General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SysError on February 28, 2015, 11:07:58 PM
Title: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: SysError on February 28, 2015, 11:07:58 PM
An interesting formal debate with real historians arguing the motion: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing
I must say that I found myself thinking about some of my long held notions.
For those of you without Flash here is a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmyecSXOla8
(Without saying were I came out of the motion, I must say that it was refreshing to see at least a few down to earth comments on Churchill!)
BTW: Right now, I am still thinking on how I would vote on the motion.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: zack1234 on March 01, 2015, 07:51:54 AM
The British establishment were more concerned about Stalin than Hitler.
Chamberlain and Halifax were a disgrace.
Academics get paid serious coin to tells what we already know, we have bills to pay and don't have time for this chatter.
In twenty years time their will statues of Hitler in Berlin.
"Rise and fall of the third Reich" by William Shire a colonial but who was there in the beginning.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: bozon on March 01, 2015, 08:46:58 AM
Quote
Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
A certain western leader is currently running a similar experiment. I guess we shall see how it turns out this time.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: SysError on March 01, 2015, 09:16:17 AM
I have the feeling that both of you are responding to the debate motion in late 20th century terms.
What was interesting in my mind is that the debate is, for the most part, accounting for the context of what was possible in the minds of everyone in mid to late 1930s.
I think that we are all guilty of viewing Chamberlain through a convenient post-WWII lens.
I think that we are being lazy when we do so.
History is often more interesting than we often give it credit for.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Hajo on March 01, 2015, 09:26:35 AM
I always wondered how someone could give away something that was not in their possession to give.
Didn't work then, won't work now.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: jeep00 on March 01, 2015, 09:59:56 AM
Westerners' favorite thing to do is divvy up and barter with things that don't belong to them :lol
Westerners are also quite good at conveniently misconstruing or completely ignoring (forgetting?) histories that don't support their own current vision(s) of themselves.
(The Treaty of what :headscratch: Trodvialles... Tortillas.... Tord...what )
Google Hit ReturnWikipedia oh right..
(Well, in school we all really just skipped anything to do with Spain unless it somehow impacted us. i.e. Catherine of Aragon, Spanish Armada, World Cup soccer. Not remembering should help with world order but somehow it doesn't :headscratch:).
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Masherbrum on March 01, 2015, 02:18:47 PM
Władysław Raczkiewicz would disagree with pretty much everything said in this thread, except for Hajo.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Ratsy on March 01, 2015, 04:56:37 PM
Westerners are also quite good at conveniently misconstruing or completely ignoring (forgetting?) histories that don't support their own current vision(s) of themselves.
I really enjoyed watching this debate. This kind of thing is not typically on American television any longer. It's a whole new area of YouTube searches for me. Thanks for sharing.
As to the quote...
The old saw about history being written by the victors is long-evidenced by cave drawings, epic poetry, and today's text books.
I also liked, in the YouTube, the quote "...without hindsight, there is no history". Gotta love Cambridge!
:salute
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Zimme83 on March 01, 2015, 05:53:30 PM
Politics now and then are often based on short term benefits for the politicians themself and the country they represent. Its about winning election and sending people to die in wars rarely win u any elections so leaders are not doing it for in special circumstances. People in Europe didn't want to fight another war in the 30:s and their leaders tried to avoid it by any means. But in a democracy its not only about the politics, its about the public opinion and its hard to convince people about sending troops to die in another country if it Isnīt any immediate threat to their own country.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: EagleDNY on March 01, 2015, 08:28:38 PM
I have the feeling that both of you are responding to the debate motion in late 20th century terms.
What was interesting in my mind is that the debate is, for the most part, accounting for the context of what was possible in the minds of everyone in mid to late 1930s.
I think that we are all guilty of viewing Chamberlain through a convenient post-WWII lens.
I think that we are being lazy when we do so.
History is often more interesting than we often give it credit for.
Have to agree with you here. Hindsight is always 20-20. The British and the French were still full of people who had a personal experience in the hell of the "Great War" and had no desire whatsoever to ever see anything like that happen again. What they failed to recognize at the time (and what we seem to fail to remember today) is that negotiation only works when BOTH parties want peace.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: zack1234 on March 02, 2015, 01:29:51 AM
Why do i get a download when i open this thread?
