Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

[warspite1]

Having seen three of these debates now - Napoleon, 1914 and Appeasement - I must try and find more. They are really well done and provide much food for thought. This latest one I've come across is about Chamberlain's policy of appeasement in the 1930's.

I don't think the speakers were quite as impressive as in the 1914 debate (one of them is the same) but still an interesting debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmyecSXOla8

[Twotribes]

Ya I mean Hitler ordered his troops to tuck tail and run if French Troops appeared when they took the Industrial areas taken by France at the end of the war. And Chamberlain NOT defending Czechoslovakia worked out so well for them too. And of course his appeasement protected Poland as well, right?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Ya I mean Hitler ordered his troops to tuck tail and run if French Troops appeared when they took the Industrial areas taken by France at the end of the war. And Chamberlain NOT defending Czechoslovakia worked out so well for them too. And of course his appeasement protected Poland as well, right?

well ...

as the linked thread indicates, it is just a wee bit more complex than that, and hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Reasons for appeasement:

a) pacifism was strong in the UK in the 1930s, avoiding a repeat of the slaughter of WW1 was attractive;
b) many people had come to a view that Versailles was unfair and that Germany was simply undoing things that were wrong
c) many on the British right were (to put it politely) tolerant of Hitler and Mussolini

and the pragmatic:

d) the limited re-arming of the British armed forces (esp the airforce) proved to be invaluable in 1940-1

Reasons not:

a) for once the USSR was being truthful about being prepared to protect Czechoslavakia - now this is still not clear and its easy to understand the suspicion at the time but the evidence points that way;
b) Hitler had a much bigger agenda and was pretty clear about it
c) yes Britain and France had the chance to do some modernising but so did Germany

easy with hindsight, but then its depressing to see how 'Munich' is mis-used as a descriptive term even in modern day international relations, a judgement at the time?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Having seen three of these debates now - Napoleon, 1914 and Appeasement - I must try and find more. They are really well done and provide much food for thought. This latest one I've come across is about Chamberlain's policy of appeasement in the 1930's.

I don't think the speakers were quite as impressive as in the 1914 debate (one of them is the same) but still an interesting debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmyecSXOla8

I think so. They were not ready for war. They thought Hitler was. He wasn't, but they didn't know that

[JWW]

I think the result proves he did not. That doesn't mean the lesson from Munich can be applied to every remotely similar political situation, but it is a valuable bit of history for politicians to consider when making decisions.

[warspite1]

But - and this is an annoying aspect of part of the otherwise excellent debate - looking at the result is not the point of the exercise. Was it worth it from the British point of view with hindsight? Well no of course not - that's not even debatable. But the question is, did Chamberlain do the right thing knowing what he knew - or thought he knew - at the time.

[RangerJoe]

Neville Chamberlain inherited the situation from Stanley Baldwin and Ramsay MacDonald, although he was involved in the cabinet so he did have input there. He did what the public wanted but that is not necessarily true leadership. We had a discussion earlier in another thread on the best time to stop Germany and I think that it had passed but the Soviet Union was willing to help Czechoslovakia. If the governments of Czechoslovakia, the United Kingdom and France would have believed Stalin and trusted him to assist, then Germany could have been stopped. Even if it would have required the Royal Navy to assist the Soviet Union in an invasion in the Baltic area!

[Zorch]

Chamberlain was getting advice from military people that Britain's only hope was a long war to starve out Germany; but the civilians were telling him that a long war would destroy Britain's economy. He was not the complete fool that many historians make him out to be. His memoirs would have been interesting, if he had survived the war.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

... the Soviet Union was willing to help Czechoslovakia. If the governments of Czechoslovakia, the United Kingdom and France would have believed Stalin and trusted him to assist, then Germany could have been stopped.

warspite1

But how would this come about? Even if Stalin had ANY inclination to assist the west (and there is no certainty of that) there is the not inconsequential matter that there is no border between the USSR and Czechoslovakia. Soviet troops would have to go through Poland. And Poland - for obvious and totally understandable reasons - said no to that.

[RangerJoe]

But how would this come about? Even if Stalin had ANY inclination to assist the west (and there is no certainty of that) there is the not inconsequential matter that there is no border between the USSR and Czechoslovakia. Soviet troops would have to go through Poland. And Poland - for obvious and totally understandable reasons - said no to that.

. . . Even if it would have required the Royal Navy to assist the Soviet Union in an invasion in the Baltic area!

