and historically keep shaming Chamberlain, could have been ready to go to war with Hitler at that moment in time.
*And yes, Putin MUST be fully pushed out of Ukraine and permanently as history WILL repeat itself. Make no mistake, he MUST have his old glory and neighborhood back, country by country.*
Czechs slovaks and poles may disagree.
yep
Yes, and we have adopted the narrative of Polish and Czech nationalism without considering the wider problems of tribalism and ethnic tensions which have existed for hundreds of years. Incidentally, it might have escaped your notice that the invasion of Poland was the trigger for Chamberlain to declare war.
@@thethirdman225 chamberlain gets a bad wrap from history, but it was a nice try to stop the germans. Churchill is probably more responsible for the invasion of norway than chamberlain.
@@OrbitalAstronaut Churchill was certainly responsible for the Norway fiasco for which Chamberlain got the blame, both at the time and later In Churchill’s memoirs.
Can anyone tell me why the Podcast version of this debate has a length of 1hr 6min, while the video here has a length of 1hr 31 mins? Is it simply tight editing, or have they cut things for the podcast? I did a quick check and the start and end are the same, so it's not simply 'cut'. I don't really need to see the video for these debates, but I don't want to focus on the podcasts if they are edited.
He could have bluffed Hitler. Hitler saw the allies as weak and Chamberlain was at the forefront of that weakness.
People argue that Britain was ill prepared in 1938 as an excuse for Chamberlain's capitulation to Hitler and his gang of murderers. However, so was Germany. Moreover, the German General Staf was prepared to arrest Hitler and lock him up in a lunatic asylum if England and France had supported them by standing up to Hitler on the Czech issue.Furthermore, the Czech defences were second to none and would have put up stiff resistance to a poorly equipped German Army and with France's army outnumbering the Germans in men and equipment, the invasion would have been repulsed. Chamberlain and his clique didn't want a Germany run by the German General Staff. They were wary of the German Army's associations with the Soviets. Again, it was Britain's ongoing policy of divide and rule that forced Chamberlain's decision-making. Effectively, Chamberlain preferred Hitler to the German General Staff as he stupidly thought that Stalin would not do a deal with Hitler. Chamberlain was a dope and Churchill's comment on his Foreign Secretary Halifax was that "..he was a Christian that deserved to be thrown to the lions." Henderson, the British Ambassador in Berlin was almost a Nazi. Orwell's comment on the general organisation of British society at the time was that Britan was a family controlled and run by the wrong family members.Churchill wasn't much better than the rest of them, but at least he was a fighter and wasn't prepared to be done down by a vicious, comic opera, anti-semitic, megalo maniac.
@caniggia claudio Nobody expected british to fight. They were supposed to be a small helper, while Czechoslovakia would play the main part and France the secondary one. Czechoslovaks would slaughter firts wave of German attack, and Hitler would be troubled about how much units should he send as second wave in order to both conquer Czechoslovakia and still keep enough forces on French border to not allow French to walk on the Berlin.
The only "political desaster" I can detect is the desaster of Versailles. Lines were drawn in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, which did not reflect the wishes and desires of the PEOPLE who lived there.
Surely you mean disaster
@@bencrawshaw1227 Boy, the lockdown must mean that you've got a ton of time on your hands :-)
You scrolled down to *6 years?*
Didn't scroll down or there aren't many comments
Yours is the first comment I see , no need to scroll . Pretty sad that you responded so quickly haven't you got a life outside of RUclips.
@@bencrawshaw1227 I'm not the one who posted 3 times...
You're still one ahead :-)
"The war that had many fathers - the Long run-up to World War 2" by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, about the interaction between all major countries involved.
A book well worth the read that covers the timespan from WW1 to the outbreak of WW2. May put some stuff you think you know in perspective.
Also Pat Buchannan`s excellent book Hitler, Churchill & the Unnecessary War. The alliances that were being made in this clash of Empires from 1890 onwards.
@@Domdeone1 it was an unnecessary war beacause hilter was the only person that wanted war
@@brucenadeau2172 Churchill wanted war. He was even bribed to press for war by Strakosch.
@@MarkHarrison733 Strakosch provided financial support to Churchill in 1938 and 1940,[5][6] which enabled Churchill to pay off his vast debts and to withdraw his Kent home Chartwell from sale at a time of severe financial pressures.[4] Nazi propaganda exploited this to claim that Churchill was under the control of Zionist bankers, an anti-Semitic trope also repeated by Holocaust denialists such as David Irving
@@brucenadeau2172 That is not true. Hitler did not want a war. He wanted territory but was prepared to use war to get it, if necessary. There is a subtle but important difference.
In 1938 I met Neville Chamberlain off the 'plane at London Airport. As he had had nothing to eat on the flight, he suggested we went and got something to eat. So we stopped off at a chip shop where I ordered cod and chips but Neville just had a bag of mushy peas. I said 'Don't you fancy a nice piece of fish Neville' and he replied 'No, it is peas in our time!'
+Alan Heath, I must admit, I laughed at your pun. But, really, Alan, that must be the worst pun I have ever read.
mine are much worse than that--you ain't lived mate.
No, he said peas for our time.
Alan Heath that is shit
Alan Heath I don’t get it.
anyone else watching this for Modern World ?
In early 1939, USSR Foreign Minister, Maxim Litvinov, proposed an alliance with UK and France that would have contained nazis and prevented World War II but was rejected by Chamberlain govt. That led to Soviet-nazi Non-Aggression Pact of August, 1939 followed by WW II.
The Litvinov Alliance had a serious weakness., the very one that made it impossible for the USSR to aid the Czechs. The Red Army would need to transit either Poland or Romania. Neither would be fools enough to allow the Red Army in.
@@socialstudiesbrady No clear evidence that Romania wouldn't allow the Red Army to pass through. In the fall of 1937, the King of Romania promised France's general Gamelin that he would allow Soviet troops to cross Romania to reach Czechoslovakia when the time for war came.
Chamberlain threw the Jewish people to the wolves.
Charmley doesn't help his argument by being sarcastic and snarky. It reminds me of how political foes try to gain a point, not by reason but by attack. He just seems to be a very unpleasant man.
He’s from the University of East Anglia (UEA), my local University. Who’d have thought it was the the same institution that homed Phil “Climategate” Jones, or that it might have a strong leftist outlook?
He seems to be lacking in empathy or even self-awareness, my guess he is right of centre
One massive missing topic is the Spanish Civil War, the Luftwaffe proved how deadly it was, it was also a fact that Germany was testing is weapons. Appeasement bought time, but to be honest if we had gone to war with Hitler over Czechoslovakia then I could have been successful.
