question Neville Chamberlain

[woa2]

In 1938 Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister, signed an agreement with Hitler over Czechoslovakia. There are different was of looking at this matter - what is your view?

 

1. Neville Chamberlain really thought he had secured 'Peace in our time' from Hitler and averted WW2.

 

2. Knowing the country was ill-prepared for war, he was playing for time.

 

3. What do you think?

 

If you want to see the 'Piece of Paper' from 1938, it on display in the Imperial War Museum. Also, where the plane landed and he waived the paper about, is now the west-bound services on the M4 at Heston.

[ArtistsRifles]

Purely a personal view - Chamberlain was a typical timid (and I use the polite term here) political idiot. The odds on Hitler ever keeping to the terms on the "piece of paper" were slim to none and I think Chamberlain was over-impressed by the alleged abiilities of the Nazi's.

Again - purely a personal opinion - he should have swung alongside Lord HawHaw at the end of the war.

[antarmike]

But Hilter fooled the Russians too, because they thought they had a pact with him, then came Barbarossa...

[Tony B]

the Axis forces would have ben much better prepared and equipped if they could have put of fthe start of the war till 1940/41. A few lies would have bene worthit, after they won, who'd have argued?

[ArtistsRifles]

But Hilter fooled the Russians too, because they thought they had a pact with him, then came Barbarossa...

 

My point exactly Mike. Left to Chamberlain we'd all be speaking German right now..........

[woa2]

My point exactly Mike. Left to Chamberlain we'd all be speaking German right now..........

 

Chamberlain actually died in November 1940. He was dismissed as Prime Minister in May 1940 after the Norway fiasco and Churchill took over. In 1940 (after Dunkirk) there were members of Parliment who were keen on an amistice with Hitler, but Churchill's 'We will fight them on the Beaches' speech stopped this.

My opinion is that Chamberlain was nieve and beleived in his pact with Hitler. Thank God that Churchill took over when he did.

[Tony B]

Chambelin's first taste of political power was a director of conscription during 1915. he was sacked by LLoyd George who considered him usless. Maybe carrying the overall responsobility for dragging many men to thier deaths meant he would avoid war at any price. Churchill was not a nice man. Yes he made hard descions that would need to be made in time of war, but the British people got rid of him fast when peace came.

 

Chamberlin wa intrested in music and the arts, he had trained as an engineer, metaligist and been Lord Mayor of Birmingham, being heavily involved in urban planning. basically a nice guy, to nice for the time?

[antarmike]

Let us remeber that a week before the agreement, Czechoslovakia called for mobilisation and war seemed imminent.

France partially mobilised the follwing day.

 

Chamberlain was not alone, in deciding something had to be done to avert war within a few days.

 

French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier, travelled to Munich for the same meeting. He knew France was totally unprepared for war, and being a realist recognised that something had to be done, and they both agreed to Hitler’s demands to takeover the Sudetenland land. However Daladier was far from happy and he abhorred the Munich agreement's appeasement of the Nazis.

 

It is well known Chamberlain was elated, and declared before a jubilant crowd in London that the Pact brought "peace in our time".

 

Benito Mussolini, was not in a pact with Germany at that time, and he to was present in Munich and agreed to the Munich Agreement, though whether he was happy, worried, or destested what was done I do not know.

 

It was not just a weak Chambelain agreeing to anything, some of Europes most powerful leaders agreed to the same deal.

Edited October 1, 2008 by antarmike

[Tony B]

As far as Mussolini is concened. When he signed the Axis alliance Churchill is reputed to have remarked 'Well, we had them last time,'. Though this rasies an intresting point. Both Japan and Italy were on the Allied side during the Great War. Both had German prisoners in thier care. There is also eveidence that this led to mutual respect. In 1911 it was a widley held belief that there would never be a European War as it was economically impossible. (Sound Familiar?) Chamberlin with a buissness background, and all the work he had done on urban renewal, it must have been an anthema to think he would be commiting Britain to another European war, less than twenty years after the war to end all wars. Also Chamberlin was a politiain, and his electorate had made it quite clear PEACE! There is the classic Oxford Unioun debate' This house will not fight for the country'. Hitler on the other hand had his meglomania and had been fed that Britian was not preapred to fight. It has also been suggested Chamberlin was prepared to sacrifice his future and reputation to gain any extra time for re-armarment. Once again you have to try and forget knowledge and put yourself into the society at the time. Anti-Semitism was the standard, the Bomber would always get through, losses and the injured of the great War still current. Disolousenment with the 'Land fit for Heroes'.