Stalin was 'prepared to move more than a million Soviet troops to the German border to deter Hitler's aggression just before the Second World War'
.
.
.
The Soviet offer - made by war minister Marshall Klementi Voroshilov and Red Army chief of general staff Boris Shaposhnikov - would have put up to 120 infantry divisions (each with some 19,000 troops), 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000 heavy artillery pieces, 9,500 tanks and up to 5,500 fighter aircraft and bombers on Germany's borders in the event of war in the west, declassified minutes of the meeting show.

But Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, who lead the British delegation, told his Soviet counterparts that he authorised only to talk, not to make deals.

"Had the British, French and their European ally Poland, taken this offer seriously then together we could have put some 300 or more divisions into the field on two fronts against Germany - double the number Hitler had at the time," said Gen Sotskov, who joined the Soviet intelligence service in 1956. "This was a chance to save the world or at least stop the wolf in its tracks."
.
.
.
Shortly before the notorious Munich Agreement of 1938 - in which Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, effectively gave Hitler the go-ahead to annexe the Sudetenland - Czechoslovakia's President Eduard Benes was told in no uncertain terms not to invoke his country's military treaty with the Soviet Union in the face of further German aggression.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... -pact.html

So if he was willing to do that then, what about a year before?

Adolf Hitler wanted to march into Czechoslovakia but his generals warned him that with its strong army and good mountain defences Czechoslovakia would be a difficult country to overcome. They also added that if Britain, France or the Soviet Union joined on the side of Czechoslovakia, Germany would probably be badly defeated. One group of senior generals even made plans to overthrow Hitler if he ignored their advice and declared war on Czechoslovakia.

https://spartacus-educational.com/2WWczech.htm

One bullet for Hitler, one bullet for Himmler, wipe out the small SS . . .

Poland also took demanded and received part of Czechoslovakia before Germany did, so Poland could have been invaded by the USSR per the alliance.

Poland then made its move.

On September 27, seeing that Czechoslovakia was in dire straits with Nazi troops readying to invade, Poland issued an ultimatum, demanding that Czechoslovakia hand over its Tesin (Teschen) district.

Two days later, on September 29, France, Britain, Germany, and Italy signed the Munich Agreement. It allowed Hitler to have the Sudetenland in exchange for him agreeing to "guarantee" Czechoslovakia's borders -- but only after Poland and Hungary had taken their shares!

http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/2003/poland.htm

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

... the Soviet Union was willing to help Czechoslovakia. If the governments of Czechoslovakia, the United Kingdom and France would have believed Stalin and trusted him to assist, then Germany could have been stopped.

warspite1

But how would this come about? Even if Stalin had ANY inclination to assist the west (and there is no certainty of that) there is the not inconsequential matter that there is no border between the USSR and Czechoslovakia. Soviet troops would have to go through Poland. And Poland - for obvious and totally understandable reasons - said no to that.

At the risk of repeating what has already been said...I don't believe it would have been necessary to send Soviet troops to Cz. A united front of Britain, France, and the Soviet Union would have been enough to make Hitler back down (at least temporarily). Mussolini would have offered a face saving conference. The French apparently were willing to do this; the British were hung up on the practical aspects (IIRC).

[Zorch]

(In reply to Warspite/RJ)

Stalin was serious (IMHO) about a united front against Hitler. Britain discounted Soviet help, both for political reasons and because the purges had raised doubts about their military effectiveness. If Churchill had been PM, he might have flown to Moscow and signed a military agreement.

Poland was incredibly stupid. Did they really believe Hitler would respect the non-aggression treaty he signed with them? Britain punished Poland for their shameful behavior...by guaranteeing Poland's border, making it almost certain that Britain couldn't back down from the next crisis.

[RangerJoe]

A united front would have resulted in Hitler backing down.

Maybe because Poland took part of Czechoslovakia, Churchill did not feet so bad about Poland being under the influence of the USSR despite all the help the Free Poles gave the Western Allies.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

... the Soviet Union was willing to help Czechoslovakia. If the governments of Czechoslovakia, the United Kingdom and France would have believed Stalin and trusted him to assist, then Germany could have been stopped.

warspite1

But how would this come about? Even if Stalin had ANY inclination to assist the west (and there is no certainty of that) there is the not inconsequential matter that there is no border between the USSR and Czechoslovakia. Soviet troops would have to go through Poland. And Poland - for obvious and totally understandable reasons - said no to that.

to add to the other responses, turn your question around.

Lets make the assumptions that for once the Soviets were telling the truth ... what would Poland have done if Britain had demanded they offered transit rights to say 2 Soviet divisions? So enough that any German invasion would have tangled with Soviet formations but not enough to be a domestic threat within Czechoslavakia?