The only problem is that we can see why Neville Chamberlain went ahead with the Munich Agreement, it was a difficult decision. There were positives of it and negatives of it.
Actually the Spanish Civil War was old-fashioned: a war of attrition without clear-cut ideological dividing lines (despite attempts to impose them artificially, and not only with WW2 hindsight). Both combatants were coalitions riddled with internal disagreements and conflicts of interest. Interventions by foreign powers did not determine the result; in fact Hitler and Stalin probably wanted to keep the pot boiling to test weaponry and tactics. The fact that the Nationalists won proved not to matter a great deal in the scheme of WW2, since Franco kept his head down both before and after the Nazis were in the ascendant. The SCW, hopefully the last such in western Europe, has little to teach us in the 21st century.
Even if Britain did not go to war it should not have bought a nonaggression pact for part of some other country cos that is what happened not even Germany would try to take Sudetanland whit how havely was it defended cos it would never be able to win any other war and German economy would collapse. so all Briten had to do was not sign the agreement.
Germany tried to attack Czechoslovakia before the agreement but all Generals were against cos Czech had more modern tanks and Good defendable borders. So Britain or France did not have to go into any wars just did not support the annexation of Czechia that is literally all they had to do. In whatever perspective you look at it not supporting annexation of a sovereign country seems like a good thing all the time.
Neville Chamberlain will always be remembered as the person who sold out the Czechs to Hitler and not for his success in balancing the books during the economic crisis of the 1930s. It is really a pity that he had not stuck to what he was good at.
***** It is said that the Conservatives cuts in defense or at any rate the removal of a cruiser or navy boat encouraged the Argies to invade the Falklands. Any views on that.
Peter Bradshaw
I certainly think that the British government gave the wrong signals, especially with the withrawal of the ship whose name I have now forgotten.
Sort of like the American ambassador to Iraq in the first gulf war with Saddam.
Peter Bradshaw
I can't remember what happened with him.
Peter Bradshaw
The name of the ship I could not remember earlier was Endurance. I think.
is there an accurate transcript of this debate anywhere?
Whether Czek had fortifications or not is a moot point. They did not have to capitulate. So why did they.? They should have told the European betrayers to pissoff.
The only real mistake was in 1919, not allowing self-determination to "draw the borders".
Men in suites "drew lines on the map", naively believing millions would simply put up with being "carved up" and seperated from business partners, work, family or friends....
In hindsight Chamberlain was wrong and more people should have read Mein Kampf for the real skinny on Hitler, but history is always crystalline in hindsight. I think Monty Python got it right by calling Chamberlain's promise - the Killer Joke.
Which people for instance, since the English language edition wasn't published until 1933 when he became Chancellor, by which time (presumably) it was already too late :-)
In Hindsight Chamberlain was clearly right. In any event it wouldn't have mattered what he thought as the majority in Parliament and probably the country would not have countenanced an aggressive response to Hitler.
No, that was Churchill’s hindsight. Churchill’s memoirs were widely accepted because there was no other interpretation presented. This was because Chamberlain was very conveniently dead. So as far as most people are concerned, there is only one view. I doubt if the Foreign Office was short of German speaker who could have advised on Hitler. In fact, I’d be pretty confident they did.
But the assumption that the British could have assisted the Czechs in 1938 is wrong and the reason is pretty simple: it would have been a logistical nightmare, even if it had just been limited to aerial attacks on infrastructure. We all know what happened 12 months later.
@@deejay830 Right. People forget that Chamberlain was there to represent the best interests of Britain. Going to war in 1938 was not in the best interests of the British.
So with the benefit of hindsight Neville ought to have gone to war all by himself in 1938 yes OK and then what? He got his arse well kicked when he did go to war even with France as an Allie . Would it have made any difference to the outcome? Sending signals ha ha . Chamberlain was nice old toff he did what he could.
on that screen, is Chamberlain holding the Killer Joke ?
That was pretty good I’ll have to say that kept my attention it was informative and very entertaining
'... and their supine allies, the french.'
Lovely use of the adjective.
There are many things to be corrected. Being a Czech native and focusing on this period I feel quite well suited to do so. I'm a bit upset about Glynn Stone's very rudimentary knowledge of Czechoslovakia.
1) Sudety (I do not like to use the German term) was a traditionally Czech soil.
2) Biggest problem is simplifying it as a part of Germany or being inhabited exclusively by Germans. No, there were actually no Germans at all! What we call Sudetendeutsche were rather german speaking people, who identified themselves with Austria, they had mostly no ties to Germany. Many of those were of mixed origin, many others were Jews or Anti-nazis. I personally knew some of them.
3) National census from 1930 shows roughly 25 percent Czech speaking people there (even the areas with more than 50 percent of Czechoslovaks were ceded later)
4) Around 50 % of german speaking Czechoslovaks accepted the mobilization and entered the service with the Czechoslovak army already in the first days (compared with 80 percent of those Czech and Slovak-speaking). This is a huge hole torn into the common narrative of Sudetendeutsche being pro-Hitler. We may understand it as the same effect as we know from nowadays internet: loud and violent minority seems to be stronger and larger than it actually is.
5) The more I study the history of 1938 the less I am convinced that sole fighting Czechoslovakia would have inevitably lost. We all (as Mr. Stone) tend to do the same mistake: we compare every 1938-Country with Third Reich in 1940 or 1941. Which is a huge fault. Did you know the most advanced fighter component of all air forces in the world was the British one? There were 4 squadrons of Hurricanes, one Spitfire squadron and the other converting. And 1938-Hurricane or Spitfire totally outclassed the contemporary German equipment. German superiority dates to winter 1938/39 when Bf-109E-1 entered the production.
6) A few minutes ago I watched the same debate about whether Britain should have gone to war in 1914. It is really funny listening to Mr. Charmley, backing the appeasement back then with totally opposed logic. His 1938 interpretation: what could Chamberlain know back then? Compared to his 1914-interpretation: doesn't matter what they could have known, the only thing that mattered was the results: and it was a bloody war. Well, what a twist and a loss of all respect..-.
British had the most advanced fighters not just in 1938 but throughout the entire war. Just about every country in Europe thought they could fight off a German invasion, I seriously doubt Czechs would have lasted any longer than Poland, they probably would have caved even earlier. Look how long Carpatho-Ukraine lasted against Hungary - 4 days.
@@robfl100 Tell me three reasons why do you think that Czechoslovakia wouldn't have lasted for more than a few days. Frankly, I am very interested.
@Prakaash A There are four things to be considered.
1) Overall size of armed forces, which was undoubtedly greater for France, but you also need to consider the size and niveau of Wehrmacht, which was far greater in 1940 than back in 1938.
