Chamberlin 1938

[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