Neville Chamberlain - Cowardly man-girl or a man that did what had to be done?

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,761
777
126
For those that don't know he was the British PM during the late 30's. He is most famous for meeting Hitler and his apparent submission to an obviously agressive Germany. In other words, agreeing to look the other way while Germany took a chunk of the Czech republic.

Generally he is villified in both his native UK and by many WW2 historians. They argue that his actions gave Hitler the confidence to basically launch a full-scale invasion a year or so later.

However some argue that he had no choice but to concede to Hitler in 1938. Germany had an obviously superior army and airforce in the late 30's, and if he had engaged Hitler during this time the British army and airforce would likely have been completly and utterly routed. They argue Chamberlain was already aware of Hitlers plans and that he had been ramping up the British military since 1937 in possible preperation of armed conflict, but that they still were not ready in 1938. They argue that the extra year bought the UK time, and that because of this the UK won the Battle if Britain in 1940. A crtical victory in the western front.

Big man-girl or a man that did the right thing for his country?
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
For those that don't know he was the British PM during the late 30's. He is most famous for meeting Hitler and his apparent submission to an obviously agressive Germany. In other words, agreeing to look the other way while Germany took a chunk of the Czech republic.

Generally he is villified in both his native UK and by many WW2 historians. They argue that his actions gave Hitler the confidence to basically launch a full-scale invasion a year or so later.

However some argue that he had no choice but to concede to Hitler in 1938. Germany had an obviously superior army and airforce in the late 30's, and if he had engaged Hitler during this time the British army and airforce would likely have been completly and utterly routed. They argue Chamberlain was already aware of Hitlers plans and that he had been ramping up the British military since 1937 in possible preperation of armed conflict, but that they still were not ready in 1938. They argue that the extra year bought the UK time, and that because of this the UK won the Battle if Britain in 1940. A crtical victory in the western front.

Big man-girl or a man that did the right thing for his country?

The problem with that argument is that it assumes that the UK would have had to go to war with Germany in August, 1938 had Chamberlain threatened to go to war over the Sudetenland. The truth is that it isn't likely. While Hitler didn't back down over Poland in 9/39 over a threat of war from the UK, that is because he believed by then that they would back down like they already had in 1938.

- wolf
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
"The extra year bought the UK time, and that because of this the UK won the Battle if Britain in 1940. A critical victory in the western front."

This.

The German war machine was in no shape to take on the French and British army in 38. The German war machine wasnt ready to take them on in 39 either. Two massive blunders by the allies. The 30's really showed that "talking" things through can easily lead to a worse result than decisive confrontation.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
For those that don't know he was the British PM during the late 30's. He is most famous for meeting Hitler and his apparent submission to an obviously agressive Germany. In other words, agreeing to look the other way while Germany took a chunk of the Czech republic.

Generally he is villified in both his native UK and by many WW2 historians. They argue that his actions gave Hitler the confidence to basically launch a full-scale invasion a year or so later.

However some argue that he had no choice but to concede to Hitler in 1938. Germany had an obviously superior army and airforce in the late 30's, and if he had engaged Hitler during this time the British army and airforce would likely have been completly and utterly routed. They argue Chamberlain was already aware of Hitlers plans and that he had been ramping up the British military since 1937 in possible preperation of armed conflict, but that they still were not ready in 1938. They argue that the extra year bought the UK time, and that because of this the UK won the Battle if Britain in 1940. A crtical victory in the western front.

Big man-girl or a man that did the right thing for his country?

Or they could had forced his hand in 38 with the help of the Poles and there would never had been a World War II. Instead some police action against a crazed goosestepping douchenozzle.

The extra year Chamberlain gave Hitler allowed him to consolidate power further, increase his fame outside the borders, emobolden the regime, and allow Germany valuable months to build a war machine capable of knocking out the Poles in Sept 39 and moving back to the Western frontier to gear up for the invasion of France in May 1940.

Worse yet he agreed to partition land he had no right to agree to partition. That would be like us negotiating with the Chinese to partition Siberia from Russia.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,895
32,688
136
Germany had an obviously superior army and airforce in the late 30's, and if he had engaged Hitler during this time the British army and airforce would likely have been completly and utterly routed.

Factually incorrect. If the Brits and the French found their balls a little earlier Hitler wouldn't have stepped foot out of Germany. German tanks were a joke until they started producing the Panzer III/IV in numbers.

Their offensive tactics however caught all of Europe with it's collective pants down.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
The German war machine was in no shape to take on the French and British army in 38. The German war machine wasnt ready to take them on in 39 either. Two massive blunders by the allies. The 30's really showed that "talking" things through can easily lead to a worse result than decisive confrontation.

Things have changed, we now have the capability to destroy ourselves so "talking it through" is our best if not only option.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Things have changed, we now have the capability to destroy ourselves so "talking it through" is our best if not only option.

We had the ability to destroy ourselves back then. Nearly 100 million casualties dont lie. If Hitler had won, Europe and the former Soviet Union would be a much smaller place population wise.
 

FaaR

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2007
1,056
412
136
"Man-girl"?

The stink of your blatant homophobic misogynism is overwhelming. Please evolve into a higher form of life ASAP, barrel-dredge webposter.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
"Man-girl"?

The stink of your blatant homophobic misogynism is overwhelming. Please evolve into a higher form of life ASAP, barrel-dredge webposter.

oh, geez, someones sensibilities have been flustered.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
We had the ability to destroy ourselves back then. Nearly 100 million casualties dont lie. If Hitler had won, Europe and the former Soviet Union would be a much smaller place population wise.

