Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
30 September 2008
07:036779#1
This refers to one of the most famous or perhaps infamous political moments of all time. Yes on this very day in 1938 Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain arrived at a London Airport, following a european summit, to declare the world a safer place. He waved triumphantly a piece of paper signed by one Adolf Hitler who promised no war, particularly no war with Britain ever again.
Chamberlain was met by a jubilant crowd who were naturally enough thrilled by the good news. Huge crowds also gathered at Buckingham Palace to celebrate. People were tired of war, having trawled through the horrors of World War I a mere short time before...so were overjoyed at the notion of
..." Peace for our Time"
But within a short year the dark clouds of terror and destruction were gathering over Europe. Chamberlain left office something of a broken man and died soon after.
He perhaps typified the era of the amateur gentleman politician.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
30 September 2008
07:356781#2
Understandable reaction but how naive they seem to us now.
Few people could actually appreciate the full implications of what was happening in Europe. Churchill, who warned of it, was in his 'Wilderness Years'. That reminds me, does anyone else remember that great tv series of that title?
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
30 September 2008
07:596784#3
is history repeating it self in a qurky way with george w waving a piece of paper.
Guest 658- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 660
30 September 2008
08:286789#4
It is now thought by historians that Mr Chamberlain was very astute in that he gained us a year to try and prepare for the coming war,but as always with the British govt we always prepare for the last war never the next one.
beer the food of the gods
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
30 September 2008
08:476792#5
spot on guzz.... Lets face it though, he only needed to buy that extra time because he and Baldwin had previously went too far with disarmanent. Sounds a bit like now...
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
30 September 2008
09:026793#6
No Im afraid to say I dont think thats spot on at all. The word used earlier by BarryW saying he was naive is more apt. If he got a year of extra time it was purely at the grace of one Mr Hitler...so therefore more luck than judgement. History does not see Chamberlain in a good light but perhaps thats a tad unjust. He meant well and clearly believed in the paper he was waving about...but alas the agreement wasnt worth the paper it was written on!
Chamberlain was of the old colonial school I would suggest and beleived in the noble maxim that "a gentlemans word is his bond" and so on, but nobody told that to the other devious players in the game. Unfortunately.
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
30 September 2008
10:086797#7
The British military in 1938 was in no manner equipped to intervene in the Sudetenland invasion, indeed, it was still in a poor shape by the time the war broke out due to defense cuts. The only really powerful force that Britain had at that time that could truly outmatch Germany was the Royal Navy, hardly any use given the location of Czechoslovakia. In hindsight if the British military had somehow marched halfway across Europe and intervened then it would have encountered severe difficulties and suffered losses that would have severely affected our ability to fight the future inevitable conflict with Hitler and left us horribly depleted in face of an attempted German invasion across the Channel.
The extra year enabled the RAF to build up Hurricanes and Spitfires that were in low numbers in 1938, Britain barely got through the Battle of Britain as it was, let alone to see our few resources squandered on a crusade abroad in 1938, no matter how morally justified. However, if the Red Army and French Army could have been co-ordinated into an attack then the matter may have been different. Although the Wehrmacht was not as strong as many people supposed, this certainly was not obvious at the time, and Mussolini was always lurking just to the south and could have intervened.
Chamberlain really had no choice in the matter. As it stood Chamberlain's agreement may have ultimately saved Britain although it sacrificed the Sudetenland. Chamberlain was ultimately caught between a rock and a hard place - there is no right or wrong in his decision, but it was a pragmatic one. I am certain he was not as naive as some make out.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
30 September 2008
10:126798#8
Chamberlain was not alone in taking a'more innocent' view of Hitler. Stalin was also convinced that his pact with Nazi germany would buy him far more time than it did. All the neutral countries were also certain that their neutrality would be respected while the Americans were still pursuing isolationism into 1941 (with some Americans still taking their holidays in Germany). None of the lessons of World War One were learnt and, as the old saying goes, those that did not learn from history were doomed to repeat it.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
30 September 2008
10:496801#9
As it seems an appropriate thread, I thought I'd share this medal from my collection with you. It's a Sudetenland Commemorative medal and was issued to all Wehrmacht and SS troops who marched into that region 70 years ago today.
