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