Some strange file downloads :mad:
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: bozon on March 02, 2015, 01:35:16 AM
I get that too. It is because the OP tried to embed the YouTube frame in his post (or so I think).
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: FLS on March 02, 2015, 02:23:58 AM
If it wasn't for Chamberlain we wouldn't have a WW2 flight sim. :lol
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Scherf on March 02, 2015, 03:06:32 AM
I think the Brits had something like 14 operational Spits at the time of the Munich crisis, and then with 87 octane and constant-pitch propellers. Will dig the quote out. I have a feeling the previous time that European maps were re-drawn was 1919, and many of the people involved weren't consulted then, either.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: bozon on March 02, 2015, 03:07:35 AM
I think the Brits had something like 14 operational Spits at the time of the Munich crisis, and then with 87 octane and constant-pitch propellers. Will dig the quote out. I have a feeling the previous time that European maps were re-drawn was 1919, and many of the people involved weren't consulted then, either.
During the debate there was a brief mention that Chamberlin and Churchill disagreed about how to build up the RAF. From what I gathered Churchill wanted medium bombers and Chamberlin wanted heavy bombers and Spits. No one really went into it expect to point out that Churchill fought WWII with Chamberlin's air force.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Lusche on March 02, 2015, 06:39:00 AM
All I did was cut paste the you tube link, highlight the link, click on the YouTube icon.
Is everyone getting this?
If you (like me) don't have flash installed you will get this popup for each youtube video someone has embedded in the thread. Can get quite annoying, especially as they all pop up again when you post something. I tried a firefox plugin to stop this, but that didn't work...
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Hap on March 02, 2015, 07:03:09 AM
Sys,
Viewing now; thanks for the thread and the tip on the channel.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: cpxxx on March 02, 2015, 07:24:09 AM
Chamberlin like most people wanted to avoid war. The experience of WW1 was very recent and people had no wish to repeat it. Appeasement seemed to be the way to go and Hitler wasn't seen in the way we see him now. In fact much of what he wanted would have seemed reasonable to many people. Most people realised that Germany had been treated unfairly by the Versailles treaty.
But was he right? Even at the time many people felt he only delayed the inevitable and many believe it emboldened Hitler into believing that Britain wouldn't intervene when he carried out his plans. Remember even when he invaded Poland, Hitler found it necessary to stage a provocation at the border to justify his invasion in the hope it would keep the British and French out of the war.
Appeasement only works for a while. There is a modern equivalent. Putin is no Hitler or Stalin, not yet anyway. But neither figure became demagogues overnight. It's a gradual thing. His annexation of Crimea and parts of Ukraine is seem in some quarters as reasonable, after all wasn't Crimea part of Russia anyway? Plus there's all those Russians living in Ukraine need protection from the Ukranians don't they? It's a slippery slope. What next, some 'provocation' on the Estonian border?
He is busy getting rid of the opposition at the moment. Soon he can move to the next stage.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Ratsy on March 02, 2015, 08:48:43 AM
To credit Chamberlain with building the RAF's war-fighting infrastructure in the 30's is to forget the long-suffering perseverance of Sir Hugh Dowding. Dowding's efforts were successful despite Chamberlain and certain members of the peerage because Dowding's aspirations were at odds with the sitting Government's diplomatic goals. Chain Home, hardened telephone infrastructure, and the concept of sector control stations were quietly moved forward by Dowding and Lord Beaverbrook even when the threat was inconceivable to most educated people.
Like the fights of all good process architects, Dowding's fights in the 30's boiled down to doing the right thing because it was the right thing to do. This, in direct opposition with what the bean-counters and yes-men had to say. Dowding has often been described as stuffy little single-minded bastige. That's just fine with me. We might all be grateful for it.
Getting a correct perspective on history is not often the result of forensic debates, rather it is from unbiased research.
But I could be completely incorrect.