LOL, blah, blah, blah. What Neville Chambelain did is a moot point this day and age.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The problem with that argument is that it assumes that the UK would have had to go to war with Germany in August, 1938 had Chamberlain threatened to go to war over the Sudetenland. The truth is that it isn't likely. While Hitler didn't back down over Poland in 9/39 over a threat of war from the UK, that is because he believed by then that they would back down like they already had in 1938.

- wolf
This.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Not at all. Or are you one of those fools who believes history never repeats itself?

Are you one of those fools who thinks things don't change? Or are you just advocating for a "nuke first, ask questions later" policy?
 

Blintok

Senior member
Jan 30, 2007
433
0
0
revisionist.
Germany was not all that much more powerful than the allies in 1938. the treaty of Versailles severly limited German armed strength
# German armed forces will number no more than 100,000 troops, and conscription will be abolished.
# Enlisted men will be retained for at least 12 years; officers to be retained for at least 25 years.
# German naval forces will be limited to 15,000 men, 6 battleships (no more than 10,000 tons displacement each), 6 cruisers (no more than 6,000 tons displacement each), 6 destroyers (no more than 800 tons displacement each) and 12 torpedo boats (no more than 200 tons displacement each). No submarines are to be included.
# The manufacture, import, and export of weapons and poison gas is prohibited.
# Armed aircraft, tanks and armoured cars are prohibited.

In 1933 when the Nazi party came to power they slowly started to rearm. mostly in secret at the start. Even by May 10 1940 the allied forces outnumbered the German.

allies had 3.3 million men to Germanys 3million
5800 tanks to Germanys 2700
14000 artillery pieces to Germanys 7500

Chamberlain did not preserve peace in 1938..all he saved was Hitler and the Nazi party with whom a war was inevitable.
there was a resistance movement in Germany that was ready to remove Hitler. all that was needed was a strong declaration by Britain and France that the Czech crisis would mean war. Well we know what happened.
The resistance to the nazi party ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance

also
"Hitler's determination to go through with his plan for the invasion of all Czechoslovakia in 1938 provoked a major crisis in the German command structure. The Chief of the General Staff, General Ludwig Beck protested in a lengthy series of memos that it would start a world war that Germany would lose, and urged Hitler to put off the projected war. Hitler called Beck's arguments against war "kindische Kräfteberechnugen" ("childish calculations"). On August 4, 1938, a secret Army meeting was held. Beck read his lengthy report to the assembled officers. They all agreed something had to be done to prevent certain disaster. Beck hoped they would all resign together but no one resigned except Beck. However his replacement, General Franz Halder, sympathised with Beck and together they conspired with several top generals, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris (Chief of German Intelligence), and Graf von Helldorf (Berlin's Police Chief) to arrest Hitler the moment he gave the invasion order. However the plan would only work if both Britain and France made it known to the world that they would fight to preserve Czechoslovakia. This would help to convince the German people that certain defeat awaited Germany. Agents were therefore sent to England to tell Chamberlain that an attack on Czechoslovakia was planned and their intentions to overthrow Hitler if this occurred. However the messengers were not taken seriously by the British. In September, Chamberlain and Daladier decided not to threaten a war over Czechoslovakia and so the planned removal of Hitler could not be justified. The Munich Agreement therefore preserved Hitler in power"


and why was only Germany the bad guy in 1939? The USSR was allies with them. By Christmas 1940, Stalin had in fact murdered many more people than Hitler and had invaded nearly as many countries. And, in alliance with Hitler, he was supplying the Luftwaffe with much of the fuel and resources it needed to bomb London. Britain almost declared war on the USSR in 1940 and he(Stalin) ordered British communists to subvert the war effort against the Nazis during the Battle of Britain.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
The problem with that argument is that it assumes that the UK would have had to go to war with Germany in August, 1938 had Chamberlain threatened to go to war over the Sudetenland. The truth is that it isn't likely. While Hitler didn't back down over Poland in 9/39 over a threat of war from the UK, that is because he believed by then that they would back down like they already had in 1938.

- wolf

That was the point - war in 1938. Hitler wanted part of Czekoslakia with a majority of Germans, who desperately wanted Germany to annex them as it had Austria. Nazi propagandists were causing incidents there which were heavily hyped in German press as Caeck government mistreatment of the Germans to build support for war, which wasn't high.

The leadership of Czekoslavakia wanted England anf France to stand up to Hitler, so he was glad at the chance to use his treaties with them - England and France were obligated to help Czekoslavakia.

But the English public were very against another world war and the UK just said no, 'who cares about a few people far away'. France was willing if England was, but without them, they backed away too.

The USSR had obligations to help, but only if France did, so they were out.

So this was the point - if Hitler took this German part of Czekoslavakia, would the other contries fulfill their treaty obligations and go to war? The alternative WAS war in 1938.

Further reporting what I've read on this, Czekoslavakia was pretty evenly matched with Germany at the time, but decided to not go to war themselves either.

One thing we should all agree on - the priorities do change a lot as war occurs. The sensible peace movements and the sensible war movements at one moment can change to very bad policies.

The right wing has loved to counter every effort for peace with calling i appeasement and bad, but there's a mirror problem with excessive militarism like Hitler's. Sometimes peace is the right thing.

More importantly, the lessons include the errors made previously, like at Versaiiles after WWI - when there's an arrogant approach unwinttingly help cause the next even greater world war.

Justice is always a good aim - whether it's in going to war to right wrong, or in not giving in to the temtation to exploit others when you are the powerful victor.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Germany definitely didn't have the superior army/navy/air fleet that early on. That said, I still have sympathy for Chamberlain's situation. How could anyone have guessed at what Hitler turned out to be?