Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: philabos

Gamelin said the French could not go on the offensive until 1941, almost 2 years after the start of the war. He had been in charge of the army since 1933.
warspite1

But apparently, according to some, less than 12 months before, this same man would have been full of the offensive spirit that was total absent during the Saar Offensive, where the French had approx 2:1 superiority in divisions (and more in front line divisions), a huge superiority in artillery and no German tanks to oppose hundreds of French.

Yes, if the Czechs had held off the Germans, then the French might have been willing to cross into Germany, but given what we know happened, it is more likely that they would have turned tail at the first sign of Czech reverse - no matter how minor - and that assumes they would have launched an offensive in the first place.

The chances that a British and German declaration of war in September 1938 would have ended in a similar stalemate to the actual war ranks pretty highly in my opinion - and as said, with the added problems that:

- World opinion would have been more sympathetic to Germany
- Britain and France would have been the aggressor states
- The Dominions had already made clear they did not support this move
- Public opinion in Britain and France not fully behind the decision for war
- The military - of either country - even less prepared for war than they were 12 months later
- The financial position of both countries not strong
- The position of the US more uncertain thanks to the British and French being the aggressor nations.
- In all likelihood the Polish and Hungarians would have fought over the Czech carcass.
- Soviet horror at French inertia would have been similar to their reaction to Munich and a Nazi-Soviet pact very likely to protect the Soviet position
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 31862
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by Orm »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



No wonder Khrushchev was sacked shortly thereafter.
Yes, it was a mistake by Khrushchev to agree to keep it a secret from the world that the Soviets had come out on top. That they in fact had "won".

And I hardly call two years "shortly thereafter".

They couldn't sack him immediately after the crisis - that would have multiplied the humiliation. They had to wait till it was long gone from the headlines. And let's be clear - without Cuba, he would have died in office - just like every other Marxist monster.
I do not think they sacked him because of Cuba. If Khrushchev had been weak enough after the Cuba crisis then they would have removed him from office at once. They wouldn't have considered public opinion. Even less so what the West would have thought. And when they removed him it had everything to do with internal power struggles, and failed internal policies. Cuba wasn't a factor here.

Although, if you have any sources you might share that supports your stance, I wouldn't mind giving them a look.
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by Zorch »

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Orm



Yes, it was a mistake by Khrushchev to agree to keep it a secret from the world that the Soviets had come out on top. That they in fact had "won".

And I hardly call two years "shortly thereafter".

They couldn't sack him immediately after the crisis - that would have multiplied the humiliation. They had to wait till it was long gone from the headlines. And let's be clear - without Cuba, he would have died in office - just like every other Marxist monster.
I do not think they sacked him because of Cuba. If Khrushchev had been weak enough after the Cuba crisis then they would have removed him from office at once. They wouldn't have considered public opinion. Even less so what the West would have thought. And when they removed him it had everything to do with internal power struggles, and failed internal policies. Cuba wasn't a factor here.

Although, if you have any sources you might share that supports your stance, I wouldn't mind giving them a look.
+1
'It's the economy, stupid' was what brought K down. And the realization that he had no solutions, only bravado and bluster.

User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15050
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Orm

I do not think they sacked him because of Cuba. If Khrushchev had been weak enough after the Cuba crisis then they would have removed him from office at once. They wouldn't have considered public opinion. Even less so what the West would have thought. And when they removed him it had everything to do with internal power struggles, and failed internal policies. Cuba wasn't a factor here.

Although, if you have any sources you might share that supports your stance, I wouldn't mind giving them a look.

If "failed internal policies" could bring down one of these Marxist tyrants, none of them would ever last a week. And there is no piece of paper that could shed any light either - they were consummate liars. The truth has to be inferred from the facts. And the facts are that he was sacked as close to the crisis as decorum allowed. Name any other established Soviet ruler who was sacked.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by Zorch »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Orm

I do not think they sacked him because of Cuba. If Khrushchev had been weak enough after the Cuba crisis then they would have removed him from office at once. They wouldn't have considered public opinion. Even less so what the West would have thought. And when they removed him it had everything to do with internal power struggles, and failed internal policies. Cuba wasn't a factor here.