2) The way the units were built. French typically had a few elite units that were quite ready in fall of 1939 (a good example is Grouppe de Chasse 5), but the rest was either obsolete and understrength, or hastily modernizing, but lacking a lot of equipment, ammo and so on. The same can be said about Wehrmacht in 1938. A lot of new equipment coming to units, but very few trained pilots or soldiers, tiny reserves of ammo, bombs, lubricants and so on. On the other hand, Czechoslovak units were built pretty funcional, it resembles contemporary praxis quite remarkably - they wouldn't issue a gun or an aircraft to certain unit unless there were enough parts or ammo to fight with it for a period of time. This praxis resembles more the British attitude.
3) Mindset. Look at the British and French during the invasion to Poland, or even in the first days of May 1940. They were not willing to take much casualities or sacrifice something. Most of their governments probably thought that the war will somehow solve itself. Therefore the preparations even during the Phoney War went too slow. Hitler proved them wrong; just since the May offensive they took Germans serious. And if you doubt this, then compare the way French fought during May and June. On Marne an onwards, they have vastily improved the attitude and tactics; however they got already too weak to hold the tide. On the contrary, Czechoslovaks knew from the mid-Thirties that they were pushed with their backs to the wall. Our Granddads and Grandmas knew the price of freedom much more. In 1938 there was a huge national spirit, comparable with the heroicism that British suddenly found after Dunkirk.
4) Terrain and preparation. Most of the French campaign was fought either in lowlands or undefended hills, whereas the Maginot Line was still unbrekable for Germans on equal terms. And now look on the Czechoslovak borders - difficult terrain, filled on all flanks with pretty effective fortification, using the terrain and having two lines at minimum. With decent, well trained regular divisions behind it and ready to fill any gap or to counterattack.
And if you doubt this, than google "Batle of Mlawa", where a lot weaker Polish (in fact the only Polish) fortification held for three days against overwhelming numbers of Germans. And now consider that Czechoslovaks (not just Czechs, go google it once more) had generally better trained and equipped army, whereas Wehrmacht was a lot worse in 1938. And the terrain would be a lot more difficult then those plains in Poland.
@Prakaash A I did't manage to finish the answer, so please read it once more and think of those arguments. ;)
@Prakaash A I am not kidding. It is not like Czech soldiers would have marched down Unter den Linden in a victory parade, not like this, of course. Germany was six times bigger in terms of population and had there been no Allied intervention or had nothing unexpected happened, it would sooner or later overwhelm Czechoslovakia. Sure.
But it is almost sure that even the war against sole Czechoslovakia would be much more costly fot the Germans than the 1939 campaign against Poland. And now think of Hitler's position, which was still far from being secure. It was those daring feats from The Anschluss to the first stage of the war against Soviets that made the majority of Germans think he knows.
But a few weeks of bloodshed with very little gain could have turned the mood exactly opposite if only this happened that early in the war. And having this case studied for decades I am absolutely sure that this was a real possibility. If there would have been a coup against Hitler (which was really being prepared by officers around chief of staff Halder), or the French and British would eventually realize that Germany is still a lot less mighty than it tried to convince everyone around, this is what we can just discuss about.
What is 100 % sure: Czechoslovakia would be a lot more difficult prey for the Germans than Poland. And the resulting war would be taken under a lot better circumstances for the Allies and could have done a lot less damage worldwide. However, nazism and fascism might have survived it better than both eventually did.
There should have been a Czech academic speaking against the motion. It is Munich all over again, discussing Czech(oslovakia) without anyone from the country present.
Whats a Czech?
@@horaceball5418 nationality
Vítězslav Ureš great point.
Vítězslav Ureš it's only a debate France and Britain lost thier empires and thier wealth .plus quite a few of thier people s.
The problem was, by giving Hitler part of Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain was also giving Hitler the idea that he (Hitler) could just threaten war to gain more territory
Hitler would have invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938 regardless.
Was reading Ian smiths book he said the reason he declared Rhodesian’s ( now Zimbabwean ) unilaterally independents was because Britain had a history of appeasement and would not do anything. I think that says a lot about how the decision of appeasement affected Britain’s reputation
Smith was a far right racist.
What was Britain to do? They could see that the country was headed for war, a war the Rhodesians could not win, and a war that would bring to power the most radical and uneducated elements within the majority indigenous population.
Smith was too stupid and arrogant to recognise that his obdurate approach would yield only time, blood and loss.
Had the Rhodesians understood the inevitability of their defeat, and had they been prepared to embark on a managed transition, the likes of Silas Mundawararra would have held key roles in the future majority rule government, rather than the likes of Mugabe, Zvobgo and Tekere. A bunch of terrorists. And fools to boot.
Much of Britain's policy approach was about avoiding another Uganda Scenario at Heathrow.
So, in the end, the whites were screwed by both sides.
I was there.
Chamberlain was a naive man who meant well. I think what needs to be understood is that England in 1938 was in no shape militarily to wage war nor was France.Chamberlain’s action’s were what the people wanted and what the circumstances dictated. Frankly, I would blame the People for their shortsightedness moreso than Chamberlain. He as a politician was only doing what the people desired. At some we as people in democracies have to start accepting blame for what our elected officials do. Their power is owed to our consent.
What a completely nonsensical response.
I think a more agressive rearmament even at the Risk of financial disaster would have prevented all even considering the pacific and mediterrean theaters if britain could not compete whit Germany in population and if wanted avoid ww1 human loss then should have focused in building thanks , airplanes and ships or put some troops in poland
A note to Intelligence 2 - are you aware Prof Charmley is becoming a little bit tedious with his form drowning his content?
Charmley is charmless
Supercilious and fatuous.
I can't stand him.
He's a moron
He sounds nuts
He may very well be all of those things but the question still remains....is he right?
Jack bharucha but is he right?
@@EmmanuelGoldstein74 Is Charmley right? I don't think so. Chamberlain was ineffectual and an abysmally poor judge of character. Appeasement for appeasement's sake was useless -- particularly when Chamberlain handed over Sudenten industry to Hitler's war machine in '38 . Appeasement in order to buy time while training up an army and aggressively re-arming might have had some merit, but, despite what Charmley claims about RDF (and, by extension, the Dowding system) Chamberlain was not only doing far too little to prepare, but he was afraid of provoking Hitler.
How many of us, in Chamberlain's place would've been more Churchillian? The fact that he (Chamberlain) was retained in Churchill's cabinet says volumes.
+davidius78rex Good point. IMO, it was maybe not the wisest thing to do (to make a deal with a totalitarian dictator), but certainly the only thing possible -- apart from an all out war.
He was "retained" as a part of our wartime united government. He fought all of churchill's anti german policies. I guess i should thank you all for my families disgraut at the blitz. Thank you europe!
