Chamberlin 1938

[lehighguy]

Knowing only what Chamberlin (UK leader) knew in 1938, would you invade Germany?

[Dynasty]

Knowing what we know now, do you wish Hitler had been stopped before World War II?

[Broken Glass Can]

Chamberlain reminds me of Clinton.

Sit around and do nothing despite the warnings of an impending crisis. Leave all the responsibility to take action to resolve the crisis to your successor.

Yep, Clinton and Chamberlain were made of the same stuff.

[KDawgCometh]

my vote was for yes becasue HItler had been making it quite clear as to what his intentions were by 1935. He had already broken Versailles by increasing the military size past the 100K cap on it, and by 1938 he had already been making military maneuvers. THe only problem with this question is that we know that Chamberlin was on e of the weaker British PMs ever. I can garuntee you that even David Lloyd-George would've been more assertive with Hitler, so this is not one of those conservative/liberal(or labour) things

[lastchance]

What did Chamberlain know in 1938?

[Hamish McBagpipe]

How can he invade in 1938? Britain invades, she loses. Britain in 1938 is hopelessly unprepared for offensive action.

[mslif]

[ QUOTE ]
my vote was for yes becasue HItler had been making it quite clear as to what his intentions were by 1935. He had already broken Versailles by increasing the military size past the 100K cap on it, and by 1938 he had already been making military maneuvers. THe only problem with this question is that we know that Chamberlin was on e of the weaker British PMs ever. I can garuntee you that even David Lloyd-George would've been more assertive with Hitler, so this is not one of those conservative/liberal(or labour) things

[/ QUOTE ]

I somewhat disagree. The way Hitler justified the increase in his military power was to defend Germany from the Communist invasion. As the sovereingty right of independant nations to come together justified his peaceful invasion of Austria (Anschluss), Czechoslovakia, also the demilitarization of Rhenany (sp?)... Chamberlain and Petin for that matter had really no ground to justify the invasion of germany.

[ACPlayer]

Knowing what we know now would we have lifted the onerous conditions of the Versailles treaty?

Far more sensible question, IMO.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
Knowing what we know now would we have lifted the onerous conditions of the Versailles treaty?

Far more sensible question, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]


well, if WIlson hadn't tried to push the 14 points so hard on Lloyd-George and Clemanceau then Versailles might not have been so harsh. Lloyd_George and Clemanceau were very put off by WIlson basically thristing them at them and acting like a savior of WWI.

But really, outside of the Reparations and letting france controlling the Saar region, Versailles wasn't all that harsh, since Germany lost it would just be expected that they would have to give up their african colonies and give up some territory to both the new poland and give back Alsace-Lorraine

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]


I somewhat disagree. The way Hitler justified the increase in his military power was to defend Germany from the Communist invasion. As the sovereingty right of independant nations to come together justified his peaceful invasion of Austria (Anschluss), Czechoslovakia, also the demilitarization of Rhenany (sp?)... Chamberlain and Petin for that matter had really no ground to justify the invasion of germany.

[/ QUOTE ]


His unification with Austria can be somewhat justified to an extent, but putting his troops in the Rhine region and invading the Sudentanland were obvious signs of inevitable war. His goal was to bring things back to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and to take over northern france. Also by 1938 he had already walked out on the League of Nations

[ACPlayer]

Versailles set the conditions for harsh economic conditions in Germany. Hitler exploited this by first using this to take power and then making the Jews part or all of the reason for the economic conditions. Leading to his ability to convince the German population that they were under siege and needed to sacrifice lives. He ended up misusing Christian values to rev up his troops to die for the fatherland.

The parallels are obvious to the radical islamist misusing Islamic values to rev up the populations to die for the holy lands of Islam. The oppression of the American backed regimes (Israel and Arab regimes) is setting the conditions for the terrorism.

All these things usually get back to economic conditions.

And yes, Wilson carries the a large part of the blame for the treaty. Perhaps another example of American Foreign Policy backlash. I expect some on this forum to take exception to this.

[KDawgCometh]

yes, Versailles was extremely harsh. France demanding and getting control of the Saar region along with the insane reparations that were levied on Germany was just ridiculous. It was France's fault that the Weimar Republic failed like it did. Granted the Weimar Republic was probably doomed from the start, but instead of the Prussian Royal Line being reinstated, we got Hitler. I believe that if the treaty wasn't so harsh that we would've seen the Royal Family come back into power in germany under a constitutional Monarchy. In fact, it was Hindenburg's goal to reinstate the kaiser, but the conditions weren't right at the time and since the Hindenburg was a weak president, Hitler took advantage of that


I do think that Wilson pushed too hard on the 14 points. THe other allied leaders didn't trust him as he had entered late and was the one trying to run the show on reparing europe, that was the downfall of the entire situation

[lehighguy]

This is 1938. You can't get rid of Versailles. That issue really isn't at the heart of what I'm trying to ask. Just answer the question.

[mslif]

Chamberlain's foreign policy was based on appeasement. This policy was based on two principles: (1) that the Treaty of Versailles was unjust, in its treatment of Germany, and (2) that if these wrongs were rectified, Germany would re-enter The League of Nations and resume co*operation with a peaceful Europe.

The independence of the Czech Republic; a new nation carved by the Treaty of Versailles; was guaranteed by pacts with France, and indirectly, Britain. Rather than risk war, Chamberlain, in a sudden dramatic move, communicated with Hitler at Berchtesgaden; after which, he flew to meet with Hitler, Mussolini and Premier Daladier of France, at the Munich conference. On Sept., 1938, an agreement was signed. The vital Sudetenland with its war industries, strong defenses and its power to resist was sacrificed. In return, Chamberlain came home with an agreement with Hitler that neither side wanted war, and that Germany and Britain would settle all future questions by consultation rather than by military action.