Although, if you have any sources you might share that supports your stance, I wouldn't mind giving them a look.

If "failed internal policies" could bring down one of these Marxist tyrants, none of them would ever last a week. And there is no piece of paper that could shed any light either - they were consummate liars. The truth has to be inferred from the facts. And the facts are that he was sacked as close to the crisis as decorum allowed. Name any other established Soviet ruler who was sacked.
Certainly the Cuban Missile crisis was a factor, but 2 full years is a very long time to wait for 'decorum'.

The failed harvest of 1963, and resulting famine (remember Lysenko?), was the last straw for Brezhnev/Kosygin, who began planning to remove Khrushchev in spring 1964. K fell because he lost the support of the entire Politburo.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15050
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Certainly the Cuban Missile crisis was a factor, but 2 full years is a very long time to wait for 'decorum'.

The failed harvest of 1963, and resulting famine (remember Lysenko?), was the last straw for Brezhnev/Kosygin, who began planning to remove Khrushchev in spring 1964. K fell because he lost the support of the entire Politburo.

Substitute "plausible deniability" for decorum, then.

Check out Venezuela, North Korea, or Cuba for examples of Marxist tyrants staying in power despite ruling economic basket cases. The Soviet Union had cannibalism in the '30s, things were so bad. Marxist tyrants are not removed for those reasons.

Lose a war, however, (check what happened after Afghanistan) or suffer military humiliation on the world stage, and you're gone.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 31862
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by Orm »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Certainly the Cuban Missile crisis was a factor, but 2 full years is a very long time to wait for 'decorum'.

The failed harvest of 1963, and resulting famine (remember Lysenko?), was the last straw for Brezhnev/Kosygin, who began planning to remove Khrushchev in spring 1964. K fell because he lost the support of the entire Politburo.

Substitute "plausible deniability" for decorum, then.

Check out Venezuela, North Korea, or Cuba for examples of Marxist tyrants staying in power despite ruling economic basket cases. The Soviet Union had cannibalism in the '30s, things were so bad. Marxist tyrants are not removed for those reasons.

Lose a war, however, (check what happened after Afghanistan) or suffer military humiliation on the world stage, and you're gone.
Are you claiming that Khrushchev lost a war? Or the equivalence of that? And after they lost the war they waited before taking action?!
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by Zorch »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Certainly the Cuban Missile crisis was a factor, but 2 full years is a very long time to wait for 'decorum'.

The failed harvest of 1963, and resulting famine (remember Lysenko?), was the last straw for Brezhnev/Kosygin, who began planning to remove Khrushchev in spring 1964. K fell because he lost the support of the entire Politburo.

Substitute "plausible deniability" for decorum, then.

Check out Venezuela, North Korea, or Cuba for examples of Marxist tyrants staying in power despite ruling economic basket cases. The Soviet Union had cannibalism in the '30s, things were so bad. Marxist tyrants are not removed for those reasons.

Lose a war, however, (check what happened after Afghanistan) or suffer military humiliation on the world stage, and you're gone.
Dictatorships fall when the people around the dictator lose confidence in him. Losing a war can do this but not always (Saddam Hussein lost the war for Kuwait; Kim l Sung lost the Korean war; Arab dictators stayed in power after the 1967 war). The economy can cause this; the Soviets remember that the Czar abdicated because of food riots.

Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko were not removed because of Afghanistan; they were willing to pay a high price to have a friendly regime there. Gorbachev wasn't willing to pay that price.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Lose a war, however, (check what happened after Afghanistan) or suffer military humiliation on the world stage, and you're gone.
warspite1

You are suggesting they went because they lost a war i.e. Afghanistan??

Surely not. They were gone because they kind of died in office. Brezhnev was pretty much senile, Andropov died of renal failure and with Chernenko it wasn't a case of what he died from - more a case of what did he not suffer from?

Badly losing the war in Afghanistan (and not having the guts to pull out (unlike Gorbachev) had nothing to do with their removal from office.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15050
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Certainly the Cuban Missile crisis was a factor, but 2 full years is a very long time to wait for 'decorum'.