And thank you lord halifax
Churchill kept him there to control him. People here say its the only choice that could be made? Churchill had the option too make peace with germany and he refused. Churchill was a hero, Chamberlain was an idiot!
@@peteb8556 and? If he was dying or not makes no difference. There is nobody here who says Churchill was a great peace time leader. But Chamberlain was a highly gulligle and incompitent war time leader, and thats what is being discussed in this video. If you think im wrong take a look at the early stages of world war two when Chamberlain was in charge of the nation. Never sent any aid to Poland, the norwegian campaign was a joke and the battle of France, do i even have to elaborate that even further?
40.57 "When Hitler swallowed the whole of Czechoslovakia " He did not.
He left Slovakia alone but Poland and Hungary helped themselves to the carcass of that area which meant that Czechoslovakia would cease to exist in any case.
Hitler's best trick was to take most of what he wanted while at the same time divvying up the scraps to other powers in order to make them complicit.
Poland only took a very small border region that the Slovaks just ended up retaking in 1939. Comparing that to what Hungary did is wrong
@@robfl100 True, but Hitler nudged Slovakia to declare themselves independent immediately after he went in to Prague. It was a lucky let off for Chamberlain as he dismissed Czechoslovakia as an non existing nation after his Munich agreement debacle.
@@PiggyWiggyO it was a country not a nation.
Hindsight is easy, but the earliest and best opportunity was in 1936 when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland. A demilitarized Rhineland was Frances best security against Germany. Should any future conflict have broken out all the had to do was occupy up to the Rhine and Germany was stuck. As soon as the Germans marched in in 1936 they should have kicked them back out again.
Agreed
Agreed
Totally disagree
few people realize that Chamberlain actually did accomplish Peace in Our Time. For a few months, anyway. Sux about that
This is not quite fair, because in the 1930s, the word 'appeasement' meant what we would today call 'negotiation'; Chamberlain, realising that 'collective security' had failed, tried to negotiate peace with Hitler. Chamberlain's aim was to reach agreement with Germany to settle its grievances once and for all. It was based on the opinion that Germany had legitimate grievances as the terms of the Versailles were excessively harsh and that it was not worth going to war over distant territories that would be difficult to strategically defend. Britain made concessions to Hitler in the hope that he would be satisfied. In the latter stages, it gave Britain time to rearm and prepare for war if it came to that.
Britain should have stayed out of world war one. That was our downfall.
Agreed 100%, WW1 bankrupted Britain and they have never recovered since, WW 2 just put them deeper into their shattered financial state, as a nation now they do not know whether they are coming or going, post WW 2 they looked to Socialism to save them, but as China found it does not create wealth or lift the standard of living amongst the poorest sectors of the nation.
If Britain has successfully avoided any major wars in the 20th century, do you believe its' colonial holdings would still be more or less intact in 2024? Or do you mean something else by Britain's downfall?
@@Daniel_Jonesthey wouldn't stay intact, national sentiments would eventually rise and they had so many colonies that they couldn't suppress them all
Charmley sounds like a church preacher telling off his community 😂
No, he didn't.
Having watched this, I can't shake my first thought: what about the czechs? Chamberlains policy was wrong.
And what could Britain have done about it? Basically nothing.
@@thethirdman225 invade them together with France and Poland or something ?
@@dafuqmr13 Er... no. Not possible.
@@thethirdman225 why do you think so?
@@dafuqmr13 Do you know who long it takes to plan an invasion?
What Hitler actually wanted was 'Lebensraum' - which were Slavic lands east of Germany.
His intent was not European domination - as one debater incorrectly stated.
Actually, after the invasion of Poland, Hitler was surprised when Britain and France declared war on Sept. 3rd, 1940.
However, after Germany and the Soviets took Poland, German generals were surprised when Hitler announced
his intent to attack France and they tried to talk him out of it.
funny, huh, that Hitler almost achieved what he didn't want; European domination. What a dope he must have been, to 'accidently' have taken over all Europe. Well, live and learn!
The issue was that his invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia contrasted everything he said prior
"Lebensraum" would inevitably mean domination of Europe with Britain and France deprived of any allies in the east, along with tens of millions subject to oppression, expulsion or extermination.
He didn't primarily wanted the whole world but if he could annex a country he ruthlessly would,
so you are wrong.
Dear, oh, dear. France and Britain gave a guarantee to Poland. Britain and France declared war on Germany. Get it right.
"I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I" - Piers Brendon.
Why can't Amurikans pronounce "Adolf"?
Because they're imbeciles.
A shift in approval from 25% to 44% on this matter, in this day and age, is seismic. There were some arguments on the "for" side I had never heard before, such as the Sumner Welles proposal. I had always suspected there were senior Americans who thought this way but that those ranks did not stop with Joe Kennedy. The way Americans want it viewed today is that they were always opposed to Hitler and that is why they love Churchill so much. There wasn't anything from the other side I hadn't heard before but equally, I wasn't surprised that their approval went up slightly too. I was equally unsurprised when, despite the massive swing, they prevailed in the end.
"Appeasement" did not exist when Britain and France were occupying half of the world.
Hitler never intended to invade the UK.
He simply came to see invading Russia as the easier option after they failed to secure the air-superiority they needed for the invasion of, and knockout blow on Britain.
@@bolivar2153 The OKW started preparing for Barbarossa as soon as Stalin broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 28 June 1940.
@@MarkHarrison733 You still haven't disproved the simple fact that they thought Russia was the easier target than Britain.
All you have done is show that Hitler intended to turn on his new found Bolshevik friends.
Operation Sea Lion (the invasion of Britain) was postponed "indefinitely" only upon the failure of the Luftwaffe to secure a victory over the RAF, and thus the failure to gain the required air supremacy needed for such an amphibious invasion.
@@MarkHarrison733 Ah, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, when Hitler signed away the majority of Eastern Europe to the Bolshevik "menace".
I'm sorry ... what point are you trying to make?
Imperial Germany was once the world's third largest colonial Empire, and seeking more. So what?
Good riddance to all of them. If you have your "favourite" Empire, good for you.
charmley = 'british secret weapon, radar *wavy hands*"
Hitler's aggression was given free reign and became an inevitability in November 1937 when Halifax met him at Berchesgarten. Halifax, Chamberlain's personal envoy, sidelined Eden the actual Foreign Secretarty. The whole thing was a mess, it unravelled from this point on. Halifax, whom Hitler later referred to as 'the English parson', effectively gave Hitler the green light re his stated plans for Austria and Czechslovakia. It didnt help that Halifax thought Hitler was a footman and nearly handed him his coat. In any event, Hitler came away with the firm impression that Britain, his only real continental concern, would not stand in his way. At this time Germany was re-arming like mad in direct contravention of Versailles, all the signs were there yet Chamberlain persisted in his naive but honest belief that he, and Halifax, having replaced Eden, could keep the lunatic from starting what became WW2.
