Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?

[SysError]

Motherland, really very well put.

Outstanding.

   

[pembquist]

What he said.

[SysError]

Chamberlain ignored the lessons of history, just as others ignored the lessons of history.

Rich46yo:  After thinking about it I have come to believe that my original comment was just too cute.

While I agree with you on a general notion that history can teach,  I disagree with you on the conclusion you draw in this case.

I think what it comes down to is the definition or perhaps what is by the word "appeasement" in the 1930s.  I think what happened in the 1930s was more along the lines of what were the choices.  The Munich Pact was praised by everyone I think.  Correct or not?  Look at Motherland point about the Sudetenland.

...Anyway, the takeaway people seem to be getting from this is 'stop being a p*ssy and go to war!' which is a pretty broad brush to paint with from the lessons learned from the Second World War. Especially considering WWII is maybe the only example in the 20th century of war being the 'good' option. For every World War II, there is a completely pointless war that costs millions of lives to no constructive outcome (or leaving the world in much worse shape), a la the First World War. On top of that, there are dozens of crises where jingos were crying for scalps and heads but cooler heads, thank god, prevailed: such as the entire Cold War.

'Righteous' wars are held up and heralded and etc. etc., we remember the people who had the 'courage' to start them and fight them. Wars are cataclysmic and traumatizing events and are hard to forget. It's hard to look at wars that are pretty much pointless in an objective manner because we don't want to trivialize the loss of life. But it's extremely easy to forget when the knee was not jerked and, despite the world being on the brink of being turned into a giant glass parking lot, it was not: 'there was never any real danger', we say, and move on.

[Ratsy]

Motherland.  Erudite. 

I don't know how to approach the answer to your initial question.  I don't have a clue what would have happened if Chamberlain declared war over the Sudetenland.  I do know that between the wars certain politicians seemed to forget that the Ardennes was like a martial superhighway through Belgium (Franco Prussian War and WWI).  Also forgotten TWICE during WWII.   And that Poland, as James A. Michener reminds us, was historically conquered uncountable times throughout history because of it's lack of natural borders, mountains, rivers et. al.

The initial disasters of WWII would not have been averted.  Only the time line, perhaps.  In this vein, WWII becomes a question of 'when' not 'if'.  I don't think history should lay it all on Chamberlain.

Some historians and some poets agree that a prudent man prepares for war during times of peace.  I don't have to get cerebral with that since I grew up on Strategic Air Command bases and once, in October 1962, watched a wing of B-47's deploy for war from Lincoln AFB.  We were prepared to slug it out with the Russians (and destroy the world) if we had to.  I know it's insane, but you should see my 'crazy face'.  In that light, I would say that Chamberlain (and every other world leader) was imprudent beginning in 1919.

A supporting thought - the terms of war are harsh but the terms of the peace must be peaceful.  I give you the Treaty of Versailles and its never-ending punishment of the German people.  It was a mindset that was supposed to be a foundation for peace in Europe.  How could it be?

Another thought, since none of us can stop ourselves looking for parallels in the past to apply to current events - global unrest was perhaps as chronic a condition in Chamberlain's time as it is in ours.  The decline and fall of the Spanish empire, Italians in Ethiopia, early pressures to transform the British Empire into a commonwealth of states, and the Japanese invasion of China all occurred in Neville Chamberlain's life time. These events seemed to gain velocity and frequency in the 30's.  How are similar events (change the word to pressures) shaping today's world view?  I don't know the answer to that and neither do the millions of people that are much smarter than I am.  I do know that's it easy to vilify Chamberlain when one doesn't completely understand his world.  Clearly he was not a fool but he was intransigent in the face of what contemporary diarists agree were the real threats.

In my youth and in my own time in the military I never met a person who thought that their primary job was to fight a war.  Not one.  The primary job was to preserve the peace by simply being ready to re-fight WWII if necessary.  That is deterrence which is NOT an antonym for appeasement.  Our other Roosevelt understood that quite well..."speak softly, and carry a big stick."   Roosevelt described his style of foreign policy as "the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis"[Wiki]. 

Here, another coin for Dowding who was way ahead of British foreign policy by preparing for an 'inconceivable' air war - the Battle of Britain.  Dowding was vilified as a petty tyrant at the time and through his own intransigence was brought down by lesser men.  My opinion.  Modern American corollaries would be Schwartzkopf and Powell who had to face their own 'parting shots' from lesser men.

Summing up:  Chamberlain does not get a pass but he must not shoulder all the blame.  Guys who will do everything possible to prepare for war during times of peace are realists.  In a leader, I prefer realism to 'fidgeting and dithering' which is often used to describe the Texas Republic's (in)actions after the Alamo and during the 'Runaway Scrape'.

Last, I know I am conditioned from birth to distrust Russians, but I disagree, with equanimity, that Putin is okay just because he's the least of the evils.  That is crazier than anything I might have written here. :::Makes Crazy Face:::

Again, thanks for posting this thought-provoking debate, SysError.