The failed harvest of 1963, and resulting famine (remember Lysenko?), was the last straw for Brezhnev/Kosygin, who began planning to remove Khrushchev in spring 1964. K fell because he lost the support of the entire Politburo.

Substitute "plausible deniability" for decorum, then.

Check out Venezuela, North Korea, or Cuba for examples of Marxist tyrants staying in power despite ruling economic basket cases. The Soviet Union had cannibalism in the '30s, things were so bad. Marxist tyrants are not removed for those reasons.

Lose a war, however, (check what happened after Afghanistan) or suffer military humiliation on the world stage, and you're gone.
Are you claiming that Khrushchev lost a war? Or the equivalence of that? And after they lost the war they waited before taking action?!
No. The other one: Military humiliation on the world stage.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15050
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Dictatorships fall when the people around the dictator lose confidence in him. Losing a war can do this but not always (Saddam Hussein lost the war for Kuwait; Kim l Sung lost the Korean war; Arab dictators stayed in power after the 1967 war). The economy can cause this; the Soviets remember that the Czar abdicated because of food riots.

The Czar abdicated because his war (WWI) was a disaster. If he had still had a loyal army behind him, no riots could have removed him.
Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko were not removed because of Afghanistan; they were willing to pay a high price to have a friendly regime there. Gorbachev wasn't willing to pay that price.

I'm just pointing out that the Soviet Union collapsed shortly after their defeat in Afghanistan. As above, that's a general rule: No Russian government can survive a lost war.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 31862
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by Orm »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: Zorch

Dictatorships fall when the people around the dictator lose confidence in him. Losing a war can do this but not always (Saddam Hussein lost the war for Kuwait; Kim l Sung lost the Korean war; Arab dictators stayed in power after the 1967 war). The economy can cause this; the Soviets remember that the Czar abdicated because of food riots.

The Czar abdicated because his war (WWI) was a disaster. If he had still had a loyal army behind him, no riots could have removed him.
Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko were not removed because of Afghanistan; they were willing to pay a high price to have a friendly regime there. Gorbachev wasn't willing to pay that price.

I'm just pointing out that the Soviet Union collapsed shortly after their defeat in Afghanistan. As above, that's a general rule: No Russian government can survive a lost war.
Is that just a Russian rule? That they can not survive a lost war? Or is it a Communist rule that the government can survive a lost war?

I say that there are few leaders anywhere that will survive a lost war. I am sure that there are some exceptions, but my guess is that it is a general rule that leaders go if they lost a war.

And for the Soviet collapse you can argue that it was a failed economy. Personally I think one makes it to easy if one seek just one reason for that collapse.
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 31862
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by Orm »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Substitute "plausible deniability" for decorum, then.

Check out Venezuela, North Korea, or Cuba for examples of Marxist tyrants staying in power despite ruling economic basket cases. The Soviet Union had cannibalism in the '30s, things were so bad. Marxist tyrants are not removed for those reasons.

Lose a war, however, (check what happened after Afghanistan) or suffer military humiliation on the world stage, and you're gone.
Are you claiming that Khrushchev lost a war? Or the equivalence of that? And after they lost the war they waited before taking action?!
No. The other one: Military humiliation on the world stage.
I am sorry. I thought that my equivalence sentence took care of the other one, the military humiliation bit. My mistake. Sorry about that.

Anyway. I find it hard to see that the resolution of the Cuba crisis was Military humiliation on the world stage for the Soviets. Maybe in the US where the spin doctors apparently made it into a major win for US?
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
User avatar
demyansk
Posts: 2874
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:55 pm

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by demyansk »

Not sure if think was included, but just came across this article
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-ar ... ler-2.html
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: demyansk

Not sure if think was included, but just came across this article
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-ar ... ler-2.html
warspite1

Yes, Tim Bouverie's book has already been briefly mentioned.

I only read the review once but it appears to be written by someone who can't, or won't, say what he thinks - or at least he does but can't then come down in favour of one side or the other. The writer has used a lot of the arguments made in this thread as to why Britain could not sensibly have gone to war and mentions context and hindsight - but also appears to not want to agree with that, while at the same time wanting to!! He also writes the rather disappointing line about peace at any price - while in the same sentence stating that Chamberlain drew a line in the sand at Poland... and thus not peace at any price.