Churchill was magnanimous in his eulogy at Chamberlain's wake. That doesn't mean that he approved of Appeasement.
Chamberlain was a better man than Churchill. Churchill was incredibly racist, said and did some awful things
@@markmorris7123 ; bollocks to Churchill being racist. What the feck has that got to do with Britain fighting for it's very survival in WW2 ? Because of Churchill, the UK did lose the Empire . Churchill was in the pay of zionist jewish financiers...please do some proper reading. You will not learn from the inept and paid orthodox historians who never venture out of their 'ivory towers' . Almost none can understand German here in the UK, and the USA for that matter.
@@peteb8556 ahh.. bollocks. The standard reply of the non educated.
@@peteb8556 you assume historians do not know of the bolsheviks and and the millions of Christians that were killed. But what about the four million Indians that Churchill starved. Churchill didn't necessarily save us from hitler, he was a war hawk and wanted war. What you are whittling on about is not some fabricated zionist agenda, its quite simply the ugly face of capitalism. When everything revolves around profit you end up with sociopaths in control.. And then sometimes a person will be evil enough to make the population think they are voting for a socialist government,, hence Russian bolsheviksm. Stop watching your mind dimming conspiracy videos.
@@wolfthequarrelsome504 *uneducated
Here's an interesting trivia fact: Neville Chamberlain (1869-1940) is distantly related to Civil War Union Brigadier General Joshua Chamberlain (1828-1914), who received the Medal of Honor for his heroic defense of Little Round Top, at the Battle of Gettysburg. It's not a coincidence that they share the same surname.
I am not attacking you. PLEASE tell me your sources for that.
@@rockytoptom Basically, I did a laborious internet search about it, but I probably got it wrong. It was a long time ago, and I don't remember the details; some weeks ago, I rechecked it, and found nothing. The only connection, at this point is their surnames.
Lots of talk about Churchill here (understandably). No mention at all of Baldwin. Chamberlain was bad, Baldwin was worse. No on the motion.
Fanatics hooligans and eccentrics . Sounds like Britain
How convenient for historians that Neville Chamberlain had not the remotest notion of national security. Weekly letters to his sisters, indeed!
Chamberlain certainly understood geopolitics better than Churchill.
Chamberlain knew about the Legion Condor in Spain.
Spain?
Now, where is Spain?
Think reeeeaaaaalll hard.....
Who rearmed Britain in the 1930s? Think real hard...
On the eve of his invasion of Poland, Hitler told his generals, our enemies are…not men of action, not masters.
They are little frogs, I saw them at Munich.
Appeasement had backfired, confident of Western cowardice, Hitler became more aggressive realising the cowardly French would wave the white flag.
@@thethirdman225
Who re-armed Britain in the forties…think real hard?
Who re-armed Britain in the twenties …think real hard?
the first guy says Britain had the policy of appeasement throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
What about the napoleonic and crimean wars?
David Johnson no, the Napoleonic wars STARTED in the late 18th century but were mostly in the 19th century.
brits started a handful of wars at the beginning of the 20th century....when they wanted to make the world belive that germany is the aggressor.
All the speakers seem to have missed that "appeasement" began under Stanley Baldwin. Chamberlain only became Prime Minister in May 1937, so he inherited the "policy". So arguments about what might have been done in 1934, '35 and '36 are irrelevant to the question.
Neither Germany nor Britain was "ready" for war prior to 1939. Churchill's 1920's policy of assuming no major war for the next ten years had left Britain very weak indeed. France was simply incapable of any offensive war, relying on conscripts and the Maginot Line.
Curiously, Chamberlain remained very popular and respected (both in parliament and outside) right up to his death in late 1940.
He did the right thing, he tried his damnedest to stop a war, and if the other players - the USA, Poland had done their bit, he would have succeeded. Hitler saw his chance and went for it. Just like other politicians do.
He shouldn't have formed an unworkable pact with fascist Poland.
1:23:13 It would have been massively helpful if you defended our merchant vessels off the Barbary coast and didn't impress our sailors into service. How far back do you want to take this it would have been nice thing?
The arguments that the 2 Professors made defending Chamberlain were weak. Chamberlain kept bending over backwards and like any bully that senses weakness Hitler took advantage. Chamberlain's indecision led to millions of deaths by not facing the reality of who and what Hitler was all about. Chamberlain was a bit egotistical and I am sure meant well, but he simply was in over his head.
Chamberlain should have pressured the anti-Semitic regime in Warsaw more heavily to allow a referendum on Danzig.
@@MarkHarrison733 Yeah, that totally would have helped, just like ceding Sudetenland helped Czechoslovakia. Oh, wait, it didn't help at all.
@@Asdasxel Poland invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938-39.
It should be pointed out that the slaughter of WW I had ended only 20 years before 1938 ,
and this was well in the memory of people in Britain and France.
Also recall, in the 1930's , Europe and much of the world was in the grips of the Depression.
As a result, during the Munich Crisis, there was a strong resolve within the British and French public to maintain peace.
Last concluding argument speaker says “ah” approx 50 times
Let's say that Chamberlain did not take up a policy of appeasement, what could have Great Britain done any different?
Sir Richard Evans should look at Britain's, France's and Germany's military budgets.
It soon becomes clear that Germany's military spending started to rise in 1934
while Britain's didn't start to increase until 3 years later in 1937.
Chamberlain was buying time to re arm.
As RAF Fighter command pilot Al Deare said, thank goodness Chamberlain bought us a year ,
otherwise we would be flying Glouster Gladiators.
Following up on Alan Deere's comment , RAF fighter command didn't start to receive Hurricanes until late 1937. But these were equipped with constant pitch prop's and cloth covered wings.
Hurricanes weren't fitted with aluminum skinned wings until late 1939.
Initially, there were production problems with the manufacture of the Spitfire, so fighter command
didn't see them until August 1938.
The first 77 Spitfires were made with fixed pitch 2 blade props.
It wasn't until the 175th Spitfire produced that they were equipped with 3 blade de Havilland or Rotol props.
Most of France's air force was obsolete.
In 1938, the Luftwaffe was superior to the RAF and French Air Force.
.
During the Munich Crisis the BEF could field 108,000 solders in Europe, while the German Army had 600,000.
Most of France's Army were reservists.
The only area where Britain and France had superiority was in the water.
The King of Belgium insisted on a position of strict Neutrality and would not militarily co operate
with Britain or France prior to May 10th, 1940.