While I'm being assertive, I agree that Putin is no Hitler or Stalin. Maybe he's more 'Don Corleone'. Only an idiot would ignore the potential evil of a Mafia Don. If you do internet business with Russian enterprise...use PayPal, not PayPalski. All kidding aside, CPXXX makes good points about the current situation in Ukraine. 80-years from now, if we are still allowed an opinion, we might debate how cunning he was to use a Winter Olympics and the distraction of the events in the middle east to recreate the iron curtain. But, I could be totally wrong about this as well.
:salute
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Oldman731 on March 02, 2015, 09:04:00 AM
Getting a correct perspective on history is not often the result of forensic debates, rather it is from unbiased research.
But I could be completely incorrect.
...well...OK...you are! There is no unbiased research. The only guy I know of who even came close was Hugh Thomas in his history of the Spanish Civil War. Otherwise every researcher/writer has a perspective, conscious or unconscious, which colors what he researches, what he finds important and what he emphasizes in his writing. There's nothing sinister about this, it's unavoidable. Debating the research helps to uncover the biases and identify other important events.
- oldman
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Rich46yo on March 02, 2015, 09:29:43 AM
Chamberlain ignored the lessons of history, just as others ignored the lessons of history. There is nothing to be gained by the appeasement of tyrants and the only safety is the safety you have to pay and bleed for. And that safety is thru strength. I think the Western Democracies are all united in the belief that all other peoples in the world are as supportive of peace and rationality as we are. The real problem is that most of the rest of the world has no voice or power to control anything in their lives. We vote them out ; "They" can only simply survive them.
I also have to say no matter what Chamberlain did the French screwed up even worse. Not just in negotiations but they misused probably the finest fighting force in the world at the time. Their Generals were screw balls. In almost every instance they had better weaponry then the Germans yet they failed to devise modern methods to deploy that weaponry, even worse they totally screwed up in the area of communications and Intelligence. Their leadership was poor as well, except for a few examples in the lower ranks.
I hope nobody ever forgets one person actually can start a war that claims tens of millions of lives.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Ratsy on March 02, 2015, 09:31:25 AM
Arrrrrg! Ya caught me.
I'm the same guy who reminded us that "history is written by the victors..." ad nauseum. Of course it's biased. Perhaps debates serve to REMIND us that it's biased so we can consume the corresponding grain of salt?
We learn a great deal from debates, whether we agree with the outcomes or not. That is also true. If nothing else, it inspires us to think our own deeper thoughts.
I'm not familiar with Hugh Thomas so I don't know why you would spare him your own broad brush. History without perspective is pretty dull. A unit-sized operational history reports the facts without the perspective of the pilot's personalities, the capabilities and limitations of the aircraft, etc. By simple definition it is still history, but if a human wrote it, it is still somewhat biased. I've never read an after-action report from WWII that clearly stated "we got slaughtered today". It would never be allowed. Can you imagine the political difficulty of writing the combat reports for the 100th BG?
Oldman, sir, thank you for reminding all of us of our humanity!
:salute
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: SysError on March 02, 2015, 10:18:40 AM
...But was he right? Even at the time many people felt he only delayed the inevitable and many believe it emboldened Hitler into believing that Britain wouldn't intervene when he carried out his plans. Remember even when he invaded Poland, Hitler found it necessary to stage a provocation at the border to justify his invasion in the hope it would keep the British and French out of the war. ...
Agree. but in 1935-38 what where his real choices??
I also have to say no matter what Chamberlain did the French screwed up even worse. Not just in negotiations but they misused probably the finest fighting force in the world at the time. Their Generals were screw balls. In almost every instance they had better weaponry then the Germans yet they failed to devise modern methods to deploy that weaponry, even worse they totally screwed up in the area of communications and Intelligence. Their leadership was poor as well, except for a few examples in the lower ranks.
Agree with you on the French, but wasn't it the British that were supposed to keep/defend north of the Maginot line?
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Motherland on March 02, 2015, 10:49:25 AM
I think the thing that I'm not convinced about is: What would have happened if Chamberlain declared war on Germany over the Sudetenland? France wouldn't have been behind him, The US wouldn't have been behind him, The whole 'he would've been assassinated' line is BS, how many times did people try to assassinate Hitler? Remember who took his life in the end.
Armchair historians can say 'Germany would have fallen quickly and easily, Czechoslovakia would have been able to hold out' etc., but going on what? Defense strategists of the time? The defense strategists of the time that thought Poland would hold long enough for France to fully mobilize and invade Germany while the latter was bogged down there?