 

As for the French, well I know it goes back to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, but the French pushed at Versaille to hammer Germany into the stone age and gave the excuse for the 'We were betrayed' excuse for the German Loss.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Tony B

[antarmike]

Just supposing Chambelain had not signed the agreement, We could have been at war within a few days or weeks. We were not prepared by 1939, but somehow we pulled through, but what would have happened if we had gone to war a year earlier. We would most likely have been speaking German now regardless. (although at the time nobody realised that Germany was not as strong as everyone else thought)

 

I don't see how Chambelain could have ever gone down in history for making a good decision, simply because there was no way forward that made any better sense...

 

Neville Chambelain gets the blame for appeasing Hiltler, but in reality he only gets the blame because he was in office at the time war started. The reality is that it was Bladwin's government that had failed to deal with the rise to power of the Nazi's and the clear breaches of post World War One treaties as the Germans re-armed and prepared for war.

Edited October 1, 2008 by antarmike

[Tony B]

Very true, the rock and the very hard place. Trouble is Chamberlin made the classic political mistake, made a public pledge and got it very wrong (WMD and They want us to liberate them, come to mind)

[ArtistsRifles]

Points made are valid i admit - but Chamberlain was head of the country - politically at least and it could be argued that a show of strength by the UK coupled with some nifty dis-information by the Intelligence units could have made Hitler pull back. After all - at the time he still had some fairly common sense generals advising him as opposed to some years later.

I feel that what we got back then with Chamberlain would be like our current excuse for a PM signing a deal with Al Queda to stop any further risk of suicide attacks in the UK. Both to me are classic sell-outs putting others at risk for a personal belief and not what a PM is supposed to do!!

[antarmike]

And if Hitler could have been bluffed into not taking the Sudatenland land then, he was building Military strength so fast he would not have stayed bluffed for long, and the same result would have ensued three months, six months or a year later...

[ArtistsRifles]

But as you said in post #10 Mike - that year made all the difference. Consider how much more difference it would have made if, instead of carrying on as though nothing happened then, the country quietly geared up for war quicker than we did!! Would Dunkirk have happened or the Blitz??

 

I guess this is one of those questions we can never hope to answer but will always have people one side or the other of the fence...

[Tony B]

We have the advantage of hindsight. The intelligence was there that Hitler would be willing to start a war, in fact he spouted at every oppertunity that it was his God given destiny to lead Germany to rule Europe. Though funnily enough it was in conjuction with Britian. Chambelin had direct experience of this during the Munich visit. The story, and you couldn't make it up is here. http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/tandey.htm

Faced with such an adversary, especally when influential people in your country were activly backing him, I have to come down with Neil's opinionl, Chamberlin just was not up to the job. He lacked carisma he appears to have no presence in public, the John major of his day. On the other hand, Germany would also have had a year longer, and from a much futher advanced starting point.

[AlienFTM]

If you do a search for "peace in our time", Google's first hit points at the BBC's This Day in History page and quotes Chamberlain's phrase correctly as "peace for our time", but the incorrect quote has passed into universal usage.

[antarmike]

"play it again Sam"?

[Tony B]

Looking at what is on the front page, the question now arises was there a 4th option? let Germany a growing threat and Russia, a percived large threat fight it out first? Considering the timimg of this release from the Russia, the current resurgence of Russian political expansioism, I'd be rather sceptical. However it does start a hare running. Fasicm was the 'fashion' at the time amongst the chattering classes, and who else do politicians listen to? Communisim was seen as spawn of the Devil and held the same position of bogeyman as Al Queda.