The United States had an army smaller than Portugal's and was maintaining its position of isolationism.
@@paulunderhill5642 But the problem was that Britain agreed with the Annexation of Czechia to extend peace by literally no time cos Britain would not be at war. If they did not support the annexation of Czechia. Czechoslovakia would probably fight or would not be attacked at all but both options would give Britain more time to arm than giving Czechia free.
@@paulunderhill5642 If Czechia exited the border between Czechia and Berlin would be less than 100 km Germany could not have started war when one of their enemies would have so easy access to their capital and before the annexation of Czechia German economy was predicted to collapse.
John Charmley is such a repellent, egregious chap.
bnipmnaa, Read Charmley's trilogy beginning with 'Chamberlain And The Lost Peace.' If you are not impressed, you are either wanting in historical understanding or you don't like what you see, which is rather petty.
It's like that, is it? Either you agree with me (i.e. the fella that has convinced me of his version of history) or you're an idiot? You very, very silly person. Stop wasting bandwidth.
bnipmnaa, Have you read the man's work?
He's the clown that thought Britain should have sought an arrangement with Nazi Germany, isn't he? The one that thought we could have kept our empire long after WW2? He's a total buffoon, only a fool would take him seriously.
@@bnipmnaa oh really? Herminston is being played like a fool.
What a joke to invoke Czech weakness. . Czechs mobilized over a million men during this crisis ! The French had more than enough capability to reoccupy the Rhineland - nobody’s asking them to go to Berlin ! As for chamberlain clever augmentation of the raf, it was still half hearted and sent another message he wasn’t serious…
No matter what stance Prof. Charmbly takes, his wild gesticulation doesn't make him any more convincing.
Chamberlain did what he thought was the right thing. To understand his thinking we only need to look at the backdrop to this situation ie: just twenty years earlier the dreadful carnage of the First World War-there would not have been an appetite for repeating that conflict either with the Politicians or the general public of that time.
To his credit, he had started to build-up the British Armed forces with the Royal Air Forces building the two super Fighters-the Hurricane and Spitfire and other areas too. Playing for time very belatedly really. Hitler was ruthless and cunning contrasting to Chamberlain's naivety. The real culprits here go back to Baldwin and the economic weakness of the early thirties with the major cuts to our defense budget at that time made it a very one-sided situation very much slanted in Hitler's favor.
I'm content to sympathise with both those who criticise Chamberlain and those who excuse him. He was clearly in a terrible bind. It was understandable to let Austria go. Horrible though Hitler's methods were in the Anschluss, it was going to be difficult to go to war when so many Austrians welcomed it. I respect his attempts to find a diplomatic solution. Who apart from Hitler wanted another war?
However Chamberlain proved himself naive (at Munich) to believe that he had got a meaningful settlement. And so both Prague and Slovakia were soon absorbed along with the Skoda works.
People can do what they think is right and still be absolutely wrong
Damn straight. He sold out the only functioning democracy in Eastern Europe.
@@Conn30Mtenor Which was?
@@donaldmacfarlane7325 Czechoslovakia.
Chamberlain might have been ok in 1936 but his complete failure to even try and get The Soviet union as an ally allowing Ribbentrop to do so .
Who wanted an alliance with Stalin? Nobody. You talk as though it would have been an acceptable thing. It wouldn’t.
Anne Applebaum, Richard Evans. Doesn't get better than this😮
Very interesting
I enjoy these discussions but why arent our academics debating current policies. We are in trouble.
Try Oxford Union on RUclips
Because this is history.
Chamberlain did the right thing?
From the POV of 1938, an easy "yes".
From the POV of 1940, an easy "no".
Going to war in 1938 would have been disastrous.
Thank God for Churchill if the United Kingdom didn’t fight the entire European Jewish and Gypsy Population will have been destroyed. I said this considering that Churchill was a racist and imperialist. Hitler will have eventually turned to England!
Don’t compare ourselves with the Nazi!
@@rodneyscales195 I stil think its very sad the war happend. And for Danzig. Its a region originally German, Poland should not even own it. UK and frances arrogance and map boarding toyplay and occupying the Rhine while demanding GER pay for the whole WW1... Such arrogance. I hold UK, France and USA responsible for the murder of all victims in ww2. Because the way I see it, it was definetly and very avoidable.
@@rodneyscales195 And yeah, uhm, Soviet kinda, took over all camps, etc in Germany and poland, and guess what. They "Also" love killing gypsies and jews. Soo uhm. Churchill is not a good one i guess and that what I am sticking too. He has a saying and I qote. "History will be very kind to me, because I intend to write it myself" W.C
Chamberlain's stance encouraged Hitler to go to war when he did, before Donitz had built up his submarine fleet to the numbers he needed. If Chamberlain had have caused a delay who knows where or when the atomic bomb would have been built. Hitlers war saved humanity from this unknown. Chamberlain was therefore vital to the process.
Interesting debate.
Not sure if there is much of a debate. Had Mr. Chamberlain just sat down, had some tea and relaxed for a couple of hours then there possibly wouldn't have been a WWII.
Plans were in action for operation Fall Grün - the invasion of Czechoslovakia which itself was allied with France and by extension Britain. The German army high command was totally opposed to the action not wanting another war. So much so, that they were on the verge of storming the reich-chancellery and machine-gunning Adolf and all his friends.
Even if a war had started, Czechoslovakia was in a much better strategic position then Poland. The border mountain regions (Sudetenland) hosted tens of thousands of fortifications, a multi-billion crown project improving on the Maginot line design. (German commanders later reported to have had chills running down their spine seeing what they almost ended going up against. Their army was well equipped, decent tanks, OK planes. A fall back position (with military industrial capacity) in the far east of Slovakia and Zakarpathia. Plan was to hold out for 4 weeks (3 main lines of defense) and then fall back east and hold out for months providing the French open up a second front. Instead these border regions were given as an ultimatum for guaranteeing the sovereignty of the remaining rump-state itself annexed moths later.
So instead the country's entire military industry, equipment, financial assets, etc, were seized without a fight.
On this issue Churchill had it right.
Sidenote: Some argue that the Sudeten-region should have been ceded to Austria or Germany already in 1918, based the principle of self-determination. Well one could argue the same for the Lusatia region where the Sorbs would have rather been part of Czechoslovakia. The basis is one of multiple legal documents, establishing the boundaries for Czech lands, it was no accident these areas were settled. Hitlers Lebensraum policy was nothing new. Morever, one forgets that these people were already occupied with 2/3rd being chased out or killed in 1620 with those remaining subject to very harsh Germanization policies, making them second class citizens and restricting language rights right until the creation of the republic.