They could have said no, but that would have meant they aligned with Hitler ... and they could read both his books and hear his speeches

[RangerJoe]

As someone once said, if you are not with us - you are against us. I think that with pressure that Poland would have allowed Soviet transit by train. But not necessarily to Czechoslovakia, think of the Baltic if there was a quick raid to grab even a small port in Germany proper and also East Prussia. Heck, Poland might have joined in for East Prussia. Bribery can work wonders.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Ya I mean Hitler ordered his troops to tuck tail and run if French Troops appeared when they took the Industrial areas taken by France at the end of the war.

warspite1

I assume you are talking about the Rhineland in 1936. This was not ‘taken by France at the end of the war’. It was a demilitarised zone that was garrisoned by British and French troops as per the Treaty of Versailles. France and Britain had withdrawn troops in 1929/30 – before the time the treaty obliged them to do so in 1935. During the time the Versailles Treaty was being negotiated, upon signing, and then increasingly thereafter, there was sympathy for Germany and the harshness of the treaty. Yes French troops could have stepped in to oppose German troops entering sovereign German territory in 1936. But that would have been a move out of step with public opinion of German treatment under Versailles.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

And Chamberlain NOT defending Czechoslovakia worked out so well for them too.

warspite1

Britain had no treaty with the Czechs. France did – but Britain didn’t. Why do you believe Britain had an obligation to defend the Czechs? Remember you can’t use hindsight if you are to have a meaningful conversation. 1938 was not about defending Czechoslovakia, it was about the right of 3 million Germans to self-determination. (Remember, despite the high ideals of Wilson’s 14 points, 30 million Europeans found themselves under ‘foreign’ governments post WWI).

So let’s be crystal clear about the situation that faced Chamberlain here. The slaughterhouse that was WWI was still fresh in every sane politician’s mind in the 1930’s. Avoiding another war was pretty much top of every democratic politicians list – as was public opinion. Chamberlain had been told by the Dominions that they weren’t going to war over the Czechs. Against that backdrop there was, as mentioned, a strong feeling that Versailles was too harsh. There was a degree of sympathy for the German position.

So, had Britain gone to war in 1938 what would they have been going to war for? Britain is going to declare war on Germany because three million Germans want to be governed by a German Government. Yeah, that’s a reason for going to war that would have the backing of the general public isn’t it?

And the thing I find most distasteful about 1938 is the position of the German generals. So here is the story (and then try and put this in a modern context). We, the German people – and specifically our elected politicians have got ourselves a leader that many (but by no means all (see election results) of us realise was a massive mistake. So disastrous do we think this man will be for Germany, we in the German Army would like to get rid of him. But, we will only do so if the British and French take their people into yet another war on our behalf. And if you do we promise we’ll shoot him and mount a coup (honest!). And then, if you don’t go to war and the whole things goes tits up, we’ll blame the British and French while the German general staff are blameless. Pathetic - but then their actions and protestations before, during and after the war were in the same vein....

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

And of course his appeasement protected Poland as well, right?

warspite1

You seem to be under the impression that it was Britain’s job to go around protecting everyone?? A Government’s first job is to protect the interests of its own people. The US Government decided to detach itself from what was going on in Europe for this reason. It did not want to send its young men over to die in a foreign field thousands of miles away. It had done that once and didn’t fancy another go. Public opinion and all that. Well public opinion was important in France and Britain too. Appeasement (right or wrong (and no hindsight allowed)) was designed for the purposes of stopping the outbreak of another ruinous war, while protecting the interests of the British and French by each Government.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If the governments of Czechoslovakia, the United Kingdom and France would have believed Stalin and trusted him to assist, then Germany could have been stopped.

ORIGINAL: loki100

Lets make the assumptions that for once the Soviets were telling the truth ... what would Poland have done if Britain had demanded they offered transit rights to say 2 Soviet divisions? So enough that any German invasion would have tangled with Soviet formations but not enough to be a domestic threat within Czechoslavakia?

warspite1

Well the first quote ignores Poland (I'll look at the loki's point below). But more to the point, it’s important to keep in mind the reality of the time. Why would the western democracies believe Stalin? Governments were far more afraid of the Communist threat – not necessarily as a direct threat even, but because of the possibility of revolution. Just remember how bad the Great Depression – following on the heels of WWI – was. Getting involved in the Soviet Union was not something that appealed and as for trust……

So recently discovered documents suggest Stalin offered to send his armies to the German border to aid the Poles….