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
30 September 2008
10:596803#10
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
30 September 2008
11:136804#11
nice pics phil have you any more medles in your collection.
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
30 September 2008
11:306805#12
Yep, a few Brian.
A fair mixture of combat awards, cloth patches and medals of all sorts. Mostly German stuff, i.e. Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, Heer, SS, Schutzpolitzei, Feuerwehren, Luftschutz and so on. Not forgetting a couple of badges of Soviet and British stuff too. Also a few helmets, gas masks, a mine detector and other field equipment. You know, the usual stuff one has knocking about the house.
Nothing particularly valuable, but all interesting no matter where they are from as they all have a story to tell.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
30 September 2008
11:366806#13
A good point to mention that it was the march into the Sudetenland that gave Hitler the most cause for concern. We know now that it was at that moment that a concerted effort by the future allies could have scuppered his plans as he was dependent on the manufacturing resources of the area to complete his war plans. Of course this is purely hindsight and at the time it would have not looked like an easy option to a still war weary world.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
30 September 2008
14:256811#14
thanks for that phil,i have a small colletion my fathers medels to be precise 7 altogether 5 coming from the second world war and two from other events he took part in.these medels include a gazeted b.e.m,british empire medel.a nise little story for later over a pint.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
30 September 2008
17:186821#15
Had Hitler turned East in 1939 and attacked Russia,Soviet Union,USSR, would the West have intervened?.It's a theory I 've often wondered about and one I put to my son who sat his A levels(or todays equivalent) last year.
The answer is probably NO and Hitler would have gained the backing of the USA and UK who both viewed Russia as the real threat to stability in the West.
Great Medals by the way.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
30 September 2008
19:436830#16
Interesting thought Marek. I am not so sure about that. Perhaps we would have left them to fight it out, at least initially, but if the German assault succeeded and drove through to the Urals alarms bells would have been ringing about an overmighty Germany. Fascinating idea though.
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
#17
Alternative histories are fun, aren't they?
I don't think the German army was in any real state to invade Russia in 1939 and lacked the adequate supplies and equipment to realistically sustain such a campaign. They could not deploy all their reserves to the East to support such a move as a large number of divisions would have had to be kept in the west as insurance against a combined British and French assault. Both the British and French armies were large, albeit inadequately equipped, but should not be underestimated. The Russian army was also in a dreadful state, poorly equipped with obsolete equpment and with incompetant leadership following Stalin's purges. (Stalin himself acknowledged this, even in 1940 he gave orders that German reconnaisance planes over Soviet territory were not to be shot down for fear of provoking Hitler). I think any attempt following on from Poland would have got bogged down anyway even utilising the troops that in reality were deployed into France. A German army stuck in a war of attrition would have presented an opportunity that the British and French could have siezed.
Now if the Japanese had attacked Russia from the east and tried to squeeze the Soviets between the two forces then this could have been a deciding factor. They had little armour but large reserves of man power and could have played a key role.
If Germany had somehow successfully conquered Russia at such an early stage then I doubt very much if their armies would have been in any shape to have a crack at the west as many of their depleted forces would have been held down as an occupying force. I think Britain would have been safe for a couple of years, maybe until 1942 or 43 before any real invasion attempt could have been made. Peace would probably have been pursued as with the captured Russian fleets and landing barges, Operation Sealion may have become a viable proposition. (In reality in 1940 the Germans were woefully under equipped to undertake the invasion, despite the public perception to the contrary. They intended to send 27 divisions in Rhine barges pulled by slow tugs across the Royal Navy dominated Channel with the RAF far from beaten. Wth the RN decimating the cross channel supply lines, it would have been a reverse Dunkirk scenario even if they had somehow formed a beachhead).
Maybe I'm talking drivel, not sure.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#18
Excellent reply Phil .Thanks.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