 

So we have Adolf Hitler, with Leberstrande, Germany's destiny to rule, Ayryan Superiority, taken to be the 'Anglo Saxon' races over the sub human Slavs. Russia lurking behind it's border, as far as was known well armed and with the stated aim of World Domination. In the middle you had UK and France, still trying to recover from the great War and still political distrust on both sides. The good old USA, totally isolationist, looking to breack up the old European Empires, particulaly India off Britian, all information available on the US Congress website. Italy was playng soldiers in the Midle East, at a time oil was starting to assume great economic importance. Japan was invading Manchuria, and keeping Russian intrest on the Eastern order. Troops stayed there till 1942, remember. It must have been obvious a second major European war was coming and the military technology had come on leaps and bounds since 1918, no wonder Baldwin was try to keep Britian out of it at least. Bear in mind Hitler was also sayinmg that we join him to fight the Red Menace.

[Shakey985]

For my two bobs worth try reading B.H. Liddell Harts Book The over side of the hill, first printed in 1948 with a revised edition in 1951. This is a series of interviews/ interrogations with what is left of the German Generals combined with documents captured at the end of the war.

[ashley]

As for the French, well I know it goes back to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, but the French pushed at Versailles to hammer Germany into the stone age and gave the excuse for the 'We were betrayed' excuse for the German Loss.

 

 

It is well known that the persistent hammering of Germany by France (Belgium) and the refusal to lift repatriations about 1921 were partial causes for the severe inflation to follow, the rise of communism, which led to the rise in fighting via the Freikorps to the eventually creation of the NSDAP these time were very turbulent for the German peoples and can also be a contributor to the rise of semitism ....the rest is history

 

(not looking for excuses for thier actions just personal view)

 

Ashley

[ashley]

It may not be so well known that Hitler looked up to Mussolini in the early years for his torture and extermination of the Abyssinians and when Mussolini first visited Germany in full splendant uniform and arogance poor little Hitler only had a civillan suit to wear.

He never made that mistake again :nono:

Ashley

[Tony B]

Ashley, I don't think you are looking for excuses. The disscusions like this are among sensible and informed people such as yourself. Every time you read a book, you are getting the Author's opinion, that is just the way it works, you can't put every point of view in a book, here we can. The stuff on the front page is very intriguing. you're right most peopel ingnore the Franco-Prusian war, yet I belive there is the root. Was Chamberlin just blindly following the other sheep?

 

France and Italy had had direct warfare on their territory for hundreds of years, Britian, last time would have about 1600's? Also Britian has never had a war with 'modern' weapons fought on it's homeland. Chamberlin had to consider the thinking of the time, the use of poision gas, the Bomber, the development of the submarine, threats developing in the Far East. I also suspect that he may have had astrong streack of pacisficm not Peace for our time, but Peace (for Britian) at any cost. I base this one on the use of the word 'our'.

[LeeEnfield]

Interesting Thread,...............and some thought provoking replies, for my t'peneth worth, IF Chamberlain HAD secured peace, he would have been hailed a HERO,....................OK, nieve, he may have been,.........along with other leaders, who believed Hitlers 'promise's'...........but I'd still give him the credit for trying to avert what became WW2.

 

Andy

[Tony B]

So would Hitler have then gone after Russia? After all Checoslovaki did get him the nessacary armoured vehicles to make an attack on France credible.

[Shakey985]

That is the question if we didn't enter the war and left Europe to sort it out ?

The book I am Reading indicates that Hitler hoped that after Dunkirk ( one reason for halting the advance) we would not stay involved and sue for peace along with France. This would leave him with only Russia to worry about and he didn't trust them that's why he invaded. The book also indicates that he wasn't really interested in invading England. Just imagine the USSR with most of Europe under Stalin's control?

 

 

"The over side of the hill " B.H.Liddell Hart