Beside going to war without allies, how would the world see Britain? Going to war with Germany over reclaiming a land that was mostly German and had been ruled by Germans until 20 years before? Reclaiming a land that could be seen as little more than an unfortunate mistake in the haphazard line redrawing of Versailles? Would Britain be seen as the warmongering bad guy in the '20/20 hindsight' lens of history which tends to forget things like context? Am I supposed to believe that a peace-seeking, fascist-sympathetic US would have slapped Britain on the back with a 'good show, chap'?
What would have happened if Britain did militarily humiliate Germany? Would they have had the authority to remove Hitler? Would Hitler have only been emboldened, with more international support? Even if he had decided to no longer pursue military conquest, if he would have stayed in power what would have happened after the 'Jews in London' stopped him from reuniting the Germans? Actually, there's no need for a question there. We know what Hitler was doing.
Alternatively, if Hitler falls from grace, who comes to power? The KPD decided in the early thirties that, at least if the fascists came to power, people would realize how stupid fascism and capitalism were once these forces were dismantled and humiliated. After 5 years of persecution and exclusion from political discourse, without the dividing up/occupation of Germany, Hitler's expulsion would've probably been the fascist collapse that the KPD was convinced was coming and would be their cue to take power. Assuming the collapse of Hitler's government, a communist revolution is not only imaginable, but maybe the most likely thing. A very, very powerful and well developed socialist state in the middle of Europe is the last thing western capitalism would want. And certainly two socialist states wouldn't have stood for a reactionary authoritarian state existing between them; the Second Polish Republic was doomed either way.
Waiting until it was too late, knowing well with full certainty what Hitler's imperialistic aims were, and this knowledge giving the high ground in completely dismantling the German government, was maybe (probably?) the best possible outcome after Hitler's rise to power in the 30s.
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.
In closing, referring to Russia, I will say: Putin, while certainly a despot and a crazy nationalist and a warmonger, is maybe the most moderate elected figure in Russian politics today. The LDPR is much much more ultranationalist; the current major socialist party 'a Just Russia' is maybe the most moderate, but it is the result of a merger still centered around a far-right nationalist party, Rodina ('motherland'); the fourth party is the successor to the Soviet communist party, the direct lineage of Lenin's Bolsheviks. There are no other elected parties in Russia. No one knows the solution for dealing with Russia, but it's certainly not a simple one. Further, no one is sitting in Petersburg 'giving' Putin Crimea or the Donbass the way France and Britain and the US were in Munich 'giving' Hitler the Sudetenland. It's hard to see right now, and it may not be as dramatic as we want to see, but international sanctions have lead to a tanking of the Russian economy, certainly worse than has been seen since the fall of the USSR, and according to some Russians the worst conditions since WWII. This is going to have repercussions some way or another. We'll just have to wait and see how.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: SysError on March 02, 2015, 11:04:25 AM
Motherland, really very well put.
Outstanding.
:aok :aok :aok :aok :aok
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: pembquist on March 02, 2015, 12:30:08 PM
What he said.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: SysError on March 02, 2015, 02:00:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Ratsy on March 02, 2015, 04:19:14 PM
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.
:salute
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Motherland on March 02, 2015, 05:52:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Rich46yo on March 02, 2015, 10:52:58 PM
Quote
Most people felt at the time that when Nostradamus refused to join the cabinet that Chamberlain's Government was doomed. :old:
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?
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Ratsy on March 02, 2015, 11:33:01 PM
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.
:salute
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Rich46yo on March 02, 2015, 11:44:10 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: artik on March 03, 2015, 01:25:27 AM
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
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: zack1234 on March 03, 2015, 01:42:05 AM
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 :)
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Ratsy on March 03, 2015, 09:20:35 AM
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!
:salute
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Rich46yo on March 03, 2015, 11:12:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: SysError on March 03, 2015, 11:46:58 AM
... 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).
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Zimme83 on March 03, 2015, 12:08:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Rich46yo on March 03, 2015, 08:22:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Rich46yo on March 03, 2015, 09:27:09 PM
Quote
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.