Ultimately this review appears to be written by someone that admires Chamberlain's stance... but doesn't want to admit it.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15050
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Orm

Is that just a Russian rule? That they can not survive a lost war? Or is it a Communist rule that the government can survive a lost war?

Russia.
I say that there are few leaders anywhere that will survive a lost war. I am sure that there are some exceptions, but my guess is that it is a general rule that leaders go if they lost a war.

See Viet Nam, for a counter-example.
And for the Soviet collapse you can argue that it was a failed economy. Personally I think one makes it to easy if one seek just one reason for that collapse.

They had a failed economy for their entire existence. They abandoned Afghanistan in 1989, and collapsed that same year.

In a Marxist tyranny the common people have little or no power. Their condition has little impact on the survival of the regime (and there are plenty of Marxist hellholes around the world to prove that). But lose the support of the military and you're gone.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15050
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Orm

Anyway. I find it hard to see that the resolution of the Cuba crisis was Military humiliation on the world stage for the Soviets. Maybe in the US where the spin doctors apparently made it into a major win for US?

They packed up their missiles and slunk back to the USSR with their tails between their legs. That's what happened on the World Stage.

What happened in Turkey was months later and in secret. And I recall that the story at the time was that those Turkey missiles had already been scheduled for removal anyway. If true (and you can never be sure, since both sides had motive to lie), then the Soviet "gain" for the crisis was zilch.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They had a failed economy for their entire existence. They abandoned Afghanistan in 1989, and collapsed that same year.
warspite1

So to be clear, by 1989 agriculture was failing year upon year, the economy and GNP had stagnated, inflation was rising, oil prices had fallen through the floor, the cost of keeping the Soviet Bloc happy was rising (and they weren't - quite the opposite - and there was a clear wish to amend their relationship with the USSR), Gorbachev had placed a massive tax on alcohol (one of the few 'pleasures' left to Soviet citizens), Chernobyl had happened, the Nina Andreyeva letter, they were losing in Afghanistan, defence expenditure had risen to unsustainable numbers, ethnic unrest was on the rise in many of the republics..... and you identify Afghanistan with the reason Gorbachev was removed?

Edit: forgot two massive non-Afghanistan issues for Gorbachev - I am sure I've forgotten others too.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 31862
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by Orm »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I say that there are few leaders anywhere that will survive a lost war. I am sure that there are some exceptions, but my guess is that it is a general rule that leaders go if they lost a war.

See Viet Nam, for a counter-example.
You mention Viet Nam as example of leaders who lost a was but stay in power? Pray, tell me, which of the South Vietnamese leaders stayed in power after they were defeated.

Or are you perhaps referring to the US involvement? Are you claiming that President Nixon stayed in power after the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam? If so, I would like to point out that he is the only US President that has been forced to resign. They couldn't remove President Nixon at once after he had decided to withdraw from Vietnam because that would have been to humiliating. So he got one year grace period for decorum's sake, then he had to go..
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15050
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing?

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Orm
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I say that there are few leaders anywhere that will survive a lost war. I am sure that there are some exceptions, but my guess is that it is a general rule that leaders go if they lost a war.

See Viet Nam, for a counter-example.
You mention Viet Nam as example of leaders who lost a was but stay in power? Pray, tell me, which of the South Vietnamese leaders stayed in power after they were defeated.

Or are you perhaps referring to the US involvement? Are you claiming that President Nixon stayed in power after the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam? If so, I would like to point out that he is the only US President that has been forced to resign. They couldn't remove President Nixon at once after he had decided to withdraw from Vietnam because that would have been to humiliating. So he got one year grace period for decorum's sake, then he had to go..
That's right, the US government didn't collapse after Viet Nam. And Democracies, unlike Marxist tyrannies, have a mechanism for the removal of failed leaders: Elections.

Another example: The American Revolution. After that loss, George III remained in power and Britain carried on as before.

To summarize: Marxist tyrannies, because they rely on tyranny, are hyper-sensitive to military setbacks, but largely immune to economic setbacks.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”