It’s interesting that many see Britain as wrong for their involvement in handing Czechoslovakia to Germany, but then seek to blame Britain for not handing Poland to the Soviet Union. There are three aspects here. Firstly, was such an offer genuine? I think that this needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Why would this only just be discovered now? Why wouldn’t Stalin have been singing this from the rooftops post June 1941? And certainly post 1945, when the Soviets could effectively blame the West for everything that happened between 1941 and 1945?

The second aspect assumes the offer to be genuine. Given everything we know about the Soviet Union does it make sense that Stalin is going to offer this without a quid pro-quo (in the form of Polish territory)? Just look at the history of these two countries.

But the third aspect relates to the point already mentioned above. We have to look at this from the reality of the time. Let’s not forget the fear that Communism was going to spread its tentacles. I mean King George V left his cousin and his family to their, ultimately, tragic fate because of this fear. It was very real. And the possible consequences of any such Alliance need to be considered too. So what happens? Suppose a shooting war breaks out? Once again the Soviets are going to be in Berlin before the hapless French Army and the non-existent British Army. How palatable is that to the Western Democracies mulling over the options in 1938/9? But there is a suggestion that the Soviet presence can be limited to two divisions. This would still need Poland to trust the Soviets - and I don't think they would - but if they did, how would this work in the event of a shooting war? What use are two divisions? They are unlikely to co-operate with the Poles and are not a sufficient force to fight independently without air support, logisitics etc.

I think the feelers put out to the USSR by the British and French were just that. Now of course, if the offer was genuine, if Uncle Joe had no designs on Poland and would have retreated back to their borders once Germany were ‘sorted’ (all of which could never be known) then this is another reason, with hindsight, to say that Chamberlain was wrong. But we are dealing with what was known or thought was known.

[RangerJoe]

I agree with you for the most part. But what if the Royal Navy would have held naval exercises with the Red Fleet in the Baltic and the North Sea? With or without France? That might have been enough of a cooperation to slow Germany. The Czechoslovakian government could have offered to purchase the fixed property of the people who identified as German - who had never lived in Germany. It was the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Yes, people lived in countries where their ethnicity was different than the majority and they did not necessarily assimilate. That was their and their ancestors choice. Other people should not have had their lives destroyed for that, they could have easily relocated if they had wanted to. There was no fence, no wall, armed border guards, mines, and/or tripwires attached to alarms or explosives to keep them in.

Check out these links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation_Post_Alpha

http://www.tompgalvin.com/places/de/hes ... _alpha.htm

Here is how the kept people in:

https://history.army.mil/documents/Bord ... 6.htm#p178

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I agree with you for the most part. But what if the Royal Navy would have held naval exercises with the Red Fleet in the Baltic and the North Sea? With or without France? That might have been enough of a cooperation to slow Germany. The Czechoslovakian government could have offered to purchase the fixed property of the people who identified as German - who had never lived in Germany. It was the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Yes, people lived in countries where their ethnicity was different than the majority and they did not necessarily assimilate. That was their and their ancestors choice. Other people should not have had their lives destroyed for that, they could have easily relocated if they had wanted to. There was no fence, no wall, armed border guards, mines, and/or tripwires attached to alarms or explosives to keep them in.

Check out these links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation_Post_Alpha

http://www.tompgalvin.com/places/de/hes ... _alpha.htm

Here is how the kept people in:

https://history.army.mil/documents/Bord ... 6.htm#p178

warspite1

Well the UK was trying to avoid a war so I don't see what good a bit of gunboat diplomacy would have when the British weren't prepared/able to back it up.

As for the Sudeten Czechs, how much is that going to cost? That is almost a quarter of the population! I have no idea what the GDP of this area of Czechoslovakia was, but I imagine it is a big chunk. This was the industrial heart of the country. We are talking about 3 million people, we are talking businesses, homes, farms, skilled workers. The country would be bankrupting itself. Unless the Czechs offered market rate + compensation, why would any German accept? Especially so since the Germans, north of the border would - even if such an offer were remotely practical - be telling them to stay put. Propaganda stories would abound about how the Czechs were trying to hound the Sudeten Germans - who'd live there for hundreds of years - to leave the country with barely a penny etc.etc.

[RangerJoe]

What about gunboat diplomacy today? It worked in the past, it works now, and it will work in the future. Just a fleet exercise but how would the Germans know that? What could they have done short of bombing the fleets, which would have started a war that Hitler did not want then.

[RangerJoe]

What was the cost of not buying out the Sudeten "Germans?" The mountainous border areas were fortified. Benes got along with Stalin.