Chamberlin 1938

[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.