Chamberlain was somewhat naive but his state of mind wa to keep the peace.

[lehighguy]

Good recap. The question is if you would do the same?

[mslif]

Given his state of mind and his beliefs, yes I would. Nobody could predict what was about to happen.

[lehighguy]

Maybe I shouldn't have used CHamberlin. I don't mean what he would do given his believes. I mean what would you do in his posistion.

I certainly think what happened was predictable. There was plenty of intelligence on Germany's military build-up and Hitler's polcies. Not to mentioned he published his invasion plan in his various works. So the idea it was no predictable seems more controversial.

[mslif]

I still would not have invaded Germany, not alone. The UK did not have enough military power to do so. They would have needed the support of France at least. France may have agreed just because the sentiment at that time was that they could crush any german military. Tough call though.

[BadgerAle]

I really don't think any of the European nations was strong enough to invade Germany at that time. And if they would have been it would have been an extreamly bloody and drawn out affair- so the question is not really sensible. I think Chamberlain was completly justified in going all out for a peacefull solution. He maybe should have shown more strength about it and resolve to defend other nations (Hitler never wanted war with Britain), but i can't say he was wrong to try for peace given the alternative.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly think what happened was predictable. There was plenty of intelligence on Germany's military build-up and Hitler's polcies. Not to mentioned he published his invasion plan in his various works. So the idea it was no predictable seems more controversial.

[/ QUOTE ]


intellignence wasn't even needed, he had parades showing off his new "Toys" many times before 38. He ahd also been putting jews into ghettos which can't be ignored as England was the main champion of the Zionist movement and had many powerful jewish men as leaders in teh house of commons and in society in general, and as we know, Benjamin Disreali was a jew that converted to the Anglican Church and was one of the Greatest PMs in England's history

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
Just answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have several times already, good job reading all of the posts

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Chamberlain reminds me of Bush II.

Sit around and do nothing despite the warnings of the impending terrorist threat that was specifically outlined by the outgoing Clinton administration.
Leave all the responsibility to take action to resolve the crisis after the attack and then invade, quite preposterously, a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11!


Yep, Bush II and Chamberlain were proven to be equally unable to carry the responsibilities of their respective office.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
How can he invade in 1938? Britain invades, she loses. Britain in 1938 is hopelessly unprepared for offensive action.

[/ QUOTE ]

aggreed, and this is only one reason why i voted no. an invasion would be logistically impossible, completly unwinnable, and would make the nazi's look like the victims and the brits look like the bad guys.

The proper action would be to energize and unite the international community against the threat, perhaps by pre-empting hitler's aggreement with the soviets or by forming alliances with chezk(can't spell it, sry,), poland, etc.

sound familliar?

[daveymck]

You also have to bear in mind this was only 20 years after the first world war, I think Chamberlain wanted to avert any sort of huge conflict and probably underestimated how ambitious hitler was.

However by 1938 the mistakes had been made there were many times before then when they could have pressured hitler ideally before he rearmed.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

Yes, alliances have always been what Great Britain has aimed at to keep the balance of power.

But someone mentioned that GB would have needed French support. They already had it. But the reason the poll question is poor (no disrespect, tks for bringing it up anyway) is that military doctrine at the time was based on the defensive. The Maginot Line was built on the belief that there was a 10 or 15 to one advantage in being on the defensive. As was mentioned, this is only 20 years after the butchery at Verdun, all sides were fearful of a repeat. The British Expeditionary Force and French forces would fill in the gap between the end of the Line and the Channel. Then after the Germans had been slaughtered along the Maginot line the combined allied forces would mop up the rest. The French actually had MORE tanks than the Germans but were placed sporadically along the defensive front rather than used as the point of the Blitzkrieg's spear thrust.

So, a political policy of containment makes sense before witnessing the power of the blitzkrieg. Invasion would be unthinkable from a British point of view 20 years after the Somme.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
And yes, Wilson carries the a large part of the blame for the treaty. Perhaps another example of American Foreign Policy backlash. I expect some on this forum to take exception to this.


[/ QUOTE ]

Prophetic words.

I think Wilson was a very bad President, but it's impossible to blame the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles on him. This is analogous to blaming France for the invasion of Iraq.

From what I've read, there are several theories about the Wilson-Versailles connection, none of which make any sense:
1. Wilson pushed the 14 Points too hard. Taking for granted that advocating free trade, a proto-UN, and national self-determination is a bad thing, is there any evidence that had he not done so, he could have prevented the harsh conditions of the Treaty? And even if he could have, how meaningful is it to blame him for failing to reign in the vengefulness of his allies?
2. The Americans were acting like saviors. Ahh, yes, I can see it know. Clemenceau sitting in his office, watching Wilson parading down the street, and thinking to himself, "Man, those Germans slaughtered millions of young Frenchmen AND the Americans are strutting around. Well this is simply intolerable. Harsh reparations it is!" Or maybe not.
3. American foreign policy backlash. This would seem that American foreign policy was the cause of the backlash. Unless Hitler was actually really just mad about freedom of the seas...

As for the actual question, Chamberlain should not have invaded Germany, but he certainly should not have helped Hitler dismember Czechoslovakia.

[lehighguy]

Alright, so I'm trying to pose a theoretical question. Let's not get bogged down in details.

Let us suppose you and a coalition have the power to successfully invade and occupy Germany. It will no doubt be bloddy, but you will probably succeed.