 

[Motherland]

Just to clarify, it's not that I don't believe in war, just that it's necessary to try every possible peaceable solution to avoid it.
And certainly I believe in Roosevelt's big stick, although I also probably believe in using it a bit more conservatively than he did. Also I think it's maybe a bit more conducive to keep it under wraps in order to appear like you're committed to peace (at the risk of appearing weak?) rather than waving it around to intimidate those who might otherwise want to mess with you - it doesn't really seem to be that effective anyway (I mean, no one here gets concerned when North Korea or Iran shows off their military capabilities).

Versailles is also very important obviously - the great failure of Britain and France leading up to WWII was not being to soft on Germany at Munich, all the gears were already in motion by then. The great failure of Britain and France was, as has been said millions of times, being too hard on Germany at Versailles. Chamberlain nor Churchill nor anyone else alive could've stopped the war in 1938 after what happened in 1919, only started it earlier or later. (This is pure opinion of course, there's no answer to a 'what if', but...) From this perspective I think that Chamberlain's commitment to peace (while, as has been noted, building the capability that Britain needed to survive war) was admirable.

Also, to clarify, I think Putin is a psychopath and is very scary (and by the virtue of the big stick I hope that the US and NATO and the EU are on the DL preparing Europe for military confrontation with Russia should the situation arise Especially to protect Europe from nuclear attacks). I'm not saying he's 'okay' by the virtue that he's the most moderate realistic leader for the Russian Federation, but if he were to 'mysteriously die' I doubt anyone in United Russia poised to take over would be much better and Zhirinovsky would be amazingly worse. UR and the LDPR have over two thirds of the Duma between them, the idea that either of the (relatively) anti-imperialist left-bloc parties would come to power from the vacuum left from Putin's disappearance is naive. Unlike Hitler, Putin was actually democratically elected (handily at that), and there is a popular sentiment among the Russian people for restoring the greatness of the Russian Empire. What's the solution? Who knows. It's just not as simple as getting rid of Putin, or focusing on him or even his actions.

[Rich46yo]

Most people felt at the time that when Nostradamus refused to join the cabinet that Chamberlain's Government was doomed.   

Irrelevant. Hitler had stated on many occasions what his intentions were while presiding over a huge peacetime military buildup. Stevie Wonder should have been able to see what was happening. Hitler did however recognize the lack of resolve of the western allies to confront him. They were still deeply affected by the Horrors of WW1, most of all public opinion. Who the Hell "wants" war in a Democracy?

Agree with you on the French, but wasn't it the British that were supposed to keep/defend north of the Maginot line?

No. The BEF was mixed with the French army in the north. In fact it was "in the north" thru Holland and Belgium they expected the German main attack to come from. Indeed the French Army commander had rejected the notion German armored forces would be capable of attacking thru the Ardennes, farther south, despite several reports to the contrary.

The Germans "feinted" their main attack thru Holland and the Allies bought it, falling into the trap the Germans set for them. Meanwhile the main mobile force was wheeling thru the Ardennes further south, to trap the Allies in the north and severe their lines of communications. The French army was far, far bigger then the BEF and was also in overall command, while the British retained command of their own forces if need be. I bet for every one division of the BEF there had to be 10 divisions of the French army.

The French lost France. Not the British.

The French "colluded" to appease Hitler along with the British. All this was not the failure of one man or one nation. The French wanted to appease Hitler as much as the British did. The French Premier signed The Munich Pact as well. True it was Chamberlain who convinced the French to sign it but I dont think they needed much convincing and nobody put a gun to their head to sign it.

They both abandoned an eastern European Democracy. And shortly after would abandon another. Poor Stalin, the last thing he wanted was a pact with Hitler. He was under no illusions what Hitler intended for the east but England and France were such weak and undependable possible allies he felt he had no choice but to side with the Devil to buy time to rebuild his forces.

[Ratsy]

I like the way you think, Motherland.

My clarifications: 

Teddy Roosevelt's view of the world has been criticized by many as 'belligerent'.  He did scare the hell out of everybody.  Opinions abound, but I believe he intimidated not by bluff but by assurance.  If he said it, you could be darned sure he would do it.  He walked a straight line and would only compromise if the the compromise had real merit not just political merit.  Some say that Ronald Reagan rode those coattails and I think he did it most effectively in his first term.

I still refuse to credit Chamberlain for being the prime mover in the Britain's war preparation.  It's Dowding and Beaverbrook who risked much to do the right thing by their appointments and duty.  Like all head statesmen, Chamberlain inherited a lot of peace-time malarky when he took office.  With Versailles, years of myopic diplomacy, an economic depression, political unrest and class struggle at home...when you consider it all he was, above all, a brave man.

Putin?  See paragraph 1.  How's that for irony?

Rich, I agree with the feint in Holland...wasn't that the first operational use of paratroopers (I'm not sure, but it was among the first)?  However I don't think that resulted in counter movement of Allied ground assets.  More of a J-step.  The vulnerability of the Maginot Line was not just because it was a fixed-defense.  It was because the Belgians didn't extend it north from the French border.  The area of initial attack, unless I am mistaken, was on the Belgian (neutral) side of the border.  It's also true, in my opinion, that Allied diplomats were, at that point, unaware that Hitler would selectively observe national neutrality as a policy.  The points of attack in the Franco-Prussian War, WWI and Blitzkrieg are all on points on a line of approximately 50 miles along the Belgian border...again this is memory talking.  The critical ground is not necessarily the exact same route SS Panzer Group Peiper followed in December 1944 (hills and woods) but just north of there, roughly between Elsenborn and Liege.