So overnight, a new state was born, and granted full rights and political representation to the very same people (Sudeten-Germans) who had fought hardest to deny it to them (in their own land). There was no retaliation, no violent clashes, just complaints that a sign now had a Czech name next to the German one (even though all these places were founded by the Czechs (even Meissen) Yes they were now living under a Czech dominated administration - yet the state was a model democracy even paying out higher social security payments to the Germans after 1929. The report made by Lord Runciman was based on staged events coordinated by Goebbels office. The big grievance was that German companies weren't used for the border fortification contract, but this was due to national security concerns, with multiple infiltrators operating in the country at the time.
The second occupation was just too much. Was unfortunate (and wrong) what happened after WWII but in the historical context I think it can be understood.
@@valorum999 If only neville didnt declared war on Germany, Blitz and Dunkirk would'nt happened 😭😭😭
I suppose in the name of open mindedness you entertain the world of all possibilities. Giving away Czechoslovakia: let's consider that from the perspective of its impact on the German military machine. It increased his base of heavy industry by over 60%. The Czechoslovakian industrial base was mighty, and it helped armed Hitler. Further, the Germans expanded their inventory of tanks by a huge number as the Germans took the Czech tanks and folded them into the Wermach and SS. And these tanks were superior in both armor and gun to the then current German inventory. Ooops. They don't mention that in history text books? Probably because Chamberlain is twice and more the moron he is initially considered to be.
If stalling is the fruit of appeasement, the stall favored the Germans.
I suggest you don't try to appease the unappeasable. That is the fault of Chamberlain's logic. He simply allowed Hitler to amass more military might, expanding his base as he went. Lacking credible evidence to support his assumption, Chamberlain and many others at the time, PRESUMED Hitler to be appeasable. Ooops. Guess that was a big unwarranted assumption, eh? If Chamberlain is today, with the benefit of hindsight, regarded as a loser who enabled Hitler, it is because the facts support that indictment.
If you end up with an open mind, you might just have been too intellectually lazy to lock the door when the proper conclusion occurred to you. Or, not. You might just be what Stalin called a useful idiot.
Remote Viewer 1 Merely the Sudetenland (together with smaller territories annexed by Poland) was 'given away' as a consequence of the Munich summit: Czech industry only came into German hands when their nation fell six months later. Had the agreement not been made (by your own logic), Hitler would've been able to tap that resource in March 1939, when the Allies were, comparatively, even more at a disadvantage than they later proved to be that September, however morally desirable it may have been to militarily back the most genuinely democratic nation in the region.
Sadly, it's all too likely that Britain (both Parliament and people) wouldn't have found either the resolve or where-with-all (in September 1938) to go to war with Germany over Czechoslovakia, as still proved to be so six months later. It was Hitler's violation of pledges that actually resolved Britain to oppose German hegemony in 'middle Europe' at all costs, and ironically with a commitment of support for the military / clerical dictatorship of the Second Polish Republic.
The pursuit of national interest rarely coincides with what is morally correct, as most modern foreign policy still demonstrates. It's highly tendentious and unbalanced to single out Chamberlain for special opprobrium in this aspect.
All too true. There were many links in the chain. But each one had to fail, and that failure, whether it was the French stopping the remilitarization of the Rhine Land, or Chamberlain's appeasement; they all bear responsibility for knowing that they could have and should have taken the downside possibilities much more seriously.
It makes me mentally nauseous to realize how in even in retrospect, we intellectually miss the connections. Give up only a part of Czechoslovakia, not the whole thing. He won't get the rest until later. We are attempting the strictest intellectual honesty here, and we have the benefit of hindsight, and yet . . . We still miss it. I think I get your point. Please stretch to see mine. Incrementalism played out to Hitler's favor, we both agree to that. That heavy industry was vital, and on every breath out, the anaconda just contracts a little bit, a little bit, and then WOW, how did that happen? I can't breathe.
The Czech heavy industry was the prize, the major strategic piece on the table. The population's genetic/historic heritage was merely an ideologic gambit.
Chamberlain was not an idiot. Chamberlain should not be singled out alone, 100% strongly agree. Many, most, but not all agreed with the strategy he took. He was the choice of the UK, not Churchill.
I most think Chamberlain is held up as iconic of failed appeasement. His photo at the plane of "peace in our time" is his political epitaph. He resembles his own failure to the point of actual embodiment.
But yes, it is exactly as you say. He was far far far from alone. Iran and its nuclear ambitions is but one example of many in present day life of a step at a time. One day in my lifetime, there will be nuclear war resultant.
Remote Viewer 1 It's often (in one's own mind) not easy to separate historical reality from contemporary sensitivity or belief (especially with the benefit of hindsight) but the intellectual exercise is still a worthwhile pursuit. I don't want to squabble over the details with you, but may I suggest you read Professor Alan Taylor (A J P Taylor) on the topic: 'The Origins of the Second World War' :-)
I would argue that his talk of peace was for the domestic audience, but he did not himself believe Hitler at all. Evidence for that is found in his response to his parliamentary critics in the House of Commons on 3rd October 1938. He starts off defending his appeasement policy, but more tellingly, he pivots toward the end making the case for Britain's need for speedy rearmament. "I am too much of a realist to believe that we are going to achieve our paradise in a day... Let no one think...we can afford to relax our efforts...Until we know that we have obtained co-operation...we here must remain on guard. -Sound to me like he knew who and what he was dealing with and was using what he felt was like his only option and that was to buy time. He may or may not have been right, but it's easy to make judgment well after the fact.
British military aircraft production 1938 - 2,827 - in the year after the Munich Agreement up to the outbreak of war - 7,940.
LOL I have just talked with someone who supports #Iran deal. I told him that in my eyes, this deal is in some sense very similliar to the Munich pact. And than he told me:
"Chamberlain at least tried to make peace! Churchhill is one of the reasons for World War II".
I am getting really depressed by this. How naive can pepole be :/
+tomers99 That's typical "Western logic".
Perpetually revolving meddling in the form of artificial alliances and favoritism, to oppose whatever the fuckups past meddling has resulted in (Past fuckup and meddling here, meaning the Invasion of Iraq in 2003)
Iran is being propped up, because of ISIS.
If the middle East topples, so will Iran (at some future point), then Pakistan will be the next domino stone, leaving ISIS in possession of nuclear weapons...
This is so off base I don't know where to start.
Iran could have had a complete system in place from North Korea..virtually anytime they wanted it.
North Korea needs oil more then anything..and sanctions on Iran made North Korea one of it few clients willing to ignore these.