He wouldnt have had to. He could have chased the Germans back with a calvary company. The Germans had strict orders to avoid a fight at all costs and to retreat immediately.
Quote
I don't think history should lay it all on Chamberlain.
As Ive said the French signed the Munich pact also. Dealing a European Democracy to the Devil.
Quote
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?
Wilson argued the same. Had not the worlds economies imploded we may never had to have even discussed it. But both happened.
Quote
Clearly he was not a fool but he was intransigent in the face of what contemporary diarists agree were the real threats.
He was a "fool". He took world events and shaped them into something palatable to his supporters. Today we call it "spin". There may be different views of reality but there is only one reality.
N. Chamberlain was a fine man. He was more an economist then a war leader. He wanted nothing to do with war, his background was in business and he was concerned with improving the lives of the English workers and making England more prosperous. He wanted nothing to do with war and would have gladly passed on such decisions to his successor.
Which he did. Like Ive said, History is a VHS tape on re-wind.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: zack1234 on March 04, 2015, 12:25:39 AM
He was not a fine man he had a ego to match his arrogance :old:
He was a national hero after Munich waving his piece of toilet roll about :old:
And continued to appease the Germans :old:
Its is well documented that Hitler was well aware if he did not continue his agressive policies he would be ousted by the German military :old:
When they invaded France they filled up their tanks at petrol stations marked on copies of holiday maps, the cheeky sods even left reciepts with the petrol stations.
Chamberlame was the same as the appeasers in the US and Lindberg and his mob, what would have happened if the Japanese would have entrentched themselves in South East asia?.
The outcome would have been a US military incapable of defeating the Japanese :old:
The appeasers in Britain would have been in the same position with the Germans ruling with a iron fist.
Chaimberlain died shortly after knowing that he had left Britain up the river without a paddle.
The subtext of that video is "Would it have been that bad if Hitler had won" not Chamberlame and his endevours to save the peace.
The Germans were not passive idealists trying to right wrongs done to Germany, they were continuing German policy started by the Kaiser and his Prussians.
Gibberish and more Gibberish
Why do people collect Narzzie gear they lost?
The British won WWII as well :old:
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Rich46yo on March 04, 2015, 09:19:35 AM
Quote
He was not a fine man he had a ego to match his arrogance :old:
Why do you use that old and wise emoticon? Your like in your 20's aren't you?
Study a mans entire life before condemning him. One man did not make The Munich Pact. Entire Partys and voting populations did. Entire Nations did. Unfortunately he was caught in the picture waving it around.
He devoted his life to domestic reform and helping out the "little guy". Things like getting kids out of sweatshops. He had no interest or vision for foreign policy, other then securing peace to further England's economic rebound. He was just the wrong guy at the wrong time. After the war they ran Churchill out too.
He died of cancer, not starting a war. Next time post when your sober.
The Horror that was WW1 played a big part in the Allied reluctance to face up to the German's. Public opinion did not favor a confrontation with Hitler.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: SysError on March 04, 2015, 10:15:44 AM
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: SysError on March 04, 2015, 10:24:43 AM
BTW, on the motion, I was a "do not know". After the debate and after reading the very interesting posts here, I became a YES.
To pick up on a sentiment, I do not think that Chamberlain was a fool, idiotic, (fill in your term), but he was not blameless. He made mistakes. But overall I would have to say that he did the right thing given what his choices where...
BTW: I have some interesting stuff on WWI - I can post later tonight.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: zack1234 on March 04, 2015, 01:16:57 PM
Why do you use that old and wise emoticon? Your like in your 20's aren't you?
Study a mans entire life before condemning him. One man did not make The Munich Pact. Entire Partys and voting populations did. Entire Nations did. Unfortunately he was caught in the picture waving it around.
He devoted his life to domestic reform and helping out the "little guy". Things like getting kids out of sweatshops. He had no interest or vision for foreign policy, other then securing peace to further England's economic rebound. He was just the wrong guy at the wrong time. After the war they ran Churchill out too.
He died of cancer, not starting a war. Next time post when your sober.
The Horror that was WW1 played a big part in the Allied reluctance to face up to the German's. Public opinion did not favor a confrontation with Hitler.