Your assertion that the French lost France is telling.  They did little to prepare themselves for war in the time of peace and were smugly self-assured because of Versailles (which they saw as a diplomatic coup).  There is not a society on earth that will live forever with a boot on their necks.  The Germans people were no exception. 

Good inputs in this thread.

 

[Rich46yo]

However I don't think that resulted in counter movement of Allied ground assets.

Yeah....it did. That was the entire point of the northern feint.

[artik]

Wow...

This reminds me an excellent sketch:

Islam and post chronological history: http://youtu.be/uk9Yz0AAH6E
(Note you'll have to read subtitles in English)

Certaily in modern post-chronological and post-logical historical approach... Chamberlain did the right thing

[zack1234]

Lots of paragraphs in these threads.

We even have a bit of "Das Kapital"

I have been to a couple of these "Academics" ego lectures while studying German history at University"

More coin been made out of this study of history than anything else

[Ratsy]

Yeah....it did. That was the entire point of the northern feint.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/10May-16May1940-Fall_Gelb.jpg

Rich - right you are. This map clearly shows the movements of the Seventh Army in the first week of the Case Yellow battle plan.
My own assessment of the attack was incomplete at best.  As a hobbyist (I'm certainly not a historian), it was entertaining to use the internet, not available to me as a younger man, to broaden my perspectives.

Ready!  Shoot!  Aim!

 



     

[Rich46yo]

I think the first operational drop of para's was in Norway. I could be wrong.

Actually France spent a fortune on defense prior to WW2. The Maginot line cost a fortune, they had a very large armed forces. They spent heavily on technology, had the best tanks, ATGs, fighter planes, had a good navy in the Med, and with the Brits, the world. They probably had upwards of 3 million men under arms.

Unfortunately the were led by morons. They had great tanks but no radios so they could communicate. In fact their entire chain of communications was dependent on written orders. In other words a division or army couldnt move unless it got a written order from a superior. This was like 1914 stuff.

The Germans however were encouraged to take initiative if the opportunity presented itself. In fact the Generals who would later become legends broke every rule in the book by advancing against orders and keeping the allies on their heels having no clear picture on what the hell was happening on the battlefield.

There were several battles where the superiority of French weapons were telling. Again tho they had no idea how to exploit a win, or how to coordinate units to take the offensive and it was for naught. Then when the house was falling in the individual French soldier lost heart and that was it. Which is why the Brits ordered their Air Force back home and the pull back of Dunkirk.

But had Hitler pressed on the attack at Dunkirk the world would probably be far different today. Without an army returning home the Brits probably would have had to come to an accommodation with Hitler, who would have then turned his full attention to the east.

[SysError]

... They spent heavily on technology, had the best tanks, ATGs, fighter planes,...

This is a question more than a statement.  I thought that a key difference b/w the French and the Germans was the superior German air force.  And besides the idiotic French leadership, the German air force was what gave them the edge.

But had Hitler pressed on the attack at Dunkirk the world would probably be far different today. Without an army returning home the Brits probably would have had to come to an accommodation with Hitler, who would have then turned his full attention to the east.

I have always been unconvinced that Hitler had a plan (at the start Case Yellow) to wipe out the British Expeditionary Force or to even invade England.   On the invasion of England I think that research in the  past 20 years really makes it clear (or make a very good case) that the Germans really had no substantive invasion plans and that the operational reality Operation Sea Lion has been long exaggerated.

(I'll post references (after I find them again) if needed).

[Zimme83]

Hitler had big visions but in general no He gambled a lot and got away with it initially because the allied chain of command could not exploit the chances they had to strike back. Same thing for Barbarossa, no one in the red army dared to think for themselves and Stalin freaked out so noone was really leading the army during the first summer.

But Germany was not invincible at all in 1940, Hitler where just lucky.

[Rich46yo]

You cant plan for what you never expected to happen. At that time it becomes an operational decision during a fluid battle. Nobody "planned" to defeat the allies in so short a time and trap them at Dunkirk. But they should have been allowed to finish it and Hitler called them off.

The Luftwaffe had a more quantitative edge then qualitative. They had better Bombers and the Stuka but none of that would have mattered had the Allies used their fighter strength to better effect. The Allies had better fighter planes, "If I only said French then I was wrong". I meant "Allied".

The qualitative edge of the Allied air forces was driddled away by the dispersion of front line units away from the main battle. Both France and England had Empires, had they taken their fighters from theaters that would not see combat they would have been far more effective in the air during the Battle of France, probably keeping the Luftwaffe from air supremacy. Fighter squadrons sitting in the deserts of North Africa did nothing to protect France in 1940. Or the hundreds sitting on the Italian border, who was not yet a foe and would never be one nowhere close as dangerous as the Germans.

Also many reports by French spotter planes were simply not believed or even sent up the chain of command.