A study done in the 70's at MIT indicated a significant need that Iran had even at that time to move to nuclear power generation. Iran cannot go back to coal and it cannot harness hydro....and finally it cannot sell oil which it needs to sell on the world markets to grow their economy.
Teheran today has almost 7M people and faces daily rolling brown outs.
Inspections done arbitrarily...even 24 days later will always find the nuclear footprint even after 24 weeks or to that extent even after 24 years...so there is no way they could get away with it...even if they wanted to..
+Remi Henri Royer I agree with you
Iran was in fact the very first freely elected democracy in the Middle East in 1950. The new president Mosaddegh basically said no more free oil to Churchill while he was using it for the newly converted British Naval Fleet..going from coal to bunker fuel..
Mosaddegh wanted money for infrastructure including schools and hospitals. Britain respectfully disagreed and along with the CIA implemented a bloodless coup..removing Mosaddegh from power and replacing him with Shah Reza Pahlavi. Iran then became a western ally right up until the Khomeini revolution..which is certainly seen as a bad move..but still remained bloodless vis a vis U.S. despite the truly dumb hostage crisis.
Today, 80% of the population wants the mullahs gone while 20 % support them...and all the trash talk about Israel...is just that..trash talk that happens between countries all the time...to that..there isn't a week when N.Korea does not threaten South Korea and others..
+Remi Henri Royer funding of Hiz b' Allah, training Afghan jihadis...: "Show me where Iran is currently committing aggression" Are you playing dumb or TRULY such a simpleton?? ...*AMIA bombing, AC Flight 901 bombing, KHOBAR TOWERS bombing, attempted murder of SALMON RUSHDIE, 13 Feb 2013 bombing in India, supplying explosive in KENYA to Ahmad Mohammad & Sayed Mousavi, Burgas bombing (BULGARIA)... Iran NEVER STOPPED targeting civilians,* and you ask such a dumb thing?
Do you get all your "news" from PressTV and MSNBC?? I ask this after proving you are IGNORANT of the facts (recent history) as the litany of events I listed is proof of, and you provided ___??? ZERO facts is what YOU provided to support YOUR (very unoriginal...parrot-like, PC drone that you are) accusation that HE is the brainwashed one, brainwashed by Fox.
+Father Muhammad Goldstein, O.B.E., Vizconde de Acapulco
The"Oka Crisis" the "Gitga'at Conflict"..."Matawa Ring of Fire Crisis"..."the famous Site C Conflict"...."the Kinder Morgan Situation"..."the Sea to Sky blockade"..."the Lubicon boycot"..."Bill C45 Disaster"...
Well dude...I can reel off some heavy issues as well...
Do you have a clue about any of these??....
Just because I named them off..does it prove I know crucial details about any of them?
By naming them do I automatically prove who was to blame and whose fault the conflicts were?
By naming these issues...have I actually given you anything resembling information on which you can base the circumstances under which these events happened?
..what was the outcome..and impact?
I don't have to resort to calling you a moron and an idiot for not knowing these things...
I don't have to resort to be an immediate ass about my knowledge being better then yours..
Lighten up dude..present yourself with some class!
Neville Chamberlain 30 September 1938. "The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine [shows paper to crowd]. Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you: " ... We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again." Chamberlain died 9 November 1940 and the world was at war.
Yes, he did right, except the English never ventured to ask the hypotetical question of Hitler's intentions, merely based on his actions when he violated the territories outside Germany and Austria, being naive on the grievances of the Germans by how they really felt after being unfairly treated at the loss ocf WW1, a war they didn't start.
The problem with posing a question like this (Was Neville Chamberlain weak?) to a panel of historians, is that no one wants to answer much in the affirmative. The reason for this, is that they fear it might make them appear less intellectual, for agreeing too much with the general consensus.
Academia is rife with people who oppose the consensus, merely to make themselves appear more sophisticated than the rest. Absurd studies are sometimes conducted, just to "prove" that some counter-theory might turn every other theory on it's head. Historians hope to make a name for themselves by proposing radical theories, merely because they are radical.
Chamberlain looks weak in retrospect, and in comparison to Churchill, who was the iconic "Warhawk" and iconic "British Bulldog" at the time, but Chamberlain represented the general feeling and consensus of the interwar years. Almost any other politician would have appeared just as weak, in the same position.
Appearances aside. He did the wrong thing. The Proposition was incorrect. Stopping Mussolini at the Suez. Stopping the Germans in 1936 would have been the right thing to do. Stopping them in 1938, also the right thing to do. The wording of the proposition makes it simpler. They could have asked something more interesting, like "Did Chamberlin have other options or possibilities?"
Have you not understood that we can not change the past, even how much we want to. We can only at least try to understand it
You are right that many politicians reflect the general feeling of their constitutents. Sometimes, however, leading the constituents to an unpopular conclusion is part of being a leader. No doubt, the British public did not want war, which they saw as a rerun of the horrors of WWI. But that lead to wishful thinking and delusions. The result was a disaster.
That's why I try to keep a balanced view and never dismiss an idea subjectively just because it was part of a more general consensus. I try to acknowledge the place of traditional ideas while introducing new perspectives that are very rarely paid attention to.
The winner in a 3 sided war is he who enters last. Chamberlain made a big mistake by declaring war on Germany. He should of said "let you and him fight" and waited for USSR and Germany to fight each over first.
It was his plan, that is why he did it. But you've missed the part when USSR and Germany joint together in August 39 and let Britain to fight a war with its funny totally unprepared army… It took 3 next years and massive US aid until Britain was ready to put in field at least as much, as it gave up in central Europe in 1938/39. It is untold truth, that Britain is a true loser of ww2. Even Germany get more of it.
@@tomfu6210 Giving security guarantees to fascist Poland was stupid. Once Germany and Russia share a border there war between the two was inevitable.
@@MrMonkeybat The real purpose behind the Polish guarantee was not that Chamberlain really wanted to protect the territory of Poland, but that it was meant as a deterrent to Hitler. Also both Hitler and Stalin would have recognised Chamberlain's plan. That's why the Soviet Union was dubious about British intentions, at least it claims to be when it espouses the theory that the West is trying to take advantage of a conflict between Germany and the Soviet Union and then eliminate them both. If the Soviet Union, which everyone knew was weak, fights Germany, the biggest loser would be Stalin. This would have pushed him to reach an agreement with Hitler faster.
Both sides are in a sense right. Chamberlain could only do what he did, because who he was as a person and a politician could not possibly envisage the ambition of scope that was needed to fully confront Hitler: deficit financing of rearmament; wooing the US (and maybe USSR); political rapprochement with the Labour Party and engineering unions at home. His entire political outlook could not comprehend these. It wasn't so much his own failure, but that of an entire socio-political system.
To Anne Applebaum everyday is September 1939