The Tories did not give a ham shank about WWI , they were concerned with Stalin and is commie ways.
Churchill did more for social reform for the working classes than anything Chamberlain did that is why he was despised by his own party.
They never trusted Churchill because he had odd ideas about helping the working classes, Randolph Churchill was the same, and so was Churchill's mentor Lloyd George.
Your avatar is poo by the way
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: palef on March 04, 2015, 01:22:58 PM
You and Zack are both wrong. The Russians won the European theatre and probably had more impact on Japan's decision to end the war than the nukes did.
The first I agree with, tho I never remember saying different :headscratch:. The second I dont, especially since elements in the Japanese Govt.'s had spent months trying to figure out a way to end the war. The nuke attacks gave them the "justification" to end it, as in the "Justification the Nation Family had sacrificed enough" to justify ending it. Lol, read his speech to his cabinet at the end and tell me if this was a man who would use the word "surrender"? http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/hirohito2.html In a region of the world where "face" and "words" mean everything look at that speech and tell me what he's really saying?
Notice the lack of the words "starting it" "apology" and "surrender". :D
Zack who in hell was talking about Churchill's pre-war activities? Someone correct me if Im wrong but wasnt he and Chamberlain members of the same party? The same party that Backed the Munich Pact? All Im saying is you cant pin that decision on one man. He was just the fall guy.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: SysError on March 04, 2015, 04:21:45 PM
You and Zack are both wrong. The Russians won the European theatre and probably had more impact on Japan's decision to end the war than the nukes did.
I agree with you. The Russians took the brunt of it and (to disagree with Rich a bit), from what I understand, Europe had a very big impact on the Japs. And so did the nukes. And so did their losses in the Pacific.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: SysError on March 04, 2015, 08:52:55 PM
Churchill did more for social reform for the working classes than anything Chamberlain did that is why he was despised by his own party.
They never trusted Churchill because he had odd ideas about helping the working classes, Randolph Churchill was the same, and so was Churchill's mentor Lloyd George.
I think that Churchill was a far more complex figure than you let on.
Here is a Gresham College lecture "The Legacy of Winston Churchill" by Professor Vernon Bogdanor FBA CBE.
http://www.gresham.ac.uk/
For those of you with out Flash: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YGZ6iE84mQ
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Masherbrum on March 04, 2015, 08:59:23 PM
The Tories did not give a ham shank about WWI , they were concerned with Stalin and is commie ways.
Churchill did more for social reform for the working classes than anything Chamberlain did that is why he was despised by his own party.
They never trusted Churchill because he had odd ideas about helping the working classes, Randolph Churchill was the same, and so was Churchill's mentor Lloyd George.
Your avatar is poo by the way
He screwed over Poland along with FDR. Great guy!
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: zack1234 on March 05, 2015, 02:26:16 AM
I have reported Rich for using expleatives :old:
Churchill was in high government office pre WW1 in regards to well fare reform
The Narzzies had come to economic understandings in regards to the backward countries of old europe.
Pilsudski of Poland was invading german territory in the 1920's.
Poland hated the russians and the germans, they were playing with the big boys without the means to follow it through.
bulgaria romania hungary all towed the line with germans because they knew they were backward countries economically and military
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Masherbrum on March 05, 2015, 08:24:53 AM
Wrong on Poland Zack.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Rich46yo on March 05, 2015, 12:30:31 PM
The easiest way is to just use the ignore List. Thanks to "most of you" for a fine Historical conversation and to Aces High for letting it go on. For me it has ran its course however.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: zack1234 on March 05, 2015, 01:22:59 PM
It was no historical conversation but a old self serving ego trip of "We know the truth".
I have a whole attic of literature on this nonsense, the only thing that matters at the end of the day is how much coin you have.
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: SysError on March 05, 2015, 01:46:45 PM
The easiest way is to just use the ignore List. Thanks to "most of you" for a fine Historical conversation and to Aces High for letting it go on. For me it has ran its course however.
Agree, time to let it go.
I enjoyed reading most of the posts and I leaned a thing or.
Thanks
Title: Re: Neville Chamberlain Did The Right Thing?
Post by: Masherbrum on March 05, 2015, 05:05:56 PM